Refugee Crisis

[Free Northman Reborn]

For the record, that picture upset me greatly as well.

 

But then I had to remind myself that there are probably millions of kids dying every day all over the world, and if you really opened your mind to the magnitude of it, you would likely go mad. And if you aren't as upset by a nameless child dying of malnutrition in Vietnam as you are by one that happened to be caught on camera, then you really aren't acting consistently, are you?

[Derfel Cadarn]

It's not that hard to understand... The men need to fight for their own country to remove ISIS (I'm not saying we shouldn't help). Whether it's an already existing army like the Turkish army or starting their own militias and armies, they need to grow some balls and defend their homeland from these monsters not leaving it to other countries to fight their wars for them.

Fight for who? Assad on one side and ISIS on the other.

[Northernmonkey]

Northern Monkey

 

The problem is I don't know what the right policy should be in relation to middle eastern countries.  Do we keep Assad, Hussein, Gadaffi, the Egyptian army, the House of Saud etc. in place, knowing that they are brutal, nasty, murderous, or do we try to support democratic alternatives, knowing that could bring Islamist regimes to power?

 

I don't know,it's a genuinely unanswerable question, but I think it's wrong to back some unpleasant regimes (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt) while condemning others (Iran, Hezbollah). 

 

And as a general rule if we're going to interfere in Middle Eastern politics when it suits us we can't suddenly wipe our hands of the whole thing when there's a refugee problem.

[baxus]

Northern Monkey

 

The problem is I don't know what the right policy should be in relation to middle eastern countries.  Do we keep Assad, Hussein, Gadaffi, the Egyptian army, the House of Saud etc. in place, knowing that they are brutal, nasty, murderous, or do we try to support democratic alternatives, knowing that could bring Islamist regimes to power?

 

The thing is that your governments don't even have a consistent policy, even if it was the wrong one.

I don't see Saudi Arabia or Egypt needing "freedom", while it appears that Libya, Syria, Iraq needed it.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

The question was all. Which is what I responded too.

Okay. New question then.

 

Why don't you let some homeless guys permanently move in and live in your home?

 

Fight for who? Assad on one side and ISIS on the other.

 

There are dozens of rebel groups that aren't aligned with ISIS or Assad. Everything from groups that want freedom and democracy much like in the West, to groups that want moderate islamism, to groups that want increased ethnic self governance and socialism, to groups that want not-so-moderate islamism, and so on and so forth. There have been few civil wars with as many and as diverse groups of competing factions as this one in Syria.

 

To make a comment like you did here proves that you have essentially zero knowledge on this conflict.

[Hayyoth]

Northern Monkey

 

The problem is I don't know what the right policy should be in relation to middle eastern countries.  Do we keep Assad, Hussein, Gadaffi, the Egyptian army, the House of Saud etc. in place, knowing that they are brutal, nasty, murderous, or do we try to support democratic alternatives, knowing that could bring Islamist regimes to power?

Well that's easy. If it's a choice between Assad and Daesh I pick Assad 100 times out of a 100.

 

 

Okay. New question then.

 

Why don't you let some homeless guys permanently move in and live in your home?

 

 

There are dozens of rebel groups that aren't aligned with ISIS or Assad. Everything from groups that want freedom and democracy much like in the West, to groups that want moderate islamism, to groups that want increased ethnic self governance and socialism, to groups that want not-so-moderate islamism, and so on and so forth. There have been few civil wars with as many and as diverse groups of competing factions as this one in Syria.

 

To make a comment like you did here proves that you have essentially zero knowledge of this conflict.

There aren't any 'moderate' rebel groups in Syria. If there ever where any they've long been either destroyed or absorbed by the Jihadists. Anyway off topic.

[Hayyoth]

For the record, that picture upset me greatly as well.

 

But then I had to remind myself that there are probably millions of kids dying every day all over the world, and if you really opened your mind to the magnitude of it, you would likely go mad. And if you aren't as upset by a nameless child dying of malnutrition in Vietnam as you are by one that happened to be caught on camera, then you really aren't acting consistently, are you?

The contention seems to be that European nations can and should keep their borders open on a permanent basis and absorb an unlimited number of migrants. If that was to actually happen it would spell the end for those nations, not just culturally but economically as well. I don't think any of those arguing for 'compassion' can sincerely be arguing for that? So instead I assume it's moral grandstanding and appeals to emotion over logic and good sense.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Well it is ultimately an issue of scale. If there were 100 people in need of refuge then any nation could act generously and compassionately and be lauded by the world. I'm pretty sure very few of its citizens would object.

But when you start talking about hundreds of thousands, with potentially millions more waiting in the wings if those first movers succeed, then it is a very different argument. Even from a moral perspective.

[Arakan]

What Sweden or Germany can do to help war refugees, the UK or France can do as well.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Well that's easy. If it's a choice between Assad and Daesh I pick Assad 100 times out of a 100.

 

 

There aren't any 'moderate' rebel groups in Syria. If there ever where any they've long been either destroyed or absorbed by the Jihadists. Anyway off topic.

There are still plenty of them left. These groups are the ones receiving weapons and (official*) support from the West, Turkey, Jordan etc.

 

Also as for your first sentence Assad played a rather significant part in allowing Daesh to rise in the first place. First he supported them during the US occupation of Iraq by giving them a safe haven in Syria to train and organize in (he was afraid of the Americans doing the same to him as they did to Saddam, hence he wanted them bogged down fighting insurgents rather than having their hands free for more invasions) then secondly when the Syrian civil war began, he neglected fighting the Jihadists and focused on the more moderate rebel groups, since he thought that these could have it easier to get support from the general Syrian population. Both of these decisions are biting him in the ass now.

 

 

 

 

*There are some hints that Turkey is giving unofficial support to a certain other faction as well, of course...

[Lyanna Stark]

How do you think the whole intergration mulitcultural thing is working out in say Malmo? Sweden is guaranteeing itself social chaos for decades to come.

 

 

 

 

 

LOL? Malmö is one of the most impressive, growing regions in Sweden! It's my number one favourite Swedish city and hearing someone use it as a negative example is just so bizarre I can't even... Seriously dude, you have NO IDEA. Malmö is very close to the pinnacle of positive development. In the early 90s it was a depressed former heavy industrialised city (where people came out and cried en masse as they tore down the landmark Kockums crane), now it's the healthy beating heart of the most expansive region in Sweden. As evidenced by Bo01 & Turning Torso, Citytunneln, the hottest shopping mall in Scandinavia (Emporia) and of course the Öresund bridge, not to mention the fact that Lund - Malmö - Köbenhavn universities are cooperating closely to create a really progressive and research heavy area. Further, Malmö has, largely due to immigration, a very positive age structure, meaning more young people than old people.

 

If you wanted an example of how immigration causes "social chaos" you could not possibly pick a worse example than Malmö. If anything, it proves that despite bad press, depressed economy and difficult structural changes, it is totally possible to change and succeed. The only ones who think Malmö is in social chaos are people who've never been there, people voting for SD (the browns) or SD's equivalent in Denmark who insists on calling it "Sweden's Beirut". Which is amusing since a lot of Danish people are totally fine with buying a house on the Swedish side, so obviously the problems are not that severe.

 

Also, Zlatan laughs at you.

 

 

What Sweden or Germany can do to help war refugees, the UK or France can do as well.

 

 

I guess Sweden and Germany are less successful countries?  :dunno:

 

Really, I am at a loss.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Well it is ultimately an issue of scale. If there were 100 people in need of refuge then any nation could act generously and compassionately and be lauded by the world. I'm pretty sure very few of its citizens would object.

But when you start talking about hundreds of thousands, with potentially millions more waiting in the wings if those first movers succeed, then it is a very different argument. Even from a moral perspective.

 

Lebanon already had a million refugees, and that country is tiny compared to almost any of the European nations being talked about. I didnt see any great praise heaped upon it, but there you go.

 

For a small nation like Lebanon a million refugees would of course create immense stress, but I cant imagine a consortium of 20 odd nations cant absorb 50000 refugees each. The logistics might not be easy, but that amount of people will have a minimal impact culturally or economically on developed nations.

[Hayyoth]

The only ones who think Malmö is in social chaos are people who've never been there, people voting for SD (the browns) or SD's equivalent in Denmark who insists on calling it "Sweden's Beirut".

 

And the NYT

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/world/europe/swedens-riots-put-its-identity-in-question.html?_r=0
 

 

STOCKHOLM — Eva Bromster, an elementary school principal, was jolted awake by a telephone call late Thursday night. “Your school is burning,” her boss, the director of the local education department, told her.

Ms. Bromster rushed to the school, in the mostly immigrant district of Tensta, north of Stockholm, and found one room gutted by fire and another filled with ankle-deep water after firefighters had doused the flames. It was the second fire at the school in three days.

In Stockholm and other towns and cities last week, bands made up mostly of young immigrants set buildings and cars ablaze in a spasm of destructive rage rarely seen in a country proud of its normally tranquil, law-abiding ways.

The disturbances, with echoes of urban eruptions in France in 2005 and Britain in 2011, have pushed Sweden to the center of a heated debate across Europe about immigration and the tensions it causes in a time of deep economic malaise.

 

[SeanF]

Baxus

 

I think most of the criticism levelled at the West over Syria is that the West didn't intervene, rather than that they did.

 

In the case of Libya, it was a choice between intervening, or letting Gadaffi massacre his enemies,  Either way, a humanitarian crisis was the outcome.

 

WRT Iraq, it would obviously have been better to let Saddam Hussain remain in power, albeit, with the No Fly Zones being maintained.

[The guy from the Vale]

Again, a small developed nation like Switzerland could absorb refugees totalling 10% of its population over a decade, or about 1% of its population per year. That's about the same Germans is taking in right now. Asking the Netherlands, the UK or France to do the same as Germany or Sweden seems only fair.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

 

 

LOL? Malmö is one of the most impressive, growing regions in Sweden! It's my number one favourite Swedish city and hearing someone use it as a negative example is just so bizarre I can't even... Seriously dude, you have NO IDEA. Malmö is very close to the pinnacle of positive development. In the early 90s it was a depressed former heavy industrialised city (where people came out and cried en masse as they tore down the landmark Kockums crane), now it's the healthy beating heart of the most expansive region in Sweden. As evidenced by Bo01 & Turning Torso, Citytunneln, the hottest shopping mall in Scandinavia (Emporia) and of course the Öresund bridge, not to mention the fact that Lund - Malmö - Köbenhavn universities are cooperating closely to create a really progressive and research heavy area. Further, Malmö has, largely due to immigration, a very positive age structure, meaning more young people than old people.

 

If you wanted an example of how immigration causes "social chaos" you could not possibly pick a worse example than Malmö. If anything, it proves that despite bad press, depressed economy and difficult structural changes, it is totally possible to change and succeed. The only ones who think Malmö is in social chaos are people who've never been there, people voting for SD (the browns) or SD's equivalent in Denmark who insists on calling it "Sweden's Beirut". Which is amusing since a lot of Danish people are totally fine with buying a house on the Swedish side, so obviously the problems are not that severe.

 

Also, Zlatan laughs at you.

Lol.

 

In Sweden, Malmö has the reputation of being a pretty crappy city. If you think that most people believing that either have never been there or are "browns", then you can do that I guess.

 

Well, I suppose it could technically be possible. SD is the largest party in Sweden according to a number of polls now after all, and I don't believe Malmö is a particularly popular travel destination for people within the country either, so maybe you are actually right. Not that it means much.

[HexMachina]

And the NYT
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/world/europe/swedens-riots-put-its-identity-in-question.html?_r=0

What does that have to do with Malmo?

[Eyelesbarrow]

 

Lebanon already had a million refugees, and that country is tiny compared to almost any of the European nations being talked about. I didnt see any great praise heaped upon it, but there you go.

 

For a small nation like Lebanon a million refugees would of course create immense stress, but I cant imagine a consortium of 20 odd nations cant absorb 50000 refugees each. The logistics might not be easy, but that amount of people will have a minimal impact culturally or economically on developed nations.

Can we include the wealthy Gulf countries here too? They should be ashamed of themselves for not helping the Syrians, eg lifting visa restrictions on family reunification, accepting refugees.  

ETA: FWIW Arab human rights activists are calling their governments to act.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

We are doing our bit. The UK has contributed more to the UN's Syrian Fund than the rest of the EU put together.

 

Sorry, this is ridiculous to outrageous. The UK has taken in how many refugees from Syria in total? 

1.000? To say: well we have given some money, let the others deal with it. Is either cynical, the height of ignorance, or straight self-denial. Just to get some perspective on things. In July alone 50.000 new immigrants arrived in Greece. Greece, remember the financially troubled country from the Eurozone.  You want them to deal with that?

I am sorry, I stand corrected the height of cynism is to say: "We as Britain, have no border with Syria and those other war torn countries, thus the refugees must have past transit countries. That means they are not our problem. 

Of course countries like Italy and Greece need help, because their systems really can't deal with all those newcomers. And that is very much a EU problem. So some sort of distribution key, that takes in factors like population size and economic factors looks like the only fair solution. Unless you want to channel the Donald and build wall through the mediterranean. Or let the helpless Greek deal with it.

Just another number Lebanon has taken in over 1.2 milion refugees from Syria, Jordan well over 600.000. Lebanon population size: ~4.5 mil. people. Just to put some of your scary numbers into perspective.

 

40% of people claiming asylum in Germany come from Kosovo, Albania, Serbia, and Bosnia. They aren't refugees by any reasonable standard.

 

That is open for discussion. I recommend you take a look how those people in Kosovo live. Legally speaking they are not refugees, whether that is a reasonable standard.

 

10,000 isn't a problem. But, we'll get 10,000 through the normal asylum procedure, in any case (my guess is that we'll see 40-50,000 people in total awarded refugee status in the UK this year).

My concern is that Merkel has just given the green light for anyone in the Middle East to come to Europe.

 

No, no, no. Don't you dare to even think about white washing Britain's and the US hands in this mess. Remember how this mess started, that destabilized the whole region. George Dubya Bush decided it was a good idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Sideshow Tony Blur decided he wanted a front row seat in this fiasco. So it would seem fair to me, if the US and Britain and all the other lemmings from that idiot coalition of the willing would for once take responsibility for their actions and cleaned up their mess and would take in all the refugees from those war torn countries. Before I forget those cronies, Obama who decided to make it a US priority to remove Assad from power is also responsible for this, cue Sidewhos Cameron. 

Again it would be nice to see those countries clean up their mess.

[Hayyoth]

There are still plenty of them left. These groups are the ones receiving weapons and (official*) support from the West, Turkey, Jordan etc.

 

Also as for your first sentence Assad played a rather significant part in allowing Daesh to rise in the first place. First he supported them during the US occupation of Iraq by giving them a safe haven in Syria to train and organize in (he was afraid of the Americans doing the same to him as they did to Saddam, hence he wanted them bogged down fighting insurgents rather than having their hands free for more invasions) then secondly when the Syrian civil war began, he neglected fighting the Jihadists and focused on the more moderate rebel groups, since he thought that these could have it easier to get support from the general Syrian population. Both of these decisions are biting him in the ass now.

ficant

 

 

 

*There are some hints that Turkey is giving unofficial support to a certain other faction as well, of course...

First part no there aren't. These groups are insignificant on the battlefield. Assad has been driven back so much that the Russians have had to directly intervene just to maintain the status quo, and I assume, to help set up a proto Alawite state. The Sunni Jihadis are winning in Syria.

 

Second part, Assad had almost nothing to do with the rise of Daesh. Assad didn't 'neglect fighting the Jihadists' as he was in absolutely no position to take them on in the first place. The Sunni Jihadis have concentrated on setting up territorial enclaves in the Sunni heartlands and absorbing or destroying any of the so called moderates. How was Assad supposed to fight them when government forces have been barely holding the line for years?