• 30% migrants are fake Syrians, says Germany
    59 replies, posted
[QUOTE=kila58;48768132]Cheating your way into a country is filthy when they hardly have the resources to support the current influx of people flooding in.[/QUOTE] Listen I think it's a problem, too. But calling it filthy and passing moral judgement shouldn't be part of the discussion. Then discussion should be "what do we do about it?" Because I can promise you, anybody would do exactly the same if they we're coming from a poor as shit middle eastern country
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48770234]I would argue that Iraq is just a tad bit more stable than Syria; their forces are just poorly trained with the poor morale of being occupied over a ten year period by a foreign power & culture. Perhaps in Syria, they're filling a void, but in Iraq, they're purposely expanding one.[/QUOTE] Iraq is somewhat more stable, but that's moreso in the east. Even before ISIS started expanding their control over the rest of the country was weak.
Not surprising at all.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48770384]Listen I think it's a problem, too. But calling it filthy and passing moral judgement shouldn't be part of the discussion. Then discussion should be "what do we do about it?" Because I can promise you, anybody would do exactly the same if they we're coming from a poor as shit middle eastern country[/QUOTE] So you see no problems going forward that up to 30% of these refugees are actually just economic migrants who would gladly take the place of a genuine refugee just to better their life. What should be done is they should send them into some war torn areas of Syria to give their false claims some credence, oh and to brush up on their Arabic.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;48768111]... so you can move to a rich, Western country that is practically begging for you to come live with them, you're damn straight most people with a shred of ambition are going to move to that rich, Western country. [/QUOTE] don't really know where you got this idea no one in particular is begging, countries will always be split on letting in new people, there will always be the blue collar right wing "taken our jerbs" people and then there are those who think people can live wherever they want
[QUOTE=Araknid;48770156]Syria is an active fuckery of a warzone, more than pakistan or most african countries. Of course if they're coming from an African country that is in a war then they have just as much of a right to seek refuge as a syrian And besides, they're entering the country with deception which is wrong[/QUOTE] These "refugees" are picking and choosing. South American countries are having to send them back since they aren't getting enough in benefits and not being payed "western wages".
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48768351]No one is obligated to take these refugees. Sure, it would be a humanitarian catastrophe if no one did, but the obligation is still not there.[/QUOTE] 1. Intervenes for 100 years in Middle East, establishing colonies, exploiting resources, imposing unpopular rulers, etc 2. Spends half a decade interfering in Middle East, overthrowing rulers, establishing favorable dictators, etc 3. Spends last two decades warring against several Middle Eastern nations 4. Directly train, arm, and fund factions in Syrian civil war, go to war in Iraq, finance the rise of ISIS (unintentionally), intervene in Libya leading to the current civil war Yet the West isn't "obligated to take the refugees" even though every historical and political level of the situation causing them can be traced back to direct western intervention? Maybe we didn't start the Syrian civil war, but we laid the groundwork and then threw money and guns at it until it got to this point, and we sure as fuck didn't make it any better by directly laying the groundwork from which ISIS would rise from. You can't create problems and exacerbate them and then just shrug it off like we just forgot the fact that war creates refugees.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48772737']1. Intervenes for 100 years in Middle East, establishing colonies, exploiting resources, imposing unpopular rulers, etc 2. Spends half a decade interfering in Middle East, overthrowing rulers, establishing favorable dictators, etc 3. Spends last two decades warring against several Middle Eastern nations 4. Directly train, arm, and fund factions in Syrian civil war, go to war in Iraq, finance the rise of ISIS (unintentionally), intervene in Libya leading to the current civil war [/QUOTE] Holy shit I wasn't aware that "West" was a country and occupied all the territories north of Mediterranean, and that it existed for at least a 100 years. Always knew I missed something on my geography classes.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48772372]So you see no problems going forward that up to 30% of these refugees are actually just economic migrants who would gladly take the place of a genuine refugee just to better their life. What should be done is they should send them into some war torn areas of Syria to give their false claims some credence, oh and to brush up on their Arabic.[/QUOTE] The issue is that the definitions between an 'economic migrant' and a 'refugee' are often very blurred. Usually people who flee to Europe are technically safe in refugee camps or outside of the country - But there, they are unable to work and do not live a real life as they cannot do anything in their host country. Many are fleeing not only from war, but from a shattered economy.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48772737']1. Intervenes for 100 years in Middle East, establishing colonies, exploiting resources, imposing unpopular rulers, etc 2. Spends half a decade interfering in Middle East, overthrowing rulers, establishing favorable dictators, etc 3. Spends last two decades warring against several Middle Eastern nations 4. Directly train, arm, and fund factions in Syrian civil war, go to war in Iraq, finance the rise of ISIS (unintentionally), intervene in Libya leading to the current civil war Yet the West isn't "obligated to take the refugees" even though every historical and political level of the situation causing them can be traced back to direct western intervention? Maybe we didn't start the Syrian civil war, but we laid the groundwork and then threw money and guns at it until it got to this point, and we sure as fuck didn't make it any better by directly laying the groundwork from which ISIS would rise from. You can't create problems and exacerbate them and then just shrug it off like we just forgot the fact that war creates refugees.[/QUOTE] By that logic most of the refugees should be taken to US.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48772737']1. Intervenes for 100 years in Middle East, establishing colonies, exploiting resources, imposing unpopular rulers, etc 2. Spends half a decade interfering in Middle East, overthrowing rulers, establishing favorable dictators, etc 3. Spends last two decades warring against several Middle Eastern nations 4. Directly train, arm, and fund factions in Syrian civil war, go to war in Iraq, finance the rise of ISIS (unintentionally), intervene in Libya leading to the current civil war Yet the West isn't "obligated to take the refugees" even though every historical and political level of the situation causing them can be traced back to direct western intervention? Maybe we didn't start the Syrian civil war, but we laid the groundwork and then threw money and guns at it until it got to this point, and we sure as fuck didn't make it any better by directly laying the groundwork from which ISIS would rise from. You can't create problems and exacerbate them and then just shrug it off like we just forgot the fact that war creates refugees.[/QUOTE] We aren't obligated to take refugees. We just morally should. PS: Would you then say that refugees that are nothing to do with the EVIL 'west' are to be ignored?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48772737']1. Intervenes for 100 years in Middle East, establishing colonies, exploiting resources, imposing unpopular rulers, etc 2. Spends half a decade interfering in Middle East, overthrowing rulers, establishing favorable dictators, etc 3. Spends last two decades warring against several Middle Eastern nations 4. Directly train, arm, and fund factions in Syrian civil war, go to war in Iraq, finance the rise of ISIS (unintentionally), intervene in Libya leading to the current civil war Yet the West isn't "obligated to take the refugees" even though every historical and political level of the situation causing them can be traced back to direct western intervention? Maybe we didn't start the Syrian civil war, but we laid the groundwork and then threw money and guns at it until it got to this point, and we sure as fuck didn't make it any better by directly laying the groundwork from which ISIS would rise from. You can't create problems and exacerbate them and then just shrug it off like we just forgot the fact that war creates refugees.[/QUOTE] Because I totally remember the time the Polish, Hungarians, the Greeks, the Latvians, the Estonians and the Czechs were funding rebels to stick it to an ally of Russia. Oh wait, it were the Yanks again. Yet we get stuffed with the fucking bill again.
[QUOTE=Jordax;48772808]Because I totally remember the time the Polish, Hungarians, the Greeks, the Latvians, the Estonians and the Czechs were funding rebels to stick it to an ally of Russia. Oh wait, it were the Yanks again. Yet we get stuffed with the fucking bill again.[/QUOTE] No dude, he's obviously talking about joint Serbo-Slovenian invasion of Iraq in 1975. Those world-shaking photos of Estonian mercenary bands beating the shit out of those POVs?
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48768944]There is literally two UN treaties ratified by about 150 countries about the status of a refugee and whether or not nations have an obligation to help them (they do). But then again, as DaMasterz said, laws are only valid if countries follow them. [editline]26th September 2015[/editline] Are you seriously that naive to think that no one is paying a price for the refugees? Fucking look at Lebanon and Jordan. Their economies are getting swamped by the sheer number of refugees coming in.[/QUOTE] I'd like to point out that there's fairly complicated systems about refugees and not every country is obliged to help every refugee. As a refugee you have certain things you have to do to be recognised as such. If you don't (like crossing multiple safe nations) you don't really have standard refugee status. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48772737']1. Intervenes for 100 years in Middle East, establishing colonies, exploiting resources, imposing unpopular rulers, etc 2. Spends half a decade interfering in Middle East, overthrowing rulers, establishing favorable dictators, etc 3. Spends last two decades warring against several Middle Eastern nations 4. Directly train, arm, and fund factions in Syrian civil war, go to war in Iraq, finance the rise of ISIS (unintentionally), intervene in Libya leading to the current civil war Yet the West isn't "obligated to take the refugees" even though every historical and political level of the situation causing them can be traced back to direct western intervention? Maybe we didn't start the Syrian civil war, but we laid the groundwork and then threw money and guns at it until it got to this point, and we sure as fuck didn't make it any better by directly laying the groundwork from which ISIS would rise from. You can't create problems and exacerbate them and then just shrug it off like we just forgot the fact that war creates refugees.[/QUOTE] Are we talking about the same middle east that brutally occupied significant portions of south east europe for centuries, that willingly took part in a world war and which had pretty much the same legal system enforced on it as central europe after ww1?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48772737']1. Intervenes for 100 years in Middle East, establishing colonies, exploiting resources, imposing unpopular rulers, etc 2. Spends half a decade interfering in Middle East, overthrowing rulers, establishing favorable dictators, etc 3. Spends last two decades warring against several Middle Eastern nations 4. Directly train, arm, and fund factions in Syrian civil war, go to war in Iraq, finance the rise of ISIS (unintentionally), intervene in Libya leading to the current civil war Yet the West isn't "obligated to take the refugees" even though every historical and political level of the situation causing them can be traced back to direct western intervention? Maybe we didn't start the Syrian civil war, but we laid the groundwork and then threw money and guns at it until it got to this point, and we sure as fuck didn't make it any better by directly laying the groundwork from which ISIS would rise from. You can't create problems and exacerbate them and then just shrug it off like we just forgot the fact that war creates refugees.[/QUOTE] So it's a-okay to land a ton of refugees (read: actual refugees and economic migrants with faked Syrian IDs) into European countries without any sort of preparation and zero plans to assimilate without any support from the rest of a European country because of your A People's History of the United States-caliber understanding of the world? Sounds good man.
[QUOTE=gudman;48772770]Holy shit I wasn't aware that "West" was a country and occupied all the territories north of Mediterranean, and that it existed for at least a 100 years. Always knew I missed something on my geography classes.[/QUOTE] The West is a goepolitical bloc with an intertwined economy and culture, so it's no more a sin to lump them together than to consider the Eastern Bloc a homogenous geopolitical entity, which is was for 50 years. Call it what you want. The Coalition, the Great Powers, the Imperial Powers, NATO, what have you. [QUOTE=itisjuly;48772788]By that logic most of the refugees should be taken to US.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Please send them here. Not that our government would accept them anymore than any of your want to, but yes, the US is the primary actor post-WWII in the Middle East. [QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48772793]We aren't obligated to take refugees. We just morally should. PS: Would you then say that refugees that are nothing to do with the EVIL 'west' are to be ignored?[/QUOTE] It's a cost of war. Nations that are involved in the war or backed the war are morally obligated to pay for the cost. Also, the west isn't evil, but the dominating powers make decisions and then don't like to deal with the negative consequences. Regardless of responsibilities, no refugee should be forced to suffer when there are opportunities for them to prosper in safety. While not obligated, I do think the developed world have an ultimatum to aid, if not accept, refugees regardless of circumstance, though those that cause situations have the greatest obligation to provide. [QUOTE=Jordax;48772808]Because I totally remember the time the Polish, Hungarians, the Greeks, the Latvians, the Estonians and the Czechs were funding rebels to stick it to an ally of Russia. Oh wait, it were the Yanks again. Yet we get stuffed with the fucking bill again.[/QUOTE] Yes, this is primarily the US, but the EU, of which those states are members, did contribute to aiding the Syrian rebels and eventually to arming them. While Eastern Europe certainly did not, and they do have clean hands in this, if they this is a problem then they need to act accordingly to oppose the measures put on them. You're right, so do something about it. Hint: the answer isn't sending refugees and migrants back to hell, it's pushing to make those most responsible for the crisis foot most of the bill. [QUOTE=wraithcat;48773247] Are we talking about the same middle east that brutally occupied significant portions of south east europe for centuries, that willingly took part in a world war and which had pretty much the same legal system enforced on it as central europe after ww1?[/QUOTE] Yes, that one, which was then occupied by imperial powers, treated as colonial regimes, exploited for their natural resources, had rulers with little affiliation to the local population and majority appointed over relatively arbitrary border emplacements, sometimes intentionally creating ethnic, religious, and politics conflicts, and was then manipulated through coups, western-funded and opposed revolutions, proxy wars between world powers, and invasions. Practically anyone in the field would state that the contemporary history of the Middle East began with the collapse of the Ottomans, which is when the current polities that exist today were formed and built. [QUOTE=Ziron;48773681]So it's a-okay to land a ton of refugees (read: actual refugees and economic migrants with faked Syrian IDs) into European countries without any sort of preparation and zero plans to assimilate without any support from the rest of a European country because of your A People's History of the United States-caliber understanding of the world? Sounds good man.[/QUOTE] Well, firstly, the difference between a war refugees and an economic migrant is kind of null when much of the region has been shaped by war and civil conflict into a state of economic shock and deterioration, not that it's ever been great in North Africa. If the difference is between living in squalor in a war zone or living in squalor in an unstable regime, then it's not really a huge difference. Yes, situations with refugees are much more dire but shit's whack either way. But besides that, your governments have been having migrant problems from problem areas in MENA for years now. The Syrian war has been going on for years. There has never been a war without refugees, this is a known cost of war. There is no reason why no one shouldn't have expected refugees. Yes, your countries were unprepared for the scale and timespan, but that's poor preparation and planning on the part of the UN, the EU, the US, etc, and not the fault of the migrants. Is that OK? No, that sucks for everyone involved. But you know what the right course of action isn't? Putting the faults of that situation on people who are escaping from war. Shit guys, y'all just escaped a brutal war and traveled a huge distance, leaving your lives behind with no clue what's ahead, time to box you all up and send you back into it because the relatively better off countries didn't plan for this and it inconveniences the native citizens that 1% more of their population is suddenly brown people from somewhere else.
This shouldn't come as a surprise really, if I would've lived in a really poor country I would seize this opportunity to get into a better country as well. Seriously, who here can honestly say that they wouldn't put their own or their families lives before some random refugees?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48772737']1. Intervenes for 100 years in Middle East, establishing colonies, exploiting resources, imposing unpopular rulers, etc [/QUOTE] I'm not obligated nor responsible for the messes made by ancestors I never met nor knew in a time I wasn't born in (let alone my parents or their parents) to have a say in the matter of.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48773999'] Call it what you want. The Coalition, the Great Powers, the Imperial Powers, NATO, what have you. [/QUOTE] The US does something so poor little Latvia and Estonia need to be flooded with refugees?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48774270]The US does something so poor little Latvia and Estonia need to be flooded with refugees?[/QUOTE] The US (primarily), Britain, France, and Germany did something and they are now dumping part of the blame (a part that Lithuania etc don't deserve) on them. Yes. Welcome to being shit on by the western powers.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48774298']The US (primarily), Britain, France, and Germany did something and they are now dumping part of the blame (a part that Lithuania etc don't deserve) on them. Yes. Welcome to being shit on by the western powers.[/QUOTE] So you see nothing wrong with lumping the actions of those governments in with those people to make a single unanimous entity that you can hate without shades of grey? I didn't vote for a government that wanted to go to war, but you want me to pay for that decision? Same to anyone in a similar boat as myself?
Should note that Syria really isn't the west's fault. The west didn't set up the dictator there and Assad was never a west-friendly dictator. They have always been leaning toward the USSR and now Russia. Make Russia take the refugees, not Europe.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48774255]I'm not obligated nor responsible for the messes made by ancestors I never met nor knew in a time I wasn't born in (let alone my parents or their parents) to have a say in the matter of.[/QUOTE] Well, this is a crap argument, right? Like let's just think about that. So you're not responsible for what someone in the past did. Why? Is it because you physically weren't involved? Or is it because you don't condone it? I mean, I'm guessing it's a little of both because no one is saying "I'm not obligated to a share of the good because of something someone in the past did", right? It's always "I'm not obligated to a share of the bad because of something someone in the past did." I mean, you're happy to live on the land taken from natives, live in a society built on slavery and immigrant labor and collect welfare and the benefits of a system created out of the bloody war for decency that the working class of the 19th and 20th century fought, etc etc. No one ever opts out of those effects. But when the other part of those lasting effects- y'know, poverty, institutional disparity, sociological disparity, issues that take money and effort and sacrifice to deal with, well then everyone is quick to point out "well, wasn't me, was my ancestors or his ancestors." Because you're just here to enjoy the benefits, the negatives are problems exclusive to people of the past. What a convenient way to pass the buck- straight to someone who's dead and a class of people who are then held as responsible but unable to do anything to remedy it. "Welp, shit suck, you disadvantaged or harmed are just going to have to live with it." Or, if that's not entirely the case, then maybe you oppose it because you weren't physically involved. So? No one is. The Congress or Parliament and the President or whoever are. But the average person isn't. The average Londoner didn't personally decide to personally build an empire. Most Belgians didn't personally vote to personally brutalize Congolese residents. This is again just diverting the blame. "I didn't do it. I didn't agree to it." Again, though, this is shifting the blame for the bad to someone incapable of remedying harms done, while living off the benefits of those past policies. I mean, maybe you also didn't vote for LBJ but you aren't complaining about the programs he made. You din't go and fight in Iraq, but your country is still at fault here. That's the problem about living in a society: the society gives consent for leadership to make decisions with long-lasting impacts, and even those who did not approve or consent to the actions of that society are forced to live with the consequences- good or bad. And whether that's something that happened decades ago or last year, the 49% that lost the vote still gets stuck with the bill as much as the 51%. So yeah, man, that sucks that you didn't get a say in what American society or the American leadership with mandate from the masses did three or four generations ago, the consequences still exist. But that's still the American society- the one we both live in today- and it needs to pay its bill for its actions. I mean, yeah, get pissed that we have that bill. Please get pissed about that bill, because we sure as hell didn't agree to these actions. But we still have to pay it, or should pay it (because we just love passing the costs on to others) regardless of if the charge came in 1950s Iran coup or 1960s Baathists coup or 2003's invasion of Iraq or 2013's funding the FSA. And the thing is that that's all a collection of all those things, including lots of things we and our societies had less to do with. But when we make extremely huge changes that still have impacts and still directly lead to situations we struggle with today, then we can't ignore that. And when we are making actions with negative consequences today, then we can't ignore that either. The society is the society, if we aren't willing to tell the people who continue to do this stuff "no" or find a way to, then they're gonna keep adding to that bill. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48774327]So you see nothing wrong with lumping the actions of those governments in with those people to make a single unanimous entity that you can hate without shades of grey? I didn't vote for a government that wanted to go to war, but you want me to pay for that decision? Same to anyone in a similar boat as myself?[/QUOTE] Someone voted for them, or consented to it. See above.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48773999']The West is a goepolitical bloc with an intertwined economy and culture, so it's no more a sin to lump them together than to consider the Eastern Bloc a homogenous geopolitical entity, which is was for 50 years. Call it what you want. The Coalition, the Great Powers, the Imperial Powers, NATO, what have you. [/QUOTE] That's complete fucking bollocks. Just because those countries have intertwined economy and culture doesn't mean that the political decisions are made unanimously by a collective of those countries. USA is West, Canada is West, fucking Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czech republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, more countries than I care to count are all West. And you're saying those are all responsible for something [b]a couple[/b] of countries, some of which aren't even members of that block (Russia, Saudi Arabia) have done? And then backpedal by saying that "bad guys are shifting the blame"? Nah sorry, but that's not them shifting the blame, although they probably are, that's still you misplacing it, which began this whole argument. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48774430'] Like let's just think about that. So you're not responsible for what someone in the past did. Why? Is it because you physically weren't involved? Or is it because you don't condone it? I mean, I'm guessing it's a little of both because no one is saying "I'm not obligated to a share of the good because of something someone in the past did", right? It's always "I'm not obligated to a share of the bad because of something someone in the past did." I mean, you're happy to live on the land taken from natives, live in a society built on slavery and immigrant labor and collect welfare and the benefits of a system created out of the bloody war for decency that the working class of the 19th and 20th century fought, etc etc. No one ever opts out of those effects. But when the other part of those lasting effects- y'know, poverty, institutional disparity, sociological disparity, issues that take money and effort and sacrifice to deal with, well then everyone is quick to point out "well, wasn't me, was my ancestors or his ancestors." Because you're just here to enjoy the benefits, the negatives are problems exclusive to people of the past. What a convenient way to pass the buck- straight to someone who's dead and a class of people who are then held as responsible but unable to do anything to remedy it. "Welp, shit suck, you disadvantaged or harmed are just going to have to live with it." [/QUOTE] Right, so you lumped everyone in, "lol, you're being shit on now, that's the way it is, enjoy, don't go through it too fast or you'll choke on it" and then went on to give a lecture about common decency. [editline]27th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48774397] Make Russia take the refugees, not Europe.[/QUOTE] Haha, you should've said "make refugees go to Russia" instead, as they'd rather go somewhere where it doesn't make them miss their homeland.
[QUOTE=gudman;48774677] Right, so you lumped everyone in, "lol, you're being shit on now, that's the way it is, enjoy, don't go through it too fast or you'll choke on it" and then went on to give a lecture about common decency. [/QUOTE] You're arguing with a misanthrope that doesn't believe it's worth bringing new life into this world because they're just going to suffer.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48774430']Well, this is a crap argument, right? Like let's just think about that. So you're not responsible for what someone in the past did. Why? Is it because you physically weren't involved? Or is it because you don't condone it? I mean, I'm guessing it's a little of both because no one is saying "I'm not obligated to a share of the good because of something someone in the past did", right? It's always "I'm not obligated to a share of the bad because of something someone in the past did." I mean, you're happy to live on the land taken from natives, live in a society built on slavery and immigrant labor and collect welfare and the benefits of a system created out of the bloody war for decency that the working class of the 19th and 20th century fought, etc etc. No one ever opts out of those effects. But when the other part of those lasting effects- y'know, poverty, institutional disparity, sociological disparity, issues that take money and effort and sacrifice to deal with, well then everyone is quick to point out "well, wasn't me, was my ancestors or his ancestors." Because you're just here to enjoy the benefits, the negatives are problems exclusive to people of the past. What a convenient way to pass the buck- straight to someone who's dead and a class of people who are then held as responsible but unable to do anything to remedy it. "Welp, shit suck, you disadvantaged or harmed are just going to have to live with it." Or, if that's not entirely the case, then maybe you oppose it because you weren't physically involved. So? No one is. The Congress or Parliament and the President or whoever are. But the average person isn't. The average Londoner didn't personally decide to personally build an empire. Most Belgians didn't personally vote to personally brutalize Congolese residents. This is again just diverting the blame. "I didn't do it. I didn't agree to it." Again, though, this is shifting the blame for the bad to someone incapable of remedying harms done, while living off the benefits of those past policies. I mean, maybe you also didn't vote for LBJ but you aren't complaining about the programs he made. You din't go and fight in Iraq, but your country is still at fault here. That's the problem about living in a society: the society gives consent for leadership to make decisions with long-lasting impacts, and even those who did not approve or consent to the actions of that society are forced to live with the consequences- good or bad. And whether that's something that happened decades ago or last year, the 49% that lost the vote still gets stuck with the bill as much as the 51%. So yeah, man, that sucks that you didn't get a say in what American society or the American leadership with mandate from the masses did three or four generations ago, the consequences still exist. But that's still the American society- the one we both live in today- and it needs to pay its bill for its actions. I mean, yeah, get pissed that we have that bill. Please get pissed about that bill, because we sure as hell didn't agree to these actions. But we still have to pay it, or should pay it (because we just love passing the costs on to others) regardless of if the charge came in 1950s Iran coup or 1960s Baathists coup or 2003's invasion of Iraq or 2013's funding the FSA. And the thing is that that's all a collection of all those things, including lots of things we and our societies had less to do with. But when we make extremely huge changes that still have impacts and still directly lead to situations we struggle with today, then we can't ignore that. And when we are making actions with negative consequences today, then we can't ignore that either. The society is the society, if we aren't willing to tell the people who continue to do this stuff "no" or find a way to, then they're gonna keep adding to that bill. Someone voted for them, or consented to it. See above.[/QUOTE] To quote you [QUOTE]Well, this is a crap argument, right?[/QUOTE] Those costs are only ever foisted onto the bottom of society, on to the base that supports the rest of it. You say "Yes, get mad" but that's not really the answer, is it? Sure we should all pay our share, right? But that's not what you're saying. You're saying "You benefited in a small way, pay a huge cost." and ignoring the people who are really getting away with the actions that shape our world on a daily basis. Again, this is a fucking crap argument, right?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48773999'] Call it what you want. The Coalition, the Great Powers, the Imperial Powers, NATO, what have you. Agreed. Please send them here. Not that our government would accept them anymore than any of your want to, but yes, the US is the primary actor post-WWII in the Middle East. .[/QUOTE] Let me guess, the US is the sole problem in the world, we have destroyed everything, and it's all our fault. Know who else is at fault? The British, French, Germans, Soviet Union, and hell I can probably name more defunct unions, countries, etc that are not even around anymore. Yes, the US was very active, but so was EVERYONE else. Even those poor little Middle Eastern countries are at fault. Send them here? I agree, after we find a good way to screen them.
I like how the West tried to stay out of the conflict in Syria but now it's their fault anyways. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
[QUOTE=Jordax;48772808]Because I totally remember the time the Polish, Hungarians, the Greeks, the Latvians, the Estonians and the Czechs were funding rebels to stick it to an ally of Russia. Oh wait, it were the Yanks again. Yet we get stuffed with the fucking bill again.[/QUOTE] I don't know man, the European governments seem to be pretty happy about the US military bases in Europe. We even babysit some of their nuclear missiles. [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Doom64hunter;48778424]I like how the West tried to stay out of the conflict in Syria but now it's their fault anyways. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.[/QUOTE] But we didn't [img]http://cdn4.spiegel.de/images/image-896753-breitwandaufmacher-lqqr.jpg[/img] We just like to stay out of any direct intervention. Selling weapons, giving credits, exploiting ressources and pushing any moral responsibility towards beaurocratic structures like the UN, EU and NATO is the way we roll. That's why so many people don't understand how we are involved and actually think that we aren't. [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48774397]Should note that Syria really isn't the west's fault. The west didn't set up the dictator there and Assad was never a west-friendly dictator. They have always been leaning toward the USSR and now Russia. Make Russia take the refugees, not Europe.[/QUOTE] Not they haven't. As far as I know we gladly accepted their alliance against Iraq in both wars. The Assad family has masterfully played both sides and we gladly accetpted to play with them because the alternative would've been giving them up and twisting it into this stupid "Russia wins" idea.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;48774744]You're arguing with a misanthrope that doesn't believe it's worth bringing new life into this world because they're just going to suffer.[/QUOTE] No I'm not? And no I don't? [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=gudman;48774677]That's complete fucking bollocks. Just because those countries have intertwined economy and culture doesn't mean that the political decisions are made unanimously by a collective of those countries. USA is West, Canada is West, fucking Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czech republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, more countries than I care to count are all West. And you're saying those are all responsible for something [b]a couple[/b] of countries, some of which aren't even members of that block (Russia, Saudi Arabia) have done? And then backpedal by saying that "bad guys are shifting the blame"? Nah sorry, but that's not them shifting the blame, although they probably are, that's still you misplacing it, which began this whole argument.[/quote] That's not backpeddling. That's the way it is. Western powers do thing, other people suffer the costs. That's been my argument from the start. Whether it's the people of a country who get shafted, or their own allies, it's the M.O. of the west (read: western powers) to divert the costs onto whoever can't do shit about it, whether that's at home or abroad. Like, that's the EXACT POINT but you and everyone can't seem to make the link between the people given hardship by western actions and the countries given hardship by western actions. See any themes here? [quote]Right, so you lumped everyone in, "lol, you're being shit on now, that's the way it is, enjoy, don't go through it too fast or you'll choke on it" and then went on to give a lecture about common decency. [/QUOTE] No mate I'm trying to argue that that's the way it is but it doesn't have to be, so quit letting it happen. The people to blame here aren't the migrants but they'r the ones getting shafted. [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48775916]To quote you Those costs are only ever foisted onto the bottom of society, on to the base that supports the rest of it. You say "Yes, get mad" but that's not really the answer, is it? Sure we should all pay our share, right? But that's not what you're saying. You're saying "You benefited in a small way, pay a huge cost." and ignoring the people who are really getting away with the actions that shape our world on a daily basis. Again, this is a fucking crap argument, right?[/QUOTE] Not really. The costs against those harmed are usually huge. The costs that the American, German, French, British etc public would have to pay to offset it are comparably much smaller. Relatively speaking, if the US brought in 1 million migrants over four years that would be a piece of cake. The tax burden would be unnoticed. There's no reason not to do this. [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Pilot1215;48776798]Let me guess, the US is the sole problem in the world, we have destroyed everything, and it's all our fault. Know who else is at fault? The British, French, Germans, Soviet Union, and hell I can probably name more defunct unions, countries, etc that are not even around anymore. Yes, the US was very active, but so was EVERYONE else. Even those poor little Middle Eastern countries are at fault. Send them here? I agree, after we find a good way to screen them.[/QUOTE] No, I never said the US was the only problem. Specifically, I said the west, because everyone and their mom is well aware of Assad and so on being involved, but no one ever bothers to consider the western weight on the affair. Yes, the EU has a share of the burden. Yes, the UK, France, Germany, and America have a share of the burden. Yes, Russia has a huge share of the burden. But this is one instance- only one out of many- where western chickens are coming home to roost. The Gulf states, especially the Saudis and the eastern richer states, have a large swing in this too. They should be taking in migrants. The west isn't the only actor here, but we are the ones most capable of dealing with the fallout and we did- along with others- exacerbate the situation to this point. Difference is, whenever this happens it's rare to see anyone take responsibility for it. It's rare for the west to pay those costs from our share of the shit. And yet we're the ones most capable of paying those costs. So you can understand how I'm not too sympathetic. No one's outraged that Lebanon had its population swell by 25% by refugees, and no one was offering to help them. We were content just to let that happen. The only reason why we're even talking about refugees right now is because they've shown up at our door and we have to deal with it. This is why it's important to realize that this didn't just happen and we have clean hands and it's an outrage that we now have to house these people. This happens every time there's a war but yet this is the only time that we're talking about it and having to deal with it. We never help deal with that issue, so we can do it now and we should.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.