fair share

Obviously not everyone is doing their fair share.  The wealthier gulf states have taken in no refugees since the Syrian conflict began.  Those states closest to Syria have taken in millions of people.  Many of these refugees have lived in tent cities and have been dependent of the host country as well as international relief efforts.

At some point, the “six Gulf countries — Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain must step up to the plate and offer assistance, relief and shelter to those who have been impacted by civil war and by the Islamic State thugs.

Hopefully, President Obama will speak very directly the Saudi King on this issue.  I would be taking him to McDonalds if I were Obama.

The United States has taken in 1500 Syrian refugees since their civil war began.  We could do far better!

20 Thoughts to “No everyone doing their fair share”

  1. Kelly_3406

    Much of the instability in the Middle East can be attributed to US actions. The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq has allowed ISIS to fester and grow. The U.S. supplied weapons to the rebels in Syria which includes elements of ISIS. The U.S. is on the brink of approving an nuclear treaty with Iran that risks the security of the Gulf states and Israel, and favors Iran as the dominant country in the region.

    I am not sure that Obama has a lot of clout with the Gulf states at the moment.

    1. I would say perhaps the US started it all with the pre-emptive strike on Iraq.

  2. Ed Myers

    If you consider that people had a choice, flee or fight, then the Muslims with inclinations for peace moved to Europe and the ones inclined to violent Jihad stayed in Syria.

    To be an economic force requires labor as much as raw material resources. If the middle east exports both it’s peaceful population as well as cheap raw materials (oil), the rest of the world gets a windfall. Some initial investment required to socialize those migrants to western value so the reward is 20 years away.

    Maybe if those with violent religious expression in their genes congregate in Syria and Iraq to fight and kill each other we can purge the notion that violence is the way to settle ethnic and religious differences from our gene pool. Darwinism in action? It worked in western Europe after several hundred years of war.

  3. Cargosquid

    By Ed’s logic, we should be over there wiping out the violent ones in job lots, for the betterment of the human race…….hmmmm….he might have something…… Hey, do we still have the Neutron Bomb?

  4. Ed Myers

    I’m not suggesting conquest or genocide. If anything, it encourages resolve and lengthens this process. I’m suggesting we welcome as many migrants as we can, let anyone who wants to go back to fight (never to return; no longer welcome) and wait patiently for a few generations.

    1. I don’t mind eliminating ISIS through force. (dropping a bomb on their respective asses.)

  5. Jackson Bills

    Isn’t President Obama’s foreign policy legacy awesome! Way to go Mr. President and Madam Secretary.

    1. Speaking of crack, what are you smoking and how does your statement relate to the post?

  6. blue

    In a quote posted to Twitter by Khamenei’s official account, Khamenei addresses Israel, saying, “You will not see next 25 years,” and adds that the Jewish state will be hounded until it is destroyed.

    The quote comes against a backdrop of a photograph showing the Iranian leader walking on an Israeli flag painted on a sidewalk. This is not just Obams’s legacy, but every democrat who voted for or otherwise supported the vote for the deal. ISIS is just the tip of the spear.

    1. Want to explain how taking in refugees relates to the Israeli flag? I don’t recall chastising Israel for not taking in any refugees.

      I find it interesting that both you and Jackson want to blame Obama for the sun rising this morning. It really gets old and rather stupid sounding to give him credit for being that omnipotent.

  7. blue

    So are you you’re saying that Chamberlin was in no way responsible for the growth of Hitler’s power either. Most historians would disagree. I quess you would also argue that this whole refugee problem has nothing to do with Syria and Obama’s failure to enforce that red line – or Obama’s withdrawl from Iraq either. IF you really beleive that, I have a bridge I am interested in selling.

    1. I am not going to go on an Obama bashing trip with you. Take it elsewhere.

      As for Chamberlin, for the most part, he was a scapegoat. Do you really think anything he said or did would have mattered one way or the other? Tell me what he would have done about Hitler.

    2. One more thing, don’t even sit there and start on Obama while ignoring the harm done by the Bush administration in the middle east. Our actions destabilized the entire region. After we finish with THAT discussion, then I might consider a discussion on a few things Obama could have done differently. Obama’s influence is dwarfed by Bush policy and the unleashing of shock and awe, Halliburton, and the general chaos we caused in the middle east.

  8. Cargosquid

    Obama hasn’t done anything.

    That is the problem.

    Iraq was stable when Bush left office and the troops left on Bush’s timetable.

    Obama even took credit for it.

    THIS is a different problem.
    And he doesn’t want to do anything, but doesn’t seem to have the courage of his convictions to leave it the hell alone. He had to get rid of Assad. He had to supply arms to the “rebels.” This is ALL HIS.

    So, we lackadaisically “attack” ISIS. He’s just waiting out his term.

    1. Actually there are air strikes daily. Obama is smart enough to keep ground troops out of Iraq.

      As for Iraq being stable when Bush left office, Bullshit. Iraq hasn’t been stable since we invaded it.

  9. Cargosquid

    It’s funny how westerners are considered racist if they point out the security threat that the Syrians pose, especially since so many seem to be single, military aged men.

    But when the Kuwaitis state this….. its just common sense.

    ** The wealthiest Gulf nations argue that accepting large numbers of Syrian refugees is a serious threat to the safety of its citizens because terrorists could hide themselves among civilians.

    A Kuwaiti politician appeared on Middle East television and explained why the Gulf States won’t accept Syrian refugees-
    — They come from different cultures and won’t assimilate.

    1. Oh boo effen hoo. You would think they would take care of other Muslims. This is very typical. Screw the wealthiest gulf nations.

      They are just slinging BS, as usual. As we look at Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, etc….where are there terrorists?

  10. Cargosquid


    “Muslim Countries refuse to take a single Syrian refugee, cite risk of exposure to terrorism.” You can’t make this stuff up. If commentators in the West expresses such legitimate fears, they are racist-islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigots.

    “Refugees welcomed by the world’s wealthiest Muslim countries: Saudi: 0, Kuwait: 0, Qatar: 0, Emirates: 0, Bahrain: 0.” And why is nothing expected of Muslim countries? The soft bigotry of low expectations.

    LIke Geller, I think that this is being used as a form of colonization.

  11. Cargosquid


    I agree with you. My point is that why is it that when conservatives say the exact same things about security…..we are lambasted. They obviously know something we ignore.

Comments are closed.