2007 August 28 Tuesday
Why Few Iraqi Refugees In United States So Far
So far America has managed to dodge one particular big cost of the Iraq war: Iraqi muslim refugees.
BAGHDAD, Aug. 28 — Despite a stepped-up commitment from the United States to take in Iraqis who are in danger because they worked for the American government and military, very few are signing up to go, resettlement officials say.
The reason, Iraqis say, is that they are not allowed to apply in Iraq, requiring them to make a costly and uncertain journey to countries like Syria or Jordan, where they may be turned away by border officials already overwhelmed by fleeing Iraqis.
George W. Bush needs to stand up and demand that Iraqis stay in Iraq to help fight the terrorists and to help rebuild the Iraqi economy. We need those Iraqis in Iraq so they can volunteer for the Iraqi police, Iraqi Army, and the Iraqi Interior Ministry security forces. They need to be made to fight for freedom and democracy whether or not they favor freedom or democracy.
Bush wants us to believe good times are around the corner. If that is true then there's no need for the US to be burdened by a big Muslim refugee immigrant population from Iraq.
What I want to know: Why should we have US soldiers fighting and dying for the Iraqi people while we also let the Iraqis leave rather than stay and support the Iraqi government? We should oppose a large Iraqi refugee settlement into the United States. We should keep Muslims separated from the rest of the world. Islam is the problem. We should keep the problem out of our civilization.
"...They need to be made to fight for freedom and democracy whether or not they favor freedom or democracy..."
it's logic like this that makes spending $3 billion a week seem perfectly sensible.
"...We should keep Muslims separated from the rest of the world. Islam is the problem..."
but at least you are not a bigot...
"They need to be made to fight for freedom and democracy whether or not they favor freedom or democracy."
Possibly the stupidest comment ever made...no wonder they hate the US so?
As for "Why should we have US soldiers fighting and dying for the Iraqi people while we also let the Iraqis leave rather than stay and support the Iraqi government? " The iraqis have overwhelmingly said they want us to leave...so why don't we...because we haven't got the oil yet.
America invaded Iraq and kicked off a civil war that unleashed violence, murder and anarchy on the civilian population. And now we aren't letting Iraqis into the United States as refugees, even those who put their lives (and the lives of their families!) at risk by working for us. In short, we are abandoning the people who assisted us the most. These folks are bearing the brunt of Bush's abysmal, inept war planning (or more accurately, the lack thereof) and we have a moral obligation to help them.
What some call bigotry, others call the ability to learn from experience.
bigotry is bigotry, no matter how you choose to rationalize it.
I'm not certain that the way to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqis is to press them into service and refuse to allow them to leave the country.
Weren't we supposed to be setting up -Democracy-?
I guess these Iraqis have been brainwashed by the lying American MSM into believing that things are actually *bad* in Iraq or something. Why not organize a tour of the freshly-painted schools and hand out a few soccer balls? That should take care of such defeatism! Personally I blame the "Defeatocrats". If they had just supported the war on terror and kept their mouths shut, those millions of Iraqi refugees wouldn't have known anything was amiss and would never have fled their homes and livelihoods!
Bush II seems to love Vietnam analogies, so here's a good one. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson said he would not be sending American boys far away (to Vietnam) to do a job that Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves. It's probably the only thing that Johnson ever said with which I agreed. Of course, Johnson broke that pledge and sent hundreds of thousands of Americans to Vietnam, and the result was complete disaster. Fast forward to Iraq. Saddam Hussein ran a horrible regime, but that was a problem for the Iraqis (and possibly the Iranians, whom he attacked), not the Americans or British. Nevertheless, Bush II, Blair and their helpers have overthrown Saddam and given the Iraqis a constitution, free elections and a democratically elected government. But the Iraqis don't seem grateful. They very much prefer ethnic cleansing, tribal warfare and Islamic fundamentalism to building a Jeffersonian democracy. What a surprise! Who'da thunk it? One look around the region at the generally wretched state of all Arab governments and most Muslim governments might have offered some clue, but this obviously eluded our leaders. What were they thinking? If democracy is ever going to work in Iraq (which I doubt), then it's time for the Iraqis to begin making it work.
It is always interesting to see the effects of irrational fear.
It is just a shame when people try to translate that into policy.
Biffbolt: I can only assume your post is sarcastic and not serious, at least I sure hope so. The fact is after the way these people have risked their lives for the US military, because they believed in the cause, the least we can do is grant them refugee status and a chance at a decent, and free life. Lord knows that ain't happening in Iraq anytime soon.
You're way off on this one Randall. The Bush regime, and by extension the US, illegally invaded Iraq with such catastrophic consequences that over 2 million Iraqis have fled the country for their own safety. WHy should they stay and fight for the invaders objectives? Interesting to note that one small Swedish town (forget the name) has taken in more Iraqi refugees than the US has nationally. I think they're nuts and they'll reap the whirlwond in due course. But the US caused the problem, they should fix it.
I fully expect the globalist neocons and other warmongers - especially liberal hawks - to make the argument that the West must take in Iraqi collaborators. (This is already a big issue in Britain). The globalists hate sovereignty and love open borders. So they get their war in Iraq, and when it doesn't work out they at least get to import lots of Third Worlders. Those who oppose both foreign wars and the anti-white agenda of the globalists get screwed every way.
Ah. Both bigotry and ignorance on full display here.
Just for the record, Sufis are Muslim. I lived with several Turkish Sufis for a couple of years, and I'd rather spend a month hanging out with them than spend a fucking second dealing with the white trash fascist that writes this blog.
Well I don't agree that Bush can demand Iraqis do anything. I do think one of the problems in the modern world is the speed that good people can leave a country which causes the crazies to quickly become the majority, this process its not a good thing.
Muslims are bigots, especially as regard to women and gays, and jews, etc etc, so for you to be supporting them so much jay k, perhaps you are a bigot?
Why bother visiting or even commenting then? You are simply wasting your time.
I too would prefer that you and the Turkish Muslims be in Turkey. So I guess we have no problems. The best way for Muslims to avoid American bigots is to stay in their homelands or, for those who have already moved to the West, to go home.
If there are no rational arguments for colonizing hostiles here,
that might explain why we're given instead attempted smears:
Bigotry! and fakey moral appeals to what ethical principle?
Would it be loyalty to mercenaries, loyalty to foreigners
over citizens? What would be the meaning of seizing any dishonest
pretext to damage quality of population or increase the
aggressive parasitization on the net taxpayers of our citizenry;
you can spend the rest of your sorry, pathetic life hanging out with Turkish Sufis (all what, 1% of the Turkish population?) if you so please. Move to Turkey. Why deprive yourself by only spending a month? You won't be missed by anyone with half a brain in America. It'll be good riddance to you and your ilk.
Jay K. Elemenopee:
Wisdom is wisdom, despite your wishing to impugn it as "bigotry," (which is an irrational hatred or dislike for a group--and this is certainly not irrational) Those of us here at this blog still cherish wisdom, unlike you people from whatever pinhead shit-blog sewer you and your cohorts crawled out from to arrive here.
What Bush and Co. have done has destroyed Iraq. No question. It's something they should be ashamed of. But letting in millions of Iraqi refugees, most probably Sunnis who either attacked, or supported attacks on our troops is unacceptable. I will not allow OUR country to be destroyed because we "feel bad" for Iraqis. I have no tolerance for masochists. Partition the country and let them live among their own.
I commented here because your words of idiocy were reproduced in all their glory on Salon. Hey, I know its tough shit, but I am an American. I pay taxes, own a house, have a good job, but I, unlike most of the posters here am not afraid of other cultures. I befriend people regardless of where they come form - maybe you should try it some time, it might tone down your fascist tendencies. I'll stay in the U.S. but you might want to consider building a giant, barbed wire fence around your home because like it or not, the U.S. welcomes immigrants.
The Sufi guys were a lot of fun. They worked hard repairing Oriental rugs for a couple of years and then moved on to Brazil. They were fascinating to talk to and they were incredibly nice. Too bad you hate em.
When Salon's blog report links to me I can always count on some comments from people who look for opportunities to posture as morally superior. You haven't let me down. Also, I haven't let Salon down. I gave a few of its readers a badly needed way to assert higher status. That's a basic instinctional desire. You got fulfillment of it ever so briefly by reading me and responded by signalling to your tribe that you are morally superior to me. Feel good?
First off: My comment about Iraqis fighting for their freedom was sarcastic. If they felt strongly about freedom they'd rise up against the religious militias rather than force all the women inside and inside tent clothes. But they don't.
It is a tragic joke for us that our soldiers are in Iraq fighting for the freedom of people who believe in a vile religion that sees freedom as the enemy of their beliefs.
Randall, you're comments have managed to be even more idiotic and offensive than your original post. And when I first read that, I would have thought that impossible. Iraq was never a historically unified nation, every sane person agreed that Saddam's horrible brand of leadership was, sadly, what was holding the country together. Seperate nation-states (the Biden plan) is a much more viable solution.
As for the rest of your post, are you even aware of how logically and emotionally stunted it was? I feel sorry for the people who have to actually interact with you on a regular basis.
This is one of the stupidest blog post I have read in a long time. With people like you planning this war, no wonder it's such a fucking debacle.
Saudi Arabia has hung together in spite of the fact that their oil province has a Shia majority. Kuwait's rulers are not the same sect of Islam as its masses. Syria is ruled by a family from a small Muslim sect and yet the Syrian government is not even half as brutal as Saddam.
Your "every sane person" is mostly ignorant about the details of how Middle Eastern nations are the same or different from each other or from us. You are no exception.
As for partition of Iraq: I've been arguing for it for years. I think my first post in favor of partition was in November 2003. Then in May 2004 I argued for partition and summed up why democracy won't work there. I wrote several more posts for partition since then. But mostly I lost interest in it and just want to see US troops pull out.
I'm not planning this war. The people who are planning this war are very unlike me. I argued for Bush's electoral defeat in 2004 in part due to his handling of the Iraq war.
I befriend people regardless of where they come form - maybe you should try it some time, it might tone down your fascist tendencies.
Actually, forcing people of different ethnic backgrounds to live together creates ethnic tensions and undermines stability. Ethnic conflict is inseparable from multiculturalism, especially when there is no hegemonic group. Those who believe in multiculturalism are usually ignorant of the importance of ethnicity, race, and religion to identity. Instead the saccharine language they use when discussing diversity only highlights their own provincialism.
I'm American and I grew up conservative. Instead of just falling into ranks of most conservatives and just believing everything I was told by other conservatives, I decided to go out and explore the world myself. Since then I've traveled around quite a bit and I've met many Muslims, and I've befriended a couple. I still keep in contact with them- they come from Morocco and Indonesia and I still hope that I can visit them again. I've met other Muslims who come from Iran, Iraq and Turkey. They were all great people. Maybe their religious beliefs and their culture were a little different, but that doesn't automatically make them "bad". It's sad that some negative actions of a very small number of the 1,5+ billion Muslims in the world are enough to convince intelligent, educated Americans that all Muslims and Islam as a religion are evil.
I understand the frustration over extremists, but to think that we can cut all Muslim societies off from western societies? Come on. Although in theory it may sound like an easy solution, it would never work. With the acceleration of globalization, the world is becoming ever smaller. Trying to separate our societies won't work, especially since they make up about a fourth of the world's population. "Ignoring" Muslim societies will only put off the inevitable that our societies will have to learn to cooperate together. Hopefully this can be done without violence, but for some countries, that hope isn't looking too promising.
My point is, we'll have to make it work one way or another. Instead of promoting meaningless ideas that would never succeed, why not try something a little more practical? Now the big question- what options are there? Well, I'm not a professional analyst, but I do know a good place to begin is to not ignorantly assume that all Muslims are generally evil, and also to realize that although these different countries may have the same or similar religion, they have different cultures, customs and governments. I also suggest that the western societies learn from their past mistakes they made when dealing with the Islam world. Kishore Mahbubani lists several good points in this article:
Did you 'ball' any of those Sufi guys?
Two points of clarification, Randal:
"Saudi Arabia has hung together in spite of the fact that their oil province has a Shia majority."
The Saudi government controls that Shia majority by keeping them dependent on government welfare. They import cheap pakistani workers to keep wages extremely low and they restrict the Shia political activity to limited local self-arbitration. They also monitor them VERY closely for signs of contact with Iran.
"Kuwait's rulers are not the same sect of Islam as its masses."
Like Saudi Arabia, the masses in Kuwait are largely unemployed welfare recipients or they work for the state, both instances force them to be dependent on the Kuwaiti royal family.
"Syria is ruled by a family from a small Muslim sect and yet the Syrian government is not even half as brutal as Saddam."
They're Alawites...they're about as far from orthodox Islam as you can get and still be considered Muslim.
Not half as brutal? Remember Hama? Have you noticed the string of hundreds of Lebanese Nationalists that have been assassinated over the past two years? Maybe they're not quite as sadistic as Saddam, but they're frighteningly ruthless.
"With people like you planning this war, no wonder it's such a fucking debacle."
Hilarious! Who knew? Sirkowski, you are an idiot.
Iraq is more like Yugoslavia than Finland, Germany or Japan. Yugoslavia was created after WWI by combining several previously sovereign countries (Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro) which had wildly varying religious and ethnic makeups. It was held together by a strongman, Tito, under the communists. But after Tito died and communism went kaput, the country dissolved back into its original components. Demagogues like Milosevic inflamed the ethnic, nationalist and religious tensions that had been simmering under the surface (squelched by Tito's totalitarian rule) and used them to gain power -- kicking off the Balkan wars of the 1990s. The Dayton peace accords worked for the most part because the respective sides had fought themselves to exhaustion; the accords recognized ground truth in their partitioning of the old Yugoslavia. NATO stepped in to provide security and maintain peace and order. NATO is still there, too, and probably will be indefinitely.
Iraq was created after WWI by the British and combined areas with widely varying religious and ethnic makeups. Saddam Hussein's totalitarian rule kept the lid on the tensions between these groups. Removing him blew the lid off Iraq as the various factions are now fighting for power and control of oil in the power vacuum left by his overthrow. The US compounded the problem by not putting enough boots on the ground to keep order, de-Baathification of the civil service, demobilizing Iraq's army, and a host of other stupid, ideologically-driven mistakes -- mistakes which our leaders DID NOT MAKE in post-WWII Germany and Japan, or even the former Yugoslavia! Post WWII, the US allowed the Japanese to keep their God-Emperor as a symbolic figurehead, which was psychologically important to the citizenry and helped to make their transition to a peacetime government smoother. We purged the top Nazis and Japanese who were responsible for the war, but did not dissolve the ordinary civil service or the armies. We put in enough troops to maintain order and keep the situation from breaking down into anarchy.
Don't delude yourself into thinking that a western, European nation would not break down this way -- Germany was on the brink of it after WWI. It could also have degenerated into chaos after WWII if the Allies had mismanaged the occupation. Another big difference between the situation in post WWII-Europe and Iraq is the Cold War. Both the USA and USSR had a vested interest in keeping the countries in their respective spheres of influence stable, so both superpowers invested significant resources to keep order. The US worked to restore prosperity though programs like the Marshall plan and committed troops to protect our client states -- troops which are still there today, 16 years after the Berlin Wall fell. The USSR committed money and troops to its client states as well and moved to squelch popular uprisings in places like Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In Iraq, on the other hand, regional powers like Turkey and Saudi Arabia either haven't committed to stabilizing Iraq, or, in the case of Iran, actively benefit from a chaotic Iraq.
Basically, Iraq is screwed because our idiot president, his incompetent advisors, and his delusional and spineless enablers did not learn from the United States' 50 years of successfully occupying foreign countries.
Anyhow, I still don't see how allowing more Iraqi refugees into the US is going to be the disaster that you all imagine it to be. They helped us and we are leaving them out to spin in the wind. Every immigrant group that's already here has predicted doom when the next group arrives -- and guess what? Doom hasn't happened. My bet is that it isn't going to happen if we let the Iraqis in, either.
"and responded by signalling to your tribe that you are morally superior to me. Feel good?"
Well you DO set the bar pretty frigging low, don't ya? Hard _not_ to be morally superior to a fascist.
Ida and zt have met non-white and non-Christian people who are nice. Wow! I guess that means Third World immigration and the destruction it causes to the receiving nation must be good! These jokers come across like stereotypical American airheads. In that respect they are very much like the patriotards who think the Middle East can be remade in America's image.
Neil Clark wrote a good article in the Guardian a few weeks ago entitled Keep the quislings out about warblogger efforts to pressure the British government into providing refuge for Iraqi interpreters who worked for the British army in Iraq.
The problem for your country is not so much the dozens of interpreters who may wish to leave Iraq, once liberated from foreign occupation, but the countless other Iraqis who will take advantage of American fears of retributions to con you into accepting them as refugees. Given what a soft touch you are with Mexicans I think I know how it will turn out.
I was not the one making sweeping generalizations:
"We should keep Muslims separated from the rest of the world. Islam is the problem. We should keep the problem out of our civilization."
In my mind, people to generalize about an entire race or religion are just plain intellectually lazy. Islam IS part of OUR civilization, so your comment (much like yourself, most probably) is simply idiotic. Did you realize that Indonesia is the largest muslim country on the earth? Wanna keep them out too? Oh, right, they have dark skin too, so I guess you probably do.
I'm callin' ya what you are: A fascist.
I thought at first the blog post was a joke. The logic, certainly, is laughable. It follows as such:
1) We started a war to force democracy down your throats.
2) I would say sorry it sucks now if I was sorry, but I'm not because I know democracy is good for you
3) You should should stick around and fight the war we started, even if you don't believe in it.
4) And we have absolutely no responsibility to take care of your refugees because, hey, you're not Christians and I can't let you into my country. Even if you helped our forces (e.g. were translators) and are now at risk.
That's exactly the argument just made.
Where, exactly, do I begin in pointing out the wrong-headed logic here? Should I even ask how you would react is this was done to you by an outside force?
Nah, I won't bother. You would just say I am being airheaded or liberal or something. Whatever.
Ida thinks she's pointing out some obvious truth when she states:
In my mind, people to generalize about an entire race or religion are just plain intellectually lazy.
Show me a Muslim majority nation where individual rights of women are as strong any any Christian majority nation or Western former Christian nation. There is no such Muslim nation. We have dozens of Muslim nations to point to as examples and they all come up looking pretty poor.
Turkey became partially Western by having a secular officer corps that basically kept the Muslims down. That's about the best example on offer and Turkey is sliding back toward a less secular and less free society.
That you can find individuals who are far from the group average of their group is true of any group sufficiently large. But the average we can expect from having a large group of Muslims living in a Western society has been demonstrated as turning into something hostile to Western cultures and values. Britain has Muslims blowing up trains and buses and preaching in mosques to think of the Brits they live among as a hostile people who must be dominated and ruled by Islamic and Sharia law.
People who are oblivious to the incompatibility of Islam with Western values are intentionally ignorant. They've shut down their minds rather than acknowledge truth.
Liberals try to say they hold values that are the universals of all humanity (excepting evil Republican fascists of course). Their claim to universalism for their values is a way to pose as a vanguard for the march of history. They are up front more aware of what the truth is and in non-Western populations which are not liberal they see oppressed masses all yearning to be good liberals. This view is nonsense.
But if you abandon the pose of leaders of the universal liberal secular religion then you lose status in your own eyes. Hence the need to attack people who think the universalism of liberalism is all just a pose.
We didn't make the same "mistakes" in Germany and Japan? Are you a visitor from a parallel universe with an alternative history? Then I envy you. I've always wanted to travel to parallel universes where different moves were made by various governments.
In this universe we de-Nazified the German government. This was like de-Baathification in many respects. We also abolished the German and Japanese militaries. The United States did not decide to form a new West German Army until 1950.
The Germans suffered massive displacements during and for some years after the end of WWII.
The United States did not need large amounts of resources to maintain order in Japan and Germany after their defeat. The Germans and Japanese are far far more orderly people than the Iraqis. They have cultural and probably genetic qualities as well that make them easier to rule in an organized bureaucratic fashion. They did not have an international hostile religion egging them on into rebellion.
Granted, Condi Rice has said that the US faced guerrilla warfare in Germany after WWII ended. But Condi is also from a parallel universe with a different history. Either that or she's deluded or lying.
Let me put my position a few ways:
1) Why should US troops stay and fight assorted insurgencies if Iraqis think they don't need to stick around and fix their country?
2) If the Iraqis are not freedom lovers eager to fight for freedom in their county why should our freedom loving soldiers fight for some objective that few Iraqis want enough to fight for themselves?
3) The US presence itself motivates many Iraqis to plant bombs that cause other Iraqis to want to leave. So why not pull out the US presence and give Iraqis less reason to leave?
Actually most US occupation attempts in foreign countries have failed. See my post History Of American Interventions Bodes Poorly For Democracy. Also, As I've previously written about Haiti:
Writing for the United States Marine Corps Command and Staff College Peter Bunce wrote a report in 1995 about the 20 year US occupation of Haiti.
Thesis: The first United States Occupation of Haiti, after a slow start, made a great variety of capital improvements for Haiti, made changes in the Haitian political system, and refinanced the Haitian economy, none of which had much lasting impact on the Haiti people once the occupation was terminated.
Background: The United States occupied Haiti originally to restore public order in 1915. It's self-imposed mandate quickly expanded to reestablishing Haitian credit in the international credit system, establishing good government and public order, and promoting investment in Haitian agriculture and industry. After a slow start, marred by a brutal revolt in 1918-20, the United States Occupation of Haiti was reorganized and began to address many of the perceived shortcomings of Haitian society. Its international and internal debt was refinanced, substantial public works projects completed, a comprehensive hospital system established, a national constabulary (the Gendarmerie [later Garde] d'Haiti) officered and trained by Marines, and several peaceful transitions of national authority were accomplished under American tutelage. After new civil unrest in 1929, the United States came to an agreement to end the Occupation before its Treaty-mandated termination in 1936. Once the Americans departed in 1934, Haiti reverted to its former state of various groups competing for national power to enrich themselves. Almost all changes the American Occupation attempted to accomplish failed in Haiti because they did not take into consideration the Haitian political and social culture.
Recommendation: Before the United States intervenes in foreign countries, particularly in those where nation-building improvements are to be attempted, the political and social cultures of those countries must be taken into consideration.
Bill Clinton's later shorter occupation of Haiti was similarly naive and even more destined to fail due to its more limited scope.
Saddam Hussein was the only thing keeping the Iraqis from slitting each other's throats as most everybody knows by now. Why in Heaven's name Bushies and other Liberals want to import that insanity into the USA is beyond me.
The Iraqis have proven they are unfit for democracy and utterly incapable of living in peace with their next-door neighbors. They LIKE killing each other!
Bush screwed up big time with his moronic Kumbaya-Its-A-Small-World-After-All-We-Are-All-Democratists-On-This-Bus Liberalism, I am the first to admit that.
But having admitted that, Ida, why in God's name would you invite that savagery into your own country! If you want multiculturalism, clit-cutting, wife beating, rape, burqas and brutality, go live there! Or better yet, go to Sweden, Norway, or Finland where their rape rates are soaring because the angry young Muslim men aren't getting enough free snatch from the white "sluts" and "whores" (i,.e. any white girl not covered in a gunny sack from head to foot) who live there.
You see, they cannot stab their own women because they have to keep them pure and locked up so they can be bred like cattle to the cousin of the men's choosing. Yeah, Ida, let's invite a million of them into our country, why don't we!
Read the foreign papers Ida, and for God's sake WAKE UP! Hell there are little Finnish and Norwegian girls who are dyeing their blond hair dirty brown because it is the only way they can get Muslim men not to say obscene things to them on the street. You want that? Really? For your daughter? My God! With Liberal friends like you and George Bush who in Heaven's name needs any enemies at all!
The are so many Muslims in Canada now that Canadian Liberal academics are saying we have to be "sensitive" about female genital mutilation and "understand" the mothers who are cutting out their daughters' genitals. We have to "encourage" them to do the right thing (while they hack away at their daughters privates). We have to "make nice" with their culture. Even feminist academics have gone brain dead with multiculturalism.
They can try all the smears they want to the effect that anyone
who doesn't want this or that Islamic immigration , has to be
A, B or C insert your favorite smear terms.
It just underlines the abject failure to find a rational argument as to why
hostiles should be brought in to what is not yet the US of the World.
Loyalty is owed to the citizens, not to increase the aggression
on them through bringing cohorts of foreigners here; but no loyalty
is owed to the floating mercenary lowlife elements of the mideast.
These foreigners being Islamic means that they cannot be assumed to be loyal to America.
Let it be PROVEN that their immigration would be a net benefit to American citizens.
The burden of proof is on them who propose this momentous change,
which is actually worded so as to include millions of Iraqis,
who cannot be assumed to be likely to become net taxpayers.
There is no indication that there is any large number of Iraqis who are even vaguely
pro-American, much less loyal to America over Islam.
We are still waiting for a RATIONAL ARGUMENT as to why take such people in.
Poster zt shares with us how he, as a Conservative, has taken upon the chore of learning about Islam by getting to know a few muslims. He says:
"I'm American and I grew up conservative. Instead of just falling into ranks of most conservatives and just believing everything I was told by other conservatives, I decided to go out and explore the world myself. Since then I've traveled around quite a bit and I've met many Muslims, and I've befriended a couple. I still keep in contact with them- they come from Morocco and Indonesia and I still hope that I can visit them again. I've met other Muslims who come from Iran, Iraq and Turkey. They were all great people. "
and from this great expedition into the depths of the dar al Islam (House of Islam), he "... still don't see how allowing more Iraqi refugees into the US is going to be the disaster that you all imagine it to be."
So meeting a few muslims is the way to educate yourself on what Islam is, and is not.
I am conservative too, if that helps any. But my expedition took a different route into the world of books. "The Truth About Mohammed", "Infidel", and "The Sword of the Prophet" began my education. The study of Islam is not rocket science.
I'll bet our President learned about Islam about the same way you did zt. By meeting "friendly" muslims. All with warm smiles no doubt and invitations to visit the family back home.
And like you, he has refused to conduct the most elementary of tasks, so that he can learn HIMSELF by critical inquiry all about the ideology that is threatening the very existance of western civilization. He goes prancing about, entering a mosque, doffing his shoes, having female staff place veils on themselves, and pronouncing to the world, because he knows, you see, he has met many friendly muslims who have reminded him, that "Islam is a Religion of Peace", and that "everyone loves freedom". We are expected to believe this because he says so.
zt , you need to educate yourself a bit more so that the next time you meet up with one of your good muslim friends, you can ask him a few tough questions in an intelligent manner, in a way that shows you know something more than he would expect. Ask him his feelings about Sharia law, ask him about Armenian genocide, ask him about how many good jewish friends he has, ask him if he thinks Mohammed is the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil) or as it says in a Qur'anic verse (33:21), "uswa hasana" -- the Model of Conduct for all time. As Hugh Fitzgerald (JihadWatch.org) says:
"...it makes no sense to discuss Islam without discussing the figure of Muhammad. He dominates Islam. He is almost more important, in Muslim psychology, than Allah -- no, he is more important.
So what do Muslims believe he did? What do they think Muhammad, Model of Conduct and the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, did? Well, read the Sira, the biography of Muhammad. Read as well the biographies offered by such Western scholars as Arthur Jeffery, and Sir William Muir and Tor Andrae and even Maxine Rodinson. See what you think of the episode involving the mocking poetess Asma bint Marwan, or all the others assassinated at the instigation of Muhammad, or in order to carry out what was perceived as his desire. See what you think of the attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis. See what you think about Muhammad watching as the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza were decapitated one by one. See what you think of the women, the widows of men Muhammad's men had just killed, seized by him -- such as Saifullah. See what you think of the whole business of little Aisha."
If Mohammed were alive today, he would be correctly labeled a pedophile, a terrorist, a wife beater, and a misogynist. Would it be important to know what your good friends thought about Mohammed's conduct and whether these friends thought he was, uswa hasana, their own model of conduct?
There are many more questions to be asked but you will be unable to do so while you keep the belief that all you need to know about Islam and muslims is what you observe by meeting a few of them. Until you inform yourself well enough to ask tough questions and discuss Islam intelligently, and conclude for yourself whether your friends are a danger to our existence, your impression of muslims will continue to be formed by warm smiles and friendly gestures and your loyalty to conservatism won't mean diddly squat.