Knowing that everyone is taking sides on the immigration issue and our government is in a stale mate, what makes them think that it is ok to bring in Iraq rufugees to the US? We are at war aren't we? Does this sounda little like "Letting the wolves tend the sheep? What is your opinion? I do feel sorry for the refugees, but who wants to feed them with hand they bit?!
2007-06-01 08:02:15 · 10 answers · asked by Karma of the Poodle 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Ok kids, a little history lesson, back in the mid 70's Iraq and Iran begged our government to help feed their people (Grain embargo 1975-77) for cheep oil. We feed they send cheaper oil. Later they ask us to intervene in their little he said they said spats for territory, we did, they signed. Now, new rulers, new laws. The kept asking for trading rights with no infringment on shipping and free food for their people since we buy their oil cheap, we denied them free port shipping, they got mad they raised oil, we stopped free food. Do you remember the first IRANIAN hostages of the 70's? The tug of war so to speak the plane jackings by IRAQUI'S and Iranians. Think people! They wanted and we gave. They demanded more violently not peacefully. We reduced our help. They asked us to come and free them from tyranny and we did and then cussed us out for helping. I am not republican, democrat, nor a liberal I'm a concerned American that can see through the lines not between them.
2007-06-01 08:46:21 · update #1
It's complete bull. Our government decides to bring in thousands and thousands of refugees from God only knows where and dumps them in some American city without giving Americans the opportunity to decline. Bosnians to Saint Louis, Iraqis and other Muslims to Detroit, Burmese and Burundis to Nashville, Somalis to Lewiston.
You ever get the feeling our government is trying to destroy us?
2007-06-01 08:08:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
It's silly to assume that all Iraqi people are a part of the groups fighting the Americans in Iraq. There are also a huge number of Iraqi people who fight alongside us.
Why not help the people of the country we invaded, and then opened the borders to that allowed in the terrorists that are now fighting us. I think taking them somewhere safer is the least we can do.
2007-06-01 08:33:55 · answer #2 · answered by Jen 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq didn't "bite our hand". They did nothing to us. They weren't involved in 9/11 in any way. They didn't have WMD's.... There were NO terrorists in Iraq - except for Saddam and picked on his own people because he was a coward. There was no al-Qiada in Iraq - Saddam wouldn't let them in. Iraq and it's citizens were not our enemy.
Until, that is, Bush invaded that country to gain control of the oilfields. Now, the country is full of terrorists from all over the world and more coming into the country everyday - to kill our soldiers and to train new ones.
I welcome the Iraqi families here. We owe them at least that much for destroying their country, their infrastructure, homes, hospitals, schools. Raiding their museums and generally bombing them back into the stone age.
Aren't we all so proud of Bushie and the boys. God Bless American, indeed.
2007-06-01 08:24:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its so very complicated.....Every country accepts refugees, and that is great.....However, the problem we have with Iraq is, who is really a refugee and who is a terrorist....Suppose one of these refugees is really a radical Muslim who infiltrates and organizes other disenfranchised Iraqis to form terrorist cells in our country? Its a very touchy situation, because if the US refuses these refugees, we will look like hypocrites to the rest of the world, for going over there and attacking their country for the sake of injustices and then refusing their refugees....Great question...
2007-06-01 08:17:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Seeing as how the US made the mess those people are living in now, don't you think we owe them something? Yeah, sure, we got rid of Saddam but at what cost to their personal lives? And don't talk to me about freedom. Every time they walk out their front doors, they're at risk of being blown apart by suicide bombers or kidnapped and tortured to death by somebody who disagrees with their religion. If that's Bush's definition of freedom, would you want him to liberate you?
A little revisionist history, you mean. Please show me where it says the Iraqis asked the US to come and liberate them from Saddam Hussein.
And what does the IRANIAN takeover of the US embassy have to do with the IRAQIS?
2007-06-01 08:16:46 · answer #5 · answered by Alice K 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
particularly, confident yet in addition they desire some pork, meaty bones & distinctive vegetables & fruit too. supply your canines a great form of meals & they would be advantageous - only such as you they would be far in good shape than residing on a eating regimen of a hundred% processed nutrition it relatively is what kibble is.
2016-11-24 22:20:20 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a legitimate question to ask.
I'm not sure what the answer is.
It's been a long week. :(
2007-06-01 08:07:57 · answer #7 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We are at war with terror, not Iraq!
2007-06-01 08:12:44 · answer #8 · answered by go avs! 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Who are we feeding the refugees to?, do they taste grood?
2007-06-01 08:11:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, not stupid.
2007-06-01 08:06:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋