Search Results: letting her know i am interested

So considering i may have lost 1 or 2 friends here over this issue recently, i thought I'd ask the question here just out of curiosity. I follow the news (typically online) very often... and I've noticed that a lot of people are very anti-syrian, and I'm a little perplexed by this. I mean to me, it seems perfectly logical that when your country is being bombed, you would want to leave it and find a safer place to be until its all over. I've seen arguments ranging from "its not our problem" to "so many men should not be fleeing... they should stand and fight for their country"

To the first argument, my opinion is this: Beyond the obvious moral obligation, assisting in the situation may prevent the syrian crisis from becoming our problem in the future. If you know anything about how radical terrorist groups operate... the #1 way they gain new recruits is by pulling people out of these ravaged areas who have nothing left to loose. You kill a man's wife and kids, he becomes primed for mental infiltration. When people have nothing left to loose, they loose it... and that's the potential problem with just letting a bunch of syrians die in their country.

To the second argument, i find it interesting that this one comes most often from men... men who are by and large against the idea that society expects men to fight and die as soldiers the moment an armed conflict arises because we are seen as disposable. This is actually part of the reason why i don't align myself too closely with MRA and MGTOW groups, because I find that a lot of what they say is only valid as long as its convienient for them. These arguments about how men should have the choice to not fight and die are popular ones around here and elsewhere, up until the point that arguing in defence of men and their right to choose not to fight forces people to actually open their doors to men in need. That's an inconvienence, and inconvience that all too often unconvers peoples duplicit nature.

What is your view?