A Political question...based on Current Events

[alanbmx123]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[alanbmx123]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[my2¢]

25,000 - but only Christians.

 

[amrchaos]

Knowing what you know now, do you think the USA should take in refugees from Syria? If you do, how many should we allow?

Has not changed my opinion one bit!!

Unless the person in question risk their lives to help our military, take in none.

No muslim, no christian, no jew, hindu or atheist from the ME. NONE!

what happened in Paris is only a prelude to what will happen to anywhere that takes in ME refugees. A few of them lack the appreciation that we are allowing them to escape a death trap.

Then again, their concept of death lacks some of the existential themes necessary for wanting to live.

 

[alanbmx123]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[asaratis]

Isis goal is to spread throughout the world. Accepting the refugees is accepting Isis.

Isis wins.

ISIS wants to establish an Islamic dream state. What Israel is to Jews. A state where Muslims flock to settle

The fact that Muslims are streaming out of the country does not fit their agenda

Republicans side with ISIS and turn refugees away.....ISIS wins

You are mistaken. Isis wants to take over the world by establishing a world-wide caliphate.

 

[Dragonlady]

Wooooo, Scary brown people.

Looking at Paris, Fear is the rational response, you fool.

Hardly. When you modify your behaviour out of fear, the terrorists have won. The safe nations of the world should take in the refugees. To do otherwise is an obscenity and goes against Christian principles of helping others. You cannot call yourself and Christian and say otherwise.

 

[IsaacNewton]

There should be a moratorium on taking refugees and every leader in the west should tell Saudi Arabia either you start DOING something or take your oil and shove it.

 

[pismoe]

25,000 - but only Christians.

naw , supply the Christians , Yazidis and Kurds and let them fight the 'Islamic state' '2 cents' !!

 

[MarathonMike]

It should not have taken "proof" that Terrorists would be among the Syrian refugees. Anyone with a functioning brain should have known that would happen. That is why it is unconscionable Hillary stands by her 65,000 Syrian Refugee number for the US. Liberals would rather see innocent citizens die rather than just admit they are WRONG. You see it in their attitude toward the Inner Cities and you are seeing it now with their insane stance on refugees.

 

[alanbmx123]

Someone please tell me why these cowards "refugees" cannot stand up and fight for their homeland, why do we, the west, have to take them in? To defeat ISIS and the tyrant leaders the citizens must stand and fight. All you lefties were so proud of the Arab Spring.... Now I know why they are just more victims looking for welfare with some terrorist mixed in. And that is a documented fact now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Londoner]

When you fuck with a region for over 50 years because your economy & lifestyle depends on its oil, you will eventually bump into unintended consequences - like the destabilization of the entire region, the perpetual rise of radical groups coupled with dangerous refugees flooding into other nations and spreading the instability/chaos/terror. This is why we have to think twice when removing Mossedeq (in 1959) or supporting Hussein (Reagan in the 80s) or supporting the Mujahideen (Reagan > Afghanistan). At some point your tinkering may come back to bite you.

(PSST: Maybe Washington can't fix BIG Problems without making them worse?)

Answer to the OP.

No, I don't think we should take in any refugees, but I do think that our decision to destabilize the region under Bush (as Trump has pointed out) has left us with increasingly bad options for putting the genie (civil unrest) back in the bottle.

This is why Eisenhower's Detente is better than Reagan/Bush's activism. But for his 1959 mistake with Iran, Eisenhower tried to relax hot civil tensions. He was careful with intervention. His form of anti-communism was more enlightened than Reagan's anti-communism, and more enlightened than Bush's anti-terrorism because he (Eisenhower) didn't think it was possible for Washington to control the unintended consequences that would result from radical military intervention. Eisenhower was brilliantly skeptical of Washington's ability to save the world. He didn't believe in the Liberal interventionism of FDR/Reagan/Bush 43 (forcing Democracy through top-down change. To the contrary, Eisenhower was more of a Conservative Burkean when it came to changing the world. He was skeptical of top-down solutions imposed externally by force. He thought that solutions needed to come from the organic collision of the people who actually lived in the country).

Sometimes giving Washington more money and power to fix the globe and save the world actually makes things worse.

This is why I agree with old Isolationist Republican Party, who was skeptical of Washington's ability to control the globe from the top-down by dropping bombs and installing Western-friendly monsters like the Shaw or Hussein or Mujahideen. At some point these problems come back to bite you. It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences. Despite the Rightwing desire to have Washington to fix the world, sometimes giving Washington more money and power doesn't result in a utopia. Sometimes Washington makes things worse - but you can't tell the current crop of Talk Radio drones this. Their faith in Washington's ability to save the globe through military intervention is more powerful than their bullshit propaganda about not trusting Washington to do big things. (God Help Us, because they're too stupid to see this contradiction - and they vote. And the result is the current Middle East).

 

[IsaacNewton]

Someone please tell me why these cowards "refugees" cannot stand up and fight for their homeland, why do we, the west, have to take them in? To defeat ISIS and the tyrant leaders the citizens must stand and fight. All you lefties were so proud of the Arab Spring.... Now I know why they are just more victims looking for welfare with some terrorist mixed in. And that is a documented fact now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right because there have never been refugees trying to escape a war torn area.

Except of course every time in history.

 

[alanbmx123]

It should not have taken "proof" that Terrorists would be among the Syrian refugees. Anyone with a functioning brain should have known that would happen. That is why it is unconscionable Hillary stands by her 65,000 Syrian Refugee number for the US. Liberals would rather see innocent citizens die rather than just admit they are WRONG. You see it in their attitude toward the Inner Cities and you are seeing it now with their insane stance on refugees.

Trump proven right again and the left.... Trying to put their spin together. The media sounding hawkish now, but you know what is coming once the "narrative" is defined. Debra Wasaman Schultz has been busy trying to keep Hilary upright. But it is coming


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[longknife]

I know this is going to raise hackles.

I would never allow single male Syrians into the USA

I would never all Muslim Syrians into the USA.

However, if it is a Christian family fleeing Muslim atrocities, I think that is a case for our open arms.

 

[bripat9643]

Someone please tell me why these cowards "refugees" cannot stand up and fight for their homeland, why do we, the west, have to take them in? To defeat ISIS and the tyrant leaders the citizens must stand and fight. All you lefties were so proud of the Arab Spring.... Now I know why they are just more victims looking for welfare with some terrorist mixed in. And that is a documented fact now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right because there have never been refugees trying to escape a war torn area.

Except of course every time in history.

Normally they go to neighbouring countries. Why anyone thinks they should come here defies comprehension. if they want to setup refugee camps here with the understanding that the refugees will return to their homeland once things are settled, that would be one thing. Allowing them to blend in to American society is another. The later isn't acceptable.

 

[Correll]

Wooooo, Scary brown people.

Looking at Paris, Fear is the rational response, you fool.

Hardly. When you modify your behaviour out of fear, the terrorists have won. The safe nations of the world should take in the refugees. To do otherwise is an obscenity and goes against Christian principles of helping others. You cannot call yourself and Christian and say otherwise.

When you modify your behavior to protect yourself and your fellow citizens from danger, you are being sane and responsible.

When terrorist kill innocent people in large numbers, they win.

THere is no Christian Principle that says we have to be suicidal fools, that's a Principle of Modern Liberalism.

 

[Correll]

I know this is going to raise hackles.

I would never allow single male Syrians into the USA

I would never all Muslim Syrians into the USA.

However, if it is a Christian family fleeing Muslim atrocities, I think that is a case for our open arms.

And how do you know they are Christians? Are you going to ask them? What if they lie just to leave their shitty Third World hellhole of a home behind to come to the wonderful world majority Christian White Societies have built?

 

[pismoe]

It should not have taken "proof" that Terrorists would be among the Syrian refugees. Anyone with a functioning brain should have known that would happen. That is why it is unconscionable Hillary stands by her 65,000 Syrian Refugee number for the US. Liberals would rather see innocent citizens die rather than just admit they are WRONG. You see it in their attitude toward the Inner Cities and you are seeing it now with their insane stance on refugees.

all it is is business to the elites and law enforcement and the governments . Wasn't it 'john ketchup Kerry' that likened terrorism and terrorists to being a 'nuisance' . And nuisance it is to the elites with their taxpayer paid bodyguards , security people and secure homes and areas all over the world MMIKE .

 

[bripat9643]

Wooooo, Scary brown people.

Looking at Paris, Fear is the rational response, you fool.

Hardly. When you modify your behaviour out of fear, the terrorists have won. The safe nations of the world should take in the refugees. To do otherwise is an obscenity and goes against Christian principles of helping others. You cannot call yourself and Christian and say otherwise.

When you modify your behavior to protect yourself and your fellow citizens from danger, you are being sane and responsible.

When terrorist kill innocent people in large numbers, they win.

THere is no Christian Principle that says we have to be suicidal fools, that's a Principle of Modern Liberalism.

You don't understand. Any time anyone objects to liberal schemes that appear to be a prescription for disaster, it's because they "afraid." Being afraid of liberalism is the worse thing you can be in the eyes of a liberal turd. Of course, it's also an ironclad demonstration of rationality.