O’Malley wants US to take in 65,000 Syrian refugees

[MisSkeptic]

It's obvious he's trying to score points with voters, but this could never work out in the real world. What we need to do is help Syria in their civil war. If not, expect a lot more chaos, death, and refugees escaping the war torn country.

[MisSkeptic]

@Adam T and DimpledChad I'll reply to both of your comments in this single post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I understand that, it's very difficult taking in more and more people when there's already many Americans having difficulty in living day-to-day lives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why I believe we shouldn't be destroying these countries and their respected governments. Yes, I know it's not a conspiracy many citizens dislike their governments and want change, but since war is inevitable in counties like Libya, Syria, Irap, etc. We need to make sure we can have governments in place so the people can do everything from defend themselves, make sure there's an economy and jobs, etc.

I feel sad for the innocent civilians who are caught in the middle of all the wars and battles between the multiple groups fighting it out. But as I mentioned before, it's challenging bring in multiple people into another country and expecting they would easily be taking care of. If they can become citizens, get jobs and what not, than I'm proud of them. But if they leach off government than I don't support that. 

[MisSkeptic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is essentially the same argument made by Bjorn Lomborg on Global Warming: "there are already more important environmental problems to deal" with and it fails for the same reason: there is no reason to believe that the money spent on taking in refuges would go to assisting those Americans already having difficulties.

Oh, snap! You just did not go there!

Money does not grow on trees. It has a value. It's impossible taking care of everyone if we can't provide them jobs, make sure the dollar is strong and so forth. It's not that I don't want to help them. It's just I don't want this to become a catastrophe where it's becomes more and more difficult helping people out.

That's why in my earlier posts I commented we need to either help these government survive or at least so that people can have a country where they can live free from the harshness of war. Regardless of our political affiliations, we have to realize the consequences of disposing not only of dictators and corrupted leaders, but disposing of their own governments; which in turn changes the future of their respect countries.

It seems at the moment the people have gotten a bad deal. And the only alternative they have is seeking aid in foreign countries. Which can have both positive and negative reactions down the line.

That's why I believe we need to stick it out and realize we're in the Middle East for the long run, we have to help them build back their countries or suffer humiliating defeats by the likes of the Islamic State; who are rapidly taking control of large territories.  

[MisSkeptic]

While I understand that, it's very difficult taking in more and more people when there's already many Americans having difficulty in living day-to-day lives.  

There's a `clear difference between not having a ton of luxury and waking up each day not knowing whether you'll survive this day or not. You understand that difference right?

Yes, I know the differences between the two.