U.S. to allow 7,000 Iraqi refugees

[240 is Back]

Dumb analogy 240.  I wouldn't want a prison in my neighborhood, but we build them.  I wouldn't want a waste dump in my neighborhood, but we need them.  I would probably buy a gun (and I hate guns) if a registered sex offender lived in my street.  So, the fact you don't want someone living on your block (which I never admitted) has nothing to do with whether you support a humanitarian act to allow them in the country.  

Beach Bum, do you think the US govt will be able to ensure all 7,000 are good guys, and zero of them are insurgents?

[chaos]

for once I can agree with everything 240 has posted here. Re-locate them within Iraq, it still comes off as humanitarium and I won't have a new neighbor to keep a scope eye on.

[240 is Back]

for once I can agree with everything 240 has posted here. Re-locate them within Iraq, it still comes off as humanitarium and I won't have a new neighbor to keep a scope eye on.

Right.  These guys have the sophistication to outmanuever and fool the best superpower on earth, us.

imagine what ten of them could do in America with no one watching them?  Holy shit.  Horrible idea.

[youandme]

read what i added.  I'm more worried about bringing real terrorists into the nation.  this is a HORRIBLE idea.

That's what I said, talk about harboring terrorists. Send me over to Beach Bum's block

[BRUCE]

Dumb analogy 240.  I wouldn't want a prison in my neighborhood, but we build them.  I wouldn't want a waste dump in my neighborhood, but we need them.  I would probably buy a gun (and I hate guns) if a registered sex offender lived in my street.  So, the fact you don't want someone living on your block (which I never admitted) has nothing to do with whether you support a humanitarian act to allow them in the country.  

Good post.  This is similar to the debate in Australia over nuclear power.  The first thing someone will say to you if you raise the issue is 'you wouldn't want a nuclear reactor' in your backyard.  Yes, well guess what; I don't have a coal power plant in my backyard at the moment - so I'm sure they'll fit it in somewhere.

[240 is Back]

Good post.  This is similar to the debate in Australia over nuclear power.  The first thing someone will say to you if you raise the issue is 'you wouldn't want a nuclear reactor' in your backyard.  Yes, well guess what; I don't have a coal power plant in my backyard at the moment - so I'm sure they'll fit it in somewhere.

shit man, how about we send them to Australia then?  I'll chip in. 

I do not want people from a country we're at war with, being shipped in.  This should be common sense.


Now, here's the magic question:
do you think the US govt will be able to ensure all 7,000 are good guys, and zero of them are insurgents?

If yes - Why can't we do that every day to sort out the insurgents from teh good guys, and
If no - Why take the chance???

[Dos Equis]

Beach Bum, do you think the US govt will be able to ensure all 7,000 are good guys, and zero of them are insurgents?

Probably no better than we can ensure any of the thousands of other immigrants who come to this country every year are not terrorists.  I doubt our current immigration standard results in the admission of "good guys" 100 percent of the time.  By your logic, we shouldn't allow anyone from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc., etc., because insurgents are probably coming from and/or being armed by one or more of those countries.  A plethora of people in the Middle East hate us.    

[Dos Equis]

That's what I said, talk about harboring terrorists. Send me over to Beach Bum's block

I got an extra room you can rent.   

[BRUCE]

shit man, how about we send them to Australia then?  I'll chip in. 

I do not want people from a country we're at war with, being shipped in.  This should be common sense.


Now, here's the magic question:
do you think the US govt will be able to ensure all 7,000 are good guys, and zero of them are insurgents?

If yes - Why can't we do that every day to sort out the insurgents from teh good guys, and
If no - Why take the chance???

Like I said, Rob, and to use a Rumination - there are some known unknowns here.  I don't have enough information infront of me to say whether this is a bad idea or not.  I'm sure Australia will do its bit though, as we always do.

[chaos]

Probably no better than we can ensure any of the thousands of other immigrants who come to this country every year are not terrorists.  I doubt our current immigration standard results in the admission of "good guys" 100 percent of the time.  By your logic, we shouldn't allow anyone from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc., etc., because insurgents are probably coming from and/or being armed by one or more of those countries. A plethora of people in the Middle East hate us.     

all the more reason to leave them in Iraq.

[Dos Equis]

Good post.  This is similar to the debate in Australia over nuclear power.  The first thing someone will say to you if you raise the issue is 'you wouldn't want a nuclear reactor' in your backyard.  Yes, well guess what; I don't have a coal power plant in my backyard at the moment - so I'm sure they'll fit it in somewhere.

Thanks.  Completely agree.  Nobody wants anything unsavory in their backyard.  

[Dos Equis]

all the more reason to leave them in Iraq.

What about Koreans?  Venezuelans?  Cubans?  . . . .

[240 is Back]

Probably no better than we can ensure any of the thousands of other immigrants who come to this country every year are not terrorists.  I doubt our current immigration standard results in the admission of "good guys" 100 percent of the time.  By your logic, we shouldn't allow anyone from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc., etc., because insurgents are probably coming from and/or being armed by one or more of those countries.  A plethora of people in the Middle East hate us.    

Dude, you admit we won't be able to sort out all the terrorist insurgents from nation we're at war with from getting in, and you want to let them in anyway?

Holy shit.  okay, that is just stupid.  You support knowingly statistically lettting in suicide bombers and killers.  

And there IS a difference from letting in people from other countries, and SHIPPING IN 7,000 PEOPLE FROM A NATION WE'RE WARRING WITH.  

It's a stupid idea, and the fact that you admit we won't get every jihadist and you're okay with letting a few slip by - wow.  You want to make american less safe, by definition.  Sad, dude.

[chaos]

What about Koreans?  Venezuelans?  Cubans?  . . . .

we are not at war with them.......yet
I'm only saying, why?
Why not relocate them in Iraq and save taxpayers dollars and the threat that one of those 7000 is an extremist looking to blow some shit up?
Leave them in Iraq.

[Hugo Chavez]

It's an unnecessary risk.

please expand on why you think the misake is being made in the first place.  why would an unpopular president in the middle of a very unpopular war do this?

[240 is Back]

please expand on why you think the misake is being made in the first place.  why would an unpopular president in the middle of a very unpopular war do this?

I have absolutely no clue.  This has to be a joke.   

I mean, I cannot fathom, with all the places in the world we could put them for the $ we're spending, we couldn't just put them up elsewhere. 

Statistically, bad guys WILL GET IN.   I just don't get it. 


And the neo-liberals who put humanitarian goodwill above national security - like beach Bum - make America a less safe place.

[Dos Equis]

we are not at war with them.......yet
I'm only saying, why?
Why not relocate them in Iraq and save taxpayers dollars and the threat that one of those 7000 is an extremist looking to blow some shit up?
Leave them in Iraq.

I might agree if we were at war with Iraq.  Technically, the Iraqi government is on our side and many of their people support what we're doing.  We're fighting a relatively small segment of the population; an unorganized group of terrorists, some of whom undoubtedly are not even from Iraq.  

I don't favor importing terrorists (like we did with the people who were responsible for and carried out 911).  I just like the humanitarian move, assuming it doesn't compromise our safety.  It's very consistent with our open door policy and is one of the things that separates us from the rest of the world.  

[chaos]

please expand on why you think the misake is being made in the first place.  why would an unpopular president in the middle of a very unpopular war do this?

trying to kiss ass and make himself look like he wants to help. where are these people going to live, work, get education, healthcare, food, gas, transportation...etc... is it going to be our tax dollars
paying for 7000 MORE immigrants. But hey, at least they won't be here illegally......

[240 is Back]

I might agree if we were at war with Iraq.  Technically, the Iraqi government is on our side and many of their people support what we're doing.  We're fighting a relatively small segment of the population; an unorganized group of terrorists, some of whom undoubtedly are not even from Iraq.  

I don't favor importing terrorists (like we did with the people who were responsible for and carried out 911).  I just like the humanitarian move, assuming it doesn't compromise our safety.  It's very consistent with our open door policy and is one of the things that separates us from the rest of the world.  

You admit that terrorists will get through.

You're okay with that, because "technically, we're fighting an insurgency IN Iraq, not Iraq".

You can justify it any way you want.

Bottom line, you are willing to sacrifice national security for humanitarian goals

You're make America a more dangerous place, beach Bum.

[Dos Equis]

You admit that terrorists will get through.

You're okay with that, because "technically, we're fighting an insurgency IN Iraq, not Iraq".

You can justify it any way you want.

Bottom line, you are willing to sacrifice national security for humanitarian goals

You're make America a more dangerous place, beach Bum.

YAWN.   

[chaos]

I might agree if we were at war with Iraq.  Technically, the Iraqi government is on our side and many of their people support what we're doing.  We're fighting a relatively small segment of the population; an unorganized group of terrorists, some of whom undoubtedly are not even from Iraq.  

I don't favor importing terrorists (like we did with the people who were responsible for and carried out 911).  I just like the humanitarian move, assuming it doesn't compromise our safety. It's very consistent with our open door policy and is one of the things that separates us from the rest of the world.  

I wasn't aware the US had an open door policy that we went to other countries and brought back thousands of its people. Do we do that to make sure we have an equal amount of each ethnicity?

[240 is Back]

do you think the US govt will be able to ensure all 7,000 are good guys, and zero of them are insurgents?

Probably no better than we can ensure any of the thousands of other immigrants who come to this country every year are not terrorists.  

I want to stop terrorists from entering the nation.   You want to let them in.


You admit you know they'll get in, and you call it a good idea.

[Dos Equis]

I wasn't aware the US had an open door policy that we went to other countries and brought back thousands of its people. Do we do that to make sure we have an equal amount of each ethnicity?

Of course we have immigration standards.  I was referring to this:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

No accident that we lead the world in immigration. 
   

[chaos]

maybe we do lead the world in immigration....doesn't mean we need to bring them here. can you see a difference?

[Dos Equis]

An immigrant just emptied the trash and vacuumed the floor in my office.  She can barely speak a lick of English.  Very nice lady though.  God bless America.