I know exactly what I'm talking about, we should be helping Assad. I've been following the Syrian crisis since the Civil War began. No, Assad isn't a saint, but having a secular Syria is much better for the world/Syrians than an Islamic Syria the American-supported "moderate rebels" were fighting for. I don't hate the U.S., I hate their biased foreign policy in the Middle East. Russia and Hamas got involved because Assad is their ally. And yes, other countries would care about America, seeing how the UK and Australia got involved in America's war in Iraq. Daesh is just one of many groups that have been causing atrocity after atrocity in the Middle East for YEARS, but everyone turned a blind eye because it didn't affect them. Clearly YOU are the one that doesn't know anything about what is happening, and are happy living in your bubble of ignorance. Continue to act like an expert even though you've proven that you only care now because they pose a threat to your safety

"Would any other country give a single s*** if something happened to America and it wasn't a direct threat to their own security?" It would be laughable if it weren't so pitiful!

If the public has a fear of them we should force the government officials who are responsible for the mess to house them

Of course people would have an issue with a small amount.

IDGAF what you think about Assad but any leader who would SARIN GAS HIS OWN F******* PEOPLE IS DISGUSTING AND SO FAR FROM A SAINT HE SHOULD BE PARADED IN THE STREETS BEING BEATEN AND MURDERED LIKE MOMAR KADAHFI AND YOUR BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THAT DISGUSTS ME.


He committed some of the most inhumane human rights violations in world history and you're over here bitching about how the US isn't taking in the refugees that are fleeing from this man. You are more than ignorant and I will no longer engage in a conversation with you. Goodbye.

I wonder what any of you complaining about these wonderful news would say if you had to live one day in Syria...

I bet Assad was celebrating when he heard about the Paris attacks.

Assad is a mass murderer, he's an evil the Syrian people have to fend off, same as ISIS and Taliban.

Except it's almost certain that the Turkish sold the Syrian rebels chemical weapons to entice America into getting involved. When they were used, the blame was put on Assad hence why the U.S. threatened to get involved. But then Assad agreed to give up whatever chemical weapons he did have in order to prevent this. A leader who is willing to negotiate with world leaders is much preferable over a rogue terrorist group claiming to be in charge. And yes, a lot of people will defend the belief that Assad was the one who used chemical weapons, but is it really far-fetched for the Turkish to sell chemical weapons to rebel factions when they're the ones pumping money into ISIS in exchange for gas? There is more to this story than we are being told. Read up, sis. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour...d-the-rat-line

And yes, I will bitch about refugees escaping from the horrors that are plaguing their home country. If the U.S. can accept 70K refugees into America in 2014 (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/jus...ees-fact-sheet), there is no doubt in my mind that we can take in more than just 10,000. I will continue to bitch until the West does more to help out a problem they played a hand in creating. In fact, several governments met with the UN today to discuss a ceasefire between the government and rebels, and for an election to be set up, which is a start. In case you were wondering, Assad won the last election held in 2014 (https://www.rt.com/news/163696-assad...esident-syria/). There's a reason why most of the "freedom fighters" in Syria are foreign jihadists.

I actually do agree with you on some points. I just am tired of the onus only being on the Western countries when its blatantly obvious the Middle Eastern powers are satisfied with the status quo. There is so many issues that need to be resolved somewhat simultaneously that will never get done unless there cooperation from all sides. And sadly I do not see that happening in the near future.

Even those Assad did back down, his negotiations were out of sheer desperation. I still am firmly in the belief that he is pure evil considering chlorine gas attacks on children were perpetrated by him even if the Sarin gas attacks cannot be directly attributed to his regime.

He condemned them with the rest of the world, and called for France to change it's policy in funding rebels to quell the rise in terrorism http://news.yahoo.com/syrias-assad-b...193922961.html

And I'm by no means saying Assad is the be all and end all. I'm well aware that he has done horrible things, but the one thing that he has that the other groups fighting in Syria don't have is that he ran a secular government. The other groups want to enforce a specific way of life onto the people, whereas Syria was a relatively safe place for everyone before the civil war started.

At the end of the day, I just want the refugees to have a safe place to live, without worrying about whether or not they'll live to see the next day. If my country can do anything to help the innocents, I want them to.

YES, because Roosevelt's strong leadership was why the United States stayed out of WWII until 1941 even after intel came back to him regarding the genocide of the Jewish people and he still did nothing. Yes, very strong. The success in WWII should only be attributed to the amazing leadership of the generals of the United States military. Please you're rudimental and extremely over generalization of WWII is laughable at best. Churchill, while slightly stronger still had numerous anterior motives in most of his policy decisions and after WWII quickly showed his failing reign as Prime Minister. Just because you happen to be in power during a crisis doesn't automatically make you a hero when you're side comes out on top.

There is a lot of corruption in the Middle East, I agree. The Saudi Arabian government is one of the most well-known corrupt governments in the world, yet the U.S. turns a blind eye since they are allies. The gulf countries haven't done anything to help those affected by the crisis, but this doesn't surprise me as they don't do anything to help the Palestinians either (except bitch about Israel). So much needs to be done to help these countries, but none of the western powers want to help unless there is a benefit that comes with it, which is so sad to me. But I guess that's just how the world works.

I think it would be best if they gave preference to families (man, woman children). I read that most refugees were young men looking for economic gain and I definitely don't support that kind of migration, but as long as they are people that actually need safety and they understand that they will be sent back when the conflict is over, I'm all for it. Honestly, America is so huge and the number they want to bring is so small, almost all of us won't even notice a difference.

They're pretty much all f****** if we're being honest. I'm staunchly libertarian and really do detest larger governments as they (along with religion sadly) are the root of pretty much every major problem the 21st century faces today.

The American public didn't want to go to war...Roosevelt through correspondence with Churchill wanted to help the British. Pearl Harbor was what got the American public on Roosevelt's side to join the war. If you don't have the public on your side, you really can't do much. Churchill never caved in, and his passion, and charisma helped the British people survive the Nazi air raids that was bombing London to smithereens.

Of course things are not black and white with politicians, but your characterizations of Roosevelt and Churchill being weak leaders is quite embarrassing. I, nor history agrees with you.

Roosevelt blatantly hid intel from the people. He never wanted to go to war in the first place. This was all information I learned in my AP US class in a few years ago and that is certainly not even skewed

History loves to wash over the atrocities of Roosevelt in order to paint a narrative that fits into the super liberal ideology. Believe what you want I guess.

I'm not liberal...but I'll give credit when credit is due. Roosevelt stepped up when history needed someone to. Obama could learn a thing or 2 about that.

Now was Roosevelt perfect, no...some intel suggests that he knew the Japanese was going to bomb Pearl Harbor, and did nothing to stop it as he knew he'd have an excuse to go to war. And don't get me started on his round up of Japanese/American citizens n' placing them into guarded settlements after Pearl Harbor.

Terrible decision.

I'm for it these people deserve to live in peace however the discrimination and hate that they may face here saddens me.

I was going to say "they will face here" instead of may because I still have a small shred of hope for Americans