A Common Sense Approach to Middle East Refugees.

[Rlh04d]

Rlh04d, you seem to be socially liberal. You seem to be sympathetic to the minority movement. You seem to accept that European Socialism would be good for America. If I am wrong on these, please correct me. Thats all fine and dandy, its a philosophical argument for another time. These refugees do not think the same way we do. Their customs do not fit well into ours. While beheading them is extreme, bringing them in amongst us while we have our hands full with Mexican immigrants is asking for another tragedy like 9/11. If our borders were secure and we could give even 80% of our focus to the refugees if we brought them stateside, then that would be one thing. But we can't. We are a match away from a national crisis, and we cannot afford to open up like that.

Ah, now you want to discuss issues with me?

You and I are past the point of speaking to each other like adults. That went away when your only response to me was "go **** yourself."

Perhaps you should adopt a slightly more socially acceptable way of disagreeing with someone if you want to talk like adults. If you want to personally apologize, cool, we can start out fresh and chat like rational people. Otherwise, read my posts or don't, I don't care and won't be responding.

[ShockTalk]

So you are proposing to solve the problem of ISIS how? Do you agree with Obama's containment policy?

Actually, I was looking for others' ideas on the matter to gain more knowledge to work with. Personally, I don't think there is such thing as containment anymore. Nevertheless, it may come to a point where as a country or region, you are either doing all you can to eradicate the problem within your boundaries, not supporting the problem outside of your boundaries, and are part of a united cause to control the problem or you become part of the problem and may face the same fate/solution as those that are directly problem.

[ShockTalk]

I do think you're right about Aargh's post. His other posts on the subject have been far more reasoned.

But I disagree with you that "a better suggestion" is needed in response to that. Some statements are so ridiculous that they don't deserve to be treated as the beginning of a discussion. I consider outright dismissal of what is tantamount to calling for genocide to be the appropriate response.

Fair enough.

[shock]

No doubt some of you have seen this video. Note "Hitler Youth Week" mentioned in the video was actually referencing Israeli Apartheid Week, where members of the MSA went around advocating and soliciting support for Hamas.

[Aargh]

While I thought @Aargh's first post was designed more for shock value...

At last somebody actually figured it out. I can't believe how many posters took my outlandish suggestion seriously.

I was proposing that we do to them what they do to us. If they don't want to play by our rules, maybe we might play by theirs. Children in Muslim countries in the Middle East are not raised with Western values that we would like to attribute to them. They have different outlooks on human life, governments, appropriate punishments, and on and on. Trying to bring peace to the area by introducing Western values is likely to only deepen their non-Western values.

[shockmonster]

Actually, I was looking for others' ideas on the matter to gain more knowledge to work with. Personally, I don't think there is such thing as containment anymore. Nevertheless, it may come to a point where as a country or region, you are either doing all you can to eradicate the problem within your boundaries, not supporting the problem outside of your boundaries, and are part of a united cause to control the problem or you become part of the problem and may face the same fate/solution as those that are directly problem.

)

It is a difficult problem. Obama's containment policy (to contain the problem in Syria and Iraq) didn't work for France. I heard a terror expert today saying that there is so much intelligence on terror subjects that they are trying to follow (from airports, etc.) throughout the world, that they are not able to follow everyone. Each of the terrorists that they are trying to follow are from Belgium (one or more of the French terrorists were from Belgium), the United States, France, Britain, etc. who all have passports and access to other countries including the U.S. He went on to say that they are continually recruiting more terrorists to ISIS from other countries including the U.S. Like I have said for weeks, they are coming here.

This expert said that the world has to get a strategy together and defeat ISIS as a country to stunt their recruiting. Right now, ISIS is seen as winning the battle in fighting the world for Allah.

[pinstripers]

Obama's "containment policy" was basically just to ignore them and hope they would go away until he was out of office.

[pinstripers]

http://www.youngcons.com/breaking-french-air-force-bombing-isis-capital/

[SB Shock]

http://www.youngcons.com/breaking-fr...-isis-capital/

It funny how they describe a 10 plane - 20 bombs as a "massive" attack.

[Rlh04d]

Actually, I was looking for others' ideas on the matter to gain more knowledge to work with. Personally, I don't think there is such thing as containment anymore. Nevertheless, it may come to a point where as a country or region, you are either doing all you can to eradicate the problem within your boundaries, not supporting the problem outside of your boundaries, and are part of a united cause to control the problem or you become part of the problem and may face the same fate/solution as those that are directly problem.

I made the suggestion a little while ago that we just back off and let Russia deal with it. The more Russia arrogantly stampedes into the Middle East, the more they will be the primary target of ISIS.

Not a very workable strategy, but one Russia deserves.

Containment won't work. We protect our borders, increase the ability/manpower/funding for intelligence services to deal with the problem (inside/outside of borders), and charge ISIS head on with a coordinated worldwide attack against their geographic, leadership, and economic targets.

I do not support the US going to war with ISIS as the sole or heavily primary player in a weak alliance of us and a bunch of small states barely contributing anything -- if the world will not join us in dealing with the problem, I'd rather not risk the lives of our servicemen and the health of our economy. Protect our own borders and completely pull out of the Middle East. Europe will be ISIS' target, not us, and if they take enough collateral damage they'll lead the charge themselves. Somewhat heartless way to look at it, but I'm tired of people I know dying because they're being asked to protect the world while rich states at just as much risk refuse to take any responsibility for their own safety.

If the world will join us, we know where they are. They have borders. They have a capital. They have a lot of money. ISIS is a terrorist group that has decided to behave like a malformed state -- as such they can be attacked with traditional warfare far more than other organizations can. We can obliterate them if the world has the will to do so.

[Aargh]

If ISIS were to attack Russia, I would not put it past Putin to use nukes.

[shockmonster]

I made the suggestion a little while ago that we just back off and let Russia deal with it. The more Russia arrogantly stampedes into the Middle East, the more they will be the primary target of ISIS.

Not a very workable strategy, but one Russia deserves.

Russia being the target of ISIS sounds good but then why did they attack France? I may be wrong but for better or worse, the US is considered the leader of the world and the ultimate target of those who don't like our way of life. In 2001, we weren't doing anything to attract Al Queda's wrath. But Bin Laden chose to attack us anyway.

[MoValley John]

Russia being the target of ISIS sounds good but then why did they attack France? I may be wrong but for better or worse, the US is considered the leader of the world and the ultimate target of those who don't like our way of life. In 2001, we weren't doing anything to attract Al Queda's wrath. But Bin Laden chose to attack us anyway.

France was, and is an obvious target. It is a western country, but it has also become a Muslim stronghold. The attacks were all on western targets, but there is so much Muslim support, lack of security plus available firearms in the underground, that Paris is obvious.

ISIS has tried to attack the US, and they will again. They probably won't try it in Texas again.

[ShockTalk]

I made the suggestion a little while ago that we just back off and let Russia deal with it. The more Russia arrogantly stampedes into the Middle East, the more they will be the primary target of ISIS.

Not a very workable strategy, but one Russia deserves.

Containment won't work. We protect our borders, increase the ability/manpower/funding for intelligence services to deal with the problem (inside/outside of borders), and charge ISIS head on with a coordinated worldwide attack against their geographic, leadership, and economic targets.

I do not support the US going to war with ISIS as the sole or heavily primary player in a weak alliance of us and a bunch of small states barely contributing anything -- if the world will not join us in dealing with the problem, I'd rather not risk the lives of our servicemen and the health of our economy. Protect our own borders and completely pull out of the Middle East. Europe will be ISIS' target, not us, and if they take enough collateral damage they'll lead the charge themselves. Somewhat heartless way to look at it, but I'm tired of people I know dying because they're being asked to protect the world while rich states at just as much risk refuse to take any responsibility for their own safety.

If the world will join us, we know where they are. They have borders. They have a capital. They have a lot of money. ISIS is a terrorist group that has decided to behave like a malformed state -- as such they can be attacked with traditional warfare far more than other organizations can. We can obliterate them if the world has the will to do so.

Hopefully, our government has learned a lesson from the "second Gulf War". As much as I believed in the idea of the second Gulf War (or duped into it), I wanted to have nothing to do with it without equal to or better world support than Desert Storm. I also was not in favor of a lengthy stay without strong world support.

I feel for France's plight, but I also remember their anti-roll with Russia against us before the second Gulf War.

For more reasons than just Muslim refugees, I am opposed to immigration at this time. We need to get our house in order and to do so, we need to put a moratorium on most all immigration and send illegals back to Central America. If Central Americans wish to apply and receive temporary visas BEFORE entering the US, fine. Green cards would be much tougher to get if at all. I've never been a fan of two wrongs making a right, so I'm not favoring children born in the US by illegals as citizens either. The current administration's position on illegals spits in the face of past immigrants who did it the right way.

I've probably said more than I should have.

[shockmonster]

The irony is that Russia is propping up Assad in Syria and indirectly ISIS is being helped because Syrians who want Assad out of power are joining ISIS in droves so Russia is actually although indirectly propping up ISIS too. ISIS did attack their aircraft but we will see if they continue to try to attack the motherland of Russia. I have a feeling that they will try to strike us too. This could be a long conflict but it could have been shorter if Obama would have engaged early on (by leading and recruiting other countries to engage with ISIS too).