WHAT’S the DIFFERENCE?

Aneeda72

Aneeda72

Well-known Member
What’s the difference between accepting thousands of people from Afghanistan and/or accepting thousands of people from countries south of our border including Mexico?

What the difference in not testing, either group for Covid-19, before allowing entry?

What’s the difference between refusing to get vaccinated during a pandemic and refusing to evacuate during a major class four hurricane?

What’s the difference between not wearing a mask in a crowd trying to board an airplane to evacuate a country and not wearing a mask on a crowded beach?

What’s the difference between throwing a baby over a fence in Afghanistan and an unaccompanied minor getting through the fence on the US/MEXICAN border?

What’s the difference?
The what’s the difference discussion. Opinions welcome.
 

These are all very big questions Aneeda, all are
controversial, some people will agree with each
or some of the actions, while others will disagree,
in the end you will have a 50/50 split in the response
and no definite answer.

Mike.
 
Excellent thread, very interested in responses.
We have enough vaccines to inoculate refugees as they get off plane.

To stop Covid-19, All peoples (not only citizens) have to have vaccine; the problem with those from South of our border
has been a problem since the pandemic began.

We do not have the personnel to deal with EVERYONE-solution?
 

Mike said:
These are all very big questions Aneeda, all are
controversial, some people will agree with each
or some of the actions, while others will disagree,
in the end you will have a 50/50 split in the response
and no definite answer.

Mike.
Click to expand...
...and potentially a lot of political replies....
emoji-no.gif
 
Non political response

What’s the difference between accepting thousands of people from Afghanistan and/or accepting thousands of people from countries south of our border including Mexico?

from Afghanistan they are refugees.
The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act

Illegals from South of the border. They are entering illegally


What the difference in not testing, either group for Covid-19, before allowing entry?

Afghanistan refugees.
Afghan refugees tested for COVID-19, offered vaccines upon U.S. arrival, officials say
https://www.koat.com/article/afghan...cines-upon-us-arrival-officials-say/37420078#

plus up to 8 months of free health care.

South of the border illegals not transported into America.

What’s the difference between refusing to get vaccinated during a pandemic and refusing to evacuate during a major class four hurricane?

The potential of death or physical harm exists. Nothing is 100% certain so it's a choice.

What’s the difference between not wearing a mask in a crowd trying to board an airplane to evacuate a country and not wearing a mask on a crowded beach?

As I understand it those de boarding the plane are being screened reducing the risk of spreading the virus. Then offered vaccination.

Those on the beach risk getting or giving the virus to others.

What’s the difference between throwing a baby over a fence in Afghanistan and an unaccompanied minor getting through the fence on the US/MEXICAN border?

Nothing. Both want a better life for their child/children
 
Here goes.

IMO we put the Afghans in harms way and owe them some immediate help.

There should be no difference in testing if we have the people in our control.

Refusing to evacuate doesn’t present an immediate risk to others. Both situations may put first responders in harms way.

If masks are available they should be worn but in an emergency the priority should be rescuing the people.

Helping the children in both situations should be a priority.

I guess my question is what’s the purpose of this thread?
 
One of the points of thread is your statement:

IMO we put the Afghans in harms way and owe them some immediate help

We have a moral obligation-YES-?
(Our parent's could have answered that question, today it is all so complicated.)
 
jerry old said:
One of the points of thread is your statement:

IMO we put the Afghans in harms way and owe them some immediate help

We have a moral obligation-YES-?
(Our parent's could have answered that question, today it is all so complicated.)
Click to expand...
I agree it’s complicated.

My preference would be for the United States to tie up all of our loose ends and obligations then start minding our own business.

That doesn’t mean not providing assistance but IMO we should not be expected to take the lead and bear the cost of every world crisis.
 
Aunt Bea said:
I agree it’s complicated.

My preference would be for the United States to tie up all of our loose ends and obligations then start minding our own business.

That doesn’t mean not providing assistance but IMO we should not be expected to take the lead and bear the cost of every world crisis.
Click to expand...
Problem is, you took over our mantel of running the world, to late in the day. In times, right up to WW1, if the natives got restless, we shot them, then blamed the atrocity on their naivety or their dogma or non Christian religion. But your country, once found that money and armaments, could win a war in the Korean Peninsular, thought that it would be a walk over elsewhere. You would have thought that lessons were learned in Vietnam.
 
horseless carriage said:
Problem is, you took over our mantel of running the world, to late in the day. In times, right up to WW1, if the natives got restless, we shot them, then blamed the atrocity on their naivety or their dogma or non Christian religion. But your country, once found that money and armaments, could win a war in the Korean Peninsular, thought that it would be a walk over elsewhere. You would have thought that lessons were learned in Vietnam.
Click to expand...
I suppose that we are just slow learners.

With the technology available today we should be able to defend ourselves while sitting at a computer terminal at home in our underwear.
 
jerry old said:
Excellent thread, very interested in responses.
We have enough vaccines to inoculate refugees as they get off plane.

To stop Covid-19, All peoples (not only citizens) have to have vaccine; the problem with those from South of our border
has been a problem since the pandemic began.

We do not have the personnel to deal with EVERYONE-solution?
Click to expand...
What if the refugees refuse the vaccine? Do we make it a condition of their staying here? Or are they free to choose like most people in this country? If they refuse, where do we send them?
 
Mike said:
These are all very big questions Aneeda, all are
controversial, some people will agree with each
or some of the actions, while others will disagree,
in the end you will have a 50/50 split in the response
and no definite answer.

Mike.
Click to expand...
Everything we write is controversial 😂. I wanted to open a discussion on these matters.
 
Knight said:
Non political response

What’s the difference between accepting thousands of people from Afghanistan and/or accepting thousands of people from countries south of our border including Mexico?

from Afghanistan they are refugees.
The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act

Illegals from South of the border. They are entering illegally


What the difference in not testing, either group for Covid-19, before allowing entry?

Afghanistan refugees.
Afghan refugees tested for COVID-19, offered vaccines upon U.S. arrival, officials say
https://www.koat.com/article/afghan...cines-upon-us-arrival-officials-say/37420078#

plus up to 8 months of free health care.

South of the border illegals not transported into America.

What’s the difference between refusing to get vaccinated during a pandemic and refusing to evacuate during a major class four hurricane?

The potential of death or physical harm exists. Nothing is 100% certain so it's a choice.

What’s the difference between not wearing a mask in a crowd trying to board an airplane to evacuate a country and not wearing a mask on a crowded beach?

As I understand it those de boarding the plane are being screened reducing the risk of spreading the virus. Then offered vaccination.

Those on the beach risk getting or giving the virus to others.

What’s the difference between throwing a baby over a fence in Afghanistan and an unaccompanied minor getting through the fence on the US/MEXICAN border?

Nothing. Both want a better life for their child/children
Click to expand...
Great response and non political! Thanks @Knight
 
Aunt Bea said:
Here goes.

IMO we put the Afghans in harms way and owe them some immediate help.

There should be no difference in testing if we have the people in our control.

Refusing to evacuate doesn’t present an immediate risk to others. Both situations may put first responders in harms way.

If masks are available they should be worn but in an emergency the priority should be rescuing the people.

Helping the children in both situations should be a priority.

I guess my question is what’s the purpose of this thread?
Click to expand...
I wanted to open a discussion that points out people in need are people in need. Call them what you will they still seek asylum in the USA.
 
jerry old said:
One of the points of thread is your statement:

IMO we put the Afghans in harms way and owe them some immediate help

We have a moral obligation-YES-?
(Our parent's could have answered that question, today it is all so complicated.)
Click to expand...
Did the USA put them in harms way or, by their own beliefs, were they already in harms way? It would be hard to answer this while staying non political so perhaps you can’t.
 
Aunt Bea said:
I agree it’s complicated.

My preference would be for the United States to tie up all of our loose ends and obligations then start minding our own business.

That doesn’t mean not providing assistance but IMO we should not be expected to take the lead and bear the cost of every world crisis.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. We need to mind our own country and stay out of the countries of others. We cannot afford to do this any longer. It is NOT a political decision, it’s a financial decision. we have hungry homeless people in this country who could use 8 months free medical care.

We have roads and bridges that need rebuilding. It is ME time-meaning USA time.
 
Aneeda72 said:
I wanted to open a discussion that points out people in need are people in need. Call them what you will they still seek asylum in the USA.
Click to expand...
The thing that amazes me is that some of these countries have existed since the dawn of time and they still exist in such constant turmoil and poverty.

How did the United States manage to get where it is in less than 250 years.

My fear is that we won’t be able to maintain our quality of life for the next 250 years if we try to be all things to all people around the world.

I wish I had the answers.
 
Aneeda72 said:
Did the USA put them in harms way or, by their own beliefs, were they already in harms way? It would be hard to answer this while staying non political so perhaps you can’t.
Click to expand...
IMO we put them in harms way when we started paying them and continued paying them for two decades to assist us in our mission.

They put themselves in harms way when they dropped their weapons and walked away.

The whole situation is very sad but the blame has to be with us for financing it and keeping it going for twenty years.
 
Aunt Bea said:
I agree it’s complicated.

My preference would be for the United States to tie up all of our loose ends and obligations then start minding our own business.

That doesn’t mean not providing assistance but IMO we should not be expected to take the lead and bear the cost of every world crisis.
Click to expand...
In the World's game of power, a nation either can take a leading role, or be forced to accept the leadership other nations have assumed.

The U.S., China and Russia compete for influence in the World. Influence equals control, control insures a greater share of commerce.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top