Refugees

[cornographic]

 

 

Maybe stop blowing countries to smithereens and/or taking most of their land/resources would be a really good place to start as re: "foreign policy" and refugees. Too late for that though, damage already done, and the imperialists are paying for the crises they created. Same ol' same ol', whether it's Mexico, C and S America, Africa, SE Asia, Libya, Syria, and on and on....

 

I feel the same way. Maybe if America and Europe had not stuck its nose where it didn't belong, we wouldn't be having this mess. There didn't seem to be a problem when the dictators were running the show. I am not saying it was paradise, but we weren't having mass migrations.

 

This

 

Well, the USA tends to put dictators into place wherever it may roam. Sadam was "our boy" since 1958, on the CIA payroll, as a matter of fact--mainly to fight Iran. He stopped playing ball in the 90s so the USA took him out. "Playing ball", as in, the oil. It's mainly about the oil in the mideast, who's got control of it, that is. That's been a prime goal of US foreign policy there since post WWII in particular. The USA has been wanting to control Iran's and Syria's oil markets for some decades now, but they also haven't been playing ball. Actually in Iran, it's to reestablish oil control after the fall of the Shah(another dictator the USA installed.) The US has been conducting essentially a proxy war in Syria for the past 5 years or so and Israel was bombing the heck out of them about a year and 1/2 ago. Germany, UK, and France want back more heavily into the game as well, and that's a big part--probably the biggest part, IMO--of the Iran Nuke deal. Russia allies with Iran and Syria, traditionally, so that's a big issue for the West.

 

Al Qaeda/ISIS are a long story, controlled or against the USA et al, depending on the context. The whole "global Jihadist" thing was an invention of a guy named Max Oppenheimer(German, WWI) via the Ottoman Turks to use the Muslim Brotherhood to fight against the WWI allies, namely UK and France. Hitler furthered that deal with his Islamic SS(ISS---ISIS). Later, the US joined in the global Jihadist business in Afghanistan, in particular, in the 80s--Al Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden--to fight the USSR. There's more to it than that, but that's a simple overview. The Jihadists have a particular problem in regards to their Western sponsors: namely, they go rogue and turn their guns against them from time to time. Blowback, IOW, and that's a big part of what is going on these days and since 9/11.

 

The current flood of refugees is made up of Afghanees, Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Nigerians, Eygyptians, Yemenese, and some others. The US imperialistic involvement in those countries in factually obvious. US oil/energy co.s control huge areas of oil rich land in Yemen which, like in the other countries, is the main reason for the "civil war". They never mentions that part of the MSM.

 

Anyway, the US installed many dictators throughout Central and South America(Pinoche, Simosa, for e.g.), SE Asia(IndoChina) in the last century, again, for purposes of imperialism. The idea that the US is the exporter of democracy is by and large a lie. The "Underground Reich", i.e., post WWII Nazis have been big into S America as well and still are. Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay.

 

Expect more floods of refugees in the future. New Normal. The world is getting increasingly dangerous and uninhabitable for normal, peaceful people.

[Creighton Duke]

That's all fine and dandy.

But, my question wasn't about what caused this. It was, what should the US be doing to help the refugees?

Nothing until someone can explain why 77 percent of the "refugees" are men while only 13 percent and 10 percent are women and children, respectively. I'm also curious as to why nobody is being critical of Middle Eastern countries that have flatly refused to take ANY "refugees".

[knapplc]

I wonder if the lack of criticism for the Middle Eastern countries refusing access or aid to refugees isn't a PC thing. Or an oil thing. Or a bribery thing.

 

Lots of possibilities.

[cornographic]

 

That's all fine and dandy.

But, my question wasn't about what caused this. It was, what should the US be doing to help the refugees?

Nothing until someone can explain why 77 percent of the "refugees" are men while only 13 percent and 10 percent are women and children, respectively. I'm also curious as to why nobody is being critical of Middle Eastern countries that have flatly refused to take ANY "refugees".

 

Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, in particular, have taken in millions of Syrians the last few years.

[knapplc]

 

 

That's all fine and dandy.

But, my question wasn't about what caused this. It was, what should the US be doing to help the refugees?

Nothing until someone can explain why 77 percent of the "refugees" are men while only 13 percent and 10 percent are women and children, respectively. I'm also curious as to why nobody is being critical of Middle Eastern countries that have flatly refused to take ANY "refugees".

 

Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, in particular, have taken in millions of Syrians the last few years.

 

Reasonably certain that CD is talking about countries not taking refugees.

 

For example:

 

 

Rights groups point out that those countries — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — with wealth amassed from oil, gas, and finance, collectively have far more resources than the two Arab states that have taken in the most Syrians: Jordan and Lebanon. The Gulf states are Arabic-speaking, have historic ties to Syria and some are embroiled in the current crisis through their support for insurgent groups.

 

 

LINK

[cornographic]

 

 

 

That's all fine and dandy.

But, my question wasn't about what caused this. It was, what should the US be doing to help the refugees?

Nothing until someone can explain why 77 percent of the "refugees" are men while only 13 percent and 10 percent are women and children, respectively. I'm also curious as to why nobody is being critical of Middle Eastern countries that have flatly refused to take ANY "refugees".

 

Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, in particular, have taken in millions of Syrians the last few years.

 

Reasonably certain that CD is talking about countries not taking refugees.

 

For example:

 

 

Rights groups point out that those countries — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — with wealth amassed from oil, gas, and finance, collectively have far more resources than the two Arab states that have taken in the most Syrians: Jordan and Lebanon. The Gulf states are Arabic-speaking, have historic ties to Syria and some are embroiled in the current crisis through their support for insurgent groups.

 

 

LINK

 

No way in hell Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates would ever take in refugees from Syria, etc.

[Creighton Duke]

Correct, my mistake. I meant to add the word "wealthy" i.e. wealthy ME countries, to my statement.

[huskers15]

How long before the Western World realizes they're not refugees but colonists? Europe thinks it has problems now with Islamist slums? Wait until the latest wave of 500,000 military age males gets settled in. Look at the problems the French are already experiencing with Islamist dominated "no go" sectors and extrapolate what they'll face in 3-5 years. Now - thanks to the current administration - we can have the same outcomes here too - a Detroit for every state!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/u-s-take-10000-syrian-refugees/index.html

 

We can't control our own domestic gang violence problems.

We have our own border problems and inner city problems and a growing welfare class.

Our political elites at both state and federal level have incurred unsustainable levels of debt and unfunded pension liabilities. We can't even control our own costs before adding to the burden.

Importing poverty, importing thousands of disaffected military-age Muslim males and others who are historically unwilling to assimilate with any country into which they are introduced.

You think the Tsarnreav boys in Boston were bitter and corruptible ?

Just wait until we see the misplaced Muslim outrage this way comes...

[ZRod]

You should try Detroit, it might be a good experience for a bigot like you. Those medeteranian and middle eastern immigrants have some great food! And cause less problems than the traditional residents.

 

Just because a woman wears a burka, a man a turban, or they pray 5 times a day doesn't mean they aren't assimilating. This is not a christian nation, it is a tolerant state (although it doesn't feel like it) with freedom of religion.

 

 

 

And who the f#*k +1'ed that mouth feces?

[TGHusker]

 

Maybe the 2 sides feel we need a breather from saving the world.

 

It may be a good time for the world to shoulder some of the burden, this is true. It doesn't always have to be America.

 

Funny how the rest of the world bitches and moans that America acts like the world's Police, but when something like this happens, eyes turn toward America for help.

 

so very true. I think we could and should do more however - some how can we identify those we let in?? The USA is the target of so many and who knows what has come across our southern boarder. I'd like to make sure we don't give a free pass to 'go' to some terrorist hiding himself as a refuge.

[TGHusker]

I wonder if the lack of criticism for the Middle Eastern countries refusing access or aid to refugees isn't a PC thing. Or an oil thing. Or a bribery thing.

 

Lots of possibilities.

I also saw an article about China admonishing the USA to take on more while saying they would take none. I wish I could find that now.

[ZRod]

 

I wonder if the lack of criticism for the Middle Eastern countries refusing access or aid to refugees isn't a PC thing. Or an oil thing. Or a bribery thing.

Lots of possibilities.

 

I also saw an article about China admonishing the USA to take on more while saying they would take none. I wish I could find that now.

China does do somethings around the world, but purely out of self interest. They've basically built intire highway systems in some African nations.

[Creighton Duke]

 

 

I wonder if the lack of criticism for the Middle Eastern countries refusing access or aid to refugees isn't a PC thing. Or an oil thing. Or a bribery thing.

Lots of possibilities.

I also saw an article about China admonishing the USA to take on more while saying they would take none. I wish I could find that now.

China does do somethings around the world, but purely out of self interest. They've basically built intire highway systems in some African nations.

 

So someone (earlier poster) is a "bigot" for making informed, researched, and possibly anecdotal observations about a certain group of people, but it is perfectly NOT bigotry to claim that an entire nation only does things out of self interest?

[krill]

It's my understanding that Lincoln actually has one of the highest, if not the highest refugee per capita population in the nation. I guess it's fair to say the part of town that population is concentrated in is the worst, but it's better than the bad areas of most cities.

 

I don't even understand our immigration policy. Seems to amount to we'll take educated professionals that will work for less than Americans with open arms, and we'll take illegal unskilled labor with a very two faced attitude. That is, we need you, but we don't want you here, and being an illegal manual laborer is perhaps one degree better than a slave in ancient civilizations. Why not take more refugees that actually want to be here, work, and possibly stay if they get on the path to citizenship? The problem Europe has with the doomsday examples is that becoming integrated as a citizen is not part of plan.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

I wonder if the lack of criticism for the Middle Eastern countries refusing access or aid to refugees isn't a PC thing. Or an oil thing. Or a bribery thing.

Lots of possibilities.

 

I also saw an article about China admonishing the USA to take on more while saying they would take none. I wish I could find that now.

China does do somethings around the world, but purely out of self interest. They've basically built intire highway systems in some African nations.

So someone (earlier poster) is a "bigot" for making informed, researched, and possibly anecdotal observations about a certain group of people, but it is perfectly NOT bigotry to claim that an entire nation only does things out of self interest?

No go zones, accusing an entire culture if refusing to assimilate, and insinuating that Detroit is a result of immigrants is an informed and researched observation? Color me shocked!

 

Every nation does things largely out of self interest. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. It's just as obvious as when we bomb Iraq or try to keep the Saudies happy, the true motives are thinly veiled. Please try again.