You better ready yourself Western Europe, because here they fucking come!

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34155701

You better ready yourself Western Europe, because here they fucking come!

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34155701

They can only blame themselves.

It's mostly the US's fault, we should send the extremists to America so they can have their fun. 

To put things in perspective:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population.

 

 

Those who instigate conflict should host the refugees they created. In that way, I support say the stance of Hungary, who fucking had nothing to do with shit going down elsewhere or playing aggressive geopolitics.

 

Also Ccabal, don't forget, at one point a significant portion of your population was migrant too (If I am not mistaken, you're Polish).

 

Most of these people are fleeing conflict and are victims of extremism and brutality being imposed by local and internationally backed factions.

 

The large wave is mostly made up of Syrians, s

Peace first, politics and war later?

 

I don't see the world in general doing its part in the unfolding human catastrophe.

Edited September 4, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

Migrants usually have a good work ethic and realistic understanding of how the world works (despite some conservatives' statements to the contrary). I generally have no problem with immigrants that genuinely want to work and assimilate.

 

The main issue is that political migrants like this should be instigating change in their home country, rather than moving to others. It's the major reason that governments in the Middle East and Americas have not changed much despite the unrest and poor economic conditions their people face. Rather than risk death and hardship at home trying to instigate a genuine change, they move to a richer country and leave their brethren to rot.

 

If the British colonies in the U.S. had not been boxed in by France and Spain at the time, it's likely the U.S. revolution would never have happened. Potential troublemakers would have simply gone further inland rather than fight. Egypt's revolution was supported by their geographic isolation from potential migrant sinks. Cuba took advantage of this when they sent a lot of their undesirables (both political and criminal) to the U.S. and it allowed their government to last far longer than their people should have permitted it to. Venezuela is in the same boat.

 

I agree that more stability should be sought in the source of the migrants. Unfortunately, both Iraq and Afghanistan have proved that stability cannot come from without, and I don't think sinking a ton more money into source countries would help much. It's time to admit that some cultures just aren't compatible with the concept of nation-states as the West and East perceive them. I don't know what other system should be put into place, but the post-colonial divisions are not working. 

 

Japan and Germany were developed after World War 2, but they already had functioning (if evil) nation-states before the Allies rebuilt them.

 

This isn't a reflection on these non-Western-or-Eastern cultures positively or negatively. Just that they need to develop on their own provided they are not directly impacting neighboring nation-states. Migrants are an impact, but that can be mitigated. Democracy and other Western cultural values must come from within these cultures in their own variations.

 

I compare going into non-developed countries to a story I heard from a police officer about how he got his skull cracked open. He got a call for a domestic dispute. When he arrived, the husband was beating the everliving shit out of his wife. Being a hot-blooded American, the cop jumped on the husband and put him into a chokehold. After about twenty seconds, the cop blacked out (not the husband). The story (from his partner) is that the wife got free once the cop initiated the chokehold, left and got a bat, and then smashed her rescuer in the head with the bat. And no, it was no accident. She attacked the cop that had just saved her life.

 

The moral of the story is to never assume that a victim wants your help, even if their life is at stake. This goes moreso for anyone that lives in a different culture, where the value of life and ideas is not the same as the West.

 

In the U.S., I applaud any police officer who saves the life of someone else, because that reflects our values in the U.S. Even if the person is from a foreign culture and doesn't want to be saved, it should be attempted, because foreigners forgo the right to their alternate value system simply by being here. They made the choice to come here. They do not have to stay here. They accept our values or leave.

 

However, Western nations have no right to impose our values on other nations, whether it be related to monetary or social issues. It's up to the people of those nations to change their values if they feel they are wrong. Nobody else can do it for them.

 

If a non-developed nation causes problems, you take out the problems and then leave if their culture does not support a normal nation-state.

Yeah but the point is the US is bombing their homes and such causing them to leave by destabilizing country and causing the uprisings and terrorists who in turn are destroying things with US funded equipment. 

Syria can't really improve if you're against their government and the general citizens are threatened everyday with death from whatever terrorists or the US throws at them. 

 

I think most people would agree, if you go in somewhere and bomb people's homes and ruin their lives then you better be prepared to give them homes. The US is the most guilty of this but sadly despite claiming to be a super power they're too cowardly to take responsible for the consequences of their actions. 

refugees =/= migrants

 

also, last I heared they are already here aswell...

 

Thou they like Germany, guess they want them mini-jobs?

I wouldn't have bothered to drop the bombs in the first place. Most of the displacement is being caused by the various factions in the civil war. Honestly, the U.S. should help Iraq fight ISIS, since Iraq is our mess, and then stop outside of IS targets. Syria is a shitstorm of its own making, and the less we have to do with it the better. The civil war happened before the U.S. got involved, and it would have continued even if the U.S. wasn't there.

 

Those migrants should be fighting ISIS and Assad in their own country. Instead, they've taken the lazy option of pulling up stakes and attempting to push themselves on another country. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want stability and freedom, then you should develop it in your own country and stop expecting others to save you. Especially when you'll respond to any rescue with hostility.

 

Assad is welcome to the country if he can win it back, no matter what crimes he commits. IS proves that the people there aren't interested in Western value systems that value life or liberty, so let them develop their own methods to dethrone Assad. Obama should not be siding regime change anywhere. This is not a Hollywood movie where the natives cheer the noble invaders. Sunnis are hostile to centralized government whether local or imposed. They should be allowed to revert back to tribal states until such time they develop a central government they can live with, whether it look like Indonesia's democracy or Saudia Arabia's sheikdom. Everybody should stop trying to force them to band together.

 

 If people want freedom and stability, let them earn it. Something given is only valued by the relationship with the giver. Something won is priceless.

Dude's been growing up in "dah hood", he knowz them "struggles for life and deaths" really well.

 

And before someone goes around saying "its only the male population thats fleeing, why not the rest". Well sure, they still got "some" morals there and usually the women and children are only herassed up until the point of mutilations, the guys just get shot without mention. Dieing a hero in your house doesn't help your family, being gone and them a less likely target does.

Staying quiet, sticking around, and organizing resistance does help their family, and their society. The French get a lot of flack, but they actively fought for liberation in World War 2. Same with Norway and China. If they had fled at the first sign of trouble, it's likely Normandy would've failed and the U.S. would never have gotten close enough to nuke Japan.

 

Is it dangerous? Yes. Does it require effort? Yes. But it's better than letting your family and society continue to die at the hands of a brutal dictator. At a certain point, you've got to ask what your community needs from you, rather than fleeing to a place where you can work for minimum wage and go home to watch Netflix.

 

Am I fortunate to live in a country where those sacrifices have already been made? You bet I am. Am I still expending effort to ensure that the result of those sacrifices continue? Absolutely. I participate in local elections and assist candidates I believe in, Republican or Democrat.

 

Independence, Civil War, World Wars, and the Civil Rights Movement have all gotten the U.S. where it is today. The struggle for gay rights, drug legalization, and secularization of policy continues. It is not a violent struggle, but it is a struggle all the same. If I left the U.S. for Canada every time Obama did something I disagreed with, that just makes it more likely that those policies will continue. If I stay and participate in the political process and debate, then I have served my community and my country. I hate Trump, but I will stay if he's elected and fight any boneheaded moves he makes, while celebrating his few good ones.

 

Syria will not get any better with its brightest young men hiding in foreign countries like cowards. They should fight for their families and the betterment of their country. No one else should. TANSTAAFL. You want it, you earn it.

I think everyone pretty much knows now that the US funded the terrorists tearing up the middle east now, the same way they done before but this time since the middle east is already in dire position from the Iraq war the consequences of those actions came back faster, well I mean middle east war since the US literally bombed and killed people from most of those countries. 

 

Assad is welcome to the country if he can win it back, no matter what crimes he commits. 

It wouldn't be an issue if the west didn't help his opposition.

Shit now even the Kurds are getting shafted by the west, it seems everyone that is against Isis gets the short end of the stick. 

And don't blame this on Obama, doesn't matter who is in charge as it's the same shit with a new bunch of faces. The problem is Americans.

 

 Staying quiet, sticking around, and organizing resistance does help their family, and their society. The French get a lot of flack, but they actively fought for liberation in World War 2. Same with Norway and China. If they had fled at the first sign of trouble, it's likely Normandy would've failed and the U.S. would never have gotten close enough to nuke Japan.

 

The main people giving the french flack are Americans and Brits from what I seen. Brits understandable since they have a long history as rivals with the French and want to get one over.

Americans, well just to be better than everyone else. 

The Brits were cozy on an island and the Americans were cozy half way around the world. 

 

The civil war happened before the U.S. got involved, and it would have continued even if the U.S. wasn't there.

 

That's easy to say but the truth is it only happened because of the west's involvement in the region, already destabilizing governments which is what the US mainly does to those types of countries. 

Hey, I agree that the U.S. should just get out and focus on the Iraqis, not Syria. Sadly, I'm not in charge, but I am advocating for it. Most Americans can't even point to Syria on a map, so you can't blame "Americans" in general for some fuckheads in the government supporting religious ideology with my money. Because, make no mistake, it is religious in nature. Not like the feds are clamoring for Venezuela or Cuba to be "stabilized". And I'm the one paying for that thousand-dollar hardware to blow up some Syrian cultist.

 

Anything the U.S. does to stabilize Syria will not help. Doesn't matter if it's money, bombs, or troops. Better to wash hands and leave them to work it out on their own. Which would happen, if a certain demographic did not abandon their family the instant things turned south.

 

As for the West's "involvement", a lot of people like to invent conspiracies where none exist. I'd like citations if you want to start accusing the U.S. for every flat tire and broken cup in the world. The CIA, FBI, and Secret Service can't even keep their own scandals a secret. I'm not convinced they are the boogeyman that demagogues would have you believe they are. Government is always incompetent, and the U.S. government is no different. While I encourage movements like WikiLeaks that keep government honest, it's very easy to manufacture stories and evidence that fit whatever outlandish scenario you care to dream up. Why do you think idiots keep insisting that Obama was born in Indonesia?

Without stablising Syria you can't stabilise Iraq. They are part of the same problem. And if you can't stabilise Iraq and Syria, then Turkey (a NATO Country) has to deal with war on its border, and Jordan will be at risk due to the sheer influx of refugees. And then Israel will have another unstable border country. At the same time Iran will countinue to sit pretty and slowly annex Southern Iraq. 

 

Wars don't exist in a vacuum. 

Well Americans would convince me more if they protested better against the military.

 

Obama's birthplace is a bit different, the CIA however is known for stirring the pot and assisting in causing uprisings stretching back into the 20th century.

And those idiots are Republicans who say that, I think the CIA is more corrupt than it is incompetent, of course corrupt is a funny word, for the US government corrupt translates to "top secret/vital to national security of the US".

Basically anything that makes them look like bad guys is top secret, for understandable reasons as if it was open then there would be a lot more terrorists looking to bomb the US so they're sorta right. 

I don't think any of them organisations had any major scandals happen, by major I mean life changing such as their powers being heavily limited or the organisation being shut down. It seems the opposite is happening in fact with them becoming stronger over the years so I say their scandals are largely trivial. 

 

And no about getting out of Syria, obviously you disagree since you don't think US funded Isis to fight Syria before Isis formally became known as what it is today but the US started the problem so they need to stop Isis.

 Also Ccabal, don't forget, at one point a significant portion of your population was migrant too (If I am not mistaken, you're Polish).

 

I'm Hungarian, so I have a really good perspective of what's going on here. I plan on writing up a longer post, but I have to reinstall this computer during the weekend, so I'll do that once I'm done with that.

How do you feel about your major roads being clogged up? Does it affect you?

Staying quiet, sticking around, and organizing resistance does help their family, and their society. The French get a lot of flack, but they actively fought for liberation in World War 2. Same with Norway and China. If they had fled at the first sign of trouble, it's likely Normandy would've failed and the U.S. would never have gotten close enough to nuke Japan.

.

Where on earth did most of the french have to flee to? Swiss?

 

And you are missing the level of atrocities commited (by all sides) on the local population. In most occupations its a "play nice and life on" deal, in Syria it's currently a "expect bomb-barrels, random shootings or mandatory slavery".

 

And who says nothing is being done, heck the people who first started this civil war were the secular Syrian people tryiong to oppose Assad.

.

Is it dangerous? Yes. Does it require effort? Yes. But it's better than letting your family and society continue to die at the hands of a brutal dictator. At a certain point, you've got to ask what your community needs from you, rather than fleeing to a place where you can work for minimum wage and go home to watch Netflix.

.

You might notice that while firstly almost all refugees went to camps both inside Syria or to direct neighbours (Libanon, Jordan, Turkey), its only after several years that they truely come in droves to Europe. Perhaps they have finally given up on hoping for a solution? Effort they made plenty in the years spent wandering from 1 refugee camp to a following destroyed city to the next camp. Eventually you just don't see yourself living in your homeland anymore.

 

Like refugees in Europe get Netflix on entry, LOL

.

 

Independence, Civil War, World Wars, and the Civil Rights Movement have all gotten the U.S. where it is today. The struggle for gay rights, drug legalization, and secularization of policy continues. It is not a violent struggle, but it is a struggle all the same. If I left the U.S. for Canada every time Obama did something I disagreed with, that just makes it more likely that those policies will continue. If I stay and participate in the political process and debate, then I have served my community and my country. I hate Trump, but I will stay if he's elected and fight any boneheaded moves he makes, while celebrating his few good ones.

.

Why are we dragging the US into this as "champion of internal struggle and enlightment"? Please bark somewhere else. Consider speaking about Germany, the nation that was not a century ago home to a genocide of previously unprecidented level, is now forerunner and prime destination of any refugee (and economical migrant) roaming Europe. (lol UK, the just like you folks cause 1) they heared stuff from there parents of colonial "paradise" and 2) no passport)

.

Syria will not get any better with its brightest young men hiding in foreign countries like cowards. They should fight for their families and the betterment of their country. No one else should. TANSTAAFL. You want it, you earn it.

.

The brightest are always the first to leave, in any form of conflict, usually cause they have the means to do so. Whats leaving now are the people who can't even scamper together a loanshark meal (to follow your TANSTAAFL), you seem to think that any civil war nowadays can be fought "by the people", well I think the introduction of an automatical weapon worldwide made that notion obsolete.

Having an illegal alien problem? Be careful... Jorge Ramos might fly over and start explaining how good they are to your economy and declaring that there is nothing you can do about deporting them. After all, "No human being is illegal".

 

This is happening because we did a really good thing. We deposed Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi people executed him. I never thought we should stay there, but we did. It created a dependency, and the USA became the stability of Iraq. We armed the nation and tried to train their people to defend themselves.

 

Barack Obama pulled us out, refused to do anything about Assad, and allowed ISIS to take over everything we left for the Iraqi people. Then they took over everything we were doing to help the Syrian people against Assad. Nothing will happen as long as Obama is President. He has such a firm belief that the USA is too powerful and is doing everything he possibly can to to reduce our influence around the world. Things will change in 2017, and we will do whatever is necessary to solve the problems. I'm very sorry Commander, that you have such hatred for my country.

George Bush was planning on pulling US troops out anyway, didn't he have a mission accomplished celebration.

I'm pretty sure I recall hearing Americans whine about troops being there and when are they coming home, everyone wanted plans for them to come back like before the decade ended.

 

Lysistrata, your post represents everything wrong with America.

For your sake I hope you trolling with that nonsense. 

George Bush was planning on pulling US troops out anyway, didn't he have a mission accomplished celebration.

I'm pretty sure I recall hearing Americans whine about troops being there and when are they coming home, everyone wanted plans for them to come back like before the decade ended.

 

Lysistrata, your post represents everything wrong with America.

For your sake I hope you trolling with that nonsense. 

Sorry I'm a little confused. Are you complaining about what we did? or are you complaining about what we are not doing now?

 

The mission was to depose Saddam Hussein. That mission was accomplished, and that happened back in 2003. It was not a celebration for you, it was a celebration for us.

 

Saying that Bush was planning to pull troops out is bizarre... it was never our intention to stay. He didn't want to leave behind an unstable Iraq, and he would not have done that. I never thought we should stay at all, but I... similar to you... are not in charge. We are just two people with different opinions, and that means nothing in the grand scheme of things. My post didn't "represent everything wrong with America"... I didn't mention a thing about our big, bloated government. I didn't mention a thing about moral decay. I didn't mention a thing about our unsustainable debt. There's a lot more to consider than your little refugee problem.

I complained about what you did, and now I'm complaining about some Americans being giant fucking assholes for not taking responsibility for actions the country did, destabilizing the entire region by wrongly attacking multiple countries.

For some retarded reason some Americans are full retards and think none of the shit they did in the middle east is related, hell some retarded Americans probably still think they weren't mostly responsible for 9/11. 

No you're giant fucking assholes, that's why people want to blow your shit up.

 

But that's my small rant over, the point is some Americans are hypocritical fucks, such as wanting Assad gone but I don't hear many Americans wanting to get rid of the other motherfuckers similar to Assad ruling the countries that the US is trading heavily with. 

The only reason some American motherfuckers want them gone is because they see them as opposition in the middle east for their own interests.

And Bush was an idiot, you didn't seriously have your faith in that moron. 

No by everything wrong with America I meant just your foreign affairs aspect.

 

Actually ignore all that shit above as I mostly typed a pile of shit, my real point is that really you earned more terrorist attacks on US soil.

 

George Bush was planning on pulling US troops out anyway, didn't he have a mission accomplished celebration.

I'm pretty sure I recall hearing Americans whine about troops being there and when are they coming home, everyone wanted plans for them to come back like before the decade ended.

 

Lysistrata, your post represents everything wrong with America.

For your sake I hope you trolling with that nonsense. 

Sorry I'm a little confused. Are you complaining about what we did? or are you complaining about what we are not doing now?

 

The mission was to depose Saddam Hussein. That mission was accomplished, and that happened back in 2003. It was not a celebration for you, it was a celebration for us.

 

Saying that Bush was planning to pull troops out is bizarre... it was never our intention to stay. He didn't want to leave behind an unstable Iraq, and he would not have done that. I never thought we should stay at all, but I... similar to you... are not in charge. We are just two people with different opinions, and that means nothing in the grand scheme of things. My post didn't "represent everything wrong with America"... I didn't mention a thing about our big, bloated government. I didn't mention a thing about moral decay. I didn't mention a thing about our unsustainable debt. There's a lot more to consider than your little refugee problem.

 

Oh, I'm absolutely positive that Bush would have followed through with his plan and pulled out just like Obama did, when Obama did. Bush wasn't very bright. The fact he invaded Iraq to begin with requires a level of incompetence that's off the charts.

I complained about what you did, and now I'm complaining about some Americans being giant fucking assholes for not taking responsibility for actions the country did, destabilizing the entire region by wrongly attacking multiple countries.

For some retarded reason some Americans are full retards and think none of the shit they did in the middle east is related, hell some retarded Americans probably still think they weren't mostly responsible for 9/11. 

No you're giant fucking assholes, that's why people want to blow your shit up.

 

But that's my small rant over, the point is some Americans are hypocritical fucks, such as wanting Assad gone but I don't hear many Americans wanting to get rid of the other motherfuckers similar to Assad ruling the countries that the US is trading heavily with. 

The only reason some American motherfuckers want them gone is because they see them as opposition in the middle east for their own interests.

And Bush was an idiot, you didn't seriously have your faith in that moron. 

No by everything wrong with America I meant just your foreign affairs aspect.

 

Actually ignore all that shit above as I mostly typed a pile of shit, my real point is that really you earned more terrorist attacks on US soil.

We are the largest empire as of current, but don't call us assholes while living in Europe. European nations have all done their fair share of exploiting the middle east as well. In fact, the entire shape of the middle east and most of it's problems can be attributed to Great Britain and their brilliant fucking schemes to create Israel, oppress and exploit Muslims, and ensure a caliphate will never exist again. That wasn't Americas brilliant idea. That was British douche baggery at it's finest.

I live in a neutral country. 

 

 

my real point is that really you earned more terrorist attacks on US soil.

 

Yes I understand now. We were supposed to remain content with the amount of terrorist attacks we were getting.

 

 

 

Oh, I'm absolutely positive that Bush would have followed through with his plan and pulled out just like Obama did, when Obama did. Bush wasn't very bright. The fact he invaded Iraq to begin with requires a level of incompetence that's off the charts.

 

I'm absolutely positive that we would still be there... with targets on our foreheads. Iran would not have a deal, and ISIS would not exist. Assad would be gone. I'm entitled as well to my own version of positive, but we'll never know for sure because Democrats had to have their turn.

Only Americans would see getting along with Iran as a bad thing, you're basically terrorists yourselves so yeah I suppose you should be content to receive what you put out. 

 Yes I understand now. We were supposed to remain content with the amount of terrorist attacks we were getting.

They didn't just wake up one day with a plan to attack America, no you pissed them off first and then they woke up with a plan.

 

my real point is that really you earned more terrorist attacks on US soil.

 

Yes I understand now. We were supposed to remain content with the amount of terrorist attacks we were getting.

 

 

 

Oh, I'm absolutely positive that Bush would have followed through with his plan and pulled out just like Obama did, when Obama did. Bush wasn't very bright. The fact he invaded Iraq to begin with requires a level of incompetence that's off the charts.

 

I'm absolutely positive that we would still be there... with targets on our foreheads. Iran would not have a deal, and ISIS would not exist. Assad would be gone. I'm entitled as well to my own version of positive, but we'll never know for sure because Democrats had to have their turn.

 

I really don't think so. I mean, the pull out plan was indeed Bush's plan and we're talking about a guy who couldn't strategize to save his life. He wasn't able to predict the power vacuum or the civil unrest that would follow, while people who knew something about Iraq were screaming it the whole time. ISIS would also still exist. Maybe not as powerful, but the separate groups that created ISIS were around long before Obama took office. The same exact group already existed before we withdrew. The only reason they are now an army and a functioning state is because of the Arab spring in Syria and the fact that AQI were already heavily embedded in Syria as a safe zone just across the border from Iraq. That's why constant fire fights and attacks always happened in the east. The soldiers who fled the west side of Iraq were actually used to constant attacks and firefights. Only on that day, the attack was considerably larger, lasted over 24 hours with numerous car bombs, and by the next morning, all the commanding officers had fled.

And that's how ISIS took 1/3 of Iraq in a day. Because they were able to gain power, organization, consolidation, recruits, weapons, and everything else they needed being embedded in Syria and working with Al-Nusra. Not because there were no American troops there. Before that, the Iraqi army was holding them off on a daily basis just fine.

As for Iran, I'm pretty sure Bush would never go for an Iran with nuclear capability. But IMO, IDC whether Iran has nukes or not. I'm not stupid enough to think that nuclear technology can actually be contained. If a nation wants nukes, they're going to build them and not give two fucks what anyone else says. Pakistan, India and Israel are fine examples. Pakistan with nukes is honestly more terrifying to me than Iran with nukes. Iran is not nearly as aggressive and evil as the west makes it sound. No more evil or aggressive than Israel or the United States. Like all nations, it's not Irans job to please other nations. Only their own.