Europe's migrant problem

[Onkel Neal]

Bush did it, check.

Actually, I am not disagreeing, the war in Iraq was a mistake. As you remember, I supported it. There was intel on WMD, Saddam did nothing to dispel that, and I am naïve when it comes to helping people under the boot of a dictator. You know, the whole "if someone had shot Hitler in 1934"*; but we who thought the people of Iraq had some kind of sense and vision would have seized the chance to become a free and prosperous country...overestimated them by a mile. As well as did not understand all the crazy religiousosity, middle ages customs and sectarian hatred. But, I guess if you want to go back just a little further, European colonization....

But that aside, there have been wars, famines, and desperation in Africa and the Muddle East for decades, that's not new. What is new is the current and growing migration pattern. One analyst on NPR said that these thousands of migrants are only the tip of the spear, the hardy first pilgrims who will face death to get there. He said once Europe begins to open the doors and make the path safer and resettle the migrants, a real flood will begin.

We have Mexico and Central America, you guys are facing the wave of the rest of the third world.

[Torplexed]

There is a movement to shame the rich Gulf States into accepting some of these refugees. Here you have the crowded nations of Europe with a Christian or secular history taking in millions of Muslims while their rich Muslim neighbors look away. So much for brotherly Islamic values.

Saudi Arabia is a huge, empty country, much of it desert, certainly, but it supports 27 million people with a per capita GDP of more than $31,000. The United Arab Emirates is smaller, but it is also awash in oil wealth and could take a significant number. And the overflow of Syrian refugees that aren’t resettled in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the UAE could be settled, with Gulf money, in other huge, empty Arab countries, like Algeria and Sudan. The 22 member states of the Arab League cover 5 million square miles. Surely, somewhere in there they can find space for displaced Syrians. But, I think they are only too glad to see them moving on.

I suspect as with the decades-old Palestinian refugee problem, Saudi Arabia and the rest will talk the talk, but balk at the walk. The only exception being poor, over-burdened Jordan.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

There is a movement to shame the rich Gulf States into accepting some of these refugees. Here you have the crowded nations of Europe with a Christian or secular history taking in millions of Muslims while their rich Muslim neighbors look away. So much for brotherly Islamic values.

Saudi Arabia is a huge, empty country, much of it desert, certainly, but it supports 27 million people with a per capita GDP of more than $31,000. The United Arab Emirates is smaller, but it is also awash in oil wealth and could take a significant number. And the overflow of Syrian refugees that aren’t resettled in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the UAE could be settled, with Gulf money, in other huge, empty Arab countries, like Algeria and Sudan. The 22 member states of the Arab League cover 5 million square miles. Surely, somewhere in there they can find space for displaced Syrians. But, I think they are only too glad to see them moving on.

I suspect as with the decades-old Palestinian refugee problem, Saudi Arabia and the rest will talk the talk, but balk at the walk. The only exception being poor, over-burdened Jordan.

Exactly.

[Schroeder]

Welcome back Fish.

Originally Posted by Dan D

https://twitter.com/thomas_wiegold/s...79549026160640
"Russian troops join combat in Syria - sources - Reuters"

We can only hope. That would be the best that could happen for everyone, well except DAESH that is.

[CCIP]

Well, like I keep mentioning, there are other forces at play in Mideast politics that I think West often fails to appreciate properly. Some of them are purely political, in some cases nationalist or even tribal. While the West complains about religion, the Gulf states, paradoxically, are probably more concerned about letting in large numbers of Arabs raised under Baathist regimes and who, whether they supported the regimes or not, likely have socialist leanings. After having seen the Arab Spring (and arguably having dodged a bullet from it), the Arab states are all too conscious of the consequences.

Imagine being a Syrian refugee trying to save your family, with the press in the West complaining how you're far too much of a traditional Islamist to be tolerated without risk, while Arab states look at you and say you're not traditional enough and are far too socialist to not be a danger to their social order. Nice life, isn't it?

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Bush did it, check.

Yes, and Obama finished it by pulling out while the country was still an unstable steaming pile of cow dung. I don't know who was more stupid.
What did they expect would happen in a power vacuum in the middle east?

[Rockstar]

Oh wait a minute now if I remember correctly everyone here, including europeans, were hot to trot aboard the Arab Spring band wagon. Everyone was shouting with glee 'down with dictators', 'bring down those current governments and self proclaimed rulers for life', 'power to the people', etc etc. blah blah. Seems to me everyone back then, including europeans, were all for destabilizing the region.

You got exactely what you asked for. Or are you all now trying to say the immigrants flooding your shores are just coming from Iraq?

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Oh wait a minute now if I remember correctly everyone here, including europeans, were hot to trot aboard the Arab Spring band wagon. Everyone was shouting with glee 'down with dictators', 'bring down those current governments and self proclaimed rulers for life', 'power to the people', etc etc. blah blah. Seems to me everyone back then, including europeans, were all for destabilizing the region.

You got exactely what you asked for. Or are you all now trying to say the immigrants flooding your shores are just coming from Iraq?

You've got a very selective memory then as a lot of Europeans have actually warned about the destabilization and the risks that are involved. (can't find the proper links anymore but here is one I found after a quick search:http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/prin...d.php?t=206939)

Not all refugees are from Iraq but a good portion. The majorities actually are from Iraq and Syria.

[SadhuFM]

Not going to talk about the subjective reasons: the games of politicians, the war in Syria, etc. This is not the cause but the consequence. Karma, if you will. Four years ago I told my friend: if Europe will continue to play in tolerance and to break natural laws, it will be Islamized within. Not because the Islamic radicals are right. Just the universe always maintains a balance. Figuratively speaking, where too much of liberalism, there comes the Sharia (in this case). What now? Presumably, the pendulum will swing toward the revival of Nazism in Europe. Nothing new. History is not linear is the spiral. All will be repeated till people don't learn the lessons and till they don't correct their mistakes .

[Jimbuna]

Great topic with some honest, thoughtful and interesting views thus far.

I'll leave it at that from myself to enable any potential future moderator intervention.

[sturmer]

most european countries just dont have the resources to help the migrants, like here in belgium for example.
most countries have problems to help their own people and everyone expects that those countries help the migrants.
okay they need help, but it always has to come from the same countries.
why arent saudi arabia or dubai or those other rich countries helping them?

Originally Posted by sturmer

why arent saudi arabia or dubai or those other rich countries helping them?

Haha... good one.



Saudi Arabia... one of the worlds buttholes.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Yes, and Obama finished it by pulling out while the country was still an unstable steaming pile of cow dung. I don't know who was more stupid.
What did they expect would happen in a power vacuum in the middle east?

Interesting take, given it was Bush who set the pullout date and timetable during his negotiations with the Iraqi puppet government his administration set up. It is also interesting the final pullout date was 'coincidentally' set after the end of his terms, rather than during his Presidency. I guess he and his cronies knew they had severely, and for the American servicepersons killed and maimed for really no purpose, tragically botched the whole situation and also saw the inevitable chaos that would come after US forces were withdrawn and chose to let whoever followed Bush to take the hit and thereby not damage Bush's sterling "legacy"...

Whoever followed Bush was left with a no-win situation: if they pulled out, the outcry would match what we have now and what is characterized in the quote above; if they had stayed or increased US presence in Iraq in contradiction to the Bush-negotiated agreement, the cry would be of war-mongering, duplicity, 'imperial Presidency', etc. It didn't matter if it was Romney or Obama: Bush crapped all over US foreign policy, as he did US economic policy, and left the steaming piles for his successor(s)...


<O>

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by vienna

Interesting take, given it was Bush who set the pullout date and timetable during his negotiations with the Iraqi puppet government his administration set up. It is also interesting the final pullout date was 'coincidentally' set after the end of his terms, rather than during his Presidency. I guess he and his cronies knew they had severely, and for the American servicepersons killed and maimed for really no purpose, tragically botched the whole situation and also saw the inevitable chaos that would come after US forces were withdrawn and chose to let whoever followed Bush to take the hit and thereby not damage Bush's sterling "legacy"...

Whoever followed Bush was left with a no-win situation: if they pulled out, the outcry would match what we have now and what is characterized in the quote above; if they had stayed or increased US presence in Iraq in contradiction to the Bush-negotiated agreement, the cry would be of war-mongering, duplicity, 'imperial Presidency', etc. It didn't matter if it was Romney or Obama: Bush crapped all over US foreign policy, as he did US economic policy, and left the steaming piles for his successor(s)...


<O>

Bush is working on his autobiography....

HOW I SCREWED EVERYBODY WITH MY BIG DICK CHENEY

He'd be done by now if the crayons would stop breaking.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by vienna

Interesting take, given it was Bush who set the pullout date and timetable during his negotiations with the Iraqi puppet government his administration set up.

I stand corrected then.