The problem is, if you remember, is that the USA signed that big Space treaty in 2010 where it agreed that it owned all of the worlds out there except Europa and would attempt no landings there.
**Scandic **is not going to hear the end of his Europa typo, is he? :rolleyes:
I made no such affirmation Mr. Protests-2-much.
I only forgot to add the word that made it clear that it was you claiming that supporters of the refugees want to kidnap them. Still a ridiculous statement. And it deserved a kindred reply.
Again. I aactually pointed at evidence of anti refugees doing what I said.
Probably because you don’t know much about the U.S. and have never visited Miami.
I agree with you that the Obama administration is in a bit, and this goes for the other leading Western governments. They helped rebels overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Now the new Libyan government was good, and kept it’s promises of holding free elections and handing power and what not. Only problem was that while many who fought against Gaddafi went back to their lives, plenty others who had no lives decided they wanted power and they could dictate to the new government in Tripoli their demands. These guys had weapons and used them. Now our main fault is that the Security Council has a weapons embargo on Libya, so the government can’t fight back against the militias. So it’s the militias with weapons while Libya’s army is left with little.
And now the militias have created their own government which came to power in Tripoli. It is not recognized by ANY government. The internationally recognized Libyan government meanwhile has set up headquarters in Tobruk, in the east near Egypt.
So nothing wrong with the government of Libya, far more democratic than Gaddafi. Thing is it’s so weak and many groups have instead of joining it, have made demands. One militia in Benghazi threatened and went ahead with selling the oil, and keeping the profits. The way they did it was illegal, instead of democratically advocating for autonomy, these militias in the east began selling and shipping oil. but their plans were derailed when the Libyan government asked for American assistance and our special forces raided their oil vessels.
My point is, that in the Middle East and North Africa, when these countries suddenly get rid of dictators, many seem to think they can get power ASAP. You have minorities and militias that instead cooperating with the central government on their legit causes and concerns, go about doing it illegally and hurting their countries unity and stability.
So we look at Libya, and even though most of it’s people supported our ousting of Gaddafi, and the government was overall decent, there are actors that have ulterior motives and takes actions that screw things up.
So we are not sure what to do in Syria, we don’t know who will replace Assad, and if a democratic government comes into power, there is no guarantee that it will survive subversion by ISIS and other meaner opposition groups.
(Underline added for clarity)
I made no such claim. Guess again.
Actually **doorhinge **did not claim that. He suggested that in order to get refugees to go to the US one would have to kidnap them at gunpoint. Different from what you said but just as far off IMHO.
That “one” is what I was talking about, he does refer to the supporters of the refugees and/or the authorities that would support that at gun point move. What he said was:
So we are left with 2 options:
-
what doorhinge said was really unsupported nonsense or:
-
he really does fantasize that one will kidnap them at gun point to make the refugees go the USA.
Both choices are dumb points.
“You” are left with 2 options. And you’d be wrong on both counts. At least you’re consistent.
The refugees want to go to Europe. - True.
What are you going to do? - A question.
Kidnap the refugees at gunpoint? - Another question.
How do you remove the Syrian refugees from Europe after they had made the journey to Europe because they chose/wanted to go to Europe?
That is a valid question. But the “kidnap them at gunpoint” addon seemed to indicate that you believe they would absolutely not be willing to go there. I do not think that is true.
What is true is that many refugees currently seem to believe that Germany (not Europe) is the land of milk and honey. It may take some “marketing” to convince them that considering the US as an alternative might be a smart move. Especially if the alternatives turn out not to be “Germany or the US” but rather “Hungary or the US”. *If *the US are really taking.
Since the USA already takes most of the world’s refugees, I see no reason to take more. And when the time comes for these people to return to Syria, Germany is closer.
Could you point me to the satistic that you take that statement from?
(Not the one about the distance between Germany and Syria ;))
If you multiply the number we’ve taken in by 10, it’s nearly true.
That’s not remotely accurate. Nowhere near.
Developing countries host 86% of the world’s refugees.
Well, close to 10 million Mexicans, Salvadorians, Guatemalans, Peruvians, Brazilians, Cubans, etc. Also Vietnamese, Cambodians, Chinese, Afghans, iraquis…the list is quite extensive.
Immigrants =/= refugees. Even if you count all foreign-born residents as “refugees,” you would still be way off. The US hosts about 19% of all migrants.
Yes, it is a valid question. The refugee’s goal was to leave Syria, get to Europe, and move on to Germany, Denmark, France, England, etc.
The situation in Syria sux, Syria sux, the Syrian government sux, Assad sux. Let’s get outta here! Where do we go? We’re going to Europe. Now that we’ve made it to Europe, let’s go to the U.S.A. instead???
In the past, refugees from war zones have tended to be women, children, and old people.
A lot of these refugees coming into Europe now look to be healthy, fit, single young men. What’s up with that?
I’d say take in the families, the women and children, the infirm, the aged, and tell the single young men to go back and fight for their country.
That is also the best way to ameliorate the security risk. I don’t think all of those young men are terrorists, but it’s almost certain that some of them are. How many do there have to be before you’ve got a real problem on your hands? A dozen? A hundred? A thousand? Even a thousand would be a tiny percentage of the refugees, but letting a thousand terrorists into your country could have devastating consequences.
This is why Canada is not bringing in many of these particular refugees, although Canada has been doing more than its share to house refugees and provide humanitarian aid around the world for decades.
Citation needed.