[quote]treco wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What’s the purpose of this thread other than to bash me? It’s pathetically amusing.
Why did you deliberately remove the qualifier “often” from the post you partially quoted other than to peddle a narrative?
Google obsessed fraud? What am I purporting to be, exactly?
[/quote]
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I don’t think folks around these parts realize how lined with red tape the road from displaced person to resettled refugee is. First, the UNHCR or potential receiving state has to determine refugee status. This is spelled out by the 1951 Refugee Convention, which states that a refugee is a person that “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” This is no easy task. The backlogs for the UNHCR alone is close to a quarter of a million applications.
Refugees are then subject to more scrutiny and background checks that any other group admitted to the United States. That screening includes health checks, repeated biometric verification of identity, several layers of biographical and background screening, and in-person interviews. Multiple agencies are involved in the process, including the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Defense. And all of this happens before a refugee’s application for resettlement is ever approved or rejected and long before a refugee enters the United States. The process often takes three years. And that was before the recent legislation passed in the United States.
[/quote]
Nice to see you cut and paste Washington Post
or Task & Purpose
http://taskandpurpose.com/debates/should-the-us-deploy-ground-troops-into-direct-combat-with-isis/
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Many of President Obama’s critics believe the Islamic State will not be defeated without U.S. troops fighting on the ground (beyond special operations forces already conducting direct-action and train-and-equip missions). With the deployment of approximately 50 special operators to Syria, stepping up the U.S. ground presence in Iraq seems even more likely. But this would be a severe mistake. The current plan - which involves training, equipping, and otherwise supporting the Iraqi Security Forces in a way that is contingent on the political reforms necessary to resolve Iraq’s conflicts - is the right one, although there are certainly improvements to be made in terms of execution.
While sending troops to engage in combat operations against ISIL would boost efforts to roll back the group, the benefits would not be worth the costs. Deploying U.S. general purpose forces to Iraq (again) would be a boon to jihadist recruitment and remove key incentives currently pushing the Iraqis to sort out their internal political problems. It would also require a greater commitment than many like to admit. U.S. ground troops fighting ISIL requires more personnel and resources for headquarters, hospitals, helicopters, and a far bigger logistics tail.
Washington has run this experiment before. It did not work. Without capable and dedicated security forces that can fight the Islamic State and hold ground, Iraq has no future. The current course might take longer than we’d like, but will result in a more sustainable outcome. The United States must continue to help the Iraqis stand and fight, but beyond SOF conducting specific missions, we would be doing ourselves and Iraq a disservice by putting our troops back on the front line in Iraq. We should have learned by now that sending the troops in is far easier than getting them back out.[/quote]
Why come to a fitness site and jerk us off with your expert wisdom/insight into the most complex political questions in the world and then whine when you are called out for plagiarizing the analysis of others?
[/quote]
Yeah, that’s pretty fucked up, definitely plagiarism.
From wapo
[quote] wapo wrote:
Refugees are subject to more scrutiny and background checks that any other group admitted to the United States. That comes to us from a State Department spokesperson not authorized to speak on the record.
That screening includes health checks, repeated biometric verification of identity, several layers of biographical and background screening, and in-person interviews. Multiple agencies are involved in the process, including the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Defense. And all of this happens before a refugee’s application for resettlement is ever approved or rejected and long before a refugee enters the United States.[/quote]
Stupid fucking Bismark.