ZIMDOGGY wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:17 am
There’s some truth to what you are saying but it’s realky lose/lose.
Afghanistan for example, troops are still present in almost a peacekeeping fashion.
I have read that the reason they are there is to stop th taliban taking hold because when they do, the refugees crisis out of Afghanistan will be unreal.
Lol, its all true, bro.
At any rate, Afghanistan is also the geographic nexus of China, Russia, and Iran. It is of strategic importance.
In Iraq, Saddam was pursuing weapons of war and was a security threat, but even if he wasn’t, he was acting like a hard dictator and hurting his own people at will. Again it’s lose/lose.
As much as I hated the naive power vacuum created in Syria (thanks Democrats) it was also lose/lose.
You're correct in that was always a L-L situation. But now its like a massive innings and 300 run loss. Why spend trillions of dollars of taxpayer money (remember Republicans hate paying taxes) and only increase the size of the loss?
During Saddam's time the region wasn't as crazy as it is today. Saddam loyalists weren't mowing down pedestrians in Nice, or Frankfurt, or shooting up Paris, or blowing up Brussels and Manchester. Europeans should be quite annoyed with Bush and Blair if they aren't already.
Why do these middle eastern countries fill with fundies as soon as there is an opportunity?
Who else is attracted to war, chaos, and foreign troops? Not normal people. Most doctors or engineers or academics, heck even uneducated laborers would feel when they see tanks and planes coming. Only a fundie thinks its a good idea to stick around and see what happens. Thats the smart answer.
But one could also wonder why Europe fills with Nazis as soon as there are minorities?
This is what kills me.
Why is the option for a Syrian (or middle eastern) refugee ONLY Europe in the absence of North AMERICA?
Why not other middle eastern countries? Why not Asia?
Why is the white western countries the default?
Muslims seem to hate/have issues with these places yet it’s the usual destination when they can make it happen.
There is no question that Muslims by and large are so adamant on the wonders of Islam. Then why do they not passionately pursue migration and asylum in largely Muslim countries?
I find it so weird.
Another way to look at it is that the refugee crises was the EXACT reason why every Muslim country pleaded with Bush and Blair not to start another way in Iraq. That advise fell on deaf ears and Europe now finds itself in a right mess with these refugees. It really is unfair for the Germans and the Italians to have to deal with a mess created by UK and US.
Apart from that Germany is 2000 miles from Syria, but Japan is 6000 miles aways. Also the East Asians don't have a dog in this fight, so the question of why they aren't taking refugees is unwarranted.
In the first millenia millions of Jews came to Europe, not because Europe was enlightened (not till the 1500s at least) nor because it was friendly to the Jews (Holocaust, pogroms, Spanish Reconquista), but because if was NEARBY.
But the most pressing reason is purely economic. There is no Muslim country with the resources to take in refugees. And as Googly has pointed out, Muslim countries already house the most refugees around the world.
Pakistan has millions of Afghans. Bangladesh has over 1 million Rohingya Muslim refugees from Myanmar. These are already overpopulated and economically struggling nations.
Yes the UAE is rich. But guess what, 80% of the UAE's population are already foreigners. Similar with Qatar, Bahrain, Oman. Saudia Arabia is often cited, but they aren't actually rich. They may have been in the 1990s, but the world's oil dependence has changed and thats all the Saudis have. They have only just begun diversifying their economy under Mohammad bin Salman, but that will take time and the Emiratis and Qataris have already beaten them to that game. That region may already be saturated for that kind of diversification.