Why Isn't America Stepping Up and Taking Its Share Of Syrian Refugees?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are spot on here SlapMonkey. I hear about the refugee problem the EU countries are facing and I think, well, they asked for it. The open borders and liberal ideals of social welfare programs are what is bringing many of the refugees to the EU.

People criticize the US foreign policy as causing this mess, but they forget to mention that their own domestic policy is also a major factor in the influx of refugees.

I know not everyone here claiming the US should take on more refugees is simply USA-bashing, but for some that are it seems they have quite the short / selective memory of history. European colonialism after WWI, drawing borders that broke up tribal and religious groupings, as well as the Balfour agreement all led to the modern ME problems. Funny how people are deriding the US for interventionism, when the first national anthem played in "Iraq" when it was created on a map was "God Save the King".

Also, I am a non-interventionist, Libertarian. Many of these "black ops / regime change" actions have taken place without congressional vote or approval of the people. How is it appropriate to force a people to take on extra refugees when they never voted for intervention in the first place?

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Understand. From what I hear it cost quite a bit to go from say Turkey to eu being smuggled. I would assume to make that same trip to America way more.

This is sort of related to your comment. There is a vid on youtube about a young male Syrian who was going to pay smugglers to get him out, but he discovered it was much cheaper to buy a plane ticket. He read something about Brazil saying refugees were welcome, so he flew there!

Problem was, when he got off the plane there was nothing for him. No plans for them at all. It was like "Hello, welcome, and goodbye". He didn't speak the language, didn't know what to do or where to go.

He eventually became connected to Catholic Services, and they helped him find an apartment and such.

But it sounds like a plane ticket is cheaper than a smuggler, I guess, for those who have a passport and can travel.

a reply to: Shiloh7

We do take care of refugees. We don't call them Syrians. We call them Mexicans, Cubans, Canadians, Chinese etc. etc.

Cause they can't swim that far?

a reply to: Cygnis

Maybe with History, they figure the Germanic's can quell any idea of mass influx by the Islamics, in the past Germans have been able to anyway, I think of how they fought and won against Rome back around 9AD or so. I truly believe this is the Caliphate calling ALL the shots here and not any one Government. I also do not get why the OP is in such an anti American rant as we will be screwed by the over burden soon enough, just waiting in the cue for the first bout.

a reply to: angeldoll

An Apartment huh? Well isn't that just great while native Brazilians live hand to mouth and many homeless...

In Brazilian city, homeless face ‘extermination’

The graves of homeless murder victims are among the thousands of newly dug plots in the Vale da Paz (Valley of Peace) cemetery a few miles outside Goiânia, Brazil, October, 2014.

The graves of homeless murder victims are among the thousands of newly dug plots in the Vale da Paz (Valley of Peace) cemetery a few miles outside Goiânia, Brazil, October, 2014.

america.aljazeera.com...

WHY does not the Arab Nations do anything other than offer slaves for good native Muslims and thousands of Mosques worldwide to any country taking in these refugees. Things are Ffunky.

Personal opinion is the refugee 'crisis' is a manufactured one, to get Europeans so fed up with it all, instead of refusing a war with Syria, the people of Europe will actually start demanding one.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Simple answer is WE DON'T WANT THEM!!! The ones we did and are taking will prove a mistake, just wait and see, some jihadi nut job that is a "refugee" is gona come unglued and kill a few people. My 2 cents, screw em let it sort it's self out, they have been killing each other for like 1600+ years anyway. If they don't want to be civil then leave em to it, nothing says we have to go over there.

a reply to: hutch622

That is on top of what we already take .

Including shelter under our umbrella. You can afford a few more refugees.

Oh, btw, europeans are destabilizing europe. When you build a coalition with the sole purpose of incapacitating the U.S., economically, you must accept inevitable defeat and or collapse - sooner or later. Just sayin'. Love ya, man.

It is puzzling...

Maybe Obama thinks he's already done enough to enable terrorist attacks on the US? A guy like that needs time to improve his golf game. Lots of time.

a reply to: hutch622

Well, since you put it that way..

How would you prepare for all 350 million of us "illegal immigrants" in America to come home to Europe?

Careful... 'cuz even at one point.. You Euro's were "illegal immigrants" from out of the cradle of life too.

a reply to: Shiloh7

A warning in advance, the videos in this post are quite graphic!

Just wait when all hell breaks loose in the Gulf states, then we will really see atrocious violence.
For god sake, it is the year 2015 we live in, with all the abilities to educate and elevate the world out of poverty, certain countries have dictators who are oppressing their people in a violent way.
They live in poverty, have no freedom, are indoctrinated and live in fear.
It is appalling to read what you have written in your reply, those who want change and protest against the oppressive regime, they are simply being shot and you think it is stupid to remove those regimes.
In my view it is shameful that that the rest of the world stood by and watched it happen and did nothing.
If you look back at say Iran and Afghanistan, they were quite beautiful countries with beautiful people before the islamic madness.
But also destroyed through wars, Saddam Hussein took Iraq to war against Iran with the backing of the US, Russia destroyed Afghanistan, these two conflicts have led to the situation we see today.
Saddam got overconfident and invaded Kuwait, but wait... didn't the gulf states have a deal with the US? ohh yes, weapons and protection in exchange for oil dollars, so, the US had to intervene, liberate Kuwait and disarm Iraq so Saddam Hussein was no threat anymore.
Of course this was after the 8 year war ended against Iran.
What is particular about this war, Putin must have learned from Saddam because Iraq invaded the oil rich western province of Iran after the Iranian revolution in 1979 with the reason that many arabs lived there and should historically be considered a part of Iraq.

Russia invaded Afghanistan because king Daoed wanted to become independent from Russia, ten years of war has destroyed much of the country.
After the war with Russia a civil war broke out which eventually led to the victory of the taliban in 1996.
Before 1979 both Iran and Afghanistan were beautiful countries, but islam and the eagerness of both Russia and the US have devastated them both.
Russia did topple king Daoed in Afghanistan, the US backed Iraq against the new regime in Iran.

This is a little bit of history that i'm writing here just to show how far back the roots of the turmoil go.

Since the taliban came to power in Afghanistan, al qaeda could grow and train there, hence after a terrorist attack the US bombed al qaeda training camps in Afghanistan in 1998.
But in 2001 we had the attack on the twin towers which led to the war on terror.
The last two presidents did react to what was already ongoing, they did not create it.
But to be honest, about Obama i'm not to sure considering what he did in Egypt to bring the muslim brotherhood to power.
As for Libya, it did not matter if the west intervene or not, since the Gulf states wanted Gaddafi out, his fate was sealed with a fatwa by Qaradawi, an islamic spiritual leader who resides in the gulf states said that muslims were obligated to kill him.



Same goes for Assad and the Syrian people, Qaradawi was quite clear on that to.
Hence my earlier notion that Obama is probably not the greatest proponent to oust Assad, but the leaders in the neighbouring countries and of course a great percentage of the Syrian people.

Islam at its finest, kill and oppress, slavery, violent atrocities, brutal punishments, a regime of fear.
It is my understanding the gulf states have had a role in the uprising what became known as the arab spring by supporting them who were against their governments.
The motive for this is of course more influence, we have seen the problems in Tunisia after the uprising, but also in Libya and Egypt, while in Egypt the muslim brotherhood was toppled by the Egyptian army, in Libya they are stil fighting with the backing of Turkey and the gulf states under the name IS.
In Tunisia we have seen multiple attacks, the latest at the beach where westerners were killed and wounded last spring.
The authorities have seized many weapons out of salafist mosques (salafism is rooted in wahhabi islam).
Those mosks were closed i've read.

But let's go back to Syria, the uprising started late, this because people were afraid of what the syrian forces would do if they did start a protest against Assad.
But in March 10 to 15 children were captured by the regime after they had written on buildings at night, what they wrote was 'now it is your turn doctor' referring to Assad.
After a few days they were released but they were badly mistreated, this is wat started the uprising in Syria.

Have a look at the reaction of the Syrian forces.





This is the regime that Russia is helping out currently by bombing more civilians who are opposed to Assad.
But don't be fooled, While Qaradawi condemned these killings, the gulf states do the same when people stand up to the regime.



Of course, not a word from the so called islamic spiritual leader.

Why did the west not intervene just like in Libya? that would be because of Russia who is backing the Assad regime.
This is why it has turned into such a filthy and bloody war with islamic extremists who kill, rape and enslave.
Backed by the gulf states, Turkey and the US, the so called FSA by the US and IS by the gulf states and Turkey.
Now Russia has actively engaged in the war and is bombing Syria, everyone who is opposed to Assad is considered to be IS.
This will no doubt trigger a more violent reaction from those who are backing IS and the FSA.
Well at least that is what i think, but i hope i'm wrong.

a reply to: galaga

I am sorry I don't understand your point. In the UK we have had to take in a huge number of people recently from Bangladesh most people here were not even aware of it or that there was a problem necessitating their arrival etc. Now we are suddenly expected to accept X thousand Syrians so by calling these people Syrians I am confused by what point you are making.

a reply to: [post=19943237]earthling42[/postn]

No your right Russia entering in to this means things are going to get far worse. The lack of Western response made the people turn to ISIS. With that there response to Russia entering the fray on behalf of asaad will take them to new extremes. I don't think even Put in realizes what he's done yet. There are a lot of chechen fighters there. He just opened up a huge mess with chechnya. In fact Isis made this threat to Putin. Russia has prolonged this fight of a failed dictator and now I fear this conflict will turn even bloodier and expand into russia.

Why should we? Would these muslims welcome us in their countries as refugees? No. They wouldn't.

Besides, all we would be doing would be allowing isis sleeper agents to infiltrate our society, free of surveillance, under the guise of refugees.

Europe can have them. I don't even want trump to win the presidency, but if he does I hope he sends those ungrateful 'refugees' home.

The question should be Why isn't the rest of the world taking in Refugees from Mexico, China, Africa, etc....? I do not want to spend my tax dollars shipping refugees into my country. What an expensive waste. We need to work on spending money fixing our own existing problems. After all we don't run here, we stand up for democracy and fight for freedom.

a reply to: antar

Hey this isn't an anti-American rant and not about the American people its about Obama and his determination to depose a Head of State which is causing millions of refugees to flood into Europe. The only means of information for us in the West is a zionist media which is propaganda machine and not an unbiased news provider. The Syrians, all sunni I have spoken to (taxi drivers working here) have no problem with Assad - which is contrary to what the media tells us - so who would you believe? I doubt the Assads have differed their governing policy for decades, so why now?

On this thread I was hoping to go in the direction of making some of these Politicians accountable and expose the fact they make policies the obvious outcomes of which they are clearly aware of, yet they make no strategic plans to deal with their repercussions. They simply skip off with no accountability whatsoever whilst the publics pick up the pieces as incompatible cultures clash.

Europe obviously can't absorb or vet, in such a short time such huge numbers, neither with our failing economies can we afford to take them all. These figures are in the millions and its impossible to do a head count.

Isn't it time to make our politicians who decide policies that create such huge numbers of refugees responsible and accountable and where found guilty face trial at the Hague? Perhaps if we did, politicians would see they are culpable and answerable to the electorate and not be so keen to follow the demands of the unelected elite, who place themselves above the people and the law and also never face charges for their actions.

I am concerned not only for the obvious suffering many of these people with families in tow are facing but also the destabilising of Europe. If that happens they could well not find a safe home but an ever more dangerous one if they a re blamed as they will be for the collapse of a country. Europe is a major trading partner with the US. If it falls, so will the USA and I am guessing neither the American public or the European public wants that, but help is needed now to deal with this influx. Also perhaps someone could persuade Obama to let Assad stay because there is no alternative there to his government, something Obama should have thought about along with Oinky and the rest who follow.

We can all fight and sneer, but surely we know what we want and what we don't need being manipulated for us.

Gotta love it. Hussein openly defies the UN for years, tortures his own people at will, allows his sons to so the same, thumbs his nose at any and all Conventions dealing with human rights, but it was certainly not America's job to do anything to help his people. But Syrian refugees?! Oh yeah, NOW it's "BUT, BUT, BUT. . .WHERE IS AMERICA?!?!?!" Loooooove the consistency here.

Who'd want to come to a country that vocally hates them and attacks random countries in their home region?

Why aren't rich ME countries like SA, UAE, Qatar, etc. taking in their Arab brothers? They're closer to the problem than Europe ans US. Oh, I forgot, they know those people and the trouble to come.