IMMIGRATION thread

[Brenus]

"Or better still, in the future when the Muslim country regime du jour maltreats their population" Much better than that in the past. We helped in training their Secret Police against the opponents of the Tyrant's of the day, unionists, leftists, intellectual, liberal and others. We left open the only way for oppressed population to protest to the Religious we though could be tamed...
The Coup against Mossadegh gave the Throne to the Shah and ended to Khomeini... Well done.
The guy who did that got probably the same kind of training than the one who send Lenin back to Russia!...

[Pannonian]

"Or better still, in the future when the Muslim country regime du jour maltreats their population" Much better than that in the past. We helped in training their Secret Police against the opponents of the Tyrant's of the day, unionists, leftists, intellectual, liberal and others. We left open the only way for oppressed population to protest to the Religious we though could be tamed...
The Coup against Mossadegh gave the Throne to the Shah and ended to Khomeini... Well done.
The guy who did that got probably the same kind of training than the one who send Lenin back to Russia!...

I'm sure if we go back far enough, we can find something to flagellate ourselves with. Never mind the people who actually do these things and order these things to be done. Somewhere along the line, we can find a paperweight that we sold to an associate to one of these regimes, that is the real reason why these things happen.

[Snowhobbit]

You can't start a yo mamma battle and expect people not to answer.

No feelings have been hurt, perhaps I should not have posted about the death, or maybe waited to pull my trumph card later? Either way there is certainly not any need for an apology. Like you say, don't play if you don't want to play.

ouch that was painfull, this is where people with good manners usually apoligise

To be clear I am not offended at all, though I suppose it is more fun when I throw that in there with friends (you get a lot of heww and hemming)

[Snowhobbit]

Your incomprehension is astounding. Truly, I can't think of an individual I have ever entered discourse with who has had less insight or understanding...even of just a couple of sentences.

Readthis slowly, one word at a time. I was pointing out that the term immigrants had simply been switched for the word refugees but was clearly referring to the same proposition - ie the words were being used snonymously (to mean the same thing). NOT that the words mean the same thing (or rather, they ought not) but that they had simply been conflated. I am perfectly aware that the two terms are distinct,hence my initial suggestion that the idea that the crimes related were carried out by "refugees" (specifically, as opposed to the more general "immigrants")was something certain posters might need to get upto speed with (the implication was exactly that it was not "refugees", but was actually other "immigrants") and the next post (which you appear to want to defend...???) was a sarcastic post conflating the two terms.

Christ on a bike, could you be any more clueless? Read the actual posts....you know, the words, in their order and you'll decipher what they mean. That's how this whole writing and reading malarkey works.

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'm glad that you have come to the realization that different words mean different things.

[Fragony]

To be clear I am not offended at all, though I suppose it is more fun when I throw that in there with friends (you get a lot of heww and hemming)

Oh I believe you, but I would have wanted to be sure of that

[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

[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.

[Sarmatian]

Is she insane?

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

I'm glad that you have come to the realization that different words mean different things.

You two are still arguing about this after 5 pages? Gaius was the first person to point out the difference between the words....

You know...it's so easy to get people to believe something...just write it as a headline story. Doesn't matter if the story is later shown to have no truth to it....it'll always be the thing that people remember. Just like the idea that refugees are responsible for the New Year attacks on women...you might want to update yourselves on that information as well....

Then corrected someone else, who used the general term "immigrant" but from the context it's clear that wooly_mammoth didn't know about the distinction or the point that Gaius had been trying to make:

Yup, everyone knows those women have sexually molested themselves and then they threw the blame on the immigrants.

As I said...you might want to get up to speed with the evidence vis a vis those attacks and refugees..as opposed to knee-jerk headlines.

[Snowhobbit]

You two are still arguing about this after 5 pages? Gaius was the first person to point out the difference between the words....



Then corrected someone else, who used the general term "immigrant" but from the context it's clear that wooly_mammoth didn't know about the distinction or the point that Gaius had been trying to make:

So did he hit his head halfway through? I would presume that if Wooly uses immigrants he means immigrants rather then refugees. Because, ya know, words.

[AE Bravo]

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.

It's because that bit of conventional wisdom is true. Saddam had Shia officials in his regime also and replacing the Sunni officers after his death didn't necessarily warrant de-Baathification of Iraqi army. The fact of the matter is that the US governor of Iraq disbanded a multiethnic military institution and handed over state coercive power to the Shia.

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.

At which point they (Iraqi gov) were already a client of Iran. It sort of proves his point.

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

1) This may be true about Baathist Iraq, but far from the truth in Syria's case.
2) Western countries discredited the country's sovereignty when they asked Assad to step down publicly and started funding foreign non-Syrian movements in the country after destroying Iraq. They opened the door for the neighboring countries to split it open.

[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.

[Kralizec]

It's because that bit of conventional wisdom is true. Saddam had Shia officials in his regime also and replacing the Sunni officers after his death didn't necessarily warrant de-Baathification of Iraqi army. The fact of the matter is that the US governor of Iraq disbanded a multiethnic military institution and handed over state coercive power to the Shia.

My impression is that the important positions were mostly held by Sunnis, but I don't have any statistics at hand. Bremer himself has said that many Iraqis shared that perception, and furthermore that the army had effectively dissolved by itself after the invasion. 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.

At which point they (Iraqi gov) were already a client of Iran. It sort of proves his point.

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.

1) This may be true about Baathist Iraq, but far from the truth in Syria's case.
2) Western countries discredited the country's sovereignty when they asked Assad to step down publicly and started funding foreign non-Syrian movements in the country after destroying Iraq. They opened the door for the neighboring countries to split it open.

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.

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

[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.

[rajpoot]

I'm bored and history allways interests me, could you explain what the idea of "white man's burden" caused that was bad?

I ask because of all the ideas of the 19th and early 20th century I was under the impression that one was one of the more harmless ideas. Condescending as hell, of course, but not harmful to my knowledge.

On the surface it's fairly harmless but ideas never get implemented like they're planned do they?
As far as my knowledge goes, the perceived responsibility caused the nations to deny peoples whom they considered savages the freedom to rule themselves. Regardless of how messy the alternative histories might have been had Europeans not embarked on their empire building trips, what did happen wasn't very pleasant either, at least not for those who were subjugated.

By lengthening our involvement in these countries, and thus making us responsible for everything bad that's been happening since, even decades after they've gained independence (with everything good being the hitherto restrained potential of the natives, of course). I raised the example of Hong Kong some time ago as an example of where Britain has governed a colony responsibly, and the appreciation of the native Chinese was dismissed, whilst everything that wasn't ideal was pinned as the fault of the British, even where the native Hong Kongers point to Beijing as the source. Trying to do good is pointless. We might as well embrace the universally agreed fact that we're evil, and look to our interests only.

People who say the colonial rulers gave nothing good to their colonies are either blind or have deliberately closed their eyes. People who say that everything they did was for the betterment of their colonies are no better. The truth lies somewhere in between but nothing changes the fact that a group of people should be given the right to govern themselves unless they're doing something catastrophically self destructive (or harmful to others).

Thanks for sharing your opinion, if you don't mind could you clarify what you mean by "Doing stupider stuff"? Are you referring to bombing campaigns/interference in the Middle East? The current refugee situation?

I might be completely wrong here but IMO inviting hundreds of thousands of outsiders to stay in Europe all at once, people who come from a vastly different culture and upbringing and many of whom perhaps don't even like Europe and might even consider the actions of the Western nations the root of their misfortunes (and might harbour dangerous extremists amongst them), is stupid.

[Sarmatian]

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.

Then stop saying people are literally insane if they believe immigrants (or at least a part of them) should be given refugee. Did it ever occur to you that she just might have thought this through and arrived at a different conclusion?

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.

That is so not my argument.

In legal terms, you're perfectly right. EU doesn't have to do anything. My argument is for the most part moral, with the some practical aspects.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

You two are still arguing about this after 5 pages? Gaius was the first person to point out the difference between the words....



Then corrected someone else, who used the general term "immigrant" but from the context it's clear that wooly_mammoth didn't know about the distinction or the point that Gaius had been trying to make:

Thank you...that's all I've been trying to point out.

[Pannonian]

On the surface it's fairly harmless but ideas never get implemented like they're planned do they?
As far as my knowledge goes, the perceived responsibility caused the nations to deny peoples whom they considered savages the freedom to rule themselves. Regardless of how messy the alternative histories might have been had Europeans not embarked on their empire building trips, what did happen wasn't very pleasant either, at least not for those who were subjugated.

People who say the colonial rulers gave nothing good to their colonies are either blind or have deliberately closed their eyes. People who say that everything they did was for the betterment of their colonies are no better. The truth lies somewhere in between but nothing changes the fact that a group of people should be given the right to govern themselves unless they're doing something catastrophically self destructive (or harmful to others).

See Brenus pointing to overthrowing the Shah as one of the root causes of the current mess in Syria. Apparently a native people having had their own choice of government for 40 years, developing their strength to the point that they're now asserting their power in their region, is still the helpless victim of our actions 40 years ago, and their current actions in conducting a proxy war with another regional power is chiefly our fault. Apparently the natives are incapable of independent thought or responsibility, as everything is down to us.

That is so not my argument.

In legal terms, you're perfectly right. EU doesn't have to do anything. My argument is for the most part moral, with the some practical aspects.

It's already been decided that the west, and especially the Anglo-Americans, are already morally wrong in any given situation, so why should we bother to change our minds? As nothing we do will ever change that inescapable fact, as shown by your dismissal of any credit that the locals ever give the British (it doesn't change the bigger picture etc). Not doing anything on our part doesn't make us wronger, as we're already morally wrong, but on the good side, it's cheaper for us.

[Fragony]

Then stop saying people are literally insane if they believe immigrants (or at least a part of them) should be given refugee. Did it ever occur to you that she just might have thought this through and arrived at a different conclusion?

No, and I am in the good company of just about everybody in Europe. Thinking is not the same thing as feeling. She should have gotten a pet to pet. Even religiously insane narcists like petting pets, could have saved a lot of trouble if she could have channeled her condition on petting a pet. It's comforting to pet a pet.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

See Brenus pointing to overthrowing the Shah as one of the root causes of the current mess in Syria. Apparently a native people having had their own choice of government for 40 years, developing their strength to the point that they're now asserting their power in their region, is still the helpless victim of our actions 40 years ago, and their current actions in conducting a proxy war with another regional power is chiefly our fault. Apparently the natives are incapable of independent thought or responsibility, as everything is down to us.

Wow! Way to go on misrepresenting an argument. The point was made that a far more important regional interference was
the destruction of Iraq as a viable state...and then the overt support for an overthrow of the Syrian regime. But, by all means pretend that the last action by Western powers was forty years ago...

It's already been decided that the west, and especially the Anglo-Americans, are already morally wrong in any given situation, so why should we bother to change our minds? As nothing we do will ever change that inescapable fact, as shown by your dismissal of any credit that the locals ever give the British (it doesn't change the bigger picture etc). Not doing anything on our part doesn't make us wronger, as we're already morally wrong, but on the good side, it's cheaper for us.

It's so much easier to blame those displaced (and powerless) than to look to your own regimes who are busy screwing you over, screwing them over and laughing all the way to the bank. Us 'native Europeans' are such a gullible bunch aren't we?

[AE Bravo]

I might be completely wrong here but IMO inviting hundreds of thousands of outsiders to stay in Europe all at once, people who come from a vastly different culture and upbringing and many of whom perhaps don't even like Europe and might even consider the actions of the Western nations the root of their misfortunes (and might harbour dangerous extremists amongst them), is stupid.

Than the people should stop indulging in hate speech and pressure their governments for once in their lives for screwing them over. The big guns running Europe lured the troubles of the world right onto their peoples' doorsteps and getting off scot-free at the expense of all parties. Western nations chose initial stupidity in handling foreign affairs and now they've forced themselves to plunge into further stupidity. I sincerely wish the best of luck but absolutely zero sympathy from me.

It is their responsibility now, for sure thanks to their governments.

[Pannonian]

Wow! Way to go on misrepresenting an argument. The point was made that a far more important regional interference was
the destruction of Iraq as a viable state...and then the overt support for an overthrow of the Syrian regime. But, by all means pretend that the last action by Western powers was forty years ago...

It's so much easier to blame those displaced (and powerless) than to look to your own regimes who are busy screwing you over, screwing them over and laughing all the way to the bank. Us 'native Europeans' are such a gullible bunch aren't we?

It goes to show that I was right to prefer an isolationist stance on all these occasions. Sod the moral arguments about the dictator of the week. Let the Iraqis, Libyans and Syrians have what they have without our interference. Maybe it's not too late to go the route I've been advocating for years. I want absolutely nothing to do with that region, and anyone from that region. I want to direct my ire at my government, and they can direct their ire at their government, and neither of us need to bother the other.