IMMIGRATION thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A form of the Parmenidean Fallacy, but more straightforwardly we can just call it begging the question.

God's a sissy!

God loves you even if you don't love him.

Anyway, seems to me that arguing for not intervening in Syria is the Parmenides Fallacy, and one only has to look to Syria to see what would have happened in Libya without intervention, neither side could win the Civil War and neither side would have negotiated or yielded so it would have been a deadlock that slowly destroyed all infrastructure and ground the country into dust.

Did intervening produce the resolution we wanted? No.

Did it produce a better resolution than not intervening? Quite possibly - I incline to thinking that the alternative is Syria, which looks much worse from here.

Libya now is worse than what Libya was.

One evil had a plan while the other didn't. Qaddafi's jamahiriya was replaced with broken politics and Islamism, almost like how de-Baathification led to isis.

Gaddafi wasn't winning - his air force was defecting and so were his government ministers, the two sides were fighting over the oil refineries between Bengazi and Tripoli and eventually those refineries wouls just have been burned down.

Gaddafi had a plan?

You think Assad doesn't?

It's not helping him, and Gaddafi was twice as crazy as Assad to boot.

[AE Bravo]

Not Assad, NATO.

Qaddafi was winning. The violence was on the verge of ending on March 2011 until overseas agents started talking about genocide as a last resort. Islamists play the victims when they're backed into a corner, they had a lot to gain from anarchy.

There is no way you can sit there and say the numbers would have been worse pre-NATO. So ridiculous.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not Assad, NATO.

Qaddafi was winning. The violence was on the verge of ending on March 2011 until overseas agents started talking about genocide as a last resort. Islamists play the victims when they're backed into a corner, they had a lot to gain from anarchy.

There is no way you can sit there and say the numbers would have been worse pre-NATO. So ridiculous.

You're delusional.

First off - there were few Islamists in Libya in 2011, the majority, vast majority, of the rebels were ordinary Libyans including members of Gaddafi's government and military, a much broader coalition of his enemies than Assad faces currently where the war has boiled it down to Islamists, the FSA, the Kurds and Assad himself.

Looking back over the timeline I would say that although Gaddafi was on the offensive in mid March he couldn't hold all that territory, every attack seemed to cost him in defections,

Initially Gaddafi had the advantage but even without NATO intervention he was bleeding men, and worse planes. In fact, it may be that "loyalist" forces would have seen a higher rate of defection after March without NATO intervention

I saw you mentioned Tunisia - so I'll cover that briefly by saying Tunisia appears to have sucessfully transitioned to a democracy.

[AE Bravo]

First off - there were few Islamists in Libya in 2011, the majority, vast majority, of the rebels were ordinary Libyans including members of Gaddafi's government and military

The ones giving the army trouble were islamists. by march the islamists didn’t have a choice besides going to egypt but the subsequent intervention confused the entire country and pulled it back into civil war. up to march the casualties were around 1,000. 10x that after qaddafi.

Looking back over the timeline I would say that although Gaddafi was on the offensive in mid March he couldn't hold all that territory, every attack seemed to cost him in defections,

Nonsense, on what basis? That was it, it was over. The issue was disarmament. But the Obama admin had to go ahead and Yemenize Libya like that could possibly go well. Once everyone's strapped you don't have to respect any transition govt.

Initially Gaddafi had the advantage but even without NATO intervention he was bleeding men, and worse planes. In fact, it may be that "loyalist" forces would have seen a higher rate of defection after March without NATO intervention

Oh so now he had the advantage. How am i delusional then? nato intervention fostered violence and promoted growth of armed islamists, either way mercenaries were brought in to take care of it.

I saw you mentioned Tunisia - so I'll cover that briefly by saying Tunisia appears to have sucessfully transitioned to a democracy.

Congrats to tunisia, that doesn’t change what i said about islamist presence in the maghreb.

[Gilrandir]

Back to the immigrants:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...205_story.html