Migrant crisis: Finland protesters throw fireworks at buses

8,000 people crossing the border every day, barely mentioned now.

Kids throw a couple of firecrackers at a bus, it's front page news.
Oh the horror of these racist intolerant bigots, assaulting those poor refugees, who traveled through 10 safe countries to get to Finland.

If they all stay in the first safe country, you think that's a better idea?

I think the best idea is if the Europeans settle them in camps for the duration and wait till the Russians kick the crap out of Assad's opponent's then, ship them all home to one of the countries that Obama's foreign policies royally fucked up with his Arab Spring and the free weapons to Jihadi's programs.

Arab Spring happened on it's own, and was seeded in the nonsense the United States has played for decades, with their bullshit talk about replacing dictatorships with democracies at the same time they sell billions of dollars worth of weapons to the same dictators they criticize. $33 billion in weapons sales this year alone to our great "friends" in Saudi Arabia, the country that everyone knows (and refuses to say out loud) is responsible for encouraging and financing the majority of terrorist acts in the world.

The disaster began when Eisenhower green-lit the British coup against Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. Every damn US president ever since has been equally culpable for continuing this trend and making the damn disaster worse with every passing year. Obama's culpable too, but he's no more guilty of this sin than any president that came before him was.

You can't label Arab Spring as one singular event when discussing US involvement.

There is a distinct and not to subtle difference between Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt from the ones in Syria and Libya. In Tunisia and Egypt the US remained largely hands off giving mostly moral support. In Syria and Libya the US became a willing partner in the revolution by offering Military and physical support. Bombing the current Gov't troops and arming the Rebels.

In Libya, NATO and Arab forces committed for the protection of civilians took a broad view of their mission and provided the firepower, and the technological and training assistance that allowed the Libyan-led resistance to succeed. A strongly worded UN Security Council Resolution and Arab League and GCC support gave political legitimacy.

So in Libya and Syria US involvement under the guise of NATO was instrumental in effecting regime change and despite their claims that they aren't arming anyone or giving physical support to the Anti Assad fighters the truth is something different.

.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/0 ... i-m26.html

So unfortunately Obama's US foreign policy of hands on intervention has given rise to unbridled civil wars in 2 countries and has allowed groups like ISIS to prosper and expand in the wake of the carnage consolidating their positions.

You're right about Obama being culpable though just like Bush and the other Presidents but, since Hind sight is 20/20 you'd think at some point someone in the State Dept would notice that physically intervening in other sovereign nations revolutions to bring them democracy never works out and trying to defy the odds by repeating the mistakes of their predecessors is akin to the definition of insanity.

Libya & Syria had been on the US's shit list for decades prior to Obama. All Obama did was put into action what other administrations didn't, and that was act to take them out. Keep in mind that when the US bombed Syria is was in response to the Syrians using poison gas on their own people, something that previous admins and the GOP controlled Congress had long said they also would have done if Assad had done the same thing under their watch. Assad was allegedly to take out ISIS and other rebels but they used it in a manner that would purposely end up killing as many civilians in the area as possible. And the US bombing in Syria came to a rapid end when an international arrangement got rid of Assad's chemical weapons and credibly verified that he was no longer using them. Right now the only US bombing in Syria is being done exclusively against ISIS targets, not necessarily out of any love for Assad but more of a realpolitik decision that the greater enemy has to be attacked and hopefully destroyed first.

Libya was a shithole under Khaddafi. Maybe a semi-stable shithole compared to what it is right now but still a ugly little piece of hell nonetheless. And they were responsible for countless acts of terrorism, of which the Lockerbie bombing was merely the most noticeable, as well as engaging in genocide in Chad. ISIS isn't in firm control of the place because they're in an endless fight against other numerous and slightly-less-shitty militia groups.

Was contributing to Khaddafi's downfall overall a negative thing to have done? Maybe, maybe not. Despite what John McCain likes to say these days Khaddafi might have backed off some but he wasn't suddenly a good boy. Libya under his regime was still a junior partner of the Axis Of Evil, as Bush Admin defenders still like to call it. It's only the endless pivot and turn of the domestic US political cycle that's suddenly decided over the last couple of years that getting involved in deposing Assad or Khaddafi is now a bad thing. If it'd been done by the Bush Admin, or any other GOP admin, the same critics would now be calling it the bestest thing ever, just like they keep saying about getting rid of Saddam even though all the empirical evidence is that deposing Saddam was the single worst foreign policy decision the United States has ever made. Can't turn around and say that stepping on ants in Libya and Syria is terrible but kicking the biggest hornet's nest in the whole damn area in Iraq was the greatest idea ever. Only ideologues who only see and do things for their own domestic political gain say things like that.

I was hoping your recent conversion to pure cynicism would have opened your eyes, but I can see
you are still on full protect Obama at every chance mode.

Libya was multiculturalism at it's finest; 140 tribes, all bloodthirsty and wanting power.
The only way to deal with that, like Iraq, like Yugoslavia, is with a full on police state.
Otherwise, it just blows up.



I don't, they were all massive fuck ups.
But history will prove that Libya and Syria, which has kicked off millions flooding into Europe,
to be far worse.

Bush 1, Obama 2.

Syria was in turmoil before the US bombed them for using chemical munitions so it's pretty much false to say that ISIS began winning due to the American actions. ISIS, the other rebel groups, and Assad had been going at it for quite a while before Obama ordered the bombings. If you're saying that the Americans shouldn't have encouraged the alleged moderate rebels then I'd agree with that but by engaging in that encouragement Obama was following American policy that's existed for decades. What the US does with these public pronouncements of support for anti-authoritarian forces is really just an offshoot of the Truman doctrine, or as Kennedy said they'll support anyone anywhere who claim to want democracy. I don't blame the Bush admin for the Arab Spring, or Obama either, because it's all just a result of longstanding American policy that the last twelve American presidents have all followed to varying degrees of intensity.

As for ISIS in Iraq, well, I don't see how anyone can logically blame Obama more for that than Bush. For the two terms of the Bush admin all we got was a bunch of lies and distortions that Saddam had been replaced by democracy and the Iraqi version of the founding fathers. In reality all that happened was that Saddam was replaced by a bunch of Shiite sectarians whose majority in parliament allowed them to stick anyway they could to the Sunnis. ISIS succeeded so massively in the early stages in their attack on Iraq because they had huge support from the pissed off Sunni communities that had been dirted on by the Shiites. And the Shiite troops in the regular Iraq army turned out to be one of the biggest paper tigers of the last fifty years, as evidenced by them running away as fast as they could in the biggest rout seen since North Vietnamese T-34/85 tanks crashed through the gates of the US embassy in Saigon. The only success and reversal against ISIS came when Shiite militias that were taking direction from Iran instead of the Baghdad government fought back as viciously against the terrorist forces as much as the terrorists had been during their triumphs. I've said it many times before but that group of "founding fathers" in Baghdad that the Bushies kept saying were so strong and brave turned out to be the biggest Potemkin village seen since (once again) Vietnam.

Scorecard is more like this; Bush - 1 (Iraq), Obama - 1 (Libya), tie - 1 (Syria, because there were too many hands in that decades-old American policy for only one president to end up taking the blame, and it's debatable if the US even has to take the overall blame for Syria vs. ISIS because American actions in Syria have been pretty damn limited so far).

Concerning this current crop of Mohammedan invaders...



Refugees my ass.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34380438

Germany quells migrant mass brawl at camp in Calden





Oh those poor, tired, exhausted, peace loving doctors, engineers, and university professors.

You seem confused. Only salt of the earth types can be refugees? It's actually way better for Germany if many of the people they take in are educated. Forestry at UBC would be a whole different deal if the Sopron school of Forestry hadn't come her en masse from Hungary. Guess we should have told them to till the soil for a while before applying.

As for the dust up - let's see you walk across Europe and be stuck in a camp for a bit. You'd probably be the first to start trouble.

The Europeans are awakening. If the fucking Muslims knew what was best for them they'd go home before it's too late.

To keeps things in perspective Bush acted on the 1998 Iraq Liberation signed into law by former President Clinton which called for regime change. Why did Lybia need regime change when Khaddafi gave up his WMD's after watching the fall of Saddam? He wasn't perfect but was willing to work with the United States until Obama came in and screwed the pooch.

Again, already?

Ugh, . I'll call up Ford and see if we can get the bomber plant going again.