Iraqi refugees by SoupCatcher

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Iraqi refugees

POSTED BY: SOUPCATCHER
UPDATED: Saturday, November 7, 2015 12:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3280
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, April 8, 2007 1:55 PM

I just stumbled on the following article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6286129.stm - so this may have been discussed before. It's titled, "Warnings of Iraq refugee crisis," and has some sobering statistics. Just under 14 percent of the total population are displaced from their homes but still somewhere in Iraq or are refugees in another country.

The United States should be responsible for immigrating some of these refugees. How many? Hard to say. We've never done to another country what we've done to Iraq. Probably the closest parallel is to Vietnam. The population of Vietnam around 1975 was about double the population of Iraq today. In the two decades following the end of the Vietnam War we welcomed* between half a million to a million refugees (or, one to two percent of the total population). And this number goes up even more if you look at the refugees from neighboring countries or ethnic minority groups (like the Hmong).

If we go by those numbers that rounds out to between a quarter and a half million Iraqis emigrating to the United States over the next two decades. Which doesn't even come close to denting the problem in the here and now.

What to do?

* edited to add: Welcomed is too broad a term. And it's probably appropriate to discuss how prejudice in general shaped the reception to the boat people especially and where most refugees ended up settling. Because those same prejudices will come into play against a general resettling of any non-white refugee group. What will probably happen is that the areas most supportive of the invasion of Iraq will be able to keep out any Iraqi refugees.

* edited one more time to add: And it looks like my numbers are already out of date. Here's a post from Meteor Blades over at DKos that brings the number of refugees/displaced closer to 20% (and the article also serves as a much better starting point on this topic than my post). http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/3/4352/38543

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 8, 2007 4:49 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Not saying that our decisions in Iraq have always been the brightest, but some of this has to be down on the Iraqis themselves.

I was listening to an NPR report a while ago from one of their Iraqi stringers. He lives in a mixed Shi'a and Sunni neighborhood which has been relatively peaceful, with no sectarian violence. He was taking his wife to the local market when a truck full of men in black fatigues and masks pulled up beside an open field, and started shooting the Shi'a and Sunni kids who were playing football together there. After shooting from the road they went out and made finishing shots to insure the kids were dead. Then they got back in their truck and left.

The Shi'a and Sunni relatives of these kids immediately ran back to their homes, grabbed their weapons...and started shooting each other.

What in hell is wrong with people who would not go after the actual killers of their children, but instead fall on their neighbors while all their kids were still lying dead on the field? Is the only thing that keeps these folks from killing each other off the kind of totalitarian government Saddam had?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2007 2:42 AM

SHINYED

10 more American soldiers died this weekend. And now that fat f*k Al Sadr (who we could/should have captured 5 times already) is running around whipping up the frenzy anew to kill Americans.

There is no point to a temporary surge. We must either leave Iraq immediately, or fight & disarm all the religious militias immediately. Four years of roadside bombs & sniper attacks against American troops is more than enough...Americans are just sick of this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2007 5:13 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
There is no point to a temporary surge. We must either leave Iraq immediately, or fight & disarm all the religious militias immediately. Four years of roadside bombs & sniper attacks against American troops is more than enough...Americans are just sick of this.

That's right! This kind of crap didn't work in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. This may sound cold, but I don't care enough about the Iraqi's to sacrifice my neighbor's sons anymore.

If you're gonna do it, do it MacArthur and Patton style. That's how wars get DONE!...and infinitly more important OVER! That way we can focus on our intensifying economic rivalry with China.

"The world is still turning and you're on it....count yourself lucky" My Dad, 2007.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2007 7:38 AM

KANEMAN

"If you're gonna do it, do it MacArthur and Patton style. That's how wars get DONE!...and infinitly more important OVER! That way we can focus on our intensifying economic rivalry with China."

Yeah!!!!! Let's drop the bomb on there asses.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2007 9:19 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
This may sound cold, but I don't care enough about the Iraqi's to sacrifice my neighbor's sons anymore.

I never cared enough about em to do it in the first place.

Out.
Now.

-F

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2007 9:50 AM

SHINYED

There's a little teensy weensy concept in security that the American military & political powers seem to never have learned about. It's called SEALING BORDERS!

We didn't do it Afghanistan and we didn't get Bin Laden because of that, and we continue to pay a high price for that oversight.

We didn't do it in Iraq and we can't stop the flow of weapons and personnel into Iraq from Iran & Syria, and we continue to pay a high price for that oversight.

We didn't do it along the Mexican & Canadian borders either...even after 911, and we continue to pay a high price for that oversight.

One can only conclude that the USA cannot escape its' open border mentality, even though we certainly have the sophisicated devices to do it...radar, drone planes, awacs, etc etc ....so we MUST be keeping all these borders open for a reason!???...Anybody wanna guess?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2007 11:09 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
We didn't do it in Iraq and we can't stop the flow of weapons and personnel into Iraq from Iran & Syria, and we continue to pay a high price for that oversight.

Under Vietnam/War, see Ho Chi Mihn Trail. Do our leaders even read history books????

Quote:
....so we MUST be keeping all these borders open for a reason!???...Anybody wanna guess?

You got me?????......I give......why?

"The world is still turning and you're on it....count yourself lucky" My Dad, 2007.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 9, 2007 1:29 PM

FLETCH2

Well as a guess because it's almost impossible to police a long land border? Just a guess.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:11 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Well as a guess because it's almost impossible to police a long land border? Just a guess.

Sounds logical. I'm going to offer up a guess as well. Maybe...sealing our southern border and bringing a stable democracy to Iraq are never going to happen.

Out of Iraq, last week! And leave the Mexican immigrants alone, they haven't stolen any jobs from me and I haven't been acosted by any, not anyone I know either. Republicans are trying to make you afraid of them like everything else so we feel less than secure. Focus groups show that when we're afraid, we're more likely to vote Republican.

Pheeww! Looks like I went on a tirade!

"The world is still turning and you're on it....count yourself lucky" My Dad, 2007.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:24 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
If you're gonna do it, do it MacArthur and Patton style.

Works for me.

Patton style would have had us invading Iraq and ended with the fall of Damascus and Tehran (and Moscow and Paris...maybe even Berlin because its on the way).

MacArthur style would have had us invading Iraq and then turning them into the best auto and consumer electronics manufacturers in the world.

Patton's got the dramatic flair, but I'd have loved to see the Godzilla movier where he's crushing buildings in Baghdad (not to mention Islamic Anime).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:02 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"If you're gonna do it, do it MacArthur and Patton style. That's how wars get DONE!...and infinitly more important OVER!

Um...we beat the Iraqis quickly and easily. Patton had nothing to do with the occupation of Germany (He died in December of '45). MacArthur is a decent example as he had a lot to do with the rebuilding of Japan, but in the end you are looking at two very different situations.

The Japanese were utterly demolished in WWII, their cities were bombed or burned to the ground, they had been deprived for a couple years of many basic supplies for life, and the motivating forces behind the war (nationalism, empire-building etc.) were long behind them. In Iraq we've gone out of our way to keep civilian casualties low because the Iraqis weren't the problem, their leader was. If we had carpet-bombed major cities in Iraq and completely cut them off from the outside world for months or years before we smashed through their army then things would be different.

Quote:
That way we can focus on our intensifying economic rivalry with China."

Hah!!! Our government taking care of a REAL problem when a made up one is available???? Surely you jest!

Quote:
Yeah!!!!! Let's drop the bomb on there asses.

I've long been of the opinion that the Middle East would be a much better contributor to the world if it was a large plate of glass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:37 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I've long been of the opinion that the Middle East would be a much better contributor to the world if it was a large plate of glass.

My Uncle worked for the Ford Aerospace during the 70's. As a result he was working on telecommunications for the Shah when things got nasty. He snuck out of Iran in the back of a truck buried by newspapers. After that the Ayatollah put him on a death list. His comment to me about the middle east was that it should be made into a parking lot. You'd loose traction on glass.

"The world is still turning and you're on it....count yourself lucky" My Dad, 2007.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:42 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

I've long been of the opinion that the Middle East would be a much better contributor to the world if it was a large plate of glass.

Glass?

I think I'd prefer a large plate of hot wings. Then we could fill the Gulf up with ranch dressing and beer was invented in Egypt and...I wish the Indians hadn't been snowed out.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 8:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Trinitite.

It's not glass, it's trinitite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite

And we've got enough nukes to cover the earth with it several times over, which we taxpayers got rooked for a horrific amount of money to build as a deterrent.

Well it ain't deterred jack shit, has it now ?

I want my money back.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:15 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Well it ain't deterred jack shit, has it now ?

No. Just forty years of Soviet aggression and a third global conflict (European-style that is). But not a bit of jack shit...matter of fact when it comes to jack shit, the liberals are spewing it daily.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:21 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Four years of roadside bombs & sniper attacks against American troops is more than enough...Americans are just sick of this.

Huh.
I had enough of this crap in 'Nam...
Should we repeat this dance every twenty years or so now so we can keep remembering how sick we can get of this shit?

We must thin the herd Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:28 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Well it ain't deterred jack shit, has it now ?

No. Just forty years of Soviet aggression and a third global conflict (European-style that is).

Gonna have to agree with Hero on this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 1:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I don't buy that, general historic consensus on invading the US is that it would be madness, and not because of our nukes, but because many americans own guns and would not be one whit shy of using them on enemy troops.

You know, like the Iraqis are doing to us for invading THEIR county.

Of course, our politicos are doin their level best to remove that one single deterrent that DOES work, on both sides of the mainstream fence.

Just prior to WW-II breaking out in the Pacific, a meeting took place in Tokyo in which a number of Japanese general officers asked Isoroku Yamamoto, the only one of their number to have spent any time in the United States, what the problem was; why not simply invade the place and get it over with. Admiral Yamamoto replied that the problem was not the US military, that there were fifty million lunatics in this country who owned military style weaponry and practiced with it, and that there would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass". This apparently bothered him a great deal more than the 300,000 or so guys in uniform prior to the war.

That's our primary deterrent, which costs not one taxpayer dollar - but since it's not a profit base like the DoD, pork chomping politicos don't care for it.

Not to mention it's theoretically a bulwark against their worst excesses.

Frankly, we only need ONE nuke as a deterrent, just ONE - to be immediately fired on the government capitol of anyone fool enough to invade us.

I still want my money back.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 1:55 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I don't buy that, general historic consensus on invading the US is that it would be madness, and not because of our nukes, but because many americans own guns and would not be one whit shy of using them on enemy troops.

If we didn't have nukes they might never be able to conquer us, but with an overwhelming attack they could get away with it. On the other hand once nukes are in the equation if we are attacked and it looks like we are going to lose then we can level the entire country of the attacker plus all their buddies.

Quote:
You know, like the Iraqis are doing to us for invading THEIR county.

If we knew that Iraq had nukes do you really think we would have invaded (Bush' obsession notwithstanding)?

Quote:
That's our primary deterrent

Proof? While I'm fairly sure that most of the world sees us as psychotic gun-nuts (just ask Citizen), I don't think that the prospect of losing a bunch of soldiers over here is much of a deterrent to the politicians. Our ability to completely eliminate the taxbase of the politicians country (as well as the politician himself) would seem to be a much better deterrent.

Quote:
Frankly, we only need ONE nuke as a deterrent, just ONE - to be immediately fired on the government capitol of anyone fool enough to invade us.

You are assuming that the politicians in question care about their people, not a good assumption. I think it's more likely that the worse offenders would just make sure they were out of town during the genesis of the war and let their opponents get vaporized and their citizens killed in order to drum up more support for the war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 7, 2015 12:42 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

the latest blame game

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE