hershel_layton said:
I used to believe the same thing for Syrian men- why can't they just fight?
After having a lengthy talk with one of my professors, he pointed out a good question- who would they fight for, and who would they fight against?
Syria is just a huge mess as of now. Fighting will simply add more oil to fire(i.e make it bigger than it is).
Personally, I have an idea: let the Syrian refugees stay in certain areas right next to the border(make sure they don't leave from here). once the Syrian crisis comes to an end, we send them back to help rebuild Syria. that way Europe won't suffer from leeching and we get to see some sort of progress in the middle east (unless some other country wants to fuck it up).
All in all, things are a mess. just wow. Pretty sad for the actual refugees who suffer from xenophobia and hatred due to the rotten apples |
A neutral zone would be good, but who pays the price? A collective fund from the members of NATO or the UN would be nice. Problem is, we all know those organizations are so loath lift a finger. Shoot the US isn't just the tip of the spear in all NATO operations peaceful or otherwise, we're usually the tip, head, and most of the shaft. And I suppose that's a major bug bear of mine: whenever the words "international effort" come along, the US seems to foot a very large chunk of the bill in either man power or money. We're big, but not big enough to just shoulder the world's problems. Which is partly our own fault, we've had a major hero complex ever since the 40s that I have always found troublesome.