Demonstration of Obama's incompetence: morning of Paris attacks, Obama claimed "we have contained IS

The best way to win a war? You evacuate everyone from an area that claims to be a non-combatant on boats, you then move in and kill everyone else....then you sink the boats.

The most humane best way? You move in and crush the opposition and remain in the area as security while you help those who want peace rebuild. You keep a force there to prevent extremism and lawlessness until that is no longer necessary....which will be decades at the earliest. In a perfect word, you have multiple countries helping so that the burden isn't so great.

 

That's the problem, you can't "vet them properly" so you run the risk of taking in terrorists along with the innocent.....you know, just like France did.

 

So your best way to win a war against Islamic extremism, in practical terms, is to nuke Tehran, Raqqa, Mosul, and most of the Middle East?

It comes out to the same thing if you absolutely don't care about civilian deaths.

Your "best humane solution" is an endless occupation that could stretch decades. I mean, come on. You want Russia and the US to ally with Assad, and occupy Syria with him for decades? That won't cause any resentment.

 

Yeah, you run that risk. You also run the risk of it all working out, like how 60,000 Vietnamese refugees from the Fall of Saigon are currently aiding the settlement of thousands of Syrians in Canada.

 

I never said anything about nuking anyone.

It was an "endless occupation that stretched decades" that finally stopped the Germans from rising up and causing trouble. An "endless occupation that stretched decades" was probably the best thing that ever happened to Japan.

You seem to be fairly narrow minded when it comes to what war can accomplish.

Also, I never said anything about allying with Assad, he's an illegitimate dictator, he'd have to go.

 

Well, if a country takes that risk, and your family is killed by a terrorist attack that happens as a result of taking in those refugees, would you think it was a risk that was worth it?

 

Dumbass fantasyland ranting is an amusing break despite more people thinking the same way.

That's the problem with collective amnesia of the Bush era. You just hope and pray it never happened, then precede to concoct the same twisted and failed fantasies less than fifteen years later.

 

You really think it was war that accomplished what has happened in Japan and Germany? What about the Marshall Plan--what about Japan's constitution? That wasn't war. That was utter carnage followed by decades of economic progress that could have happened independent of war. It was the beating-down of great industrial nation-states and the slow repair, not the beating-down of people who have nothing more to lose. If you think the world is different pre-9/11, how could you think the world be not be so different post WW2?

You never said anything about nuking anybody, you implied it by saying you'd kill everyone by letting a few escape in boats and sinking in them, and killing the rest. In practical terms, that's what a nuke does. Or were you thinking of using machine guns or napalm and killing everyone slowly?

Great, so your best humane solution is to what, occupy Syria without a government and fight a proxy war with Russia?

 

If I drive a car, and people die in traffic accidents, is it worth the risk of driving?

 

I can entertain the idea given that 100k is far smaller proportion than what Europe is facing and if they're spread apart it might be fine, but you're not selling me the Hmong comparison.

I guess the Persian exodus after the Shah's collapse could be a better comparison if the refugees we get are educated and secular minded, but if they're kit secular minded then they'll face heavier resistance against integrating with the locals over time. You get news of Detroit area's Muslim community over issues pertaining how Islam influences everyday life and it's challenges against secularism.

Maybe I'm being close minded in this issue, but I feel the odds are heavily stacked as the way things are and how it can be easily shifted to perceive that the U.S. is in a never ending state of war against Islam.

 

The people who are leaving are exactly the type of people fleeing from an imposition of religious extremism in Syria.

This is the background they were raised in:

And while you can be sure many are opposed (and rightfully so) to how brutal the Ba'ath Party have been, I don't think you go to America to try to start a caliphate. If you were adamant about that, you'd stay in Syria no matter the cost.

The view of Syrians vis a vis secularism is that many will have been born into it and those fleeing the country are probably not looking to impose a way of life that would be foreign to them.

 

What you don't understand is that is part of war....it's the part we failed to do in Iraq...which is why it's a disaster now. War IS utter carnage followed by rebuilding and no it absolutely could not have happened independent of war.

If you want change to be permanent, you have to sufficiently beat down the population and then rebuild them while staying to make sure nothing goes wrong. It's the only way to do it properly. We failed to do that in Iraq, we failed to do anything at all in Syria. I'm not big on the US being the world police so I'm not calling for the US to be the one to do this always, but someone has to.

As to the Syrian refugees, if we're being 100% honest about it, I don't think anyone should take them in at all. Those cowards should fight for their country. Their country needs them and they do nothing but run away, it's shameful. Yet another reason why Syria is best made into a vassal state, it's their natural position in the world. Maybe they'd be best served if we gave that land back to the Turks

 

"Those who want peace" don't want an occupying army telling them what to do.

 

so what, carpet bombing?

If you're not big on the US doing it, why not let Putin do what you're saying?

I bolded the paragraph that I just absolutely have no response to, beyond bemusement for the grannies and babies you've asked to "fight for their country".

 

Those who are too weak or cowardly to do something about it themselves don't get a say in the matter till they earn it. I'm pretty sure no one cared if the Germans didn't like an occupying force staying around to make sure they didn't cause any more trouble after WW2, why would anyone care what the Syrians think about it? Or what the Iraqis think about it?

If they are smart, they'd use that peace and stability that those forces provide to help re-build their country. If they aren't smart enough for that, they don't deserve their own country to begin with so if that's the case, they need to be split up and that land should belong to others who are more capable.

 

This was Charlie Hebdo's response.

 

You jump to so many ridiculous conclusions it's hard to have an adult conversation with you. For some reason, you think that the majority of those fleeing Syria are "grannies and babies", that's not the case.

Maybe the problem here is that you are too ignorant about the subject at hand for me to try and carry on a conversation about it with you.

You also immediately jump to the conclusion that "sufficiently beating down the population" somehow means "carpet bombing". Anyway, it's really getting old quickly. Do better.

 

There is one big difference between the Vietnamese refugees and most of the Syrian refugees.

Also, your "if they are vetted properly" is hypothetical - they are not.

 

Invisible Fan brought up the Persian exodus from the Iranian Revolution as a closer comparision. I do agree with him on that and have started moving away from the Hmong.

Your second point is a legitimate concern.