IMMIGRATION thread

[Brenus]

"Never mind the people who actually do these things and order these things to be done." Who said that? The Shah, of course, was the one responsible for the Savak. But the ones who trained the Savak knowing what the Savak was used for are as much guilty. When Kissinger allowed the CIA to overthrough a elected but socialist leader in Chile, he is as much guilty for the dictatorship of Pinochet than Pinochet was (quote: I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves).
So, yeah, blame the local leaders for what they are guilty, but know as well that if they got power, it is because we killed, neutralised, dispersed, ventilated and make disappeared the ones who could have prevented the atrocities to happen. It was/is a joined adventure.

http://www.politico.eu/article/why-t...-intervention/

[Fragony]

Oh snap, new prognose is that by 2020 3.6 million of the childless mutti's little children, come to meeee' will be in Germany. Pray tell, where must they live, where can their children go to school, where can they work. Gawd is that woman disruptive.

Is she insane? Or did she won the Clodenhove-Kalergi price in 2010 with good reason

[Sarmatian]

Is she insane?

She must be. She's treating brown people almost like they're our equals.

[Gilrandir]

I see an epic yo mamma battle coming soon.

Relax, Elves don't battle Hobbits.

Don't blame me that your parents denied you a dictionary while growing up. You'd think they'd have one in school that you could have borrowed though? I suppose we should be happy that you can string a sentence together anyway :)

I am astounded to see how good can people be at insulting others in every other post. And almost as much astounded at the moderators' inveterate complacence.

[Fragony]

She must be. She's treating brown people almost like they're our equals.

Insinuations are really getting annoying. I could say that I am not like that but you wouldn't believe me anyway. People who know me thankfully do.I should know better then taking offence but it's hard not to.

[Greyblades]

She must be. She's treating brown people almost like they're our equals.

[Pannonian]

She must be. She's treating brown people almost like they're our equals.

Syrians aren't the equal of Europeans. At least not within the EU. EU citizens have a right to be in the EU because they are EU citizens. Syrians who aren't EU citizens don't have a right to be in the EU because they're not EU citizens. Other treaties and agreements may modify this, especially in individual cases, but that is generally the case. Under existing laws, AFAIK Syrians have a right to be in Turkey as refugees as Turkey is a neighbouring country. Once they go beyond the immediate neighbours, they're no longer refugees but migrants, and it's up to the country they enter whether or not they're welcome. The onus is not on the other country to host them.

Cue your argument that it's a human right to go wherever one wishes. In disregard of existing international laws.

[AE Bravo]

It was not a question of "disbanding", but a question of wether to rebuild the old army (with its unpopular reputation) or to start from the ground up.
I'm not saying that the decision was wrong or right, just that it wasn't the ill-considered blunder people make it out to be.

It was a drastic reform and a bad decision altogether. I don't doubt the lack of trust in the military the regime left behind, but we're talking a strong security apparatus down the drain in favor of sectarianism. There was secular Arab unity in Iraq, and just because it was hit hard after the invasion doesn't mean it's a good idea to dissolve it.

If anything that would suggest Iranian meddling is the primary cause. Brenus' point was to establish a connection between the rise of ISIS and the decision to dismantle the army 10 years earlier, which I think is dubious.

I think that's pretty clear, actually.

1) it's a strategy that many authoritarian regimes employ, and from what I know about Syria it fits the description perfectly. Alawites have always been overrepresented since the Assad family took power and overwhelmingly support the regime because they think, with ample justification, that the survival of their community is linked to the regime. The same logic applies to other minorities, Kurds being a notable exception because they have their own brand of nationalism that is at odds with the government line.

Assad regime is multiethnic and multi religious, the big players in Syria right now are not actually Syrian movements. It wouldn't have been in Assad's best interest to exploit sectarianism because that's the easiest way to break Baathism.

2) the Syrian uprising was well under way before any NATO country sent assistance, let alone made calls for al-Assad to resign.

It was controllable before everybody jumped in.

[Pannonian]

"Never mind the people who actually do these things and order these things to be done." Who said that? The Shah, of course, was the one responsible for the Savak. But the ones who trained the Savak knowing what the Savak was used for are as much guilty. When Kissinger allowed the CIA to overthrough a elected but socialist leader in Chile, he is as much guilty for the dictatorship of Pinochet than Pinochet was (quote: I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves).
So, yeah, blame the local leaders for what they are guilty, but know as well that if they got power, it is because we killed, neutralised, dispersed, ventilated and make disappeared the ones who could have prevented the atrocities to happen. It was/is a joined adventure.

http://www.politico.eu/article/why-t...-intervention/

So the mess in Syria is our fault because we toppled the Shah in Iran?

[Brenus]

"So the mess in Syria is our fault because we toppled the Shah in Iran?" Partially, if you consider Hezbollah and Iranian involvement (allied with Assad).
The mess in Syria is due to a second invasion of Iraq without any reason. The very-ill conceived invasion, followed by a absolute disaster in the immediate post-war policy (like making 2 millions unemployed but armed former soldiers, firing of all the administration because they were previously in Saddam's party -as if they had a choice), the absolute ignorance of the local reality created a vacuum of power and corruption, even bigger than before, spreading poverty in the population, pulverisation of the Iraqi society and return to old structures (tribal and religious).
All this created the destruction of the national identity, and this lead to the collapse of the Iraqi Army (that no reason to fight for a non-existent country) as show with the collapse of this army facing IS.
This collapse allowed the creation of a territory and the seizure of natural resources which will help IS to control more territory and population.
And because IS is ideologically close to Saudis, and they are mostly Arabs and Sunnites, they went in direct confrontation with Iran/Shiites, and of course, the Syrian Alawites/ Assad, Kurds. Because they are in confrontation with the Kurds, Turkey decided to trade with IS and to attack the Kurds in the back, having themselves a problem with Kurdish nationalism. They were inching for this, as a autonomous region in Iraq was not for their taste. And, at the same time, they were helping the Turkish populations in Syria with the long term aim of an annexation, when Assad Regime would have fall.
USA and Europe turned a blind eye on this, as they wanted Assad regime to fall so Russian base (the only one) in Mediterranean Sea would have to be closed. And Turkey is part of NATO.
Arab regimes did as well, because the "moderate" opposition chosen by the Western Countries were theirs, as ethnicities and ideology. The added value to fight a secular regime was too much to resist anyway.
Of course, if I can see it, so Putin, so he run to Assad's help, and after massive air support, Assad started to regain some territory.
I still do not understand why Turkey decided to shot down a Russian plane, but it didn't add the desired effect. No only Putin didn't retaliate but he pushed harder and the political landscape did shift in his favour (and Assad).
I am quite sure than some will come with explanations that he is in fact more isolated than ever, but Russia is now fully back on the political agenda after Crimea.
So, to answer your question, yes, our policy of Regime Change is responsible for the mess in Syria. Directly.
In ignoring the deep streams under the surface of the region, focusing only on the religious (and not completely grasped), ignoring the old war between Persians, Arabs, Kurds, diversity of societies and the political landscape provided by the mixture of all these elements, we are directly responsible for the mess in the region.

[Pannonian]

"So the mess in Syria is our fault because we toppled the Shah in Iran?" Partially, if you consider Hezbollah and Iranian involvement (allied with Assad).
The mess in Syria is due to a second invasion of Iraq without any reason. The very-ill conceived invasion, followed by a absolute disaster in the immediate post-war policy (like making 2 millions unemployed but armed former soldiers, firing of all the administration because they were previously in Saddam's party -as if they had a choice), the absolute ignorance of the local reality created a vacuum of power and corruption, even bigger than before, spreading poverty in the population, pulverisation of the Iraqi society and return to old structures (tribal and religious).
All this created the destruction of the national identity, and this lead to the collapse of the Iraqi Army (that no reason to fight for a non-existent country) as show with the collapse of this army facing IS.
This collapse allowed the creation of a territory and the seizure of natural resources which will help IS to control more territory and population.
And because IS is ideologically close to Saudis, and they are mostly Arabs and Sunnites, they went in direct confrontation with Iran/Shiites, and of course, the Syrian Alawites/ Assad, Kurds. Because they are in confrontation with the Kurds, Turkey decided to trade with IS and to attack the Kurds in the back, having themselves a problem with Kurdish nationalism. They were inching for this, as a autonomous region in Iraq was not for their taste. And, at the same time, they were helping the Turkish populations in Syria with the long term aim of an annexation, when Assad Regime would have fall.
USA and Europe turned a blind eye on this, as they wanted Assad regime to fall so Russian base (the only one) in Mediterranean Sea would have to be closed. And Turkey is part of NATO.
Arab regimes did as well, because the "moderate" opposition chosen by the Western Countries were theirs, as ethnicities and ideology. The added value to fight a secular regime was too much to resist anyway.
Of course, if I can see it, so Putin, so he run to Assad's help, and after massive air support, Assad started to regain some territory.
I still do not understand why Turkey decided to shot down a Russian plane, but it didn't add the desired effect. No only Putin didn't retaliate but he pushed harder and the political landscape did shift in his favour (and Assad).
I am quite sure than some will come with explanations that he is in fact more isolated than ever, but Russia is now fully back on the political agenda after Crimea.
So, to answer your question, yes, our policy of Regime Change is responsible for the mess in Syria. Directly.
In ignoring the deep streams under the surface of the region, focusing only on the religious (and not completely grasped), ignoring the old war between Persians, Arabs, Kurds, diversity of societies and the political landscape provided by the mixture of all these elements, we are directly responsible for the mess in the region.

So it's our fault for causing the regime in Iran that's allied to one side of the Syrian mess, and our fault for causing another regime in Iraq which is allied to the opposing side of the Syrian mess. Notwithstanding the fact that these countries, or at least the regimes thereof, are strong and secure enough in and of themselves that they feel able to intervene in another country. Because, once we've ever stepped foot in one country, we are responsible for everything that happens from then on, without considering that they may in time recover enough from our ravages to be capable of independent decisionmaking. It's not the fault of the people who are currently acting in Syria, Iraq, Iran and whatnot, since they're incapable of acting by themselves, but are always and will forever be the blameless victims of western decisions. Nor is it the fault of the Saudis and Turks and whoever else have directly funded and continue to directly fund ISIS. It's the fault of the west, who sold someone somewhere a paperweight sometime ago, and allowed all this to happen.

It's this that I call bleeding heartism, the conviction that everything is our fault, and that we must flagellate ourselves to atone for our sins, except that is never enough since everything bad can be traced back to us. It's insulting both to the west that we're supposed to blame ourselves for all the ills in the world, and insulting to the natives to assume that they will never be capable of independent decisionmaking, since everything they do is the consequence of our decisions.

[Husar]

So it's our fault for causing the regime in Iran that's allied to one side of the Syrian mess, and our fault for causing another regime in Iraq which is allied to the opposing side of the Syrian mess. Notwithstanding the fact that these countries, or at least the regimes thereof, are strong and secure enough in and of themselves that they feel able to intervene in another country. Because, once we've ever stepped foot in one country, we are responsible for everything that happens from then on, without considering that they may in time recover enough from our ravages to be capable of independent decisionmaking. It's not the fault of the people who are currently acting in Syria, Iraq, Iran and whatnot, since they're incapable of acting by themselves, but are always and will forever be the blameless victims of western decisions. Nor is it the fault of the Saudis and Turks and whoever else have directly funded and continue to directly fund ISIS. It's the fault of the west, who sold someone somewhere a paperweight sometime ago, and allowed all this to happen.

It's this that I call bleeding heartism, the conviction that everything is our fault, and that we must flagellate ourselves to atone for our sins, except that is never enough since everything bad can be traced back to us. It's insulting both to the west that we're supposed to blame ourselves for all the ills in the world, and insulting to the natives to assume that they will never be capable of independent decisionmaking, since everything they do is the consequence of our decisions.

What's this? Bleeding exaggeration?

[Kralizec]

"So the mess in Syria is our fault because we toppled the Shah in Iran?" Partially, if you consider Hezbollah and Iranian involvement (allied with Assad).
The mess in Syria is due to a second invasion of Iraq without any reason. The very-ill conceived invasion, followed by a absolute disaster in the immediate post-war policy (like making 2 millions unemployed but armed former soldiers, firing of all the administration because they were previously in Saddam's party -as if they had a choice), the absolute ignorance of the local reality created a vacuum of power and corruption, even bigger than before, spreading poverty in the population, pulverisation of the Iraqi society and return to old structures (tribal and religious).

This bit of conventional wisdom is thrown around a lot, but it's not that simple. The Shia and Kurds wanted the dissolution of the army because the military officers were almost entirely drawn from Sunni tribes and had been instrumental in keeping the rest of the country under Saddams boot. If they had kept the army intact and civil war would still have broken out, people would be pointing fingers at that stupid idea.

All this created the destruction of the national identity, and this lead to the collapse of the Iraqi Army (that no reason to fight for a non-existent country) as show with the collapse of this army facing IS.
This collapse allowed the creation of a territory and the seizure of natural resources which will help IS to control more territory and population.

When there still was a US occupying force there had already been a large Sunni uprising by ISIS' predecessor, Al-Quada in Iraq. It was stamped out with the backing of moderate Sunni leaders. The fact of the matter is that Iraq's central government had an opportunity to reconcile with the Sunnis at this point, but the Shia dominated government blew it. The Sunni who had supported the counter-insurgency felt betrayed, paving the way for ISIS several years later.
In short: there's a 10 year gap in your chronology of events.

Because they are in confrontation with the Kurds, Turkey decided to trade with IS and to attack the Kurds in the back, having themselves a problem with Kurdish nationalism. They were inching for this, as a autonomous region in Iraq was not for their taste. And, at the same time, they were helping the Turkish populations in Syria with the long term aim of an annexation, when Assad Regime would have fall.

Iraqi Kurdistan is actually one of the few governments in the region that Turkey is friendly with (although not so much that they'd approve independence from the rest of Iraq). Turkey is their most important customer for oil, and the Iraqi Kurds don't have positive relations with either PKK or YPG/PYD.

USA and Europe turned a blind eye on this, as they wanted Assad regime to fall so Russian base (the only one) in Mediterranean Sea would have to be closed. And Turkey is part of NATO.
Arab regimes did as well, because the "moderate" opposition chosen by the Western Countries were theirs, as ethnicities and ideology. The added value to fight a secular regime was too much to resist anyway.
Of course, if I can see it, so Putin, so he run to Assad's help, and after massive air support, Assad started to regain some territory.
I still do not understand why Turkey decided to shot down a Russian plane, but it didn't add the desired effect. No only Putin didn't retaliate but he pushed harder and the political landscape did shift in his favour (and Assad).
I am quite sure than some will come with explanations that he is in fact more isolated than ever, but Russia is now fully back on the political agenda after Crimea.

Several western countries said in the early stages of the war that Assad should resign. Other than that, by all appearances NATO countries (Turkey excepted) have done very little to aid the Syrian rebels. They've bombed IS, supplied the Kurds who are not actively fighting Assad, even tried to raise a moderate fighting force to leave Assad alone and only fight ISIS (which was an abysmal failure)...everything about it suggests that they dislike Assad, but don't do anything meaningful to expedite his end. Partly to avoid confrontation with Russia, partly because the Syrian government proved more resiliant than people thought at first and lastly because it became increasingly obvious over the years that the insurgency is heavily dominated by islamists.

Also, Putin is a dick.

So, to answer your question, yes, our policy of Regime Change is responsible for the mess in Syria. Directly.
In ignoring the deep streams under the surface of the region, focusing only on the religious (and not completely grasped), ignoring the old war between Persians, Arabs, Kurds, diversity of societies and the political landscape provided by the mixture of all these elements, we are directly responsible for the mess in the region.

The mess in Iraq is a huge factor, so there's that. But beyond that, you're vastly overstating western (tm) responsibility for the Syrian conflict. CIA sponsored coups in that country are decades in the past. In my view the Syrian conflict is largely because of:
1) decades of Baathist rule which actively exploited ethnic tensions to justify its authority
2) meddling of neighbouring states, essentially this whole quagmire is a proxy war between Qatar and Saudi Arabia on one hand and Iran on the other