|
Tesseraction posted:It has? I mean I just literally searched 'Somalia war debunked' and all the results cross out 'debunked' in the results due to lack of them. Do you have something to back this up? http://www.trust.org/spotlight/Somalia-in-turmoil/?tab=briefing http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc11972.doc.htm http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/rape-victims-still-blamed-for-sexual-violence-in-somalia-10229605.html http://www.france24.com/en/20150407-somalia-al-shabaab-adapts-despite-territorial-military-losses http://editorials.voa.gov/content/human-rights-in-somalia-still-suffer/2853020.html Basically its bullshit and like every other right wing talking point is refutable with a minuscule amount of independent research. Somalia is still one of the most dangerous countries in the world. There are still over a million internally displaced people and million on surrounding countries too. No, it's not as bad as Syria but nothing at the moment is. Syria is not a benchmark for whether or not you have cause to be refugee. And as always, the developing world is shouldering the lion's share of refugees in that conflict as well while we cry over a fraction.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It has? I mean I just literally searched 'Somalia war debunked' and all the results cross out 'debunked' in the results due to lack of them. Do you have something to back this up? Might be their foreign minister is bullshitting right here, not saying that. Might be he is not. People from Somaliland are not looking for refuge because of a war either. Source. It pretty clearly says they do not. And so on. But believe what you will. Nobody looking for asylum here will tell why they are doing so at this point in the first place anyway, which is a shame for the hundreds of thousands of actual refugees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:Explain why secular democracy has failed to take root in any middle eastern country and why free elections in iraq, afganistan, and Egypt has only lead to people like the Muslim Brotherhood winning. Because the West spent most of the 20th century suppressing democracy. The aftermath of colonialism and imperialism left former colonies all over the world very vulnerable to military coups and utterly lacking in democratic traditions and ambitions, which had largely been purged from those countries by imperial oppressors. For example, Iran had its democracy crushed twice over the course of the 20th century, since the will of the people tended to threaten British oil interests, and a weak-ish autocratic monarch dependent on brutal repression with Western support was thought to make for a more obedient puppet government. That brutal repression then managed to virtually eradicate organized secular political opposition, but religious political opposition proved more resilient due to its strong non-political roots and was therefore better positioned to dominate the political scene once the repression subsided.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Might be their foreign minister is bullshitting right here, not saying that. Might be he is not. Okay, that top one clearly has him saying that the war is easing up and is more him trying to prevent population decline as opposed to saying 'war over' - which does not mean that he is trying to argue against a false perception of war, but this is by no means a debunking. The second one is about Somaliland, a country far to the north of where the allegedly-debunked war was taking place. There's a massive buffer zone between the two regions. Look, I'm not acting like the War in Somalia keeps me up at night but I'd be drat happy to believe it was over, especially with close family in the region of conflict (although far enough away from the violence for now). The situation is slowly starting to improve but that does not mean the war or refugee situation is over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because the West spent most of the 20th century suppressing democracy. To back you up, a few examples: Belgium (and the CIA) contributing to the execution of the DRC's first leader, Patrice Lumumba CIA aid in deposing the popular Prime Minister of Iran in favour of the Shah, who was so hated he led to the Islamic Revolution loving Pinochet Hell just read Killing Hope by William Blum. A long list of times America (particularly the CIA) directly subverted democracy in foreign nations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Unknown Dyne posted:Good. They're protecting Sweden from themselves. You are linking to a neo-nazi news source.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
That's his gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because the West spent most of the 20th century suppressing democracy. The aftermath of colonialism and imperialism left former colonies all over the world very vulnerable to military coups and utterly lacking in democratic traditions and ambitions, which had largely been purged from those countries by imperial oppressors. For example, Iran had its democracy crushed twice over the course of the 20th century, since the will of the people tended to threaten British oil interests, and a weak-ish autocratic monarch dependent on brutal repression with Western support was thought to make for a more obedient puppet government. That brutal repression then managed to virtually eradicate organized secular political opposition, but religious political opposition proved more resilient due to its strong non-political roots and was therefore better positioned to dominate the political scene once the repression subsided. Stop it with your facts and valid points. It's obvious that the second you open a Quran, the glorious light of Allah spills out and wipes thoughts of secular democracy from your mind, replacing it with the urge to strap bombs to yourself and rape white women. It's clear the only option is to burn ever Quran and nuke Islam off the map, you loving liberal shitscum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Ligur posted:I think it's "funny" the people who laugh at the idea that stuff like the Charlie Hebdo shootings are about Islamic terrorism at the same time think Islamic movements are not a trouble at all, and scoff at the idea it could cause trouble in Europe (like a migrant wave, if nothing else). The nazis are probably the scourge of the realm, right. For example ISIS? Hell no, that's not about Islamic fundies and their Caliphate. Nothing to worry about. And if you worry about it? Islamophobic! And possibly racist too! They just drove off millions of Syrians out of the country. But there's surely nothing to worry about with Islamists anywhere. PerpetualSelf posted:Explain why secular democracy has failed to take root in any middle eastern country and why free elections in iraq, afganistan, and Egypt has only lead to people like the Muslim Brotherhood winning. Main Paineframe posted:Because the West spent most of the 20th century suppressing democracy. The aftermath of colonialism and imperialism left former colonies all over the world very vulnerable to military coups and utterly lacking in democratic traditions and ambitions, which had largely been purged from those countries by imperial oppressors. For example, Iran had its democracy crushed twice over the course of the 20th century, since the will of the people tended to threaten British oil interests, and a weak-ish autocratic monarch dependent on brutal repression with Western support was thought to make for a more obedient puppet government. That brutal repression then managed to virtually eradicate organized secular political opposition, but religious political opposition proved more resilient due to its strong non-political roots and was therefore better positioned to dominate the political scene once the repression subsided.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
I think everyone's favourite Slovenian Marxist has a pretty good point:quote:It is not inherently racist or proto-fascist for host populations to talk of protecting their ‘way of life’: this notion must be abandoned. If it is not, the way will be clear for the forward march of anti-immigration sentiment in Europe whose latest manifestation is in Sweden, where according to the latest polling the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats have overtaken the Social Democrats as the country’s most popular party. The standard left-liberal line on this is an arrogant moralism: the moment we give any credence to the idea of ‘protecting our way of life’, we compromise our position, since we’re merely proposing a more modest version of what anti-immigrant populists openly advocate. And this is indeed the cautious approach that centrist parties have adopted in recent years. They reject the open racism of anti-immigrant populists, but at the same time profess that they ‘understand the concerns’ of ordinary people, and so enact a more ‘rational’ anti-immigration policy. I wonder if Europeans inviting the masses directly into their homes might really be a sign of the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
fade5 posted:The most effective fighters against ISIL have been Kurdish forces (YPG/YPJ in Syria, Peshmerga in Iraq), who are majority (you guessed it) Muslim, and Sunni Muslim at that. Considering we're also backing Turkey, who's currently using Syria and the war on ISIS as an excuse to bomb the ever loving poo poo out of Kurdish forces in the area and launch assaults on their bases of operation? You tell me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Considering we're also backing Turkey, who's currently using Syria and the war on ISIS as an excuse to bomb the ever loving poo poo out of Kurdish forces in the area and launch assaults on their bases of operation? You tell me. The point is that treating all refugees as evil secret Islamist Muslims who are gonna kill everybody once they get to [x] country is loving dumb, and scaremongering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I think it was lmaoboy1998 who said that Saudi Arabia have taken in something like 50k (or was it 500k?) but don't class them as refugees because of the way their system works. Of course that's according to them so the number is probably a little lower at least, but suggests that they have done something. It was me. Source was a BBC audio clip from this post. Volkerball posted:Saudi Arabia is pretty pissed off. According to them, they have 500,000 Syrians inside the country who weren't there prior to the war, all of whom have healthcare. 300,000 of them were given scholarships to universities. But they don't have a formal refugee program, so they call these people "visitors." Now they're probably stretching the truth a little bit, but the people tossing around this "0 refugees in KSA" factoid likely are as well. murphyslaw posted:Don't get me wrong-- I am not saying that I think they are not welcome to seek refuge in Europe, nor that the refugee situation is the main cause (or even one of the main causes) of instability in the ME. But it contributes to this instability, to what degree I am uncertain, of course. No, I understood what you were saying. You're certainly right, as you say, to a degree. And Lebanon obviously isn't a mirror image, but the reason I bring it up is because Lebanon was something that was discussed a lot in Jordan around 2012 and onwards, and it was relevant there. And Jordan is clearly an important case study for Europe. I had the opportunity to sort of pick the brain of the director at Zaatari, as well as to speak with some educated Jordanian folks around that time period, and my takeaway was that the lessons learned from Lebanon and Jordan are very important. The early plans to house refugees in Jordan were hastily done, and "temporary" was a key component of that strategy, rather naively in hindsight. Zaatari, which is now the largest refugee camp in the Middle East, was built in two weeks. It quickly became apparent that the flow of refugees was not slowing down, and people weren't going home any time soon. In response, the UNHCR built a second ambitious, more permanent camp, Afraq. The problem was that the UNHCR routinely gets 20-30% of their annual funding requests, and they were not only trying to build a new camp with the lessons of the Lebanese situation (that these camps might exist 50+ years down the road, and they need to have the infrastructure to grow and adapt into actual cities), but also fix the situation in Zaatari, which was woefully unprepared for what it was tasked with. The result is that of 1.6 million refugees, only 600,000 are registered with the UNHCR, and the rest are undocumented, trying to survive in urban areas as best they can. The latter group makes up a large portion of the 86% of refugees in Jordan who live below Jordan's poverty line. Washington Post has an excellent collaboration of stories from a year or so ago that documents this well, btw. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/syrian-refugees/story/refuge/ I totally understand how keeping this reality in mind hurts the overall argument. It's much easier to convince people who are hesitant that the refugees coming in would only be there temporarily rather than trying to explain that they will have to be adopted in as permanent citizens, but it's hugely important not to resort to that, or it's a massive disservice to not just Syrians, but refugees from all over the Middle East and Africa trying to seek refuge. Because much like how we look back today on Jordans policy in 2012 as naive, we are likely to judge what happens today as naive in 2019 if the policies are unprepared for the worst. On that note, I'd like to point something out about Syrian refugees in particular. I don't have as much direct experience with them as some posters, like Lascivious Sloth, but I have enough that I'm sure they'd agree with me. When the protests kicked off, overall, people were saying things not one person on these forums would disagree with. That it's wrong for the leadership of a country to be handed down from father to son. That it's wrong for government agencies to act as enforcers for the state rather than as servants of the people. That's it's wrong for there to be no oversight that ensures representation for all people in Syria, rather than sole representation for the whims of a single man. As the revolution progressed into a military fight rather than a civil one, it was these people who became most disenfranchised. The opposition government, and opposition forces, became dependent on international actors because they weren't strong enough to succeed independently. These Qatari, Saudi, and Turkish influences had an effect that worked for the FSA, JaN, Ahrar, Jaysh, and ISIS, as well as Iranian and Russian support that worked for Assad. The supporters of all the groups I just listed had a dog in the fight, with international support. If you support one of those groups, you have a reason to stay in Syria. To support those groups and their goal. Europeans far removed from the conflict have migrated to Syria to support these groups materially, so it stands to reason that those within Syria already would largely stay to do the same. The most marginalized group were the original activists, who simply wanted a free and fair Syria. They were public enemy number 1 for the two most barbaric forces in the country, the regime, and ISIS. These activists were a group of people who could find next to no safe haven in Syria. In ISIS held territory, democratic activists were detained, tortured, and executed as "kuffar," because they presented the most dangerous threat to ISIS' oppressive rule. In Souriya al-Assad, in addition to being detained, tortured and executed, they were also subject to an indiscriminate bombing campaign, that has murdered tens of thousands of civilians in their homes. Assad has consistently tried to force a decision upon the people of Syria. You get me, or you get terrorists. In order for that claim to resonate, he had to make it as true as possible, and so the regime spent a vast majority of its effort taking out people who were a counterweight to the idea that the opposition was purely composed of jihadists. He also largely spared the jihadist opposition of his brutality in this same aim. For instance, ISIS headquarters in Raqqa and Aleppo were both clearly marked buildings, and the coordinates to both were provided to the regime during the Geneva II negotiations by opposition activists. "You claim to fight terrorism, so bomb these places." Both buildings survived untouched until the very first day US strikes began in Syria. This campaign resulted in situations where some people, Sunni's who felt they could talk the talk enough to survive, or legitimately supported ISIS, were actually fleeing to ISIS held territory, because it was safer than Aleppo or the Damascus suburbs. For these activists, the war quickly degraded into something they barely recognized, fought by people they didn't support. This group makes up the vast majority of refugees, because the only thing keeping them in Syria was the belief that "this is my home." For some activists, like Zaina Erhaim, that sense of defiance and pride was too strong to justify leaving, despite her articles showing a massive disillusion in the direction Syria is going. But many fled. In many ways, the heart of the revolution moved to places like Zaatari, where the protests in favor of legitimate reform continued. And now, in the continued absence safety and security, it's moving to Europe. My point with this post that is entirely too long already, is that these are people you want in your country. I cannot describe to you the horrors they have dealt with in their lives. Famine due to sieges. Indiscriminate bombing. Chemical weapons attacks. Polio. Freezing to death. Vaccination mistakes resulting in dead children. Humiliating treatment by natives of countries they've fled to. Horrific torture in modern day concentration camps. Genocidal massacres. Sniper fire shooting down their streets at anything that moved. On and on and on. And through it all, they've maintained their sense of humor. It's impossible not to be deeply moved when you speak to people who have suffered so much, and still get up every morning. They have a perspective that is impossible to get in the West, because of all the civil protections we have to prevent us from experiencing the kind of trauma these refugees have had to go through. The perspective of a people who looked up at a gigantic picture of a totalitarian dictator, then looked down at the leather jacket wearing thug from the Mukhabarat underneath it, and realized that loyalty was not optional. Yet stood up and demanded their voices be heard anyways. They dealt with unimaginable suffering as a consequence, but never gave up. Even today, they have a hunger for life that pushes them to go through extreme sacrifice and personal danger to pursue just a chance at a future by trying to get into Europe, when most of us would just want to give up, die, and be done with it. It saddens me that at its best case, the US would take in maybe 100k refugees this year. That's one refugee for every 3,180 Americans. The vast majority of Americans would go their entire lives without so much as seeing a Syrian refugee, much less interact with them, when there's so much to be gained from these people. And of course, 100,000 is a pipe dream of a number anyways. In Europe, you have the opportunity to do something much better, like Germany has done. To allow in enough refugees to achieve a significant social impact. Countries where your children will grow up next to Syrian children that have gone through tremendous adversity, to inspire them. Where your Syrian co-worker can provide an insight and context to political and social realities you never would have understood otherwise, and benefit you personally. And that's to say nothing of the benefits of a people who have fought so long and hard and suffered so much for the things we take for granted every day of our lives, being given the freedom to finally pursue dreams, as if being unchained for the first time. Now, obviously, not everyone is perfect. Every massive sample size has outliers. But as a whole, these refugees have tremendous benefits to offer your countries, and I have no doubt in my mind that supporting their resettlement will have the potential for huge positive impact on so many fronts in Europe. So don't have a shallow outlook on this crisis. While many of you legitimately have your hearts in the right place, this is something much more significant than just agreeing to pay more in taxes to help people you feel sorry for. Find a way get involved in the political fight in favor of this. When they come, find the refugees in your communities and welcome them into your society, your culture, and your lives. Listen to their stories, their aspirations, and their beliefs. Encourage your friends and family to do the same. Only through that can you achieve real integration and real resettlement. But this goal has a real possibility of being realized over there, and for that, I'm truly jealous of you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Ligur posted:I don't know man. The Somalia warzone has been debunked a billion times. Nobody is leaving there because of that. Or very few. They are out to make money. Which is fine. Holy poo poo! You had to pick the Somalian example didn't you. I'm Somalian (parents from Hargeisa and Sheik respectively, all eventual American citizens though). Say that to people being gunned down by the Shebab outside Mogadishu, or grinded up in another forever clan fight near the Kenyan border. Somaliland is doing fairly alright, yet I've personally seen the after effects of bombings (on various UN buildings and embassies) just a year or two ago. Do you have to be swimming out of your depth here, or do you like flailing? quote:Anyway if doubling, quadrupling, or having even the same amount or 150% the number of immigrants to the eurozone every year, year on year out, or whatever is "normal" in your opinion, and that you think it has been going down for the past 200 years or the past 10 years, I don't know what to say. Happy trails, I guess! I don't even know what this means! quote:Please do post how housing people who can't find a job is profitable to the country housing them, especially a welfare-state. There have been 0 studies this far that proves this is the case, and there won't be any. I want to believe housing people who are unemployed is somehow a great thing for Norway, Sweden or Finland but just can't find any proof. An actual discrete study on the effects of refugees in a localized area quote:Research provides evidence that refugees are highly motivated and wish to give back to their host country. http://rsccleveland.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ClevelandRefugeeEconomic-Impact.pdf Germany quote:In a study on the broader economic impact of immigration, Loeffelholz and Kopp (1998) estimated http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affair...tudy-eng_en.pdf Sweden quote:Sweden represented a net cost of e20k for the public sector, but the variation http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-013_15702a45-fbc3-44d7-be52-477123ee58d0.pdf More ambigious, but nowhere near as bad as what you were stating before. Oh, and BTW in that same article quote:Edin et I could go on, but you get the point, right? Its not too hard to find this stuff either. EDIT: Ligur posted:I think it's "funny" the people who laugh at the idea that stuff like the Charlie Hebdo shootings are about Islamic terrorism at the same time think Islamic movements are not a trouble at all, and scoff at the idea it could cause trouble in Europe (like a migrant wave, if nothing else). Maybe read about the muslim population in France before spouting off? Here's a start: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-other-france Maybe that's asking too much of you? I think it might be. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Sep 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Yeah, we had a big influx of Somali immigrants to the Twin Cities starting around 2000, as far as I'm aware. And it seems like the biggest issue has been other people's attitudes towards them. I've had nothing but good experiences. They make a good gyro too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Boywhiz88 posted:Yeah, we had a big influx of Somali immigrants to the Twin Cities starting around 2000, as far as I'm aware. And it seems like the biggest issue has been other people's attitudes towards them. I've had nothing but good experiences. I would have thought that the biggest problem is that they keep joining ISIS
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
SickZip posted:I would have thought that the biggest problem is that they keep joining ISIS funny how joining cobra isn't as tempting when you don't have to worry about b.a.t.s breaking down your door if you don't
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:To back you up, a few examples: Not just even talking about that. Most of the Middle East and North Africa came under British or French domination after World War I, and of course those countries didn't exactly encourage true, strong, fair democracy. When those countries were finally granted independence, it was often on terms favorable to Britain and France, and typically not done in a way that encouraged strong civilian institutions. For example, France conquered Syria's briefly independent government in 1920. They promised Syria independence in 1936, but then changed their mind, so the newly formed Syrian legislature was essentially powerless, and other French violations of the treaty led to quick dissolution of the Syrian attempt at Republic. France promised Syria independence again in 1941, but did not actually follow through until 1945. Of course, the independent Syrian republic only made it a few years before a CIA-sponsored military coup destabilized the country enough for three more coups to take place within a couple of years, and so on and so forth, but foreign destruction of democracy in the Middle East didn't start with the Cold War.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Another great effort post. Syrian moderates getting screwed itp. Thank you. Like John green says, it's not easy being a moderate, thank you again for the post. Edit: I'm at work thumbing away on a phone so I can't do the post justice. Beautiful, moving. Jack B Nimble fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Thank you. Like John green says, it's not easy being a moderate, thank you again for the post. Isn't being a moderate pretty much the easiest political perspective one can have? It's not a coincidence that so many people choose to self-identify as moderates, even if their actual views may line up with the Republican or Democratic parties. There's also nothing intrinsically more correct about being "moderate" than being on either end of the political spectrum (which is itself arbitrarily defined within the context of a given society); I think that many people just think of the colloquial definition of "moderate" and its positive connotation and just assume that moderates must be more calm and rational.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:14
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Isn't being a moderate pretty much the easiest political perspective one can have? It's not a coincidence that so many people choose to self-identify as moderates, even if their actual views may line up with the Republican or Democratic parties. There's also nothing intrinsically more correct about being "moderate" than being on either end of the political spectrum (which is itself arbitrarily defined within the context of a given society); I think that many people just think of the colloquial definition of "moderate" and its positive connotation and just assume that moderates must be more calm and rational. It's also pretty inaccurate to describe pro-democracy or politically liberal people as being "moderate" in this case, because they're not really in the middle in a political sense.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Isn't being a moderate pretty much the easiest political perspective one can have? It's not a coincidence that so many people choose to self-identify as moderates, even if their actual views may line up with the Republican or Democratic parties. There's also nothing intrinsically more correct about being "moderate" than being on either end of the political spectrum (which is itself arbitrarily defined within the context of a given society); I think that many people just think of the colloquial definition of "moderate" and its positive connotation and just assume that moderates must be more calm and rational. You're right, I choose a poor word and tried to fit a concept in where it didn't belong. However, regarding moderates: self identifying (in private or in other circumstances without real consequences) as being level headed, open minded, even handed is easy; actually adopting and standing for real moderation (meaning compromise and concessions to the other side, seen as a betrayal by whoever thought you were on 'their side' is harder.. However, I didn't mean to portray pro-democracy Syrians as being politically centered in a spectrum bracketed by Assad and ISIS; I only meant to suggest that they're getting it coming and going. Jack B Nimble fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Thank goodness they fired her, what an rear end in a top hat. For everyone else: This is in relation to a reporter who tripped a refugee in Hungary, the refugee was carrying his son. The report tripped him in order to help police. http://www.businessinsider.com/camerawoman-tripping-refugee-in-hungary-2015-9
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
We should fix those countries the refugees keep coming from instead of bringing them in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Instead? Why not both?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
amuayse posted:We should fix those countries the refugees keep coming from instead of bringing them in While it's true that letting in immigrants isn't going to even come close to fixing poverty, he doesn't provide any evidence that our infrastructure can't handle the current number of immigrants (or more). His argument is basically "This thing doesn't solve the problem of global poverty; therefore, we should stop doing it", while ignoring the fact that a tiny good is still better than nothing at all. If he spent his presentation somehow proving the harm that said immigration would cause then maybe it would be useful. Honestly it seems like that entire talk is just attacking some bizarre strawman that somehow thinks immigration will solve world poverty, even though I've never seen or heard anyone make that argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
I think it's depriving said countries of their best people. While I wouldn't say no to having more engineers and doctors, I'd rather have them stay in their countries where they are needed more. Troops should be sent abroad to help these countries and help fix the governments. The US did a poor job in trying to stabilize these countries. I was particularly upset about Iraq and how we abandoned it halfway through to fixing it. Ytlaya posted:Honestly it seems like that entire talk is just attacking some bizarre strawman that somehow thinks immigration will solve world poverty, even though I've never seen or heard anyone make that argument. amuayse fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While it's true that letting in immigrants isn't going to even come close to fixing poverty, he doesn't provide any evidence that our infrastructure can't handle the current number of immigrants (or more). His argument is basically "This thing doesn't solve the problem of global poverty; therefore, we should stop doing it", while ignoring the fact that a tiny good is still better than nothing at all. If he spent his presentation somehow proving the harm that said immigration would cause then maybe it would be useful. You clearly did not watch the entire video.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
amuayse posted:I think it's depriving said countries of their best people. While I wouldn't say no to having more engineers and doctors, I'd rather have them stay in their countries where they are needed more. Troops should be sent abroad to help these countries and help fix the governments. We were nowhere near fixing Iraq. Propping up weak, corrupt governments no one wanted was never going to fix the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:We were nowhere near fixing Iraq. Propping up weak, corrupt governments no one wanted was never going to fix the Middle East. In honest to God truth, I'd rather we had permanent bases there to keep the peace than have it all collapse. amuayse fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
amuayse posted:We should fix those countries the refugees keep coming from instead of bringing them in We've been "fixing" them, that is the problem
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:We've been "fixing" them, that is the problem
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
amuayse posted:We were making decent progress, and we were trying our best to try and get the Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds to cooperate. Of course that all fell apart when we pulled out right after we set up the unpopular Shiite run government and ISIS rose to power. We were in Iraq for almost a decade, and we would have stayed even longer if Iraq hadn't refused to keep granting US soldiers immunity from Iraqi law. It's not like we overthrew Saddam and bailed immediately, like you seem to be implying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:We were in Iraq for almost a decade, and we would have stayed even longer if Iraq hadn't refused to keep granting US soldiers immunity from Iraqi law. It's not like we overthrew Saddam and bailed immediately, like you seem to be implying. There were a lot of fuckups that added some stupid years in there, but the post-surge environment where progress was finally being made needed a few more years of tlc when Obama came into office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Stellar post Fantastic points all around. Thanks for weighing in. I'll see what ways I can contribute. I'll definitely share your post with friends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
mission accomplished
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:There were a lot of fuckups that added some stupid years in there, but the post-surge environment where progress was finally being made needed a few more years of tlc when Obama came into office. Even so, I'd say the premiership of Maliki was the key to a lot of the problems then and now. Not to say without him it'd be peachy, but he seemed to be a walking gently caress-up generator at every step.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Even so, I'd say the premiership of Maliki was the key to a lot of the problems then and now. Not to say without him it'd be peachy, but he seemed to be a walking gently caress-up generator at every step. Bush "picking" him created that issue, and that's important to keep in mind. But Obama didn't help by telling Maliki to deal with "Iraqi problems," which he went on to deal with on a very sectarian basis. The Obama administration gave him a sort of green light, not really paying attention to what was happening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Yeah I remember Bush picking him based on Maliki claiming he knew the plight of Iraq despite having not been there in like 30 years and with little-to-no contacts among the actual populace. I think it was in Al Franken's book where even after Maliki had been picked to be installed Bush had to be explained the difference between Sunni and Shia, and in fact the consultant had despaired that when he was asked to explain the difference it was because Bush didn't realise there was a difference or that the terms existed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 13:34
|
|