Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then why aren't Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (producing the most terrorists) being subject to bans or more extreme vetting?
I expect that in time they might be. The administration has a dual problem. They need to get some restrictions in place quickly without violating the Constitution and/or setting the left into a frenzy of protestation. That is undoubtedly done best (and more quickly) by using the existing ban that Obama put in place (which no one opposed) and which was legal. You will note that this same action, implemented by the current President, set the left into opposition mode to where they sought out a liberal state and liberal judge to stop the ban.
Note that they didn't object when Obama took the action.
It takes longer to prepare the legislation that would cast a wider net. It stands to reason that it is safer to have something in place rather than nothing.
There may be more to it than that, but that's how I see it for now.
Your compassion for your fellow human beings is touching.
Actually it's compassion and caring for the safety/security of our fellow AMERICAN citizens FIRST, then we can look at the rest of the world. Is that so wrong?
How much good can we do elsewhere if we are constantly in fear of or fighting for our own lives here?
I expect that in time they might be. The administration has a dual problem. They need to get some restrictions in place quickly without violating the Constitution and/or setting the left into a frenzy of protestation. That is undoubtedly done best (and more quickly) by using the existing ban that Obama put in place (which no one opposed) and which was legal. You will note that this same action, implemented by the current President, set the left into opposition mode to where they sought out a liberal state and liberal judge to stop the ban.
Note that they didn't object when Obama took the action.
It takes longer to prepare the legislation that would cast a wider net. It stands to reason that it is safer to have something in place rather than nothing.
There may be more to it than that, but that's how I see it for now.
Note that Obama just took them off the visa-waiver list, he didn't ban them. Those are two quite different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
Actually it's compassion and caring for the safety/security of our fellow AMERICAN citizens FIRST, then we can look at the rest of the world. Is that so wrong?
How much good can we do elsewhere if we are constantly in fear of or fighting for our own lives here?
Bit hyperbolic don't you think? The US has only committed to taking in a tiny fraction of refugees, doubt you'll be constantly fighting for your own lives, nevermind the fact that the US still had an obligation to do its part. Although if the US would commit instead more money, resources and personnel to improve conditions in refugee camps, actually make them liveable with education for the children etc. then I, personally, think that would be really great.
Your compassion for your fellow human beings is touching.
In the case of Syria, you've had the United States arming the rebel forces(including ISIS), and the Russians arming Syrian government forces.
The Americans are bombing the cities in eastern Syria and western Iraq, to weed out ISIS. While the Russians are bombing cities in the West, to assist the Assad regime.
None of these factions were ever supported by the people of Syria to begin with. But it doesn't take a majority of the people to win a war. Its all about guns, money, training, and organization.
If you can find 10,000 men, in some backwards country like Syria, and give them guns, and rockets, and anti-tank/anti-air missiles, then provide them air-support, intelligence, and money, they could take over an entire country easily. Unless of course their opposition is being armed/funded/supported by another entity in the same manner.
In a very real sense, you can blame the situation in Syria on the United States. It is part of our continuing Middle-East policy, to install pro-American regimes. And to weaken the hegemony of countries such as Iran and Russia.
The United States government is fundamentally indifferent to the plight of these people, just as we are indifferent to the plight of anyone, anywhere. Governments have no obligations to anyone but themselves.
The situation with the refugees is a political issue. Not a humanitarian issue. It masquerades as a humanitarian issue to gain support. But as most people know, our sympathies for the people of any country, are always in proportion to their geopolitical significance.
We are largely indifferent when it comes to unimportant countries in Africa, or even in Central America. But humanitarian sentiments are exploited the moment strategically-important countries in the Middle-East are concerned(IE oil).
As many have commented, most of our Sunni allies, such as Saudi Arabia, have refused to take any refugees. And let us not even discuss the hypocrisy of a country like Israel.
The reason the United States refuses to call it "Islamic terrorism", is because we have to maintain not only an indifferent, but a friendly posture towards the Middle-East. And at the same time, the purpose of the refugee policy, is to help alleviate the economic and social conditions which are causing the radicalization of the entire region.
The Syrian conflict is bleeding-over into Turkey(there was recently an attempted coup), and Turkey is a member of NATO. If Turkey is turned into a massive refugee camp, and without sufficient support from Western countries, Turkey's government could fail.
And, we can't back down in Syria, because then we lose the game of chess to Russia and Iran, and only embolden them. And if our Sunni ally, Saudi Arabia, loses faith in us, we would lose their support for the "petrodollar", and thus our very favorable position as the world's reserve currency.
So we are forced to continue our policy, and then forced to deal with the refugees, and limit the chaos in the region, which was a direct-result of our foreign-policy. And this chaos isn't limited only to Syria and Turkey, or even the Middle-East region. Rather, it is spreading in all directions, especially into Europe. If we don't act as a pressure-release valve for the chaos, the entire "World Order" we built during and after WWII, will be gone.
Throw on top of this the fact that all Western-Democracies are more-or-less controlled by money. And domestic-policies are shaped by the interests of multinational bankers and corporations; There are a lot of profits to be made, not only from the sale of arms, but favorable contracts with foreign governments(especially infrastructure-development, which require massive loans), and of course, the exploitation of cheap labor.
But none of these things I mentioned, ever take into consideration the interests and well-being of the "common people". Because from the perspective of governments, the common people don't really matter, and they have never really mattered. The interests of the state, and its ruling classes, are all that has ever mattered.
If you argue that the United States is to blame for what is going on in Syria, I agree. But many will then say, America deserves the consequences for what it has done, and should be forced to help the refugees.
While I understand their sentiments. The truth is, the American people largely have no idea what is actually going on in Syria. The American people had no idea our government was even arming ISIS. The American people know almost nothing about our government's foreign policy. And even when an issue comes up, they are so bombarded by lies and propaganda from the media, that they can't honestly be blamed.
And the actual people at fault for the mess, will not be the ones who suffer. The rich don't suffer from our immigration, or refugee policy, or even our foreign-policy, they benefit. The ones who suffer, are the ones who just want to live their lives in peace, but end up being the victims of violence and crime. And they are the ones who go to fight the rich-man's wars.
There are things we can do, and should do, but bringing in millions of refugees and immigrants from all over the world, is not the answer. It doesn't solve the problem. And I believe it actually makes the problem worse.
The head of the CIA Brennan and the Director of National Intelligence Clapper said we couldn't properly vet them.
Easy way around this "concern" is for the US not to accept any single military age males from Syria..oh, never mind they rarely accept them anyway
Are you really worried about elderly people, or parents with children who sit in an offshore refugee camp for 2 or 3 years before they are even told which country has accepted them?
If we really want to be "safe" we should arrest all 15 year old males and keep them in preventative detention until they are 25 because they commit 40% of all crimes in the US but only represent 14% of the population. But we will never even entertain that because this is not even about "keeping us safe", is it?
In the case of Syria, you've had the United States arming the rebel forces(including ISIS), and the Russians arming Syrian government forces.
The Americans are bombing the cities in eastern Syria and western Iraq, to weed out ISIS. While the Russians are bombing cities in the West, to assist the Assad regime.
None of these factions were ever supported by the people of Syria to begin with. But it doesn't take a majority of the people to win a war. Its all about guns, money, training, and organization.
If you can find 10,000 men, in some backwards country like Syria, and give them guns, and rockets, and anti-tank/anti-air missiles, then provide them air-support, intelligence, and money, they could take over an entire country easily. Unless of course their opposition is being armed/funded/supported by another entity in the same manner.
In a very real sense, you can blame the situation in Syria on the United States. It is part of our continuing Middle-East policy, to install pro-American regimes. And to weaken the hegemony of countries such as Iran and Russia.
The United States government is fundamentally indifferent to the plight of these people, just as we are indifferent to the plight of anyone, anywhere. Governments have no obligations to anyone but themselves.
The situation with the refugees is a political issue. Not a humanitarian issue. It masquerades as a humanitarian issue to gain support. But as most people know, our sympathies for the people of any country, are always in proportion to their geopolitical significance.
We are largely indifferent when it comes to unimportant countries in Africa, or even in Central America. But humanitarian sentiments are exploited the moment strategically-important countries in the Middle-East are concerned(IE oil).
As many have commented, most of our Sunni allies, such as Saudi Arabia, have refused to take any refugees. And let us not even discuss the hypocrisy of a country like Israel.
The reason the United States refuses to call it "Islamic terrorism", is because we have to maintain not only an indifferent, but a friendly posture towards the Middle-East. And at the same time, the purpose of the refugee policy, is to help alleviate the economic and social conditions which are causing the radicalization of the entire region.
The Syrian conflict is bleeding-over into Turkey(there was recently an attempted coup), and Turkey is a member of NATO. If Turkey is turned into a massive refugee camp, and without sufficient support from Western countries, Turkey's government could fail.
And, we can't back down in Syria, because then we lose the game of chess to Russia and Iran, and only embolden them. And if our Sunni ally, Saudi Arabia, loses faith in us, we would lose their support for the "petrodollar", and thus our very favorable position as the world's reserve currency.
So we are forced to continue our policy, and then forced to deal with the refugees, and limit the chaos in the region, which was a direct-result of our foreign-policy. And this chaos isn't limited only to Syria and Turkey, or even the Middle-East region. Rather, it is spreading in all directions, especially into Europe. If we don't act as a pressure-release valve for the chaos, the entire "World Order" we built during and after WWII, will be gone.
Throw on top of this the fact that all Western-Democracies are more-or-less controlled by money. And domestic-policies are shaped by the interests of multinational bankers and corporations; There are a lot of profits to be made, not only from the sale of arms, but favorable contracts with foreign governments(especially infrastructure-development, which require massive loans), and of course, the exploitation of cheap labor.
But none of these things I mentioned, ever take into consideration the interests and well-being of the "common people". Because from the perspective of governments, the common people don't really matter, and they have never really mattered. The interests of the state, and its ruling classes, are all that has ever mattered.
If you argue that the United States is to blame for what is going on in Syria, I agree. But many will then say, America deserves the consequences for what it has done, and should be forced to help the refugees.
While I understand their sentiments. The truth is, the American people largely have no idea what is actually going on in Syria. The American people had no idea our government was even arming ISIS. The American people know almost nothing about our government's foreign policy. And even when an issue comes up, they are so bombarded by lies and propaganda from the media, that they can't honestly be blamed.
And the actual people at fault for the mess, will not be the ones who suffer. The rich don't suffer from our immigration, or refugee policy, or even our foreign-policy, they benefit. The ones who suffer, are the ones who just want to live their lives in peace, but end up being the victims of violence and crime. And they are the ones who go to fight the rich-man's wars.
There are things we can do, and should do, but bringing in millions of refugees and immigrants from all over the world, is not the answer. It doesn't solve the problem. And I believe it actually makes the problem worse.
That is a really good explanation of the situation. The UK has its share of the blame too, particularly historically for the whole mess up of things with colonialism.
Maybe big picture-wise, bringing in refugees doesn't help with the problem but I'm not a Government so I can think about the common people and when thinking about them, helping is essential.
In the case of Syria, you've had the United States arming the rebel forces(including ISIS), and the Russians arming Syrian government forces.
The Americans are bombing the cities in eastern Syria and western Iraq, to weed out ISIS. While the Russians are bombing cities in the West, to assist the Assad regime.
None of these factions were ever supported by the people of Syria to begin with. But it doesn't take a majority of the people to win a war. Its all about guns, money, training, and organization.
If you can find 10,000 men, in some backwards country like Syria, and give them guns, and rockets, and anti-tank/anti-air missiles, then provide them air-support, intelligence, and money, they could take over an entire country easily. Unless of course their opposition is being armed/funded/supported by another entity in the same manner.
In a very real sense, you can blame the situation in Syria on the United States. It is part of our continuing Middle-East policy, to install pro-American regimes. And to weaken the hegemony of countries such as Iran and Russia.
The United States government is fundamentally indifferent to the plight of these people, just as we are indifferent to the plight of anyone, anywhere. Governments have no obligations to anyone but themselves.
The situation with the refugees is a political issue. Not a humanitarian issue. It masquerades as a humanitarian issue to gain support. But as most people know, our sympathies for the people of any country, are always in proportion to their geopolitical significance.
We are largely indifferent when it comes to unimportant countries in Africa, or even in Central America. But humanitarian sentiments are exploited the moment strategically-important countries in the Middle-East are concerned(IE oil).
As many have commented, most of our Sunni allies, such as Saudi Arabia, have refused to take any refugees. And let us not even discuss the hypocrisy of a country like Israel.
The reason the United States refuses to call it "Islamic terrorism", is because we have to maintain not only an indifferent, but a friendly posture towards the Middle-East. And at the same time, the purpose of the refugee policy, is to help alleviate the economic and social conditions which are causing the radicalization of the entire region.
The Syrian conflict is bleeding-over into Turkey(there was recently an attempted coup), and Turkey is a member of NATO. If Turkey is turned into a massive refugee camp, and without sufficient support from Western countries, Turkey's government could fail.
And, we can't back down in Syria, because then we lose the game of chess to Russia and Iran, and only embolden them. And if our Sunni ally, Saudi Arabia, loses faith in us, we would lose their support for the "petrodollar", and thus our very favorable position as the world's reserve currency.
So we are forced to continue our policy, and then forced to deal with the refugees, and limit the chaos in the region, which was a direct-result of our foreign-policy. And this chaos isn't limited only to Syria and Turkey, or even the Middle-East region. Rather, it is spreading in all directions, especially into Europe. If we don't act as a pressure-release valve for the chaos, the entire "World Order" we built during and after WWII, will be gone.
Throw on top of this the fact that all Western-Democracies are more-or-less controlled by money. And domestic-policies are shaped by the interests of multinational bankers and corporations; There are a lot of profits to be made, not only from the sale of arms, but favorable contracts with foreign governments(especially infrastructure-development, which require massive loans), and of course, the exploitation of cheap labor.
But none of these things I mentioned, ever take into consideration the interests and well-being of the "common people". Because from the perspective of governments, the common people don't really matter, and they have never really mattered. The interests of the state, and its ruling classes, are all that has ever mattered.
If you argue that the United States is to blame for what is going on in Syria, I agree. But many will then say, America deserves the consequences for what it has done, and should be forced to help the refugees.
While I understand their sentiments. The truth is, the American people largely have no idea what is actually going on in Syria. The American people had no idea our government was even arming ISIS. The American people know almost nothing about our government's foreign policy. And even when an issue comes up, they are so bombarded by lies and propaganda from the media, that they can't honestly be blamed.
And the actual people at fault for the mess, will not be the ones who suffer. The rich don't suffer from our immigration, or refugee policy, or even our foreign-policy, they benefit. The ones who suffer, are the ones who just want to live their lives in peace, but end up being the victims of violence and crime. And they are the ones who go to fight the rich-man's wars.
There are things we can do, and should do, but bringing in millions of refugees and immigrants from all over the world, is not the answer. It doesn't solve the problem. And I believe it actually makes the problem worse.
I agreed with your post until the last paragraph. I haven't seen any proposal to bring in millions of refugees. I've only seen talks of a few thousand, or tens of thousands.
Or are you just soaking in hypotheticals?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
