Somewhere between 55 and 64 ISIS targets hit by Russia in a 24-hour Period.

 

Thoughts? It seems to me as though Russia's finally putting it's foot down and stepping in to protect Syria and Assad (a long-time Ally) from ISIS and rebel groups backed by various countries, such as US-backed "Moderate Rebels." 

One thing I thought was funny was CNN reporting that Russia was only bombing Civilians and "Moderate Rebels" before their planes had even took off, and then when reports came in that Russia had bombed Raqqa (the de-facto capital of the so-called Islamic State), CNN instead started reporting that Russian Missiles had crashed in Iran; a report which was disclaimed, and answered with video-footage from the Russians showing the missiles being launched as well as them hitting their targets.

 

Here's a video with a short overview of what's happening (I don't know how to embed videos)

 

It gets even more complicated when you take into account groups like the Syriac Military Council, which is a Christian Militia that, as far as I know, is only involved in combating ISIS' advances into areas that are predominantly Assyrian Christian.

 

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/67F1/production/_85790662_syria_control_map_624_v4.png

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34496583

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/10/syria-airstrikes-russia-reports-64-missions-isis-24-hours

 

 

Hungary = West = Germany. They are EU aswell.

 

 

I've always thought of Hungary as Eastern because of their history as part of the Warsaw Pact and Culture. The EU is a post-Cold War institution, and has, thus far, been marred with negativity. 

 

Hungary = West = Germany. They are EU aswell.

 

 

I've always thought of Hungary as Eastern because of their history as part of the Warsaw Pact and Culture. The EU is a post-Cold War institution, and has, thus far, been marred with negativity. 

 

Well Hungary is "west" now, perhaps its the east part of the EU, but its still EU nowadays.

 

as for EU = negativity, guess you are one of those "to far from my home" people. Just 1 step to far in a unified society I guess. (I say unified, but nobody is truely unified, we aren't ants).

 

 

guess you are one of those "to far from my home" people. Just 1 step to far in a unified society I guess. (I say unified, but nobody is truely unified, we aren't ants).

 

Care to elaborate?

I've just heard a lot of negative things about the EU, and they're pushing for every member-state to take in these refugees despite ongoing crises. 

 

guess you are one of those "to far from my home" people. Just 1 step to far in a unified society I guess. (I say unified, but nobody is truely unified, we aren't ants).

 

Care to elaborate?

I've just heard a lot of negative things about the EU, and they're pushing for every member-state to take in these refugees despite ongoing crises. 

 

its just a general notion of people disliking the EU are usually people who also dislike there national governement. Something about disliking the xth chain up in command. Over time it does indeed become unpersonal, but luckely it doesn't make it unhumanized

 

Sure crisis, but EU is just the next level up of cooperation. This is both with benefits and drawbacks. Heck Hungary just doesn't like admitting them on grounds of nationalism (don't get me started on that) but if they agree to the plan to spread them around, they would lose nearly 90% of what they have now moping around their city squares.

I'm going to weigh in on some things. I'm Hungarian and I'd like to give my perspective on some of the things being said.

 

1, Is Hungary East or West?

 

Definitely West. The founder of the Hungarian state Stephen I made a conscious choice of adopting Roman Catholicism instead of Orthodox Christianity and with this, cemented Hungary as part of the "Western" world for most of its history. That said, if you take a look at Samuel P. Huntington's map of global civilizations, you will see that Hungary is and always has been a frontier in this sense. Eastern influence has always been present in one way or another from the very origins of the Hungarian people, through being almost entirely conquered by the Ottoman Empire or Invaded by the Soviet Union to present-day political parties (who are frighteningly popular) having strong Russian sympathies and ties. I'm going to spare you the history lesson, my point is that all this is the inevitable concominant of being on the "periphery" of a civilization, things are and always will be a bit different than they are in the "core" states.

 

3, On my general political views

 

First of all, let me lay down a few things: 1) I'm not going to dig up references for this section, as I don't feel like wading through the Internet for press articles and YouTube videos to support every statement I make. If you insist on references, shall provide them for you once it isn't past midnight and I don't have to get up at 5:30 in the morning. 2) I actually consider myself a pretty liberal, yet sensible guy. I support gay marriage, gender equality, I'm strongly pro-choice and support active euthanasia - all though the application of common sense and without the urge to shove my beliefs down people's throats. I believe free speech is sacrosanct and open and honest discussion of problems is the only way to create a healthy society. There should be no taboos in this. I am also a staunch advocate of secularism, and not just because I'm an atheist, but I believe it's the best way for people of different religious backgrounds to peacefully coexist without one group trying to oppress the others. I'm also not a socialist, and don't believe people should receive much entitlement without working for it. (I actually did a political compass just now, lol: https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=0.0&soc=-3.54)

 

As a result, I don't really like the pious, nationalistic, strong-man Prime Minister (Viktor Orban) very much who - despite being "right wing" often makes some oddly socialist moves. I've always considered myself a "Europeer" and THIS is why the migrant crisis came as a huge slap in the face to me. Because, in this particular, but very important question (albeit for the wrong reasons) Mr. Orban is right, and the European liberals are tragically wrong.

 

3, On migrants

 

Let's get one thing straight: These people are NOT refugees, they are NOT fleeing for their lives. Yes, there is war is Syria, yes there is war in Iraq... but they escape mortal danger the instance they cross into Turkey. The reason why they keep going and going is because (quite understandably from their perspective), they no longer want to live in the shitty conditions of a Turkish refugee camp. Obviously they want to get to the richest countries that offer the most benefits (Sweden, Germany) and also explains why they don't want to stop in Greece, Serbia, Hungary or even Austria. As I said, understandable, but let's call a cat a cat: they're migrants and NOT refugees. Perhaps this is most obvious on the Mediterranean migration route, where sub-saharan actually have to ENTER into war-torn and anarchic Lybia to get to Europe.

 

The pressure was and still is being increased by the idiotic conduct and misleading communication of some European governments, first and foremost that of Germany's. Angela Merkel has been trumpeting messages such as: ALL SYRIANS ARE WELCOME HERE on the condition they have a vise and properly register at the Schengen borders,somethingsomethingsomethiong.
Well, it's painfully obvious the migrants only heard the first half of that, because suddenly they've all become very uncooperative with all government efforts to clarify their identities and register them. They do everything to avoid registration from illegally crossing the green border, throwing away their ID documents, to just refusing to cooperate in any manner. Hell, some of them even chew off the tips of their fingers to avoid having to give a fingerprint. The only thing they want to do is "go Germany", and they don't give a shit whether they block a freeway in the process.

 

With an attitude like that and the fact that they're coming from a war zone they pose a HUGE security risk. We are talking about 6-10k people a DAY, of whom we know nothing about. If I were in charge of ISIS, I'd jump at the opportunity to get thousands of undercover fighters into Europe. Hell, they recently said they have 4000 agents inside already - might not be true, but it may very well will be.

 

So what can the government do, pending a European solution (for which we are going to wait a while because everyone is busy sitting with their thumbs up their ass)? Build a fence to at least make it easier to control the tide? Might not be perfect, but it's at least SOMETHING. And then came the sickening double standards when we were branded as sadistic, fascist scums of the Earth for trying to keep out these poor, poor people, while nobody gave a shit when France did the same at Calais or that Spain has been doing it for years at Ceuta and Mellilla. The liberal press did its best to paint us in a bad light and skew the truth: The guy on the train tracks? He actually pushed his wife and baby and wrestled them down to the ground in a fit of rage, while police were trying to protect the woman. Police throwing food at migrants? The valiant Muslim men swarmed the cafeteria and ate everything up while the hungry women and children stood in bewilderment in the back. Workers tried to throw them the food after repeated attempts to convince the men to give way have failed.

 

And that brings me to my last point: Islam and Europe. I'm not going to get into this in much detail (for now, as it's already very late) but I'm going to say that Islam and secularism (what really made Europe great, contrary to Christianity as many people believe) is incompatible. The European liberals' ideals who are now the loudest advocates of unchecked and unconditional migration are fundamentally at odds with the Muslim way of thinking. Just show me ONE example in the world where a large Muslim minority has successfully integrated, because I sure don't know of any.

 

So what would be the solution? The quota system in an infuriatingly stupid idea, so that sure isn't. I'll be happy to elaborate on why I think this at a later time.

 

Well enough ranting for now, off to sleep, will be happy to discuss anything tomorrow

First of all, while Cold War in its previous form has ended, a rivalry between West and Russia has never ceased. It's a matter of Russian ambitions that want to be treated as a superpower equal to USA and UE and not as a partner, one of many...sort like Germany is. Now, while Russia's military is still superpower level it's economy is way lower, not even Germany level. So they play aggressive game (also trying to use China to lever their position) with the west to prove they're still the force to be reckoned with. Obviously West is playing that game too since they'd rather have Russia as a weaker, submissive partner. Problem is, that according to the Chinese doctrine there can be only one superpower in Asia and sooner or later (assuming there won't be anything of nuclear war sort) Russia is going to loose this game due to sheer disproportion of economical potential.

 

Secondly former SSR's are not being swallowed by NATO. They just want to get out of the reach of Russian claws. I'm certain you westerners are informed well enough to know how USA performed in South America. They didn't saw their southern neighbors as partners, but rather vassals and that's why they're not very liked out there.

Imagine Russia was treating their neighbors same way...even worse due to their weak economy (who do you think was funding their arms race? Older people in my country still remember those jokes about trading deals with Russia, like "we were sending them canned meat and as their part of the bargain they sent us their shoes for resoling").

Every nation wants to be independent. And what do they do when they're threatened by powerful neighbor? They turn to other strong player to protect them. That's why some of them turn to NATO and some of them (like Kazakhstan) turn to China (and I don't remember Putin speaking anything against China...and that's because he desperately needs them as allies). On the other hand Russia needs those countries back firmly in their influence sphere (they made half of USRR population back in the days) if they dream about bringing their empire back.

 

Thirdly about Ukraine. 'Crimea' and 'democratic voting' does not sit very well in one sentence. Rather gunpoint democracy, with Russian armed forces swarming all over the peninsula. Also I'd like to remind you what was the cause of Chechen wars. They also had democratic voting, but then it wasn't secured with Russian guns and went quite the opposite way.

As far as Ukraine goes, I'm sure both parties (west and east) had put their hands into that mess and invested some money. However there were never a rebellion against prorussian government. Has anyone saw protesters sporting assault rifles or driving around Kiev in APC's? True, there was violence, there were even dead, but it stayed on riot level and never escalated into armed rebellion. For those that are not very familiar with the topic, it went like this:

 

1. Anti government protests in Kiev turning into riots.

2. As a response pro government protests in multiple cities of eastern and northern Ukraine.

3. Prorussian gov falls and escapes to Russia.

4. When pro russian protests turn out to be ineffective, they suddenly dissipate (in many cites it all just collapsed, going from violent protests into calm atmosphere in a matter of a single days).

5. Immediately armed groups appear in a specific region in the east. That's the first moment we're seeing "civilians" armed with rifles.

 

It was all a "game" between west and east. However due to prowestern sentiments of people, all USA/UE or whomever just need to do was to support it with cash. Russia was in worse position, so it had to alter the stake by introducing military aspect, in order to stay in game. West did it many times in the past too (for instance in Iran), so they all have dirty hands.

Still it's better to look for truth rather than blindly following one side of the story because you either hate USA or Russia.

Which I don't understand. We could easily get along with Russians if the two stopped waving their dicks at each other. The two sides just seem to insist on disagreeing for the sake of having a disagreement. It's stupid.

 

First of all, while Cold War in its previous form has ended, a rivalry between West and Russia has never ceased. It's a matter of Russian ambitions that want to be treated as a superpower equal to USA and UE and not as a partner, one of many...sort like Germany is. Now, while Russia's military is still superpower level it's economy is way lower, not even Germany level. So they play aggressive game (also trying to use China to lever their position) with the west to prove they're still the force to be reckoned with. Obviously West is playing that game too since they'd rather have Russia as a weaker, submissive partner. Problem is, that according to the Chinese doctrine there can be only one superpower in Asia and sooner or later (assuming there won't be anything of nuclear war sort) Russia is going to loose this game due to sheer disproportion of economical potential.

 

Secondly former SSR's are not being swallowed by NATO. They just want to get out of the reach of Russian claws. I'm certain you westerners are informed well enough to know how USA performed in South America. They didn't saw their southern neighbors as partners, but rather vassals and that's why they're not very liked out there.

Imagine Russia was treating their neighbors same way...even worse due to their weak economy (who do you think was funding their arms race? Older people in my country still remember those jokes about trading deals with Russia, like "we were sending them canned meat and as their part of the bargain they sent us their shoes for resoling").

Every nation wants to be independent. And what do they do when they're threatened by powerful neighbor? They turn to other strong player to protect them. That's why some of them turn to NATO and some of them (like Kazakhstan) turn to China (and I don't remember Putin speaking anything against China...and that's because he desperately needs them as allies). On the other hand Russia needs those countries back firmly in their influence sphere (they made half of USRR population back in the days) if they dream about bringing their empire back.

 

Thirdly about Ukraine. 'Crimea' and 'democratic voting' does not sit very well in one sentence. Rather gunpoint democracy, with Russian armed forces swarming all over the peninsula. Also I'd like to remind you what was the cause of Chechen wars. They also had democratic voting, but then it wasn't secured with Russian guns and went quite the opposite way.

As far as Ukraine goes, I'm sure both parties (west and east) had put their hands into that mess and invested some money. However there were never a rebellion against prorussian government. Has anyone saw protesters sporting assault rifles or driving around Kiev in APC's? True, there was violence, there were even dead, but it stayed on riot level and never escalated into armed rebellion. For those that are not very familiar with the topic, it went like this:

 

1. Anti government protests in Kiev turning into riots.

2. As a response pro government protests in multiple cities of eastern and northern Ukraine.

3. Prorussian gov falls and escapes to Russia.

4. When pro russian protests turn out to be ineffective, they suddenly dissipate (in many cites it all just collapsed, going from violent protests into calm atmosphere in a matter of a single days).

5. Immediately armed groups appear in a specific region in the east. That's the first moment we're seeing "civilians" armed with rifles.

 

It was all a "game" between west and east. However due to prowestern sentiments of people, all USA/UE or whomever just need to do was to support it with cash. Russia was in worse position, so it had to alter the stake by introducing military aspect, in order to stay in game. West did it many times in the past too (for instance in Iran), so they all have dirty hands.

Still it's better to look for truth rather than blindly following one side of the story because you either hate USA or Russia.

Which I don't understand. We could easily get along with Russians if the two stopped waving their dicks at each other. The two sides just seem to insist on disagreeing for the sake of having a disagreement. It's stupid.

 

 

Agreed. I'm American; there's a pretty large (and still growing) number of us that think the US-Russia goings on is ridiculous and puts the entire world in danger.

 

 

I'm going to weigh in on some things. I'm Hungarian and I'd like to give my perspective on some of the things being said.

 

1, Is Hungary East or West?

 

Definitely West. The founder of the Hungarian state Stephen I made a conscious choice of adopting Roman Catholicism instead of Orthodox Christianity and with this, cemented Hungary as part of the "Western" world for most of its history. That said, if you take a look at Samuel P. Huntington's map of global civilizations, you will see that Hungary is and always has been a frontier in this sense. Eastern influence has always been present in one way or another from the very origins of the Hungarian people, through being almost entirely conquered by the Ottoman Empire or <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_People" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_People" s_republic#formation"="">Invaded by the Soviet Union to present-day political parties (who are frighteningly popular) having strong Russian sympathies and ties. I'm going to spare you the history lesson, my point is that all this is the inevitable concominant of being on the "periphery" of a civilization, things are and always will be a bit different than they are in the "core" states.

 

3, On my general political views

 

First of all, let me lay down a few things: 1) I'm not going to dig up references for this section, as I don't feel like wading through the Internet for press articles and YouTube videos to support every statement I make. If you insist on references, shall provide them for you once it isn't past midnight and I don't have to get up at 5:30 in the morning. 2) I actually consider myself a pretty liberal, yet sensible guy. I support gay marriage, gender equality, I'm strongly pro-choice and support active euthanasia - all though the application of common sense and without the urge to shove my beliefs down people's throats. I believe free speech is sacrosanct and open and honest discussion of problems is the only way to create a healthy society. There should be no taboos in this. I am also a staunch advocate of secularism, and not just because I'm an atheist, but I believe it's the best way for people of different religious backgrounds to peacefully coexist without one group trying to oppress the others. I'm also not a socialist, and don't believe people should receive much entitlement without working for it. (I actually did a political compass just now, lol: https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=0.0&soc=-3.54)

 

As a result, I don't really like the pious, nationalistic, strong-man Prime Minister (Viktor Orban) very much who - despite being "right wing" often makes some oddly socialist moves. I've always considered myself a "Europeer" and THIS is why the migrant crisis came as a huge slap in the face to me. Because, in this particular, but very important question (albeit for the wrong reasons) Mr. Orban is right, and the European liberals are tragically wrong.

 

3, On migrants

 

Let's get one thing straight: These people are NOT refugees, they are NOT fleeing for their lives. Yes, there is war is Syria, yes there is war in Iraq... but they escape mortal danger the instance they cross into Turkey. The reason why they keep going and going is because (quite understandably from their perspective), they no longer want to live in the shitty conditions of a Turkish refugee camp. Obviously they want to get to the richest countries that offer the most benefits (Sweden, Germany) and also explains why they don't want to stop in Greece, Serbia, Hungary or even Austria. As I said, understandable, but let's call a cat a cat: they're migrants and NOT refugees. Perhaps this is most obvious on the Mediterranean migration route, where sub-saharan actually have to ENTER into war-torn and anarchic Lybia to get to Europe.

 

The pressure was and still is being increased by the idiotic conduct and misleading communication of some European governments, first and foremost that of Germany's. Angela Merkel has been trumpeting messages such as: ALL SYRIANS ARE WELCOME HERE on the condition they have a vise and properly register at the Schengen borders,somethingsomethingsomethiong.

Well, it's painfully obvious the migrants only heard the first half of that, because suddenly they've all become very uncooperative with all government efforts to clarify their identities and register them. They do everything to avoid registration from illegally crossing the green border, throwing away their ID documents, to just refusing to cooperate in any manner. Hell, some of them even chew off the tips of their fingers to avoid having to give a fingerprint. The only thing they want to do is "go Germany", and they don't give a shit whether they block a freeway in the process.

 

With an attitude like that and the fact that they're coming from a war zone they pose a HUGE security risk. We are talking about 6-10k people a DAY, of whom we know nothing about. If I were in charge of ISIS, I'd jump at the opportunity to get thousands of undercover fighters into Europe. Hell, they recently said they have 4000 agents inside already - might not be true, but it may very well will be.

 

So what can the government do, pending a European solution (for which we are going to wait a while because everyone is busy sitting with their thumbs up their ass)? Build a fence to at least make it easier to control the tide? Might not be perfect, but it's at least SOMETHING. And then came the sickening double standards when we were branded as sadistic, fascist scums of the Earth for trying to keep out these poor, poor people, while nobody gave a shit when France did the same at Calais or that Spain has been doing it for years at Ceuta and Mellilla. The liberal press did its best to paint us in a bad light and skew the truth: The guy on the train tracks? He actually pushed his wife and baby and wrestled them down to the ground in a fit of rage, while police were trying to protect the woman. Police throwing food at migrants? The valiant Muslim men swarmed the cafeteria and ate everything up while the hungry women and children stood in bewilderment in the back. Workers tried to throw them the food after repeated attempts to convince the men to give way have failed.

 

And that brings me to my last point: Islam and Europe. I'm not going to get into this in much detail (for now, as it's already very late) but I'm going to say that Islam and secularism (what really made Europe great, contrary to Christianity as many people believe) is incompatible. The European liberals' ideals who are now the loudest advocates of unchecked and unconditional migration are fundamentally at odds with the Muslim way of thinking. Just show me ONE example in the world where a large Muslim minority has successfully integrated, because I sure don't know of any.

 

So what would be the solution? The quota system in an infuriatingly stupid idea, so that sure isn't. I'll be happy to elaborate on why I think this at a later time.

 

Well enough ranting for now, off to sleep, will be happy to discuss anything tomorrow

 

Seriously, thank you for posting. I'd never considered some of these things, and the Hungarian views on the "refugee crisis" is exactly how I feel about it. Feel free to tell us more at your leisure. You're the first Hungarian I've run into on the interwebz

 

 

 

guess you are one of those "to far from my home" people. Just 1 step to far in a unified society I guess. (I say unified, but nobody is truely unified, we aren't ants).

 

Care to elaborate?

I've just heard a lot of negative things about the EU, and they're pushing for every member-state to take in these refugees despite ongoing crises. 

 

its just a general notion of people disliking the EU are usually people who also dislike there national governement. Something about disliking the xth chain up in command. Over time it does indeed become unpersonal, but luckely it doesn't make it unhumanized

 

Sure crisis, but EU is just the next level up of cooperation. This is both with benefits and drawbacks. Heck Hungary just doesn't like admitting them on grounds of nationalism (don't get me started on that) but if they agree to the plan to spread them around, they would lose nearly 90% of what they have now moping around their city squares.

 

 

 True. Why would that be?

I would think it's because poor national leadership would lead to poor leadership on the next level, which in this case would be the EU. Kind of like how my country, the USA is with the UN; it used to be great because the national leadership was serious, but now we have leaders who put Saudi Arabia in as the head of Human Rights, for example.

Sure crisis, but EU is just the next level up of cooperation. This is both with benefits and drawbacks. Heck Hungary just doesn't like admitting them on grounds of nationalism (don't get me started on that) but if they agree to the plan to spread them around, they would lose nearly 90% of what they have now moping around their city squares.

Actually, migrants are no longer moping around due to the fact that all of them have left for Germany. I'm not exaggerating, the refugee camps have only have a few tens of residents in them, we could hardly round up 10k on any given day. Ever since the fence on the Serbian border was completed, migrants have all but abandoned that route, and are now coming in from Croatia. Authorities now bus them straight to Austria, who in turn send them sraight to Germany.

 

This highlights just how completely retarded the quota system is, because:

 

1, It's completely off scale, as talks of distributing some 160.000 migrants, when the latest projections in Germany foreshadow a possible whooping 1,5 MILLION assylum seekers by the end of the year

 

2, It assumes migrants will peacefully relocate to the country where they're assigned, and furthermore, will stay there on their own volition. Somehow I doubt they would be very cooperative when the EU told them "I know you wanted to go to Sweden, but according to the lottery you need to go to Romania. Have fun!"

 

The only way this could be enforced is through the use of force, and closed camps, but I doubt the EU has the stomach for that. Instead, we'll be left with a system that is broken from its conception

Edited October 13, 201511 yr by ccabal86

 

Sure crisis, but EU is just the next level up of cooperation. This is both with benefits and drawbacks. Heck Hungary just doesn't like admitting them on grounds of nationalism (don't get me started on that) but if they agree to the plan to spread them around, they would lose nearly 90% of what they have now moping around their city squares.

1, It's completely off scale, as talks of distributing some 160.000 migrants, when the latest projections in Germany foreshadow a possible whooping 1,5 MILLION assylum seekers by the end of the year

 

Well it was meant to distribute those 160.000 in Italy/Greece/(Hungary), all the "floaters" is offcourse another matter and "should" be registered at the entry points. Which they obviously aren't been done >_>

Yes, they're supposed to be registered at the Schengen borders. This mostly means Greece) who have so far managed to do so with 6000 or so people in the past 2 years...

 

Point is, there is no use for a quota system of any kind while you can't contol the influx. That's not even politics, just a matter of simple logistics. Furthermore, it's also an objective fact that interational and EU regulations concerning migrants and refugees were made in a different day and age of significantly less globalism, and therefore are unfit to cope with the present situation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww&feature=youtu.be

 

 

Syria: US ally’s razing of villages amounts to war crimes

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/10/syria-us-allys-razing-of-villages-amounts-to-war-crimes/

Edited October 15, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

Some statistics from the past few days. At Friday midnight, Hungary closed down its Croatian border:

 

Number of migrants crossing into Hungary:

Friday: 6353

Saturday: 870

Sunday: 41

 

So much for the fence not working. Of course, it's not a solution, but still the best available option at this time.

Yes, they're supposed to be registered at the Schengen borders. This mostly means Greece) who have so far managed to do so with 6000 or so people in the past 2 years...

Point is, there is no use for a quota system of any kind while you can't contol the influx. That's not even politics, just a matter of simple logistics. Furthermore, it's also an objective fact that interational and EU regulations concerning migrants and refugees were made in a different day and age of significantly less globalism, and therefore are unfit to cope with the present situation

Just like the UN

Agreed. The UN is so dysfunctional it isn't even funny anymore. A reform is badly needed, but we all know that's not going to happen.

I love conversations like this on these forums, i've learnt more about this whole conflict in these last 2 pages than anywhere else

They're a welcome addition to the IRON boards, I remember a time when all discussions of politics was frowned upon. I just wish I had more time and energy to contribute more, bit I can rarely afford to type up a post like on the last page:(

Agreed. The UN is so dysfunctional it isn't even funny anymore. A reform is badly needed, but we all know that's not going to happen.

Not just UN, IMF, WTO etc, the power isn't distributed like it was in 1940s, 50s.

 

But we all know that's idealistic and not realistic. Why would US govt for instance listen to UN or anyone who can get away with it? Or bind itself to International courts? It won't, anyone who can get away with it, will get away with it. Hence, only realsitic approach forward is ti form alternates gi the eroding world order, like how BRICS have formed a mini alternate to IMF and how countries are increasingly trading in their own currencies.

 

Only more equal distribution of power brings more equality, nothing else, nobody who has power gives it up willingly, it has nothing to do with human rights, democracy, freedom, morals, that's all just delusions. Only self interest and might ultimately governs international relations.

 

Power does not have to be snatched, it can be created like China did, it did not grab the power through imperial interventions or through wars. China created actual wealth.

Edited October 19, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

 

Agreed. The UN is so dysfunctional it isn't even funny anymore. A reform is badly needed, but we all know that's not going to happen.

Not just UN, IMF, WTO etc, the power isn't distributed like it was in 1940s, 50s.

 

But we all know that's idealistic and not realistic. Why would US govt for instance listen to UN or anyone who can get away with it? Or bind itself to International courts? It won't, anyone who can get away with it, will get away with it. Hence, only realsitic approach forward is ti form alternates gi the eroding world order, like how BRICS have formed a mini alternate to IMF and how countries are increasingly trading in their own currencies.

 

Only more equal distribution of power brings more equality, nothing else, nobody who has power gives it up willingly, it has nothing to do with human rights, democracy, freedom, morals, that's all just delusions. Only self interest and might ultimately governs international relations.

 

Power does not have to be snatched, it can be created like China did, it did not grab the power through imperial interventions or through wars. China created actual wealth.

 

 

 

The way I see it, that's what's causing all the issues; everyone wants "equality."

Equality was unseen when the British Empire expanded into every continent on Earth.

Equality was unheard of when the CCCP was formed and started killing millions in the Gulag.

Equality is still nonexistent in the PRC, where speaking ill of the Government will get you executed.

And Equality is abhorrent in the eyes of such countries as Saudi Arabia, who execute women whom have been raped (see: Honor Killings).

 

Yet Saudi Arabia is the head of the UN Civil Rights Committee while the PRC overtakes the US both economically and (as some believe) militarily.

 

As Nietzsche said, "Equality is a false God." 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. The UN is so dysfunctional it isn't even funny anymore. A reform is badly needed, but we all know that's not going to happen.

 

Not just UN, IMF, WTO etc, the power isn't distributed like it was in 1940s, 50s.

But we all know that's idealistic and not realistic. Why would US govt for instance listen to UN or anyone who can get away with it? Or bind itself to International courts? It won't, anyone who can get away with it, will get away with it. Hence, only realsitic approach forward is ti form alternates gi the eroding world order, like how BRICS have formed a mini alternate to IMF and how countries are increasingly trading in their own currencies.

Only more equal distribution of power brings more equality, nothing else, nobody who has power gives it up willingly, it has nothing to do with human rights, democracy, freedom, morals, that's all just delusions. Only self interest and might ultimately governs international relations.

Power does not have to be snatched, it can be created like China did, it did not grab the power through imperial interventions or through wars. China created actual wealth.

 

 

 

The way I see it, that's what's causing all the issues; everyone wants "equality."

Equality was unseen when the British Empire expanded into every continent on Earth.

Equality was unheard of when the CCCP was formed and started killing millions in the Gulag.

Equality is still nonexistent in the PRC, where speaking ill of the Government will get you executed.

And Equality is abhorrent in the eyes of such countries as Saudi Arabia, who execute women whom have been raped (see: Honor Killings).

 

Yet Saudi Arabia is the head of the UN Civil Rights Committee while the PRC overtakes the US both economically and (as some believe) militarily.

 

As Nietzsche said, "Equality is a false God."

You are changing the context and creating a red herring.

 

I speak of equality in context of nation states. Everyone will always aspire for equality, not aspiring for that means you bend over and take it. Iraq was weak. Syria was weak, Libya was weak, Palestine is weak, Look what happened. China isn't weak, their citizens are FAR better off than the citizens of those nation states that have been subject to external inequality in comparison to internal inequalities.

 

Equality is earned through economic developmen, better international polictics (Iran) and then military development to ensure that the economic development and your political blocs aren't hurt.

 

One could argue that Power (made of economy, millitary and politics) earn you the right to demand a more equal share of the pie, whatever that maybe.

 

Linking these back to the OP, it is these factors under which Putin acts. You think West hasn't supported brutal dictators in the past or present? Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, long list in South America, so on and so forth.

 

Who exactly is West supporting in Syria? Free Syrian Army? By their own admission, they trained like 5 or 6 of them, and the rest promptly surrendered to Al Qaeda, lol?

 

This isn't about terrorism at all, its about power through economy ( Assad won't allow alternate energy route to Europe. So NATO remains dependant on Russian energy), politics ( American allies vs Iranian allies) or millitary (same as last point).

Edited October 19, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

wait, the UN ever was something "working"?

 

the moment you not just give 1, but actually 5 different (wit atleast 3 totally seperate) people veto-powers, all dialogue goes out of the window and the realpolitik begins. The UN would be a brilliant board of directors for some multinational corperation, but for debate and action on social issues? HA!

wait, the UN ever was something "working"?

 

Once, yes.  You can read about the real accomplishments of Secretaries General Dag Hammarskjöld and U Thant.

 

In fact it still does a lot of good, such as overseeing the first democratic elections in post-apartheid South Africa and post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

The UNHCR is distributing enough food and supplies to the millions of Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon that they are not so uncomfortable as to pick up and join the migrants heading toward Europe.

 

Like most organizations not really understood or liked, it is easy to become fixated on only the failures, many of which do come from the distributed leadership structure you note.

You are changing the context and creating a red herring.

 

I speak of equality in context of nation states. Everyone will always aspire for equality, not aspiring for that means you bend over and take it. Iraq was weak. Syria was weak, Libya was weak, Palestine is weak, Look what happened. China isn't weak, their citizens are FAR better off than the citizens of those nation states that have been subject to external inequality in comparison to internal inequalities.

 

Equality is earned through economic developmen, better international polictics (Iran) and then military development to ensure that the economic development and your political blocs aren't hurt.

 

One could argue that Power (made of economy, millitary and politics) earn you the right to demand a more equal share of the pie, whatever that maybe.

 

Linking these back to the OP, it is these factors under which Putin acts. You think West hasn't supported brutal dictators in the past or present? Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, long list in South America, so on and so forth.

 

Who exactly is West supporting in Syria? Free Syrian Army? By their own admission, they trained like 5 or 6 of them, and the rest promptly surrendered to Al Qaeda, lol?

 

This isn't about terrorism at all, its about power through economy ( Assad won't allow alternate energy route to Europe. So NATO remains dependant on Russian energy), politics ( American allies vs Iranian allies) or millitary (same as last point).

 

I wasn't trying to rebuttal you mate, I was just saying that that's the way it's been looking to me; all of the Western powers start turning to "equality" and things start going to shit. A good example is our ridiculous attempts to overthrow Assad by funding "moderate rebels" with ties to AQ or ISIS.

 

At least with Bush we knew we were going to get Oil out of it LMFAO

(spoiler)Bush was a horrible President, but you catch my drift(/Spoiler)

The UN is supposed to be a united global alliance for the good of the planet.

 

It has devolved into a forum of nations cock-blocking other nations to protect their own interests.

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It should be utterly, and swiftly, dissolved.

The UN is supposed to be a united global alliance for the good of the planet.

 

It has devolved into a forum of nations cock-blocking other nations to protect their own interests.

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It should be utterly, and swiftly, dissolved.

I must completely disagree, UN was supposed to protect the interest of the victors of WW2 and throw a small carrot to the rest of the small, winning/loosing/colonised/newly independent parties. This can be observed from the very structure of UN, only the victors of WW2 have the final say on the matter (UN security council). It has fallen into cock-blocking because the interests of the victors have diverged. But UN will not be disolved by those who sit in UN Security council, no, why should it? the entire international system is built with veto power around those nations, no,  UN will get irrelevant as more parties outside the UN security council develop economically, politically and militarily, which is ~kind-of happening, at that point, the boys-club will invite the newly big boys a seat on the table like Germany, Brazil, India?, Japan. Everyone will be happy for a while, flout their peens, then everyone will resort back to cock-blocking and shit will continue like it is.

 

Only Alien invasion will fix UN but I suspect, France might promptly surrender and break away from our ranks. 

Edited October 20, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

You don't completely disagree, because the victors of WW2 were the united global alliance for the good of the planet. I never said the entire globe had a seat at the table, and even those that have seats at the table can ever agree on what is for "the good of the planet". So they cock-block, nothing of significance or meaning gets done, and we still end up with the same problems that don't ever get resolved. Wherever power is bestowed, corruption will follow. If the US pulled out of the UN, it would rapidly collapse into a toothless house of cards. For 20 years at least, I have had no faith in the UN as a competent, useful project... and we can't pull the plug fast enough. There is nothing that can change my mind on the UN.