[N_Fiddledog]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So bombing Libya, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were Bush and Cheney?

Two words - Arab Spring.

[N_Fiddledog]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

How many is the US taking in

I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but I just happened to see this one about how nobody is helping the Christians and remembered your question.

$1:

Such "unfathomable mysteries" are reminiscent of the U.S. State Department's habit of inviting Muslim representatives but denying visas to Christian representatives. Since the start of 2015, 4,205 Muslims have been admitted into the U.S. from Iraq, but only 727 Christians. For every Christian granted asylum, the U.S. grants asylum to five or six Muslims -- even though Christians, as persecuted "infidel" minorities, are in much greater need of sanctuary.

U.S. and West Victimize Christians

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

My guess is that unlike Europe most, if not all of them don't want the problems ISIS and other terrorists organizations that are using this tragedy as a springboard to expand their cells would bring.

The Gulf nations haven't signed on to the UN Conventions on Refugees that require them to consider refuge for anyone that asks.

And frankly, do we really want anyone going to those shitholes that doesn't have to?

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

How many is the US taking in and the reason I ask is because, their foreign policies have turned Iraq into giant sectarian war, Syria into a giant civil war, Libya into a religious quagmire, Egypt into a military dictatorship and Iran into a nuclear power.

I don't know about the US, but Germany is expected to take on 600,000 this year. With a 80 million people, that's a decent percentage of population. I don't think the US will be taking on triple that, in proportion to their population.

Harper committed to 12,000 over 10 years or something. Iranians and Syrians. That works out to be about 600 Syrians per year. So much for the myth that we take in our fair share of refugees.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

How many is the US taking in and the reason I ask is because, their foreign policies have turned Iraq into giant sectarian war, Syria into a giant civil war, Libya into a religious quagmire, Egypt into a military dictatorship and Iran into a nuclear power.

So, if anyone should be taking refugees from those shitholes it should be our neighbours to the south but, I'm pretty sure not even the current administration is stupid enough to start bringing them in wholesale given that alot of these refugees oddly enough seem to be of military service age.

I never thought I'd say this but, I hope Russia puts Assad back in power and ends the Obama experiment in bringing democracy to the 12th century.

Not a bad post, but FTR Egypt has always been a military dictatorship since the British puppet King Farouk was overthrown in 1952.

And also regarding your Obama comment, note that democratizing the Arab countries via destabilization of the existing regimes was a stated goal of the Bush administration and one of the arguments they used to justify the Iraq invasion was that it would trigger an "Arab Spring" throughout the Middle East.

The Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney families should personally have to take in refugees since they're the individuals most responsible for this mess.

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And frankly, do we really want anyone going to those shitholes that doesn't have to?

You mean those countries that are literally drowning in oil money ?

$1:

I don't know about the US, but Germany is expected to take on 600,000 this year. With a 80 million people, that's a decent percentage of population. I don't think the US will be taking on triple that, in proportion to their population.

They are finding out rather quickly that they don't have 600,000 warm places for the winter.

Expect lots of shit to hit the fan in November, considering they are already removing the
lowest income Germans from subsidized housing.


Oh, and,

http://www.thelocal.de/20150626/refugee ... rm-modesty

$1:

A school in Bavaria has sent a letter home to parents warning them not to let their daughters wear revealing blouses or short skirts, because emergency accommodation for refugees has been set up next to the gym.

"The Syrian citizens are mainly Muslims and speak Arabic. The refugees are marked by their own culture. Because our school is directly next to where they are staying, modest clothing should be adhered to, in order to avoid discrepancies. Revealing tops or blouses, short shorts or miniskirts could lead to misunderstandings."

Misunderstandings ?
Sounds more like rapes to me.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Not a bad post, but FTR Egypt has always been a military dictatorship since the British puppet King Farouk was overthrown in 1952.

And they were doing fine under that system.

$1:

And also regarding your Obama comment, note that democratizing the Arab countries via destabilization of the existing regimes was a stated goal of the Bush administration and one of the arguments they used to justify the Iraq invasion was that it would trigger an "Arab Spring" throughout the Middle East.

Which Obama has neither changed nor stopped; in fact he has accelerated it.
8 years isn't enough ?

$1:

The Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney families should personally have to take in refugees since they're the individuals most responsible for this mess.

So should you.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

I'm starting to think that evil Ann Coulter was right when she said we should conquer them, kill off all the adult males, and forcibly convert the survivors to Christianity. For every one hundred of these "refugees" that are let in at least one of them is probably an ISIS or Al Qaeda infiltrator. All Europe is doing is giving shelter to the most venomous snakes on the planet.

For every one fighter there has to be around eight to ten people in support roles.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And frankly, do we really want anyone going to those shitholes that doesn't have to?

You mean those countries that are literally drowning in oil money ?

Yes, those countries where they basically use slave labour to build things. Places where you are most likely to die while in one of those slave labour jobs. Places where you don't have constitutional rights, unless you are native born. Places where you can't vote or drive or own a business, if you were born a woman. Places where they have all sorts of oil wealth, if you happen to have been born into a particular social class, otherwise you just clean their toilets for a living.

In other words, shitholes.

martin14 martin14:

$1:

I don't know about the US, but Germany is expected to take on 600,000 this year. With a 80 million people, that's a decent percentage of population. I don't think the US will be taking on triple that, in proportion to their population.

They are finding out rather quickly that they don't have 600,000 warm places for the winter.

Expect lots of shit to hit the fan in November, considering they are already removing the lowest income Germans from subsidized housing.

But it still in their laws that everyone who asks gets a hearing. Not everyone will be granted refugee status, but they at least get a day in court. Considering Canada has refugees that have spend years or even a decade in a refugee camp, or some children have lived their whole lives in a Canadian refugee camp - I'd say the German way is a step up.

martin14 martin14:

Oh, and,

http://www.thelocal.de/20150626/refugee ... rm-modesty

$1:

A school in Bavaria has sent a letter home to parents warning them not to let their daughters wear revealing blouses or short skirts, because emergency accommodation for refugees has been set up next to the gym.

"The Syrian citizens are mainly Muslims and speak Arabic. The refugees are marked by their own culture. Because our school is directly next to where they are staying, modest clothing should be adhered to, in order to avoid discrepancies. Revealing tops or blouses, short shorts or miniskirts could lead to misunderstandings."

Misunderstandings ?
Sounds more like rapes to me.

So, rapes didn't occur before they had refugees? And what does that have to do with my comment?

Nothing, ok then.

[N_Fiddledog]

I'd be willing to take some of the ones Daesh are calling unbelievers. With the exception of Shia that is. Iran can keep those.

With the rest we'll just be importing other countries' problem children. I don't even see them as refugees. And there's more of them than you think.

You know those guys rioting at the refugee centers, screaming alahu ahkbar, throwing aid packages back in the faces of those delivering it, busting through borders, mass hijacking trains?

Those guys can go to Qatar. (Or anyplace but here, for all I care.)

[BeaverFever]

$1:

And they were doing fine under that system.

I't's not clear whether you're referring to the colonial rule or the military dictatorship (they are still in military dictatorship) but I doubt you would consider yourself to be "doing fine" if you lived under either one. Granted, it's better than the the theocracies in Saudi and Iran or the bloodthirsty regime of Syria.

$1:

Which Obama has neither changed nor stopped; in fact he has accelerated it.
8 years isn't enough ?

He's not a wizard, some problems can't just be magically solved with a wave of the wand, and some problems can't be solved at all, they only become worse if you try to solve them.

[Thanos]

The way the Germans are yammering now about taking a half-million of these evil fuckers in EVERY YEAR is a good indication that they're consciously and deliberately committing national suicide. Must be some kind of delayed-action guilt trip over World War Two where they've chosen the lemming option as their final payback; just stop being German altogether and turn the country wholesale over to the worst slime the Middle East has ever vomited up. No point in ever visiting Britain or Europe ever again because I wouldn't be going to Britain or Europe. All I'd be doing is visiting and giving money to Islam's smaller franchise.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

It's almost like successive regimes are trying to turn the whole place into a blazing inferno of sectarian and geopolitical strife.

I think the lesson is that sectarian and geopolitical strife is the inevitable product of foreign policy that has the appearance of foreign imperialism, even if the policy has good intentions (which it usually doesn't) or could benefit the people of that region.

People don't want to be occupied by foreign armies and don't want foreign troops policing, detaining and killing their neighbours. PERIOD

People don't want to feel that their leader has the hand of a foreign puppet master up the back of his shirt. PERIOD

People don't to feel that some foreign power is deciding how they should live and what's best for them and telling them that their input or feedback has no bearing on this decision because the foreign power knows best. PERIOD

People don't want to feel that their national borders, natural resources, and internal politics are being managed for the benefit of a foreign power. PERIOD

The current conundrum is that the sudden and unilateral granting of self-determination to a places like Iraq after decades of imperialism and dictatorship is like deciding to let loose the pit bull you've been caging and abusing for years. You never should've mistreated it in the first place but letting it loose on the world may cause severe harm.