2016 U.S. Presidential Election

[Tad]

Oh, no, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the EU and it's idea of mashing everything into one across Europe.

[Aki-at]

Ok Barry.
Although I don't recall anyone yelling out Allah Akbar and exploding in Europe before. Sure is fun to be inclusive.

I'd rather not get exploded on than letting these people come in.

btw, I have a couple of muslim friends, and they absolutely despise these terrorist acts (of course). As such, they also don't want these people coming in.
It's not about religion or race. It's about people that don't respect human life.

Actually the IRA is still the most violent terrorist organisation the UK has had to deal with.

Anyway we're not just letting these people in just because, these are refugees from an extremely troubled region. What would you think is the best option to help these people?

[Tad]

Short term, camps (yeah, I know), long term, sort the violence out at it's source. Not saying war etc, but it needs to stop.

[Aki-at]

Short term, camps (yeah, I know), long term, sort the violence out at it's source. Not saying war etc, but it needs to stop.

Alright so we should place them in camps. Since the Syrian civil war has ran for over 5 years, should we expect some of these people to still be residing in camps? Can we really claim 5 years is short term?

Second how would we resolve the fighting, first of all the West wanted to dispose of Assad in the first place and put in a regime that has closer link with us than Russia. So now we no longer want to dispose of him and have Russian influence grow stronger in the Middle East. Would you then recommend we side with Putins administration and dispell any forces gunning for Assad's head?

[Tad]

To be honest, I'm not completely clued up on the subject, but I do know that a lot of these refugees actually fled from camps in safe zones as the BBC showed and that things are starting to look better. The attitude from the German PM (and EU) has been truly appalling in this and has led to escalating the matter. It's nice to say and think we can take them all in, but the simple fact is we can't. We already have a housing crisis in the UK and we're struggling as it is. Adding more wood to the fire isn't a smart move for them or ourselves. Then there's the security issues etc.

[Aki-at]

The camps in the safe zone are only camps, it's not a good standard of living. They've fled because it's still harsh enviroment to live in, imagine if you're a woman on your period there?

Whilst we can argue if we will break our backs carrying the weight of the refugee crisis, we must then also agree that we are looking to allow the suffering of millions of people in a problem that is largely thanks to Western intervention in the first place.

[crackdude]

Barry, maybe you're not fully aware of Europe's current events. It's understandable. It is estimated that by year-end millions of middle east people will have entered Europe.
Many are refugees, but there are a significant number of bad people coming in as well.

The number of terrorist attacks has increased at an alarming rate in the past year. They are all ISIS related. It has nothing to do with 2005.

Aki, to be honest, I am in the same position as Tad. I don't have a solution.

But I know two things: one, letting everyone in is not a solution, and two, this situation wasn't Europe's problem until we let everyone in.

This is not our problem to deal with. We have problems of our own, this is just yet another burden on countries like Portugal and Greece, whose economy has the stability of water crackers

[Tad]

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing "western intervention was the start". Things were never great in these places long before westerners got involved. Sure, we certainly added petrol to the fire, but please don't pretend things were great before then.

[Aki-at]

Can we really claim this isn't our problem? The Iraq war had decade long negative effects on the region and much of the growth of ISIS is thanks to our military interventions through out the years. The toppling of Saddam has had the exact opposite effect the major Western players wanted.

It's fine if we don't want to house the refugees, but then what is the course of action unless we are willing to admit that it's a dog eat dog world out there and for our own sake it's better to let Syrians live in suffering or in other cases be left for dead.

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing "western intervention was the start". Things were never great in these places long before westerners got involved. Sure, we certainly added petrol to the fire, but please don't pretend things were great before then.

It's widely accepted, even by the likes of Tony Blair, that removing one of the powers of the region in the form of Saddam Hussain sent countries like Iraq spiraling into chaos.

Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. He was a dictator and monster but he at least allowed a level of stability in the country and that is undeniable, without the destruction of the Baathist government, ISIS would not exist.

[Tad]

Let's not forget that one of these groups Saddam had apparently "stabilised" the country from had attacked a western city and seem to be growing as a direct result of it. Perhaps this lead to Western governments into thinking Saddam was losing control?

The problem with removing Saddam from what I can see, is it was never really the plan to begin with. We were rightfully after that particular group that had attacked America, but during the middle of it all, they went after Saddam too and as you said, this caused a power struggle in the entire area which we are still seeing now. It's a horrible tragic mess, but thinking about it now, I'm not sure it would have gone any other way sooner or later. Saddam and his government would have eventually been pushed out if numbers in these groups grew and we'd probably be looking at a entirely different sort of mess.

The problem we now have is Russia seems to be wanting another power government who will control the remnants of these sick groups while others want to just get rid of them altogether and install a real government. For what it's worth, I do think we're closer to the end now then ever before. The remaining groups seem to be a lot weaker than the one we went after at the start of the war.

[Team Andromeda]

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing "western intervention was the start". Things were never great in these places long before westerners got involved. Sure, we certainly added petrol to the fire, but please don't pretend things were great before then.

Horrible has it is to say, he world was far 'safer' with those dictators in place . This whole arab spring as just seen the world become such a more dangerous place.  The Iraq war and 'Call me Dave' intervention in Lybia were horrible mistakes and we are paying the price for it

[Team Andromeda]

Many are refugees, but there are a significant number of bad people coming in as well.

Here's the thing many of them are't refugees but are in fact economic migrants looking for work and for a better future and who can blame them? . Trouble is Europe just can't not take in or cope with the sheers numbers . Europe has a ton of issues and problems of its own to sort out . With a unemployment rate if 20% for the EU and a unemployment rate of near 50% for youths in the like of Spain and Greece there's aren't enough jobs to go around .

The EU handling of it all its has been a complete mess from start to finish, the sooner were are out of the EU the better 

[crackdude]

Here's the thing many of them are't refugees but are in fact economic migrants looking for work and for a better future and who can blame them? . Trouble is Europe just can't not take in or cope with the sheers numbers . Europe has a ton of issues and problems of its own to sort out . With a unemployment rate if 20% for the EU and a unemployment rate of near 50% for youths in the like of Spain and Greece there's aren't enough jobs to go around .

The EU handling of it all its has been a complete mess from start to finish, the sooner were are out of the EU the better 

Couldn't have put it better myself.
Europe doesn't have the structure needed to receive these people, no matter how unfortunate their situation is.

If we had, it would be much easier to merge cultures and live in peace.

[Team Andromeda]

Couldn't have put it better myself.
Europe doesn't have the structure needed to receive these people, no matter how unfortunate their situation is.

If we had, it would be much easier to merge cultures and live in peace.

It's not just Europe not place on earth could with such numbers . But if you look back in History . The likes of the UK  had a terrible issues with poverty living conditions and so on in the Victorian  age and the like . Only when the birth rate came down to a average of 2 per family (instead of like 6 children) did the UK living standards and prosperity increase for the many and not just the few .

Africa (where most of the economic migrants come from)  needs to get a grip of its birth rate , that's a major issue. And instead of giving out pointless Aid to Africa the EU needs to open up its CAP to African farmers and so does the USA . That be a far better way to help Africa imo too  . I hope the USA and many others opens up their trade to the likes of Cube  has well


I sorry to generalise   a serious topic . I don't mean or wish too btw

[JRcade19]

Let's not forget that one of these groups Saddam had apparently "stabilised" the country from had attacked a western city and seem to be growing as a direct result of it. Perhaps this lead to Western governments into thinking Saddam was losing control?

Because it's silly.

The attacks were planned in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban government.
They were finalized in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban government.
Al-Qaeda operated in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban government.
Osama Bin Laden escaped Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban government.

Combined with the fact that Al Qaeda literally could not operate in Iraq until 5 months AFTER coalition forces deposed of the Baathists. Why is it Iraq's problem what Afghanistan is doing? How does blaming Iraq for this make sense?

There's a reason proponents of the war were so quick to move from "OMG WMD's" to "Think of the children!". Nobody cared to stop Iraq as it massacred 1 million kurds a decade earlier, even when the kurds asked for help. The only reason the world intervened then was because of the Annexation of Kuwait(Which Admittedly I thought was justified because agreements are agreements).

Why not Iran? Who was not only hostile to the US but actually BORDERS Afghanistan and has a history of funding terror groups? Or Lebanon? Or Syria? Or Lybia? There was never any direct evidence to support the theory that Iraq was under danger of collapse or was actively supporting terror groups. None of the government officials ever gave a direct answer on that, always skirting around with vague call outs and links.