IMMIGRATION thread

[Husar]

For example because some people in that country did not have the foresight to prevent these people from getting into power.

Who in that country do you expect to show such foresight? The 95% who have neither running water nor an education?

Huh?

Western companies and sometimes even NGOs contribute to the problems in these countries significantly.
There are oil companies but also diamond and other raw material companies which help enricht the elite and do not mind that none of the profits go to the poor. This does not help since the elites can hire more guards and soldiers with that money to keep the poor in their place. Then you have cheap food imports from Europe and the US which ruin the local farmers since they cannot compete. If they want to buy the technology that would allow them to compete, they have to take up huge loans that put them into financial trouble for decades for a lot of reasons. Then you have european fishing boats fishing away all the fish in front of the african coasts, putting the fishermen out of work as well. And it does not stop there. In the end it comes down to you just saying that it is their fault for not developing the technologies to compete in time. But if you say that you might as well go full darwinism and advocate that we sink all the boats we can find.

I was talking about the state.

If you had read the article, you might have known that France gets to choose who is the state there and that the money was already in France by the time they became "independent".
And even if they could, it's like saying Greece could also just stop paying its debt and everything will be fine and the sun will shine.

No one said all foreigners should be expelled. Look to Cuba and Venezuela for more successful examples of countries who are in opposition to the "imperialists".

Oh yes, Venezuela, super successful: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30710014
And Cuba never had any refugees flee to richer countries...

Nope, I showed how these problems of external origin can be fixed or weakened. The fact that they are not is because the country's leadership is incompetent; they either can't or don't handle the problems they should be handling, and are more interested in enriching themselves and their families. They aren't failing because they face foreign demons that are too strong, but because they are hardly trying at all.

So what you want to see is european-backed governments with european-supplied weapons slaughter a bunch of half-starved grandfathers and women because they try to overthrow the government? Or are you perhaps rooting for the rebels who killed their sons and daughters in front of their grandchildren whom they then recruited as child soldiers at age 5 to continue their mostly futile resistance to the government? Who of these is not trying hard enough in your opinion?

I don't blame them, but it is their country and their mess, and therefore it makes sense that they should attempt to fix it, per common sense. It is their countrymen that are killing each other and taking bribes, not French raid parties pillaging and burning villages.

You know, if I hire a martial arts expert to pin you to the ground, then come and tell you that I want to enslave you and you say it's not fair, I can also reply: "Look, I don't blame you, but it's your life, and the mess you are in, it is only common sense that you have to beat this martial arts expert, not my problem. I just paid this guy to take care of MY needs."
You see, it's easy to say that when he has already pinned you to the ground and you are completely helpless.

It's straight forward logic, and why you don't get the message is beyond me. Methinks you are reading things into my posts that are not there.

It sounds like the ramblings of an armchair general who has no idea of the realities on the battlefield. Would you be ready to die (yes, permanently, no reload) tomorrow if your government decided to make a turn for the worse?

[Viking]

Who in that country do you expect to show such foresight? The 95% who have neither running water nor an education?

For example. People uniting in great numbers could become an unstoppable force. Not just for purely political reasons, but also to co-operate over harvest, trade etc. You don't need education to come up with this, basic logic and imagination will suffice.

Sometimes, it might be physically hard because there are large distances involved, farms and other types of work that cannot be abandoned, and so on. Other times, it's easier - like for city populations where smaller distances are involved. Cf. Cairo in 2011.

It's even easier for people with power; like wealthy people, or people in the military. But such people often don't care as long as their positions aren't threatened, or they have much to gain from it.

In the end it comes down to you just saying that it is their fault for not developing the technologies to compete in time. But if you say that you might as well go full darwinism and advocate that we sink all the boats we can find.

You don't need modern technology to have a functioning country in the first place. If poor countries co-operated and invested in technology and education, they could become relatively self-sufficient. Many poor countries have mineral resources etc. that many rich countries can only dream of.

If you had read the article, you might have known that France gets to choose who is the state there and that the money was already in France by the time they became "independent".

That makes no sense. Revenues for the state are generated continuously, and people with the military behind them decides who are in charge, unless France would dear to go for a full-scale invasion, which could still be won, either directly on indirectly. But it sounds like an unlikely scenario, anyway.

And even if they could, it's like saying Greece could also just stop paying its debt and everything will be fine and the sun will shine.

Greece has very high living standards compared to the countries we are talking about here, and through things like these more dependent on good international relations. A country where a majority of the population cannot even afford a TV has much less of a reason to maintain good international relations. What are they going to lose out on? Even more loans? Access to Spanish beach resorts?

Oh yes, Venezuela, super successful: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30710014
And Cuba never had any refugees flee to richer countries...

So you are saying that Cuba and Venezuela are no better places than the average poor African country?

So what you want to see is european-backed governments with european-supplied weapons slaughter a bunch of half-starved grandfathers and women because they try to overthrow the government? Or are you perhaps rooting for the rebels who killed their sons and daughters in front of their grandchildren whom they then recruited as child soldiers at age 5 to continue their mostly futile resistance to the government? Who of these is not trying hard enough in your opinion?

Huh? I was saying that governments in Africa weren't trying hard enough to neutralise negative foreign sources in case they still exists.

You know, if I hire a martial arts expert to pin you to the ground, then come and tell you that I want to enslave you and you say it's not fair, I can also reply: "Look, I don't blame you, but it's your life, and the mess you are in, it is only common sense that you have to beat this martial arts expert, not my problem. I just paid this guy to take care of MY needs."
You see, it's easy to say that when he has already pinned you to the ground and you are completely helpless.

A supposed analogy for what exactly?

It sounds like the ramblings of an armchair general who has no idea of the realities on the battlefield. Would you be ready to die (yes, permanently, no reload) tomorrow if your government decided to make a turn for the worse?

No, just a straw man on your side. Show me were I told people in poor countries to do anything at all. All I have actually done is to emphasise what is possible, and how.

If I had a lethal genetic disease, I could study medicine and put all my work hours and spare time into finding a cure before it's too late - or I could study little to nothing, live a generally leisurely and pleasant life and hope that someone else finds a cure. My choice.

[Brenus]

"This reminds me something... Ah, yes, Lenin in 1917. Will Marxists ever change their rhetorics of "traitors yielding the national property to international capitalists" and "down with those we don't like"? The USSR story didn't teach them anything."Show me in it "the important part of your sentence" which mentions ANY economy: Underline for you as you apparently suffer of short memory deficiency. As you can see, the part I highlight was part of one of your sentence, which contains my quote.

"It only corroborates my statement that Marxists (and you proudly count yourself as one) are not different from the rest of the scum you are so fond of denouncing. " Expect of course, one, you NEVER denounced nazism, well, generally speaking yes, but in reality no, as you ALWAYS find a good reason why Ukrainian Nazi are not THAT much nazi, and two, you still don't understand what Marxism is. Well, to be fair, you don't seem to understand what Nazism is either.

"Advocating let's-seize-all-property-and-split-it-even- between-all-citizens approach?" Still leaving in the 19th Century? You really should go about your USSR model...

The words "to scrap" and "to take the government down" are very different (to put it mildly) from "a democratic revolution by votes".
So you should be more precise in wording your thoughts if you want others to read them correctly. Not the first time I say that. That is because you still live in the 19th Century early Soviet Union state of mind, so you translate words in something they are not telling. Nothing I can do about it, sorry. I tried and failed miserably.


"You know perfectly well that only a small part of Maidaners were nazis, yet you call it "a nazi coup"." Ahhh.... Finally... We are making progress. So, you are now admitting part that you qualify of small (and I would agree with you) were Nazi. Good. Then, yes, the Coup itself was made by this minority, well organised and highly motivated. Like during the Russian Revolution you always refer to, 2 steps, and the active minority won. In case of Ukraine it went wrong for the Nazi as they failed their target (Former President escaped, and worst, Crimea lost and rebellion of the Russian Ukrainians (or Ukrainian Russian as you please) went berserk and started to fight back again real or perceive ethnic/cultural/political menaces.
As facts for claim of will of ethnic cleansing: Army Unit with 2 SS PZ Division Das Reich, ban of Russian language, and various demonstrations in you country. I linked all this, so go back to the links, provided by BBC and US channels.
You willingness to swallow your own propaganda had yest shown you are not ready for truth, but I am not complete out of hope for you, as you start to accept the Nazi thing. Still a lot of work to do, but I am sure you can do it. We are all behind you, you can do it...

"Ok. Let's now bring up all events of the past someone is upset about." . The English are upset about it. They lost the war...
Care to explain what you were trying to show? Because I fail to see it!

"You will have to explain, though, how all this contributes to this discussion of traitors." Err, it was about 1 year old doesn't make it untrue... Nothing to do with traitors... Hmmm, perhaps you are right. I really have to write in more simplistic way if I want to be understand by you...

"Seeing the corruption in Ukraine I will gladly swap it for what you term as lobbying" I wouldn't disagree with this one...

[Gilrandir]

"This reminds me something... Ah, yes, Lenin in 1917. Will Marxists ever change their rhetorics of "traitors yielding the national property to international capitalists" and "down with those we don't like"? The USSR story didn't teach them anything."Show me in it "the important part of your sentence" which mentions ANY economy: Underline for you as you apparently suffer of short memory deficiency. As you can see, the part I highlight was part of one of your sentence, which contains my quote.

Ok, so you come down to calling names again. Now I can react in kind (if our chauvinist moderator doesn't stop me).

You evidently suffer of eyesight problems. Show me were ECONOMY is mentioned.

Expect of course, one, you NEVER denounced nazism, well, generally speaking yes, but in reality no, as you ALWAYS find a good reason why Ukrainian Nazi are not THAT much nazi, Well, to be fair, you don't seem to understand what Nazism is either.

You evidently don't either when you call Right Sector nazis while their chief spokesman and a parliamentary member is a Russian speaking Jew and they were and are financed by the chief Jew of Ukraine - Kolomoisky. So as Kolomoisky put it, either they are not nazis, or I'm not a Jew. Take a pick.

you still don't understand what Marxism is.

For 20 years I lived in the country which practised Marxism for 70 years, while you seem to know about it only from books. So I know what it is if such an ideology is implemented.

"Advocating let's-seize-all-property-and-split-it-even- between-all-citizens approach?" Still leaving in the 19th Century? You really should go about your USSR model...

It was the corner stone of the ideology by which the USSR lived, and it may be an eye-opener for you, but Marxism IS a 19th century ideology, so the question is who's living back then?

The words "to scrap" and "to take the government down" are very different (to put it mildly) from "a democratic revolution by votes".
So you should be more precise in wording your thoughts if you want others to read them correctly. Not the first time I say that. That is because you still live in the 19th Century early Soviet Union state of mind, so you translate words in something they are not telling. Nothing I can do about it, sorry. I tried and failed miserably.

Being miserable at working with language has always been one of your greatest weaknesses. You don't have to be sorry about deficiencies you can't overcome. A one-legged person shouldn't apologize that he can't run 100 meters like Hussain Bolt.

"You know perfectly well that only a small part of Maidaners were nazis, yet you call it "a nazi coup"." Ahhh.... Finally... We are making progress. So, you are now admitting part that you qualify of small (and I would agree with you) were Nazi. Good. Then, yes, the Coup itself was made by this minority, well organised and highly motivated. Like during the Russian Revolution you always refer to, 2 steps, and the active minority won. In case of Ukraine it went wrong for the Nazi as they failed their target (Former President escaped, and worst, Crimea lost and rebellion of the Russian Ukrainians (or Ukrainian Russian as you please) went berserk and started to fight back again real or perceive ethnic/cultural/political menaces.

It seems that short (and perhaps long as well) memory deficiency is all yours.
I never denied that there were nazis on Maidan, but I did and do deny that it was them who were the only combatants and only them "ousted" Yanukovych. If you want to believe in what you believe, go ahead.
And if they were real nazis, they would never merge into background after they had come to power.

You again try to present the events as an ethnic and/or linguistic conflict, and neither is correct. Ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers were as numerous as Ukrainians and Ukrainian speakers on Maidan, 60% of ATO soldiers now are Russian-speakers, some predominantly Russian-speaking regions (Mykolayiv and Dnipropetrovsk) show a higher percentage of those who were mobilized than some "nationalistic" regions (Ternopil). So you still stay a prisoner of the stereotypes and misconceptions you adopted and are going by with.

As facts for claim of will of ethnic cleansing: Army Unit with 2 SS PZ Division Das Reich, ban of Russian language, and various demonstrations in you country. I linked all this, so go back to the links, provided by BBC and US channels.

So wearing emblems and marching and the ban that was repealed a day later equal ethnic cleansing? Now I see how qualified you were in Bosnia to detect ethnic cleansings.

"Ok. Let's now bring up all events of the past someone is upset about." . The English are upset about it. They lost the war...
Care to explain what you were trying to show? Because I fail to see it!

I followed your way: I gave an event of the past that should have signified something and without an explanation of its relation to the topic of traitors posted it. It seems your way of proving something, so I did prove something, though what I proved is known to you only.

[Husar]

For example. People uniting in great numbers could become an unstoppable force. Not just for purely political reasons, but also to co-operate over harvest, trade etc. You don't need education to come up with this, basic logic and imagination will suffice.

Apart from the reasons you also gave, there are also other factors such as repression, through the army and spies etc. Remember Tiananmen square? The Czech attempts at breaking away from the soviet union? The Warsaw ghetto uprising?
Sometimes the government will just drive some tanks over your protest and for the common people this is dangerous.
On one hand such efforts can be detected and crushed early if the planning is huge and on the other hand if you plan small, there is a good chace that the others will be too afraid to join and it becomes even more likely that the government declares you a splinter group and drives some tanks over you.
Your ideas are based on the few cases where it worked but those are no guarantee whatsoever.
There were also many people in Tehran and in turkish cities, in both cases the protests were violently crushed because the rest of the population did not support them enough or was too afraid to join in.

You don't need modern technology to have a functioning country in the first place. If poor countries co-operated and invested in technology and education, they could become relatively self-sufficient. Many poor countries have mineral resources etc. that many rich countries can only dream of.

Yes, and why do they not cooperate?

That makes no sense. Revenues for the state are generated continuously, and people with the military behind them decides who are in charge, unless France would dear to go for a full-scale invasion, which could still be won, either directly on indirectly. But it sounds like an unlikely scenario, anyway.

According to you, the world/Africa as it is makes no sense if I understand you correctly, and yet it is this way. Why do you think that is the case?

Greece has very high living standards compared to the countries we are talking about here, and through things like these more dependent on good international relations. A country where a majority of the population cannot even afford a TV has much less of a reason to maintain good international relations. What are they going to lose out on? Even more loans? Access to Spanish beach resorts?

Food?

So you are saying that Cuba and Venezuela are no better places than the average poor African country?

No, you called them more successful examples, although I now see that that was only a relative statement. North Korea also has a higher living standard, some African countries may want to be more like that, surely that would also end the refugee crisis just like turning all these countries into DDRs would.

Huh? I was saying that governments in Africa weren't trying hard enough to neutralise negative foreign sources in case they still exists.

Maybe because they do not want to. So what do you recommend to the peasant whom you do not want to flee across the mediterranean?

A supposed analogy for what exactly?

That when someone is keeping you down it may be hard to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.

No, just a straw man on your side. Show me were I told people in poor countries to do anything at all. All I have actually done is to emphasise what is possible, and how.

You kept arguing that governments can be overthrown, if that was not you telling them what they should do instead of becoming refugees, then what is your point? Do you have an actual realistic solution or just would-be solutions that are obviously inferior solutions according to the hundreds of thousands of refugees wo would rather enter a rusty boat than try what you suggest?

If I had a lethal genetic disease, I could study medicine and put all my work hours and spare time into finding a cure before it's too late - or I could study little to nothing, live a generally leisurely and pleasant life and hope that someone else finds a cure. My choice.

How does that relate to refugees?
Let's get back to what you originally said:

Blaming problems in the third world on outside forces is typically a convenient scapegoat. The most troubled of these countries normally have corrupt governance and/or major warring ethnic groups. Fix that, and the exodus would subside.

According to you this should be done by the locals, yet hundreds of thousands of them would rather flee than fix their countries, why do you think that is?

[Papewaio]

Don't worry the elites will be able to get rid of their mercenaries in favour of AI drones soon...

[Beskar]

Don't worry the elites will be able to get rid of their mercenaries in favour of AI drones soon...

Are you suggesting that the plotline of the Starwars Pre-Sequels will become true?

[Viking]

Apart from the reasons you also gave, there are also other factors such as repression, through the army and spies etc. Remember Tiananmen square? The Czech attempts at breaking away from the soviet union? The Warsaw ghetto uprising?
Sometimes the government will just drive some tanks over your protest and for the common people this is dangerous.
On one hand such efforts can be detected and crushed early if the planning is huge and on the other hand if you plan small, there is a good chace that the others will be too afraid to join and it becomes even more likely that the government declares you a splinter group and drives some tanks over you.
Your ideas are based on the few cases where it worked but those are no guarantee whatsoever.
There were also many people in Tehran and in turkish cities, in both cases the protests were violently crushed because the rest of the population did not support them enough or was too afraid to join in.

You can look at this in a larger context, however. For example, they could have started organising long before the countries got their independence.

They could even have started organising long before colonisation. After all, isn't natural to have a curiosity about what is beyond the world you know or experience? If they had obtained knowledge about the outside world, they would have learnt about potential dangers and new technological developments. Many countries in the west were united by force, so if neighbouring tribes did not agree to an alliance for safety, they could conquer them.

Yes, and why do they not cooperate?

I am sure many do; we do even have the AU organisation. This is where things like dictators and corruption enter the frame.

According to you, the world/Africa as it is makes no sense if I understand you correctly, and yet it is this way. Why do you think that is the case?

Alternatively, the article you linked to has misunderstood or misrepresents reality. If it largely hasn't, then fear of loosing privileges among the elites may be of importance.

Food?

That's definitely an area where African countries can be self-suficient with proper governance; especially with co-operation and trade between countries.

No, you called them more successful examples, although I now see that that was only a relative statement. North Korea also has a higher living standard, some African countries may want to be more like that, surely that would also end the refugee crisis just like turning all these countries into DDRs would.

Remember that we have no reason assume that countries like Venezuela and Cuba are run as well as "anti-imperialist" countries realistically can be. I am pretty certain that is not the case. What they do demonstrate is that this is not an inherently worse option.

Maybe because they do not want to. So what do you recommend to the peasant whom you do not want to flee across the mediterranean?

That's a separate topic. All I am saying is that

a) I do not welcome their arrival in large numbers
b) They can put in an effort to make their country better (but there is no guarantee it will work during their lifetimes)

Now, if wealthy countries like European ones consistently reject these people, the odds should increase for people in these countries to take action to fix their countries.

That when someone is keeping you down it may be hard to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.

Name specific countries where this is a good analogy, and explain how.

You kept arguing that governments can be overthrown, if that was not you telling them what they should do instead of becoming refugees, then what is your point? Do you have an actual realistic solution or just would-be solutions that are obviously inferior solutions according to the hundreds of thousands of refugees wo would rather enter a rusty boat than try what you suggest?

The point has always been to argue for what I posted earlier in this thread:

Blaming problems in the third world on outside forces is typically a convenient scapegoat. The most troubled of these countries normally have corrupt governance and/or major warring ethnic groups.

What people living in these countries chose to do is up to them. There isn't room for all of them to resettle here, that's for sure.

How does that relate to refugees?

People living in these countries can choose the easy path (do no nothing to improve their country and focus purely on day-to-day tasks), or a hard path (work to fix their country alongside their daily tasks).

[Husar]

You can look at this in a larger context, however. For example, they could have started organising long before the countries got their independence.

They could even have started organising long before colonisation. After all, isn't natural to have a curiosity about what is beyond the world you know or experience? If they had obtained knowledge about the outside world, they would have learnt about potential dangers and new technological developments. Many countries in the west were united by force, so if neighbouring tribes did not agree to an alliance for safety, they could conquer them.

So they are "unnatural" because they did not develop in the same way Europeans did and it was their own fault that they got into this position?

I am sure many do; we do even have the AU organisation. This is where things like dictators and corruption enter the frame.

And who keeps these things in place? The people who would rather run away from them than try to fight them alone?
And what could be done to change that? Just turn around the boats?

Alternatively, the article you linked to has misunderstood or misrepresents reality. If it largely hasn't, then fear of loosing privileges among the elites may be of importance.

How often have you been to Africa or in the political circles of former colonial powers or is it possible that you misunderstand what's going on there? And if you are right, how would one improve the situation with the elites? Would doing that also be preferable to fleeing?
You are aware that people all over Africa and the Middle East already fled even before it became easier to reach Europe. They just fled somewhere else then and many/most still do.

That's definitely an area where African countries can be self-suficient with proper governance; especially with co-operation and trade between countries.

http://www.euractiv.com/specialrepor...la-news-516102

“It is difficult to imagine the sense in the system, because when we import, say, green beans from Kenya, we’re taking imbedded water from a drought-prone country, and then we’re putting into our supermarkets, into our fridges and then we’re throwing it way uneaten,” Benton told EurActiv by telephone, saying his comments reflected his personal views.

“But equally, when you talk to governments down there they say, ‘we need the money’. So in a sense, that’s a very tricky balance to negotiate because by those trade deals you are helping them to develop economically, but at the same time in the long run it cannot be sustainable and that as population grows, and as climate change impacts increasingly happen, it can’t continue in the way it is at the moment.”

Yes, as you said, cut ties to Europe and just trade among africans, then wonder why you have gone broke without the export profits.
Then blame them for having gone broke because they cut the ties with Europe. Also clearly visible here that the professor has no clue what he's talking about since the solution is obviously easy and common sense.

Remember that we have no reason assume that countries like Venezuela and Cuba are run as well as "anti-imperialist" countries realistically can be. I am pretty certain that is not the case. What they do demonstrate is that this is not an inherently worse option.

You mean empty shelves are just as bad in Venezuela as they are in Africa and therefore Venezuela is clearly not worse off?
Of course that is a good point, hungry people are not doing worse than other hungry people, problem solved.

That's a separate topic. All I am saying is that

a) I do not welcome their arrival in large numbers
b) They can put in an effort to make their country better (but there is no guarantee it will work during their lifetimes)

Now, if wealthy countries like European ones consistently reject these people, the odds should increase for people in these countries to take action to fix their countries.

I actually agree that a is not sustainable, but in b you come across as though you blame it on the refugees and you seem pretty naive/spoiled/unrealistic in your expectations. If they are not expectations then your argument seems pointless, might as well point out that one can theoretically fly faster than the speed of light if one had unlimited energy. And those people could work on that to fly to a better planet or they can just continue to take the lazy route and flee to Europe...

Name specific countries where this is a good analogy, and explain how.

Afghanistan, they were organized, got bombed by an outside power, had a puppet installed and were left alone in a state where continued infighting seems almost inevitable. Apparently most of the refugees in Greece are incidentally from Syria and Afghanistan.
Maybe you can explain how the outside influences did not contribute to the stream of people fleeing from Afghanistan?

Oh and like, the egyptian military is still/again funded by the US.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...y-aid-to-egypt
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlest...ils-to-review/

The point has always been to argue for what I posted earlier in this thread:

Yes, and WHY do they have these problems? Many argue it's because colonialism messed them up, the slave trade turned them into enemies and borders were drawn arbitrarily and can now only be changed through bloodshed that will not really stop the stream of refugees.

What people living in these countries chose to do is up to them. There isn't room for all of them to resettle here, that's for sure.

We have enough food and room for a whole lot more. Maybe you mean we cannot take them without sharing some of our wealth with them or treating them really badly.

People living in these countries can choose the easy path (do no nothing to improve their country and focus purely on day-to-day tasks), or a hard path (work to fix their country alongside their daily tasks).

And since you let them choose, many choose to come here. I'm glad we agree that this is a valid choice.

[Viking]

So they are "unnatural" because they did not develop in the same way Europeans did

Those are your words.

and it was their own fault that they got into this position?

Up to this point, I've been concerned about the time period from the start of colonialisation (at the earliest) to the present. Going even earlier is a different topic, so I'll drop that.

However, this is something we can also apply to the world even at present. Currently, we implicitly assume that the universe does not contain hostile high-tech beings from other planets. The moral blame might lie with any aliens that obliterate or enslave us, but if we had focused on technological developments and scouting the universe rather than killing each other and pretending the Earth is all there is, we'd be making smarter choices. In many contexts, talking about who is to blame is pointless; what ultimately matters is prevention.

And who keeps these things in place?

Evil non-African foreigners? Doubt it.

And if you are right, how would one improve the situation with the elites?

That's an internal problem, cf. the starting point of this debate.

Yes, as you said, cut ties to Europe and just trade among africans, then wonder why you have gone broke without the export profits.
Then blame them for having gone broke because they cut the ties with Europe. Also clearly visible here that the professor has no clue what he's talking about since the solution is obviously easy and common sense.

They need the money because they are part of the international system - circular reasoning. And look, content in your article agrees with me in terms of priorities:

Poor transportation connections, high tariffs, security barriers and primitive information-sharing on market needs contribute to the problem, ACP’s Chambas told EurActiv, making it easier to ship goods to Europe by air or sea.

Leaders of the 53-nation African Union have approved an “action plan” to change this by promoting regional commerce and providing a more inviting manufacturing climate. The AU plan calls for the free movement of people and commerce, and multinational cooperation to address the sub-continent’s pitiful infrastructure.

Regional trade blocs in the west, south and east have led to easier trade and infrastructure investments – though Chambas said central Africa remains largely outside the picture.

You mean empty shelves are just as bad in Venezuela as they are in Africa and therefore Venezuela is clearly not worse off?
Of course that is a good point, hungry people are not doing worse than other hungry people, problem solved.

Well...many places in Africa they don't even have shelves. As far as I can see, the ordinary Venezuelan is not starving, uneducated or dying in droves from mosquitoes.

you seem pretty naive/spoiled/unrealistic in your expectations. If they are not expectations then your argument seems pointless, might as well point out that one can theoretically fly faster than the speed of light if one had unlimited energy. And those people could work on that to fly to a better planet or they can just continue to take the lazy route and flee to Europe...

I explicitly stated that there was no guarantee it would work in their lifetimes in the parenthesis.

And no; infinite energy would take you arbitrarily close to the speed of light, but not past it.

Afghanistan, they were organized, got bombed by an outside power, had a puppet installed and were left alone in a state where continued infighting seems almost inevitable.

So the Afghans are wired in such a manner that if they get bombed, they start fighting each other? Sounds like they should start a national counselling program.

Maybe you can explain how the outside influences did not contribute to the stream of people fleeing from Afghanistan?

This was never my argument.

Oh and like, the egyptian military is still/again funded by the US.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...y-aid-to-egypt
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlest...ils-to-review/

Yet US funding didn't prevent the previous revolution.

Yes, and WHY do they have these problems? Many argue it's because colonialism messed them up, the slave trade turned them into enemies and borders were drawn arbitrarily and can now only be changed through bloodshed that will not really stop the stream of refugees.

In effect you are saying that they are too stupid to be able to "un-mess" themselves.

We have enough food and room for a whole lot more.

But not every inhabitant of these countries.

[Husar]

Those are your words.

You say exploration is natural and you say they didn't do it, so what am I supposed to deduce from your words?
Are you speaking in riddles on purpose or do you just not have any opinion but merely strange explanations with no point to them?

Do you blame anyone or are you just saying things for the fun of it?