If Mid East countries wont accept muslim "refugees" why should we.

Most middle eastern countries are theocracies and only accept refugees of their own religious sects. Saudi Arabia, for example, will only accept Shia refugees, for the most part. They sometimes make exceptions for Sunni when pushed by the US or the UN, but will never under any circumstances accept Kurds.

 

Ehm ... but you know that Saudi Arabia is Sunni and hates and fights Shia rebels in Yemen, because backed by Iran which is a Shia country? So very unlikely what you write here...

 

Bush and Co. were planning to invade Iraq way before 9/11. Back in January of 01. 9/11 simply changed their plans cause they had to deal with the Taliban as well. It also gave them a chance to the attacks to boost support for invading Iraq, which they tried. They tried to claim that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 but it was made clear that they didn't. There wasn't even an al queda presence in Iraq until after we invaded.

 

I meant to say say Saudi arabia accepts only Sunni for the most part. Not shia. I was half asleep with I posted and messed it up. But they won't accept Kurds at all, just like Iraq won't. and they accept some Shia, but only when forced to by.

 

Well, just to be clear, I made no comment about our involvement in specific countries. What I stated is that our involvement in the past 15 years in many of the problem spots in the middle east is a direct result of what occurred on September 11th, 2001. Yes, the intelligence over Iraq's WMDs was flawed, but Saddam had used chemical weapons against Iran during their conflict, so was it completely unreasonable to believe that he might still have such weapons? And would our concern over such a possibility be amplified by someone using our own planes as guided missiles against us? It's easy to offer criticisms with the benefits of 20/20 hindsight...

 

You said that if not for 9/11 we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Bush was already planning to invade Iraq before 9/11. It was part of a deal his family made with Saudi Arabia, in exchange for getting exclusive oil rights for their oil companies. Bush Sr. tried to do it himself and failed, and Bush Jr. ran for president with the intent of invading Iraq from day 1.

 

Sorry, again wrong!
The issue of 9/11 was for the Bush administration a very disturbing issue for their form day 1 goal to invade Iraq. It speaks books when then FBI and CIA director got in late afternoon of 9/11 in dispute with people of Bush administration when these Bush morons tried to blame Saddam for 9/11 - source are the memories of the FBI and the CIA directors, as well other people!
9/11 has nothing, but really nothing to do with your involvement in the ME after 9/11, even the Bush administration tried to combine this with the BS slogan of "War against terror" in 2003 and Iraq ... a war which had to do with terror fighting so much like baseball has something to do with building a car!

Had Saddam chemical weapons and did he used them against Iran and the Iran supporting Kurdish rebels in Northern Iraq? A clear Yes, but combined with a fat "so what?" too! Did the USA care about the gas attacks on Iranian soldiers by Saddam? No, not at all, because there were "only these evil soldiers of the embassy attackers and Hezbollah supporters gassed", so only a shrug! And even when Saddam gassed a complete Kurdish village and killed thousands of civilians there, the US reaction was only shameful!
All this became only and very suddenly a topic in 1990 after Saddam invaded Kuwait and put of the nothing was Saddam suddenly blamed for these gas attacks in the past, because why? Suddenly it was possible that Saddam could make a gas attack on US and allied soldiers too in 1991!

Could it have been possible that Saddam would have left some poison gas in 2003? For sure, simply because some simple gasses like for example Chlorine were not forbidden due to be important in normal issues in production and life too. But by fact were all poison gas stores of him destroyed after 1991 and we all know that the complete issue was a total lie in all things for what Saddam was blamed for. Sure, he was a bloody bastard of dictator but there were and are many others too on this planet. His military was even for Kuwait no real threat anymore after 1991 and so what is left at least as reason to attack him? Nothing aside control over Iraqi oil!

So sorry to say, it was your President of 2003 = Bush Jr. who is responsible that you were and are so deeply involved in the ME now and having so much losses of US soldiers and also the US could be thanked for rising of ISIS too, because they rose in 2006 in Iraq and before 2003 did in Iraq neither Al Qaeda, nor ISIS exist!

 

the vast majority of Muslim refugees are not Jihadists.

please stop posting such bigoted comments.