NationStates Jolt Archive


US and Britain not taking enough Iraqi refugees

Sel Appa
17-04-2007, 01:20
How can you start a war and not be expected to take all the refugees that were bound to come? Any country that was or is part of the coalition should have unlimited quotas for Iraqi refugees, especially the US and Britain.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_refugees)

GENEVA - The U.S., Britain and other EU countries must accept more Iraqi refugees to avert a humanitarian crisis in Middle Eastern countries overwhelmed by tens of thousands fleeing the violence each month, human rights groups warned Monday.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Norwegian Refugee Council singled out Britain as needing to do more.

In a joint appeal to the United States and the
European Union, it particularly asked British Prime Minister
Tony Blair to "take the lead in Europe by immediately announcing a program to resettle some of the Iraqi refugees currently living in the most difficult conditions."

In the letter, released on the eve of the first global meeting to address the Iraqi refugee crisis, the organizations indicated the United States had taken a step in the right direction by announcing it would accept up to 7,000 Iraqi refugees for resettlement, up from 202 in 2006.

"The U.K. has done nothing to allow Iraqi refugees displaced by the conflict the chance to resettle in the U.K. — including people who have shown great loyalty and service to the U.K. in
Iraq," they said.

In a separate statement, Amnesty called on Western countries to set up a resettlement program for Iraqis that goes "far beyond token numbers and should constitute a significant part of the solution to the current crisis."

Years of oppression under
Saddam Hussein followed by the violent aftermath of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion have driven some 2 million Iraqis from their homeland, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. Another 1.9 million have been displaced within Iraq.

Some 50,000 people flee Iraq each month, mostly to
Syria and Jordan, UNCHR said.

Amnesty urged those countries to make their needs clear at a two-day UNCHR conference on Iraqi refugees that opens Tuesday in Geneva.

More than 450 officials from 60 countries, along with Red Cross and other humanitarian workers are expected to attend the conference, the first global attempt to address the Iraqi refugee crisis.

"The Middle East is on the verge of a new humanitarian crisis unless the European Union, U.S. and other states take urgent and concrete measures to assist the more than 3 million people forcibly displaced by the conflict in Iraq," Amnesty said.

The London-based group called on Western governments to step up financial and technical aid to help Middle Eastern countries provide social services for the refugees.

Syria has taken in some 1.2 million Iraqis, and Jordan is hosting between 500,000 and 750,000, according to UNHCR. Egypt has 120,000 and Lebanon is home to at least 20,000 Iraqi refugees.

Jordan's government has recently tightened restrictions on entry and residency permits for Iraqis, effectively stripping many of their legal status.

In Syria, many Iraqis have been forced into exploitative jobs, the U.N said. The majority have relied on extended family and savings, but many of the recent refugees have no such support.

This should add more to Bush and Co.'s war crimes train.
The Kaza-Matadorians
17-04-2007, 01:35
How can you start a war and not be expected to take all the refugees that were bound to come? Any country that was or is part of the coalition should have unlimited quotas for Iraqi refugees, especially the US and Britain.

Because that's never been asked of a country before, maybe?

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_refugees)



This should add more to Bush and Co.'s war crimes train.

Since when is not accepting lots of refugees a war crime?
Arthais101
17-04-2007, 01:52
Since when is not accepting lots of refugees a war crime?

It's not so much the ACCEPTING of the refugees that's the problem as it is the MAKING of the refugees and THEN not giving them a place to live that is.
Corneliu
17-04-2007, 02:30
It's not so much the ACCEPTING of the refugees that's the problem as it is the MAKING of the refugees and THEN not giving them a place to live that is.

Still not a war crime. *shrugs*
Sumamba Buwhan
17-04-2007, 02:31
Still not a war crime. *shrugs*

pretty indefensible though.
Corneliu
17-04-2007, 02:33
pretty indefensible though.

A nation does not have to accept refugees from wars they started!

*points to World War 2 as well as the Israeli War of Independence as prime examples*
Sumamba Buwhan
17-04-2007, 02:35
A nation does not have to accept refugees from wars they started!

*points to World War 2 as well as the Israeli War of Independence as prime examples*

No they don't have to, I didn't say they did.
Luporum
17-04-2007, 02:37
Breaking news from Iraq. :(

Link (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/Luporum/warbs.jpg)
Corneliu
17-04-2007, 02:49
No they don't have to, I didn't say they did.

Indeed ya didn't. was pre-empting others :D
Hamilay
17-04-2007, 02:50
Wouldn't the Iraqis be not particularly keen to settle in the countries that screwed over their homeland?...
Sel Appa
17-04-2007, 03:02
A nation does not have to accept refugees from wars they started!

*points to World War 2 as well as the Israeli War of Independence as prime examples*

The Arabs should have taken their Palestinian crap after Israel won and all this 50 years of BS would never happen.
Zarakon
17-04-2007, 03:02
I blame Iraqis for not wanting to go to a country that's the reason they had to flee their homeland originally. They've got some nerve.

The Arabs should have taken their Palestinian crap after Israel won and all this 50 years of BS would never happen.

You know what else would've saved us some trouble? Winston Churchill not being such a dumbfuck and realizing that three distinct ethnic and religious groups that hate each other would not live together well in Iraq. Or if the UN had realized that people don't like having their land stolen. Might have helped just a smidgen.

Man, is smidgen a great word. Smidgen smidgen smidgen smiiiiiiidggggeeeeennn!!! It just takes a smidgen to poison a pigeon in the park!
Sel Appa
17-04-2007, 03:03
I blame Iraqis for not wanting to go to the country that's the reason they had to flee their homeland originally. They've got some nerve.

They are fleeing the country like lemmings off a cliff!
Corneliu
17-04-2007, 03:06
The Arabs should have taken their Palestinian crap after Israel won and all this 50 years of BS would never happen.

wanna bet?
Admiral Canaris
17-04-2007, 04:36
How can you start a war and not be expected to take all the refugees that were bound to come? Any country that was or is part of the coalition should have unlimited quotas for Iraqi refugees, especially the US and Britain.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_refugees)



This should add more to Bush and Co.'s war crimes train.
This is a US problem. Why should countries like Germany or France who opposed the war from the get go have to pay the price for American fuck ups? And isn't Japan part of the coalition of the spineless? And S-Korea? Why isn't Amnesty bitching about them? Oh, thats right. They don't tend to role over everytime some left wing organisation starts slinging crap their way.
Hoyteca
17-04-2007, 16:52
This is a US problem. Why should countries like Germany or France who opposed the war from the get go have to pay the price for American fuck ups? And isn't Japan part of the coalition of the spineless? And S-Korea? Why isn't Amnesty bitching about them? Oh, thats right. They don't tend to role over everytime some left wing organisation starts slinging crap their way.

Well, when you realize that South Korea is south of a dictatorship that's ran by a madman, you realize why South Korea might not be the best choice. As for Japan, find a map that has Japan. 125 million people live there. Japan isn't a very big place. Pretty crowded.
Khadgar
17-04-2007, 17:15
How can you start a war and not be expected to take all the refugees that were bound to come? Any country that was or is part of the coalition should have unlimited quotas for Iraqi refugees, especially the US and Britain.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_refugees)



This should add more to Bush and Co.'s war crimes train.

That would be monumentally stupid. Think of the security risks. You've invaded and occupied a nation, now you're going to let a whole swarm of the people who are now very pissed at you into your country?


Right.
Seathornia
17-04-2007, 19:37
Add Denmark to the title list please, kthx :p