Given the origins of the current crisis are various - though perhaps among them the most significant being the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent (a) creation of ISIS, and (b) a huge political vacuum, plus Assad’s response to the Arab Spring - wouldn’t it make sense if those responsible took responsibility.
Although we can note the short term justification of air strikes vs. ISIS, the irony of Paris being targetted and France’s cheese-eating surrender monkey objection at the UN to the invasion in 2003 is … unavoidable. Oooh, how they were mocked.
Would it be unreasonable if the countries responsible for the invasion in 2003 - primary the US and UK while other nations contributed willingly but in smaller numbers, while others were mostly co-opted one way or another - took one refugee now for each civilian death from 2003 to … when ever you like, Iraqis are still dying at the rate of tens of thousands a year?
A ratio of 1:1 in total, but share it out in proportion to the military contribution made between invasion and withdrawal ?
Also, it would be a nice way to be able to go on holiday on pretty Greek holiday beaches and see fewer dead babies and youngsters washing up.
Syria is a sovereign country and its government is responsible for what happens inside its borders. The government = Assad, so if you want those responsible for the current crisis to take in the refugees, you should look to those countries that Assad is a client of. That would be Russia and Iran, primarily.
So…there are various reasons for the situation, but it’s really just America’s fault? Gotcha.
Blah blah, America’s fault, America’s fault…must be a question in here somewhere…
So, you start with the conclusion (i.e. it’s America’s fault) and then draw a solution from that. Got it. Of course, since Syria and Assad played a role as well, and since the Assad regime has actually done the majority of the killing, it will be interesting in how you apportion how many Syrian refugees they would need to accept…
Yeah, that would be nice. Or the sound of the Greek economy not melting down. Or the rise of sea levels not rising due to global warming. Or the sounds of children not choking on smog in major Chinese cities. Or peace on earth and good will towards men (and women and anyone in-between)! Gods bless us…everyone!
/end Tiny Tim, wipe a brief tear from the eye
So, I guess for debate here is just America evil or evil AND bad (and evil…did you mention evil?), and really, shouldn’t everything that happens be America’s fault? And shouldn’t we take sole responsibility for everything that’s happened in the region since the Iraqi war, since no one in the region could or would do bad stuff if the US hadn’t invaded Iraq?
(And I’m all in favor of the US taking on more refugees, though your ridiculous apportionment is, well, simply ridiculous. As usual. Though you did use sentences in your OP and did actually expand from one liners, so, baby steps need to be encouraged)
I am all for western nations taking in refugees but that line of argument is just way too simple. If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it means that all western nations should stay out of the middle east affairs, which would mean that they could no longer be called responsible for anything bad that happens there which would mean that as they are not responsible they would be under no obligation to help. Countries like Sweden, who have done much of the helping, could stop right away. (Oh - also the old litany of “everything bad in the world is America’s fault” never held much water.)
I prefer a concept of human interaction wherein you help someone in dire need not because you are responsible for that need but because you can.