TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Iraqi Volunteers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Iraqi Volunteers

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
I was just watching "60 Minutes" and there is a segment on the US Forces enlisting the help of Iraqi citizens by employing them in roles of translators, drivers, office workers etc.

Now apparently many of those who volunteered to help the US Forces have been marked for death and are being hunted down and threatened by Insurgents. These threats have extended to their families too. Some of the people have fled Iraq to go to Seria because they fear for their lives and their families lives, but they cannot work there and have no income.

The USA is spending about 40 million dollars to help the Iraq refugees in Seria, but it's not helping much because there are so many refugees. People who fled to Jordan are being turned away.

Apparently over 100,000 people volunteered to help the US Forces in such roles, but there are closer to 500,000 people now at risk because the death threats are extended to their families.

In 1974 under the leadership of President Ford, 131,000 Vietnamese refugees came to the USA when Saigon collapsed.

According to immigration records only 100 Iraqi citizens who helped the US Forces have been allowed to come to the USA to date. Apparently the Bush government is supposed to be expanding that to 7,000 in the near future, which according to those interviewed is not nearly enough. One woman (forgot her name) who was in charge of immigration back in 1974 said that unless things have changed a great deal where immigration is concerned, there is no reason why the US should not be allowing all of those 500,000 people into the USA.

When she heard that the Bush government is saying that 7,000 is all that the system can accommodate, she was nearly speachless.

Retired General Paul Eaton feels that the USA has let those people down and that the US should open their doors to those who helped the US and risked their lives doing so. He is questioning the morality of the Bush government and said that those who threw their lot in with the US deserve a chance to come to America, a country that they supported in their role, and not left behind to live a life of terror under threat of death.

I've seen many posts here and elsewhere from those in the US who are against immigrants coming to the USA and taking jobs and social services etc.

I'm interested in hearing what people think of this particular situation.
post #2 of 13
What we should do for the Iraq volunteers is the same thing we should have done with the people who helped us through Viet Nam. Put them on a plane and bring them over here. They've already passed out background checks, so I have no idea why the current administration is dragging their feet.
post #3 of 13
Thread Starter 
While I'm not a US Citizen, I absolutely agree because that's what I would expect of the Canadian Government.

By leaving these people hung out to dry as they have, they are sending a message that the US can't be trusted and without the help of local citizens of the countries that they go into, their jobs would be so much harder than they already are.
post #4 of 13
nothing New.
there are millions of Vietnamese that worked, helped etc, the US and others in Nam. BUt where sold out with Dem congress voted to decline all funding.they are just setting it up to do it all over again.

Been saying along,then that you cant hang these people, out. But you know, get out at costs. That is what people want.
post #5 of 13
This would open the door to radical Islamists / al Quaida / et al coming into the country disguised as immigrants. We can't tell friend from foe among the Iraqi population. Background checks mean nothing. This isn't the same as Vietnam. I don't think it's a very good idea.
post #6 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
This would open the door to radical Islamists / al Quaida / et al coming into the country disguised as immigrants. We can't tell friend from foe among the Iraqi population. Background checks mean nothing. This isn't the same as Vietnam. I don't think it's a very good idea.
No it wouldn't. These people have worked with the US military and have already passed background checks. We know what they are like and we know that they are not going to try to start a terrorist cell in the US.
post #7 of 13
Who do you think is doing much of the killing in Iraq? Members of the Iraqi police and army, who are loyal to al Sadr and other radical elements. People who meet the criteria you specify. And what of family members who would come along with them who haven't been checked out? It's too risky. We'd be putting our country at risk from two directions: radical Islamists who want to bring down America, and hosting the Sunni - Shiite conflict inside our own borders. It's a tenet of the Muslim faith that it's acceptable to deceive and lie to infidels (us). Background checks mean nothing. There's an old saying in the Middle East that I can't remember the exact words but basically says that you can't take anything at face value. We Americans are too trusting, idealistic, and yes, naive. This is very dangerous business. Ask the Europeans.
post #8 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Who do you think is doing much of the killing in Iraq? Members of the Iraqi police and army, who are loyal to al Sadr and other radical elements. People who meet the criteria you specify. And what of family members who would come along with them who haven't been checked out? It's too risky.
It sounds like you are misunderstanding this thread.

This thread is about the 100,000 private Iraq citizens who went to work with the US Armed Forces in Iraq in roles of translators, drivers and office workers to help the US with what they wanted to accomplish. These people supported what the USA was doing, not opposed to it.

The people being talked about in this thread are not "Iraqi police and army who are loyal to Sadr and other radical elements" running around killing people.

These people are the ones now being killed because they helped the US in their war.

These people who volunteered were checked out by the US government and were loyal to the USA providing them valuable help.

They pose no risk because they have already been checked out and have already worked with the US Forces and have proven themselves loyal.
post #9 of 13
Well then, I guess we'll just have to go with plan B. Turn an entire Iraqi city into a combination US Embassy/Garrison, move all those people into that area, and commit to leaving US troops in Iraq for as long as Iraq, or the US, is a country to protect them.
post #10 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post
They pose no risk because they have already been checked out and have already worked with the US Forces and have proven themselves loyal.
Like I said, in the Middle East, you can't take anything at face value. Because they've been checked out and have already worked with US Forces and "proven themselves loyal" means nothing. Their loyalties are twofold: first to their branch of Islam, and second to their tribe. Their loyalty either to Iraq or to the US is just a veneer and can easily hide deeper and stronger loyalties that we Americans don't understand. What do you think sleepers are anyway? Posing as loyal and deceptively gaining the trust of those they wish to attack and defeat.

I'm not saying they're all that way; of course not. I'm saying the risk is too great that there are some such that are going to get in if we implement a wholesale immigration for refugees policy. How about those doctors in Great Britain who attempted suicide attacks? Respected, educated professional men, who probably would easily have passed background checks.

I'm not misunderstanding this thread. My example of the police and military isn't exclusive; subversive elements are in place everywhere. Furthermore those who chose our side and signed up to work for us in good faith did so because they thought it was the right side to be on and looked to gain the rewards from our victory over Hussein and the Baath regime. I'm sure they knew there were risks. We don't owe them a free ticket to America and citizenship. What we do owe them is fixing what we wrecked in their country. But we don't need to put our country in jeopardy to do that.

When the next attack occurs -- I say when, not if -- just wait and see if it isn't perpetrated by some who have been living here peacefully as law-abiding, peaceful, and even trusted members of society. Remember you heard it here first.
post #11 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Well then, I guess we'll just have to go with plan B. Turn an entire Iraqi city into a combination US Embassy/Garrison, move all those people into that area, and commit to leaving US troops in Iraq for as long as Iraq, or the US, is a country to protect them.
I think they've already done that, Mike.....it's called the "Green Zone."
post #12 of 13
Hardly a garrison, but its as good a place as any to start building one.

I've always had a feeling that democracy in Iraq would end up being "Fort Democracy". Sure looks like thats where it's going to end up
post #13 of 13
You know about the new US Embassy in Iraq, don't you Mike? How the US is building the largest, most expensive, most heavily fortified and defensible embassy building in the world -- In Baghdad. (Bigger than any of Saddam's palaces.) So your description of "Fortress Democracy" in Iraq is right on. Could their intent be to be prepared to use Iraq as a staging area for future wars against other Middle Eastern countries?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Iraqi Volunteers