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

There doesn't need to be anywhere close to a majority for this statement:

to cover a whole lot of babies and grannies.

What does sufficiently beating down the population mean? "Killing everyone who is a combatant, putting non-combatants in boats, and sinking the boats"? or something in between.

I put a question mark after the carpet bombing to indicate it was a question, not a statement.

 

You speak of me as if I'm you're typical right-wing, neo-conservative. I'm not. I'm not a right-wing sheep. I have never supported those who seek the ouster of Assad. I think the republicans that have been pushing that agenda (like McCain) are just as clueless as Obama. In the current crop of presidential candidates, Paul and Trump are the only two that I can agree with on their proposed Syrian policy.

It makes me angry that our administration picked the wrong side in Syria. It fell to Russia to finally do something productive. By the way, this administration's shameful sanctions on Russia are an embarrassment. They should be one of our most important allies and this administration goes out of their way to create conflict between our two countries.

We should have been supporting Assad from the very beginning. At the very least, we should not have been actively supporting those trying to overthrow him.

I would rather have a western-educated, secular leader like Assad (who has protected the christian minorities in his country) in power than whatever islamic zealot rebels Obama was supporting.

 

Sure, there would be some grannies and babies that would be stuck in Syria....hopefully they'd serve to motivate the able bodied cowards who are trying to run away to do something for themselves and protect them. Probably not though.

Either way, is it your stance that you'd only allow "grannies and babies" to be accepted as refugees?

That's a false dilemma in that those aren't the only two options despite the fact that you are portraying it that way.

 

My stance is that this statement: "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."

was not very well thought-out, especially since you said the current leadership of their country "had to go". Who are you even asking them to fight for?

You haven't really answered what "sufficiently beating down the population" means if you want to divert away from that.

 

Really? I have to spell that out for you?

Fair enough, they fight to have a country free of Assad and free of ISIS, the two things currently plaguing the nation. Is it that you know nothing at all about Syria, is that why you have so many questions that are obvious to just about everyone else?

As to when I said "sufficiently beating down the population", I meant that you have to hit them militarily until they stop fighting, at which point you can start to rebuild. How much force that takes is completely determined by the opposition. There may be little to nothing left after you are done, there may not be much damage at all. Given the religious zealotry of part of the opposition we're probably talking about a ton of damage and death before the rebuilding can begin. In fact, they had just about reached that point in Iraq when we abandoned them and allowed the country to fall back into chaos.

 

So they fight for Al-Nusra Front, the Islamic Front and whatever remains of the FSA? Or do they also fight against the Islamic Front and revitalize the FSA to the point where there is no longer a need for Al-Nusra?

in your fantasy world where doctors, nurses and engineers fight Assad's jets with their AK-47s while combatting the tanks and humvees of ISIS, do double rainbows appear every day?

I don't think I'm the one being ignorant of Syria if you're telling refugees to fight Assad and ISIS. good lord. Next, you'll tell them to fight Al-Nusra too (an avowed A-Q affiliate), hell, why not tell them to fight Putin, Hezbollah and Iran while you're at it. They can form the "Lambs to the Slaughter" brigade.

As to your second statement, so what, carpet bombing?

 

Oh wow, this is just a mess of a comment. It shows ignorance on so many levels that I'm just going to cut bait. You would have to know a LOT more than you've shown to even hold a productive conversation with. Good day.

 

Do you even know what the Islamic Front and Al-Nusra are?

 

Religious fundamentalist terrorists do not "stop fighting" because you bombed them for enough points of damage.

They believe in a magic afterlife, a grand reward for fighting their enemies, and have absolutely ****ing nothing to lose. You think the 101st Airborne is just going to roll into a place, kill a ****load of people and everyone remaining is going to raise their hands and say, "Now that you've come to my home and killed my family, I'm repudiating my stance on my commitment to celestial war and I'm adopting a nuanced view of the world and ordering a subscription to the Economist. Thank you US Army - you sure showed me the error of my ways. If only previous presidents had been as tough and determined as you, President Camacho."

 

That's one big assumption given how fragmented Syria is, plus the war has been raging and the ones who knew winter was coming packed their bags a while back.

Also, it's unlikely we'd administer some form of cold test where only the good, smart and hard working ones we get are let in and the others are left to rot outside the gates.

I never talked about establishing a caliphate (and since you brought it up, if I was presented with the choice, I would still leave to survive, then resume my dreams of a caliphate at home or elsewhere later), but rather the more mundane like pushing for sharia law and building mosques with protected rights. If they aren't gung-ho about that, then this point is ungrounded, but your unsourced wiki search supports this concern as the practicing Muslim Syrians would rather let sharia court settle "family matters" such as beating up your wife or kidnapping your kids because of an unfit adulterous mother, let alone whatever fears neighbors who consume talk radio can dream of.

 

Yes, I do. My previous statement stands, have a good day.

They often find it hard to continue fighting when they are dead.

 

LOL.

Let me know the next time you have the gumption to walk into protests when the government turns its arms and tanks against you. You have nowhere near the moral authority to dictate what Syrian refugees should or should not do, and I suspect you never will.

Have a great day. Try not to think too much about your cognitive dissonance.

 

Canada has the following system that has handled the tens of thousands you mention with a much smaller population and with no real incidents.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/canada.asp

If you really think a few thousand Syrian refugees will significantly affect the mosaic of American life, you have much less faith in America's vibrancy than I do. Perhaps that's somewhat warranted, but I don't see how systems currently in place would be too overly strained from a security perspective.

Syria was a country where all forms of political Islam were banned, so I don't exactly see why refugees running away from crazies imposing religious laws on others would try to impose religious laws on others.

Canada has been quietly accepting thousands of refugees without many problems. I expect the story to be the same across many other countries.

 

Genocide takes a lot of time, work, and money.

 

We're not talking about genocide, the true believers make up a small percentage of the population, as soon as you send enough of them to the Aloha Snackbar in the sky and cripple the command structure of the opposition, you have already started to win.

The vast majority of any population just wants to live in peace. There were people who once thought that you'd have to wipe out all of Germany and Austria to get rid of the Nazis, turns out that wasn't the case either.

 

http://www.cfr.org/drones/president...killings-argues-micah-zenko-new-report/p29786

 

Hundred thousand is not a few thousand, and the "mosaic of American life" has been sensitive to Muslims and the threat of terrorism since you know when.

You talk against eroding civil liberties and enhanced surveillance state, well that comes from continuum of shifting degrees, and this can be justified to raise it up a notch with half of the public's approval.

Kudos on Canada's assimilation program so far, but the assimilation pains France and Germany have faced are still being aggressively debated.

Unless you think can uh duhs got it jusssst right and everyone else is doing it wrong.

 

I do think when good things happen, they happen quietly in the background and nobody notices. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of that going on beyond Canada.

With that said, I am very sensitive to your point about how the average person in America will react to this.

That point is really pulling at me because realistically speaking, people will have more fear, whether that's warranted or not, and I don't think the current American political dialogue is a good one to place the Syrian refugees in. Still, I think one can fight for civil liberties for all and make a compelling case regardless of ongoing dangers.

But yes, you are right to say that as optimistic as I am to think it could go right, there are many reasons for you to be pessimistic that things could go wrong. France is a perfect example of that.

I guess I just haven't been burnt that badly yet with multiculturalism and that does skew my viewpoint, I haven't seen nearly the level of religious conflict I've read about in other nations. It's possible that if something strikes closer to home that will change my viewpoint, but I hope not.

(and no, Canada doesn't get everything right, I'm still getting calls about returning Justin Beiber)

 

France is a unique case I think, due to it's not-so-distant colonization and counterinsurgency in North Africa. Unlike every other European power, they annexed territory outright and were late to leave. Many of France's North African immigrants still bear that resentment and need little excuse to get angry.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/y-7j4WVTgWc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I'm just glad the dickwads on here aren't in charge of anything but their mom's basement.