Sweden 'to expel up to 80,000 failed asylum-seekers'
99 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Except that they can't do shit. One one side, they've got Assad that wants to kill every single on of them without mercy using weapons. On the other side, they've got ISIS that wants to cut of their heads.
What are some random villagers going to do?
Also, how is it not Sweden and the rest of europe's responsibility when they are partly responsible for causing this conflict and problem by selling weapons and causing instability in Syria? [/QUOTE]
First, random villagers are everything. Do you think Assad is only recruiting crack teams of veteran mercenaries from around the globe?
Second, I can't recall Sweden ever selling anyone weapons. If your problem is selling weapons, blame Russia, the US, etc.
Beyond that, it's stupid to blame a whole nation for the wrongdoing of a corporation or individual.
[QUOTE]Don't declare someone "edgy" just because they have the sense and the guts to recognize the historical context of this situation.
The longer we persist with the myth that what happens in one part of the world doesn't effect any other part, or that it's not our responsibility, the more we will continually run into these problems over and over again. God forbid someone recognize that and try to call out this bullshit. [/QUOTE]
A few problems:
- Sweden, to the best of my knowledge, has never sold any meaningful amount of weapons to any faction in the Middle East.
- It's ridiculous to blame a nation's citizens for the actions of a corporation.
[QUOTE]more like completely true?
forget historical misdeeds, think of the last 100 years of destabilisation in the Middle East
but when we start having to deal with the instability that we had a huge hand in causing, suddenly it's "oh no we couldn't possibly put up with all these refugees"[/QUOTE]
Then it's entirely the fault of the US because Sweden hasn't destabilized anything. The "The west is responsible for all the problems of the world" theory is not only stupid, but doesn't even work this way.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;49625186]Woah way to put words in someones mouth :v:[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kommodore;49623658]i love it, a century of domination over the rest of the world, genocides committed and vicious repression and manipulation, the actual retardation of progress across the world, first by Europe and the US, and eventually it comes to reap what it sows, a human tide of misery, decades in gestation, the third world washing up on its shores, actual poetic justice - no consolation that is to anyone - and people actually have the shortsightedness to feel contempt and resentment at the destitution they've passively had a hand in creating. what a load of shit, gloating over deportation. as if even half of us have done shit all for the world to deserve anything more than a migrant.[/QUOTE]
It's actually pretty clear when you, you know, read it. He spells out word-for-word his feelings. The only question is whether or not he was just being sarcastic and didn't mean any of it seriously. If he was, alright; if not, that's so edgy it's just pathetic.
[editline]28 January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49623967]more like completely true?
forget historical misdeeds, think of the last 100 years of destabilisation in the Middle East
but when we start having to deal with the instability that we had a huge hand in causing, suddenly it's "oh no we couldn't possibly put up with all these refugees"[/QUOTE]
The whole "the West did everything bad ever and caused all this!" excuse doesn't work because it simply isn't true. A century ago (and I go back that far because you specifically said "think of the last 100 years of destabilization in the Middle East"), before the West ever showed up, the Ottoman Empire (which dominated the region) had begun for quite a while actually to fall apart (having been dubbed the "Sick Man of Europe") and was involved with the Central Powers during the First World War-- the latter of which was a very stupid decision on the part of its leaders, because, in their country's unstable condition, it was evident that if they lost the war, their empire would be dissolved (if not at peace talks, then because of preexisting factors). Again, it was already breaking apart. The Greeks, Serbs and Bosniaks, Albanians, Bulgarians, and Romanians (etc.; basically, continental Europeans in the Balkans) had already decided they wanted autonomy from the Ottomans and had gotten their way; and with the rise of Turkish nationalism, the Arabs, Kurds, Jews, and Armenians also started pushing to go their own way too in the Middle East. This is common knowledge.
Most of the issues we see today have been recent developments as a result of the Cold War, but there again, they were not exclusively the West's fault. I don't understand why so many people here have a self-guilt complex about this. Why does everyone conveniently forget that the East was just as much involved in stirring shit up-- if not moreso? The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhofar_Rebellion]Dhofar Rebellion in Oman[/url] for instance saw, yes, the United Kingdom supporting the Sultanate; meanwhile, however, the Soviet Union, PRC, and East Germany were supporting the rebel groups that were trying to overthrow the government. And hell, just as far as Syria is concerned, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relations#1944.E2.80.931958]the Soviet Union/Russia built them into what they are today[/url]. They installed the Assad family into power. And then there was their [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War]invasion of Afghanistan in 1979[/url], [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_and_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War]their military and financial support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War[/url], [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Pahlavi-Soviet_Union_era]their previous attempt to create a Communist puppet of Iran following World War II[/url], etc. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Iran_relations#Military]The Chinese were also involved in the Iran-Iraq War[/url]. Why does nobody remember any of this? Is it because it just isn't as popular to talk about, or what? Is it not taught in schools or something?
[QUOTE=Hoffa1337;49623730][img]http://3p3mq242g5jc2ki76r3wi6fq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/refugeesandweapons.png[/img]
I don't think Syria is the primary market for Saab Systems but I could be wrong.[/QUOTE]
They're not coming to the new world because they can't get as much free shit here. They would also be forced to assimilate into US/Canadian culture which many refugees simply refuse to do while in Europe.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49625178]no, but they're a result of western actions, and should be taken care of by the west because we have a moral obligation to be accountable for our fuckups[/QUOTE]
Sure, I agree, but to a certain extent. But when your moral obligation ends up hurting the people of your own nation directly or indirectly, or even hurting the very people you are trying to shepherd to safety, I don't think the answer is simply to let more in, faster.
For what it's worth, I'm speaking from the perspective of an American watching the situation unfold in Europe. I think America should take more refugees ourselves.
This is what happens when the government acts like a bunch of children. No long term planning at all.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;49625226]They're not coming to the new world because they can't get as much free shit here. They would also be forced to assimilate into US/Canadian culture which many refugees simply refuse to do while in Europe.[/QUOTE]
Well also because North America is seperated from Syria by thousands of miles of ocean and a few hundred miles of European continent and/or Mediterranean Sea and there isn't a viable smuggling apparatus like those that have existed between the Middle East and Europe for decades.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49625245]Well also because North America is seperated from Syria by thousands of miles of ocean and a few hundred miles of European continent and/or Mediterranean Sea and there isn't a viable smuggling apparatus like those that have existed between the Middle East and Europe for decades.[/QUOTE]
And we wouldn't necessarily give them automatic refugee rights simply for showing up on our doorsteps.
[QUOTE=Govna;49625164]
Guess you're fine with all those rapes and assaults and murders that have been committed against your own people too by refugees, right? That Swedish woman who was stabbed to death a few days ago by a young asylum seeker, she had it coming according to your thinking. What a bitch for going out of her way to try and help other people and dying in the process...[/QUOTE]
No need to take it that far, you don't have to start acting like a dick just because you've got different political views.
No offense.
[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49623663]Edgy.[/QUOTE]
Every word of it is true though, sadly.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49625644]Every word of it is true though, sadly.[/QUOTE]
No, no it's not.
- Sweden has not sold any meaningful amount of weapons
- Citizens shouldn't suffer due to the actions of a corporation
- Corporations shouldn't be blamed in the first place.
If I give you a knife, you drop that knife, someone else picks up the knife, and that person later stabs someone who should be blamed?
The US is the only destabilizing force in the Middle East, Europe isn't at fault. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the US.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49625082].
I never said anything about humanitarian aid, I was talking about refugees: actual human beings moving from one area to another geographically to escape deadly conflict.[/QUOTE]
Are you for real?
[QUOTE=Swebonny;49623760]Fucking disgusting countries to be honest. Fuels their war and conflict, and accepts barely any refugees. Jesus.[/QUOTE]
Considering that u.s./canada are taking them in carefully after the Paris attacks, It's smart.
[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49625657]
- Citizens shouldn't suffer due to the actions of a corporation
[/QUOTE]
I think this is probably the most idealistic thing said in this thread, you should try living in America sometime
[QUOTE=paul simon;49623895]Well, isn't it humanity's responsibility to fix humanity's problems?[/QUOTE]
Unlikely to find a good audience for this argument since the majority opinion here revolves around loyalty to the tribe and sheer disgust at the thought of helping anyone outside that category
God the stone age was such a great era
[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49623663]Edgy.[/QUOTE]
But completely true. The sum of western screw ups in the middle east is what has ultimately caused this. Arming the mujahadeen, colonialism, imperialism, repeated unjustified invasions, counter productive occupations, to act like we have no responsibility is a joke
[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49623672]Good thing it's not Sweden's responsibility to fix Syria's problems. That's a job for the healthy, military-age men who are leaving en masse.[/QUOTE]
While I'll concede that Sweden isn't part of the cause of ISIS the second point you make here is a joke
ISIS's military is well trained, well equipped, well funded and highly motivated. The people they capture are executed brutally. You can't reasonably hope that these men would go back to become poorly trained, poorly equipped, uninspired conscripts and face that.
You might as well ask eastern european refugees in the dark ages to go back and face Attila and his Huns.
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;49625772]Unlikely to find a good audience for this argument since the majority opinion here revolves around loyalty to the tribe and sheer disgust at the thought of helping anyone outside that category[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because we've already got a ton of problems we have to deal with. At least here in the United States we do. How are we supposed to solve everybody else's problems when we can't/haven't even solved our own first?
[QUOTE=Govna;49625832]Yeah, because we've already got a ton of problems we have to deal with already. At least here in the United States we do. How are we supposed to solve everybody else's problems when we can't/haven't even solved our own first?[/QUOTE]
Very simply.
You will never solve all your domestic problems at any one point. Society is far, far too complex for the US to suddenly become a paradise overnight where it can suddenly justify with this attitude, perfect reasoning the case for helping others. Even then by means of the same attitude people would claim it will ruin their newfound paradise.
[QUOTE=Govna;49625832]Yeah, because we've already got a ton of problems we have to deal with. At least here in the United States we do. How are we supposed to solve everybody else's problems when we can't/haven't even solved our own first?[/QUOTE]
Nobody is asking the west to solve everybody's problems in their entirety or overnight dude. Stop making such ridiculous hyperbolic statements and actually take a step back from the position of "ughh not in MY country!!".
The "west" (quite a nebulous term, as the western world has it's own share of poverty stricken shitholes) has a lot of resources, a lot of influence and more importantly, a shitload more stability. Taking in refugees from countries that as a collective we have done very little to help (predatory deals to ensure we, and only we, get access to their resources. Various political events to ensure the people we want in power stay in power. Funding various insurrections with no regard for what comes after. etc. doesn't really count as "helping") is really the least we can do. There is some blame to be taken by the superpowers for the sorry state of affairs much of the ME is in.
Refugees do need to be more spread out than they currently are. As pointed out repeatedly, there are neighbouring countries that could feasibly take some large numbers in. But are refusing to, and getting away with it because we don't want to annoy the few "friends" we have down there. But us taking in refugees is not an attempt to all the problems in Syria, it's an attempt to try and mitigate the damage a bloodthirsty terrorist group can do until people actually willing and capable of fighting them off manage it.
We can do more than one thing at a time. We can actually look at our domestic issues [B]and[/B] our foreign issues simultaneously. That's why we have governments with departments explicitly for these very things. They have their own budgets and their own timelines to handle this shit. It's not detracting much from one if the other is doing something.
It's not some ridiculous "self loathing" that makes me and many others feel this way. It's born from actually paying attention to our history and understanding that we aren't bastions of perfection, we have fucked these places up, even in recent history. I'm not exactly nationalistic or patriotic anyway, it was by chance I was born here so why the fuck should I act like I am somehow more deserving of this life than another?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49625922]Nobody is asking the west to solve everybody's problems in their entirety or overnight dude. Stop making such ridiculous hyperbolic statements and actually take a step back from the position of "ughh not in MY country!!".
The "west" (quite a nebulous term, as the western world has it's own share of poverty stricken shitholes) has a lot of resources, a lot of influence and more importantly, a shitload more stability. Taking in refugees from countries that as a collective we have done very little to help (predatory deals to ensure we, and only we, get access to their resources. Various political events to ensure the people we want in power stay in power. Funding various insurrections with no regard for what comes after. etc. doesn't really count as "helping") is really the least we can do. There is some blame to be taken by the superpowers for the sorry state of affairs much of the ME is in.
Refugees do need to be more spread out than they currently are. As pointed out repeatedly, there are neighbouring countries that could feasibly take some large numbers in. But are refusing to, and getting away with it because we don't want to annoy the few "friends" we have down there. But us taking in refugees is not an attempt to all the problems in Syria, it's an attempt to try and mitigate the damage a bloodthirsty terrorist group can do until people actually willing and capable of fighting them off manage it.
We can do more than one thing at a time. We can actually look at our domestic issues [B]and[/B] our foreign issues simultaneously. That's why we have governments with departments explicitly for these very things. They have their own budgets and their own timelines to handle this shit. It's not detracting much from one if the other is doing something.
It's not some ridiculous "self loathing" that makes me and many others feel this way. It's born from actually paying attention to our history and understanding that we aren't bastions of perfection, we have fucked these places up, even in recent history. I'm not exactly nationalistic or patriotic anyway, it was by chance I was born here so why the fuck should I act like I am somehow more deserving of this life than another?[/QUOTE]
It's worth noting that most people never really cared about the homeless or the destitute until refugees started coming in.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49625947]It's worth noting that most people never really cared about the homeless or the destitute until refugees started coming in.[/QUOTE]
ta-da! the real indicator that nobody actually gives a fuck about the destitute of their country or any other unless they have some ~greater evil~ to "deal with". are they suddenly talking about the homeless non-stop?
it's almost sickening to see it, using the fact we have homeless as a weapon against taking in those fleeing death at the hands of brutal regimes. Yeah, homelessness sucks, but we have systems in place to try and help them, we spend money on shelters, healthcare, awareness, etc. There are methods for a homeless person to not die in the blink of an eye.
You don't really get that luxury when your home is now a warzone. Stop using "but the homelessSS!!!" as an reason we cannot ever take refugees in. Homelessness isn't going to ever be solved in our lifetimes, but we can sure as shit try and work on it whilst doing other things.
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;49625860]Very simply.
You will never solve all your domestic problems at any one point. Society is far, far too complex for the US to suddenly become a paradise overnight where it can suddenly justify with this attitude, perfect reasoning the case for helping others. Even then by means of the same attitude people would claim it will ruin their newfound paradise.[/QUOTE]
That's not an answer, that's politician-speak: saying words that mean nothing.
No, we're not going to solve [i]all[/i] of our domestic problems. I never claimed we could or that we ever would. There are plenty we could solve though and we should solve. The job market still sucks, and we never did recover from the 2007-2008 recession. We've got a student loan bubble that totals [b]$1.2+ trillion[/b] and is inevitably going to burst, and which is currently affecting our society in a number of different ways (from delaying home purchases and discouraging graduates from behaving in an entrepreneurial fashion, which of course has further economic consequences across the board, to affecting how people marry and when they have children, rates of divorce, etc.-- which have economic consequences as much as they do social consequences in turn). Education here is horrible; higher education is run as a business, primary and secondary school revolve around standardized testing and don't encourage genuine learning. Healthcare is still expensive, and a universal system is desperately needed. [url=http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/2014-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201505.pdf]Hell, 47% of us couldn't even afford to cover an unexpected expense of just $400 if one were to pop up[/url].
And there's more that I don't even know where to begin articulating about; deteriorating infrastructure, government and corporate corruption, the fact that Congress has deadlocked itself and is useless (which has led to its approval ratings diving down the shitter big time), a lack of mental health support and availability of proper services, and so on. Never mind the United States here for a moment; Sweden can't afford this. [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-24/sweden-is-overwhelmed-by-worsening-housing-crisis-skanska-says]They're already going through a housing crisis[/url], and this massive influx of refugees has only exacerbated things. Germany outright admits now that it couldn't afford to take in as many as it did; small communities throughout the country have been overwhelmed, and they shut down their border with Austria a while back trying to stop the flow.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49626001]ta-da! the real indicator that nobody actually gives a fuck about the destitute of their country or any other unless they have some ~greater evil~ to "deal with". are they suddenly talking about the homeless non-stop?
it's almost sickening to see it, using the fact we have homeless as a weapon against taking in those fleeing death at the hands of brutal regimes. Yeah, homelessness sucks, but we have systems in place to try and help them, we spend money on shelters, healthcare, awareness, etc. There are methods for a homeless person to not die in the blink of an eye.
You don't really get that luxury when your home is now a warzone. Stop using "but the homelessSS!!!" as an reason we cannot ever take refugees in. Homelessness isn't going to ever be solved in our lifetimes, but we can sure as shit try and work on it whilst doing other things.[/QUOTE]
Taking refugees from a warzone isn't a problem. Most people are completely on board with that. The problem is the way in which this has all been mishandled by those in positions of power. They created a system that was easily abused and exploited, and sure enough it was. I feel a big issue is that people feel like they are in danger that their country will not put their interests, as citizens, first and foremost, and a growing distrust in the governments abilities to maintain secure borders. The homeless issue is just an extension of peoples concerned as to why the government is helping someone else over their own citizens first.
We should help those in need of refuge from active war zones, but much better border security and checks need to be in place to root out those who just want a piece of the pie.
[QUOTE=Govna;49625832]Yeah, because we've already got a ton of problems we have to deal with. At least here in the United States we do. How are we supposed to solve everybody else's problems when we can't/haven't even solved our own first?[/QUOTE]
You don't have to solve everybody else's problems, you just have to provide a safe haven for innocent people escaping conflict. It's especially imperative to due so when you are atleast somewhat responsible for parts of the conflict being fought. It's hypocritical to say that America has the resources to engage in a precision bombing campaign halfway across the world but not to host a few thousand refugees. Surely if Lebanon, Jordan, and Denmark can do it we can as well?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49626001]ta-da! the real indicator that nobody actually gives a fuck about the destitute of their country or any other unless they have some ~greater evil~ to "deal with". are they suddenly talking about the homeless non-stop?
it's almost sickening to see it, using the fact we have homeless as a weapon against taking in those fleeing death at the hands of brutal regimes. Yeah, homelessness sucks, but we have systems in place to try and help them, we spend money on shelters, healthcare, awareness, etc. There are methods for a homeless person to not die in the blink of an eye.
You don't really get that luxury when your home is now a warzone. Stop using "but the homelessSS!!!" as an reason we cannot ever take refugees in. Homelessness isn't going to ever be solved in our lifetimes, but we can sure as shit try and work on it whilst doing other things.[/QUOTE]
So? Does that mean our own homeless don't matter?
A nation's priority should be to tend to the needs of its own citizens. Migrants are an afterthought.
Don't worry about a headache when you have a broken leg.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;49626039]Taking refugees from a warzone isn't a problem. Most people are completely on board with that. The problem is the way in which this has all been mishandled by those in positions of power. They created a system that was easily abused and exploited, and sure enough it was. I feel a big issue is that people feel like they are in danger that their country will not put their interests, as citizens, first and foremost, and a growing distrust in the governments abilities to maintain secure borders. The homeless issue is just an extension of peoples concerned as to why the government is helping someone else over their own citizens first.
We should help those in need of refuge from active war zones, but much better border security and checks need to be in place to root out those who just want a piece of the pie.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this though. The situation in Europe right now is a total clusterfuck and European politicians have destroyed several years of liberal/progressive goodwill over the course of a few months through their reckless and deceitful political plays.
[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49626056]So? Does that mean our own homeless don't matter?[/QUOTE]
Language like this is why these discussions sputter and die without anyone really changing their mind. Nobody can believe that their country should accept refugees from a war-torn nation because that automatically means they hate the homeless. Even worse than hate, outright think they don't matter, that they are disposable, that they can die on the street while we import foreigners.
Every country has homeless people. Where should these people go? Should they just sit in their village or town or city and wonder which country is going to drop the bomb that kills them and their family? Syrian? American? Russian? French?
[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49626056]So? Does that mean our own homeless don't matter?.[/QUOTE]
Didn't even remotely claim that. Thanks for playing, unfortunately you win no prizes this time!
We can work on both at once. That was the entire point of that post, the fact you didn't pick that up leads me to believe you didn't even try and read it, or you're being a belligerent moron.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49625035]which is exactly what is happening
[url]http://www.trbimg.com/img-55f0921b/turbine/la-fg-migrants-scorecard-20150908-001/650/650x366[/url][/QUOTE]
I wonder what is happening in that huge grey area with all those nice OPEC arab-gulf countries?
Also I wonder how they are going to do this, I remember reading a while ago how when people get noticed to leave the country, they just need to not be caught for like 9 months or something and they are pretty much forgiven.
[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49623663]Edgy.[/QUOTE]
this isn't really "edgy", it's basically what anyone with an once of historical knowledge would tell you it was going to happen sooner or later, doesn't make what's happening fine/right/whatever by any means, but it was definitely expected.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49625178]no, but they're a result of western actions, and should be taken care of by the west because we have a moral obligation to be accountable for our fuckups[/QUOTE]
-snip-
How are they the result of western actions? What did the west do to cause the chaos in Syria? And I mean, actual causes which show we are the primary cause for the conflict, not irrelevant bullshit. If you were referring to Iraqi refugees, I would have more sympathy with your position... but only if you were referring to the UK, which actually was involved in Iraq, instead of Sweden.
The primary cause of ISIS was ideology, and then it could spread due to the weakness of the Syrian and Iraqi states. Our obligation is to aid the Iraqi state that we helped destabilise, which we are doing. We have no 'responsibility' in Syria.
[editline]28th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;49626957]this isn't really "edgy", it's basically what anyone with an once of historical knowledge would tell you it was going to happen sooner or later, doesn't make what's happening fine/right/whatever by any means, but it was definitely expected.[/QUOTE]
I think you mean an edgelord who read a couple of pages of pilger or chomsky
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49627024]you have the worst opinions on everything[/quote]
Rude
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49627024]How are they the result of western actions? What did the west do to cause the chaos in Syria? And I mean, actual causes which show we are the primary cause for the conflict, not irrelevant bullshit. If you were referring to Iraqi refugees, I would have more sympathy with your position... but only if you were referring to the UK, which actually was involved in Iraq, instead of Sweden.
The primary cause of ISIS was ideology, and then it could spread due to the weakness of the Syrian and Iraqi states. Our obligation is to aid the Iraqi state that we helped destabilise, which we are doing. We have no 'responsibility' in Syria.
[/QUOTE]
I mean you're not going to find a letter from G.W. Bush to Syria that says "Hey go do a civil war." But if you wanna go [I]wayyy[/I] back to the dawn of Iraqi and Syrian turmoil due to religion you could look at the outset of World War I and the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement]Sykes-Picot Agreement[/url] to see how much the West has had its fingers in the Middle East for pretty much the last hundred years.
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;49627459]Rude
I mean you're not going to find a letter from G.W. Bush to Syria that says "Hey go do a civil war." But if you wanna go [I]wayyy[/I] back to the dawn of Iraqi and Syrian turmoil due to religion you could look at the outset of World War I and the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement]Sykes-Picot Agreement[/url] to see how much the West has had its fingers in the Middle East for pretty much the last hundred years.[/QUOTE]
This is what I mean about 'irrelevant information', and I don't mean this in a rude way. Whilst this is interesting historically, this is not useful when considering the modern Middle East. When you move too far back into the past, events effectively become irrelevant in determining the main causes of something. The current governments of both countries were not involved in making this, very few people were alive when this was agreed, and far more recent events have occurred which have had an effect on the region. If you take this view of history, you can go almost limitlessly back to somehow place the blame upon the party that you want to. I could do the exact same thing with Turkey and the Ottoman Empire if I wanted, but I won't, because its a bad way of determining policy decisions and responsibilities. Whilst this can serve as a lesson to be careful (if you do indeed view this as a major cause of the problems in Syria) when dipping your fingers into regions you know little about, this can't really be used as a direct way to put moral responsibility on the West (like you probably can in regards to the Iraq War) for the current situation in Syria.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.