Irish families to take in Iraqi families

rustyzip

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/ireland-will-take-in-families-fleeing-catastrophe-in-iraq-30507455.html

Does anyone know who to contact re this link?
I know lots of people with empty homes as kids gone to college etc that would love to help.

DarkyHughes

Fair play to them, Kevin Myers will hate this.

walshb

I don't blame Myers if he does hate this. It's America and Britain's and the rest of the war mongers' mess. It's disgraceful that the west has caused this kind of misery and displacement of a people. Cost a fortune this.

Azwaldo55

walshb wrote: »

I don't blame Myers if he does hate this. It's America and Britain's and the rest of the war mongers' mess. It's disgraceful that the west has caused this kind of misery and displacement of a people. Cost a fortune this.

This mess was caused by Obama pulling out the troops which took the pressure off the jihadists who have now carved out an Islamic State.

FifaPlaya

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

This mess was caused by Obama pulling out the troops which took the pressure off the jihadists who have now carved out an Islamic State.

Actually all this was caused by the american army invading iraq in the eighties and killing over a million people and this destroyed iraq

wes

Good to see our government will be helping people effected by the conflict in Iraq.

Potatoeman

FifaPlaya wrote: »

Actually all this was caused by the american army invading iraq in the eighties and killing over a million people and this destroyed iraq

Iraq did invade Kuwait.

FifaPlaya

Potatoeman wrote: »

Iraq did invade Kuwait.

Yea and iran bcuz the american government told them to

Simi

FifaPlaya wrote: »

Yea and iran bcuz the american government told them to

That was a good episode of the x-files.

Potatoeman

FifaPlaya wrote: »

Yea and iran bcuz the american government told them to

They invaded Kuwait for money and oil. Saudai Arabia got nervous and asked for help and allowed American troops to setup a base there. So they were asked to intervene.

FifaPlaya

Potatoeman wrote: »

They invaded Kuwait for money and oil. Saudai Arabia got nervous and asked for help and allowed American troops to setup a base there. So they were asked to intervene.

Yea the american government wanted the oil and iraq already had tons of oil. This helped the oil prices going up which increased the revenue for oil companies and the saudi government took part in this

Azwaldo55

FifaPlaya wrote: »

Actually all this was caused by the american army invading iraq in the eighties and killing over a million people

You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980 and the resulting war lasted until 20 August 1988.

Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990 and an US led coalition of Western and Arab states ejected the Iraqis before the conflict came to an end in 28 February 1991.

Iraq had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear arms for many years prior to 1991 and UN inspectors were authorized to investigate and destroy them.

Saddam ignored repeated UN resolutions and in 2003 all the major world powers were convinced Saddam still possessed them but this could not be verified unless inspectors were admitted.

When Hans Blix and his team were finally let in under threat of force, Saddam and his regime continued to hold up and interfere in inspections. Hans Blix briefed the UN of this fact.

UN resolution 1441 authorize military force to be used if Iraq did not co-operate. Iraq did not co-operate but China and Russia and France opposed military force. The US ignored them and went ahead and overthrew Saddam.

The US introduced a constitution which was overwhelmingly accepted by Iraqi voters and introduced a democratic local government system, national parliament, Prime Minister and President all of whom have since been repeated elected by millions of Iraqis. Independent courts sentenced Saddam and his henchmen for crimes against humanity.

While US forces were pacifying Iraq they and the Iraqi security forces and also hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were attacked and killed by Islamist terrorists.

Bush warned that US military commitment in Iraq would last decades just as the US were committed to Japan and Germany post WW2 and oversaw their transition to democracy and freedom. He predicted that if troops were withdrawn too soon the country would be taken over by Islamic terrorists.

Obama riding a wave of cynicism and anti-war sentiment entered the White House promising a withdrawal from Iraq.

He withdrew the troops and since then Iraq has collapsed as Islamists have taken over just as Bush predicted.

This mess was created by Saddam who launched delusion wars of conquest and by Islamist who are determined to create an Islamic Caliphate and by the utterly irresponsible decision of Obama to wash his hands of the country and abandon the Iraqi people to terrorists.

FifaPlaya

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980 and the resulting war lasted until 20 August 1988.

Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990 and an US led coalition of Western and Arab states ejected the Iraqis before the conflict came to an end in 28 February 1991.

Iraq had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear arms for many years prior to 1991 and UN inspectors were authorized to investigate and destroy them.

Saddam ignored repeated UN resolutions and in 2003 all the major world powers were convinced Saddam still possessed them but this could not be verified unless inspectors were admitted.

When Hans Blix and his team were finally let in under threat of force, Saddam and his regime continued to hold up and interfere in inspections. Hans Blix briefed the UN of this fact.

UN resolution 1441 authorize military force to be used if Iraq did not co-operate. Iraq did not co-operate but China and Russia and France opposed military force. The US ignored them and went ahead and overthrew Saddam.

The US introduced a constitution which was overwhelmingly accepted by Iraqi voters and introduced a democratic local government system, national parliament, Prime Minister and President all of whom have since been repeated elected by millions of Iraqis. Independent courts sentenced Saddam and his henchmen for crimes against humanity.

While US forces were pacifying Iraq they and the Iraqi security forces and also hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were attacked and killed by Islamist terrorists.

Bush warned that US military commitment in Iraq would last decades just as the US were committed to Japan and Germany posed WW2 and oversaw their transition to democracy and freedom. He predicted that if troops were withdrawn too soon the country would be taken over by Islamic terrorists.

Obama riding a wave of cynicism and anti-war sentiment entered the White House promising a withdrawal from Iraq.

He withdrew the troops and since then Iraq has collapsed as Islamists have taken over just as Bush predicted.

This mess was created by Saddam and by Islamists and by the utterly irresponsible decision of Obama to wash his hands of the country and abandon the Iraqi people to terrorists.

Where you getting all this? From the media?

You clearly dont know how peaceful iraq was before the us army invaded. Did saddam hussein kill a million people? Guess not it was the us army.

The iraqi prime minister discriminated sunnis and kurds which led to this . Even the iraqi ayotollah told him to leave. You sir clearly dont know politics . Listening to the US biased media

I dont hate america but the corrupt government and media

Potatoeman

FifaPlaya wrote: »

Yea the american government wanted the oil and iraq already had tons of oil. This helped the oil prices going up which increased the revenue for oil companies and the saudi government took part in this

Americas concern was if he pushed into Saudai Arabia he would hold all the oil fields in the region and he could cause influence in the American market through this control.

FifaPlaya

Ill leave it here as i dont want lead this thread off topic and to avoid massive conflicts over opinions

FifaPlaya

Potatoeman wrote: »

Americas concern was if he pushed into Saudai Arabia he would hold all the oil fields in the region and he could cause influence in the American market through this control.

You see the oil companies have reps that influence the us government. Ill leave it here

Black Swan

MOD REMINDER:
The topic of this thread is: "Irish families to take in Iraqi families." Can we please get back on topic?

FifaPlaya

Black Swan wrote: »

MOD REMINDER:
The topic of this thread is: "Irish families to take in Iraqi families." Can we please get back on topic?

Thats what i said above so i left the debate

Azwaldo55

I doubt if any Irish people could care less about taking in Iraqi families.

100,000 Irish people marched in opposition to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein who was mass murdering the Iraqis because they were apparently fine with leaving Iraqis living under a sadistic regime.
They gave Obama a huge welcome in College Green so I presume they were happy with the troops being withdrawn and handing the Islamic terrorists a victory.
For the past few weeks ISIS have been butchering Iraqis by the thousands and not a peep out of the Irish people.
However when Israel is showered with rockets by Islamic terrorists a few thousand Irish turned out to tell the Israelis to stop defending themselves and let Hamas kill as many Jews as they like.

So I can't see the Irish people giving a curse about the Iraqis. If the economy picks up here and Iraqis start arriving here in droves they'll probably kick up about them taking all their jobs I suppose.

Nodin

wes wrote: »

Good to see our government will be helping people effected by the conflict in Iraq.

Indeed. Considering the numbers of refugees taken in over the Middle East, taking in a few here is hardly a major undertaking.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Harold Weiss

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

But you do Azwaldo55 despite omitting culpability of Israeli lobbies in US and EU that pushed for the invasion of Iraq and destabilization of the Middle East in general.

Israel won't be taking any Iraqi families, that's for sure.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Harold Weiss wrote: »

But you do Azwaldo55 despite omitting culpability of Israeli lobbies in US and EU that pushed for the invasion of Iraq and destabilization of the Middle East in general.

Israel won't be taking any Iraqi families, that's for sure.

What in the name of jaysus does that have to do with the story in the OP?

Harold Weiss

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

What in the name of jaysus does that have to do with the story in the OP?

Plenty to anyone familiar with the situation in the Middle East.

I suppose you think Iraqis want to leave their country?

sin_city

Has Saudi Arabia, Qatar or UAE taken any refugees?

I’m sure they’d settle better in a middle eastern Muslim country.

For assimilation purposes, I think it would be best to take in only Christians.

Some might call that racist or whatever, but ask yourself this….Do the Japanese or South Koreans ever take in any refugees?

I’d like to keep the amount of people coming in at a minimum.

Nodin

sin_city wrote: »

Has Saudi Arabia, Qatar or UAE taken any refugees?

I’m sure they’d settle better in a middle eastern Muslim country.

For assimilation purposes, I think it would be best to take in only Christians.

Some might call that racist or whatever, but ask yourself this….Do the Japanese or South Koreans ever take in any refugees?

I’d like to keep the amount of people coming in at a minimum.

Sectarianism.

What the Japanese or Koreans do is irrelevant to us. What Saudi and the gulf states do is irrelevant to us.

sin_city

Nodin wrote: »

Sectarianism.

What the Japanese or Koreans do is irrelevant to us. What Saudi and the gulf states do is irrelevant to us.

The Japanese and Koreans have made a decision not to take into too many non-Japanese or Koreans into their country.

Are they racist for doing so? They don’t have any issues regarding Islamic fundamentalism in those countries from what I know. Am I wrong?

Many people in Ireland would like that when the country is struggling with debt that the last thing we need is to bring in people who will initially at least be a drain on the welfare state.

If we’re going to take in refugees it would make sense that they have stuff in common with us.

If Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states take in a lot of refugees that are Muslim then there would be less pressure on other countries to do so.

The people in Iraq would be far better off going to a place that spoke the same language, had a similar culture and climate than not….do you disagree with this?

Of course decisions like this are relevant to not only Ireland but all countries. It is simple mathematics regarding the number of refugees.

If you’re going to say something at least give an argument to support it.

comongethappy

It can also be argued that expatriating Syrian/iraqi refugees just harms the country in the long term.

In Iraq, the Christian community are apparently above average in income, education & career prospects..
They are disproportionately represented in law, medicine & business.

The long term success of both nations depends on its best people staying & working to rebuild.

Moving large numbers of minorities, though well meaning I think weakens the country overall.

walshb

I wonder will they house them in houses that were taken from Irish people for not keeping up their mortgage payments?

comongethappy

walshb wrote: »

I wonder will they house them in houses that were taken from Irish people for not keeping up their mortgage payments?

No.... They will forcibly evict you & your family specifically.

Its all over the news!

Fratton Fred

sin_city wrote: »

The Japanese and Koreans have made a decision not to take into too many non-Japanese or Koreans into their country.

Are they racist for doing so? They don’t have any issues regarding Islamic fundamentalism in those countries from what I know. Am I wrong?

Many people in Ireland would like that when the country is struggling with debt that the last thing we need is to bring in people who will initially at least be a drain on the welfare state.

If we’re going to take in refugees it would make sense that they have stuff in common with us.

If Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states take in a lot of refugees that are Muslim then there would be less pressure on other countries to do so.

The people in Iraq would be far better off going to a place that spoke the same language, had a similar culture and climate than not….do you disagree with this?

Of course decisions like this are relevant to not only Ireland but all countries. It is simple mathematics regarding the number of refugees.

If you’re going to say something at least give an argument to support it.

Does Ireland have a problem with Muslim fundamentalists? I must have missed this.

Maybe it's my inability to speak Muslim, like they do in the middle east, that makes me oblivious to it all.

Fratton Fred

comongethappy wrote: »

No.... They will forcibly evict you & your family specifically.

Its all over the news!

At least mothercare will do well from this, what with all the extra asylum seekers leaving their state of the art buggies at bus stops, whilst they take their free bus to get their free healthcare and collect their free taxi plate.

walshb

Surely these people could be displaced to a country that is somewhat similar to their own country? Moving a people this far away from their homeland to a country that is so far removed from their own is madness. The move should be simply for shelter and safety. Do they need to come all the way here for that? The have been through a lot, this IMO only adds to the hardship.

323

Typical posturing by our government, anything to appear nice and likable abroad.

Don't agree with this, believe charity begins at home.

walshb

323 wrote: »

Typical posturing by our government, anything to appear nice and likable abroad.

Don't agree with this, believe charity begins at home.

More than charity begins at home it's probably not charity when you look deeper. Sounds like a great idea. Just like a lot of these do good ideas.

wes

Amazing to see that people are against even a limited number of refugees being taken in, and also amazing that some of the same people don't see to realize that the vast majority of refugees are actually being taken in by neighboring countries and have been for the last decade, due the various conflicts in Syria and Iraq.

Zillah

sin_city wrote: »

Has Saudi Arabia, Qatar or UAE taken any refugees?

I’m sure they’d settle better in a middle eastern Muslim country.

For assimilation purposes, I think it would be best to take in only Christians.

Some might call that racist or whatever, but ask yourself this….Do the Japanese or South Koreans ever take in any refugees?

I’d like to keep the amount of people coming in at a minimum.

If you ever...ever...find yourself using the expression "racist or whatever" in relation to your own opinion then you probably need to do some self reflection, fast.

walshb

wes wrote: »

Amazing to see that people are against even a limited number of refugees being taken in, and also amazing that some of the same people don't see to realize that the vast majority of refugees are actually being taken in by neighboring countries and have been for the last decade, due the various conflicts in Syria and Iraq.

Why take any? If it's not at all significant, couldn't they be kept with their people? Why ship them so far from home to a country so different form theirs? Just to say "we helped". Helped what? Gave them shelter and removed them from possible violence? I don't begrudge any human a chance to flourish, but sometimes we get it wrong. Not that it's that black and white here, but bringing Iraqis to Ireland for shelter seems OTT.

Nodin

sin_city wrote: »

The Japanese and Koreans have made a decision not to take into too many non-Japanese or Koreans into their country.

Are they racist for doing so?.

Essentially yes.

sin_city wrote: »

Many people in Ireland would like that when the country is struggling with debt that the last thing we need is to bring in people who will initially at least be a drain on the welfare state..

If Turkey and Albania can take in Syrian refugees, I'm sure we can take a few Iraqis.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

Indeed. Considering the numbers of refugees taken in over the Middle East, taking in a few here is hardly a major undertaking.

Nodin wrote: »

If Turkey and Albania can take in Syrian refugees, I'm sure we can take a few Iraqis.

I'm pretty well disposed to the Irish Government responding in this manner.

Similar programmes worked out well for Vietnamese and Bosnian people in the past,however,the key to a successful and meaningful response is that it is within the scope of our resources to organize and fund into the future.

It hinges on an agreed definition of what exact number constitutes "A Few".......;)

wes

walshb wrote: »

Why take any?

Its the right and decent thing to do.

walshb wrote: »

If it's not at all significant, couldn't they be kept with their people?

We are talking about refugees fleeing oppression. Yes, it would be better for them to be home, but unfortunately there lives would be in danger if they went back.

walshb wrote: »

Why ship them so far from home to a country so different form theirs?

So that they have a safe place to live, until such time as they can return home....

walshb wrote: »

Just to say "we helped". Helped what? Gave them shelter and removed them from possible violence? I don't begrudge any human a chance to flourish, but sometimes we get it wrong. Not that it's that black and white here, but bringing Iraqis to Ireland for shelter seems OTT.

How is helping out a small number of Iraqi's OTT? Surely, giving these people a safe place to live, until such time as its safe for them to return home is the right thing to do.

K-9

sin_city wrote: »

If we’re going to take in refugees it would make sense that they have stuff in common with us.

Like who? I'm struggling to think who would qualify.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

Like who? I'm struggling to think who would qualify.

Are there any Scottish Iraqis?

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

Are there any Scottish Iraqis?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/08/uk-pm-emergency-talks-over-foley-killing-201482013549620357.html

Judging by the West Midlands/Northern English accent on the black clad butcher,there is every likelyhood of there being more from our "homeplaces" involved in the regions upheavals.

carpejugulum

walshb wrote: »

I don't blame Myers if he does hate this. It's America and Britain's and the rest of the war mongers' mess. It's disgraceful that the west has caused this kind of misery and displacement of a people.

The West created fundamentalist Islam?

walshb wrote: »

Cost a fortune this.

Iphones for people on the dole here, beheadings for children in the third world!

syklops

I got into a taxi a few weeks ago, and got chatting to the driver. I asked where is he from and he said "Iraq, but I am Kurdish". When I was leaving the taxi he said to me "My friend, you are going drinking now?" and I said I am. He said "When you drink, drink to a free Kurdistan". So I said OK, and my toast for the rest of the night was "To a free Kurdistan".

That was us 100 years ago.

sin_city

K-9 wrote: »

Like who? I'm struggling to think who would qualify.

People who don't have a problem with people that drink alcohol would be a start.

Not much of a struggle really to think of that....

As for people like Nodin who thinks the Japanese are racist you have the arrogant opinion that what you want is more important that what many in Ireland do not want.

It makes far more sense for people to go to the Gulf states than Europe.

Nodin

sin_city wrote: »

..................

As for people like Nodin who thinks the Japanese are racist you have the arrogant opinion that what you want is more important that what many in Ireland do not want.

It makes far more sense for people to go to the Gulf states than Europe.

There is unfortunately a strong element of racism in Japanese society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_issues_in_Japan

sin_city

Thanks for the clarification.

Just for the record...you are calling a whole country racist?

Personally, I feel they have different values and want to preserve them.

China resisted western imperialism attempt just over 100 years ago.

Africa did not and the scramble for Africa took place.

Needless to say, Chinese culture is still in tact while now in parts of Africa, as what happened in Ireland the native languages are starting to lose relevance.

Slightly off tangent but I am merely showing that being conservative and non interventionist is not racist.

If the broke country that is Ireland is going to take in refugees who will add to the welfare bill, then it would be preferential that they are not part of a religion that is so anti alcohol considering Irish society.

It would be better for these people to go to places in the Gulf...such as Saudi Arabia....surely they can afford it more than us also?

Nodin

sin_city wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification.

Just for the record...you are calling a whole country racist?

Personally, I feel they have different values and want to preserve them.

China resisted western imperialism attempt just over 100 years ago.

Africa did not and the scramble for Africa took place.?

You seem to be factually incorrect there.

Why are you conflating asylum and imperialism?

Irish Stones

I might be a bit off-topic.
I don't know about Ireland, but over here in Italy we receive some 1,000 (one thousand) refugees from North Africa and Middle East every day, every single day.
Sometimes the refugees rescued are 2,000 a day.
They cost us a fortune (90 millions euro per month, partly funded by EU) and more than this they need assistance. They need houses, they need food, health care and instruction.
That money is taken away from other needs for our people. My sister lost her job, she's not receiving from the State the same level of sustain, she struggles to give her two children a decent life.
The migrants are kept here until a decision is made whether granting them asylum or sending them back. This decision can take up to 18 months to be made.
Meanwhile some of them flee from the centres where they are gathered and start living on whatever is easier.
News are full of illegal immigrants caught in bad situations, drug dealing, robberies, killings, rapings, and other kind of violent living. Some areas of the largest cities have been nearly taken over by people from countries with totally different cultures, and this gives some problems to the natives who sometimes are forced to leave their neighbours to make sure they have a safe life. One third of our inmates (22,000 over 58,000) in our state prisons are people from other countries.
It's not racism, it's facts.
Giving home to thousands of people from abroad, especially whole families with small children, requires planning and resources.
Taking them here without a clear vision of the next few years is just gambling. Gambling with citizens' lives. IMO.