The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
You realize that much of the current instability in the Middle East is a direct result of western interventions which destabilized the region and left a power vacuum?
The thing is, most migrants flee their countries for reasons such as genocidal maniacs fucking shit up. Letting those reasons persist is hardly the right thing to do. As long as these conflicts are allowed to play out as they do, they will remain self-perpetuating. There is no end to all this misery without forceful intervention.
Disowning the perpetrators of such insanity, taking away their reasons to fight one another, and instead have them face the might of the entire world, that makes much more sense to me. The world is not defenseless, unlike these migrants. The world is literally legion. And these petty squabbles cannot stand against our combined might. Not for long.
I think it's the humanitarian thing to do, to disown the perpetrators, and end their petty squabbles and the senseless violence, and instead own these conflicts ourselves. Make it bigger, and about what it means to us. Give the violence proper meaning. We believe in a world without petty squabbles turning murderously violent, where people can live productive lives in peace, and follow their dreams, and we will fight you to the death to make it so.
You surely don't believe idiocy as seen in Syria will lead to anything worthwhile ever, without a firm forceful hand intervening? Whatever order is achieved by such intervention, unless the intent is to stay indefinitely, it will not last. So really, the only thing to do is to conquer, dominate, and colonize and civilize these places for good, rather than to stand idly by and let the violence go on indefinitely and senselessly. Fight the fight now, and fight it good, for all our sakes. For a better tomorrow.
And sure, I know how idiotic that sounds. But as far as pro-active acts go, conquest, domination, colonization and civilization sounds like the only way to go. Half-steps never work, and doing nothing is hardly the humanitarian thing to do, and I do believe in a forceful solution to these kinds of problems, but not in a peaceful pacifistic one. There needs to be a fight, there needs to be bloodshed, or order cannot be established out of chaos. It never has in the past, and it won't be possible in the near future. So I say, let us fight for what we know is right!
Of course this is a longterm course of action. Short term, the humanitarian thing to do is to help. The actual realities of the matter are beyond me though, I can't offer any practical advice or opinions whatsoever. I'm just a simple minded guy, who'd like what ails the world to be much simpler than it actually is. Something I can smash to smithereens with my fist, and then put it back together better than it was before. The optimist in me thinks it just might be that simple. Of course, no matter what we do, the humanitarian thing to do will never be easy, and it will always be more costly than doing nothing at all.
There is a reason it sounds idiotic- it is. I know it makes sense in your head, but read some history. Any history, of anything, ever. You will see these ideas working zero percent of the time.
I mean, you rally against them, but carrying out your plan would make you the genocidal maniac.
The thing is, most migrants flee their countries for reasons such as genocidal maniacs fucking shit up. Letting those reasons persist is hardly the right thing to do. As long as these conflicts are allowed to play out as they do, they will remain self-perpetuating. There is no end to all this misery without forceful intervention.
Disowning the perpetrators of such insanity, taking away their reasons to fight one another, and instead have them face the might of the entire world, that makes much more sense to me. The world is not defenseless, unlike these migrants. The world is literally legion. And these petty squabbles cannot stand against our combined might. Not for long.
I think it's the humanitarian thing to do, to disown the perpetrators, and end their petty squabbles and the senseless violence, and instead own these conflicts ourselves. Make it bigger, and about what it means to us. Give the violence proper meaning. We believe in a world without petty squabbles turning murderously violent, where people can live productive lives in peace, and follow their dreams, and we will fight you to the death to make it so.
You surely don't believe idiocy as seen in Syria will lead to anything worthwhile ever, without a firm forceful hand intervening? Whatever order is achieved by such intervention, unless the intent is to stay indefinitely, it will not last. So really, the only thing to do is to conquer, dominate, and colonize and civilize these places for good, rather than to stand idly by and let the violence go on indefinitely and senselessly. Fight the fight now, and fight it good, for all our sakes. For a better tomorrow.
And sure, I know how idiotic that sounds. But as far as pro-active acts go, conquest, domination, colonization and civilization sounds like the only way to go. Half-steps never work, and doing nothing is hardly the humanitarian thing to do, and I do believe in a forceful solution to these kinds of problems, but not in a peaceful pacifistic one. There needs to be a fight, there needs to be bloodshed, or order cannot be established out of chaos. It never has in the past, and it won't be possible in the near future. So I say, let us fight for what we know is right!
Of course this is a longterm course of action. Short term, the humanitarian thing to do is to help. The actual realities of the matter are beyond me though, I can't offer any practical advice or opinions whatsoever. I'm just a simple minded guy, who'd like what ails the world to be much simpler than it actually is. Something I can smash to smithereens with my fist, and then put it back together better than it was before. The optimist in me thinks it just might be that simple. Of course, no matter what we do, the humanitarian thing to do will never be easy, and it will always be more costly than doing nothing at all.
There is a reason it sounds idiotic- it is. I know it makes sense in your head, but read some history. Any history, of anything, ever. You will see these ideas working zero percent of the time.
I mean, you rally against them, but carrying out your plan would make you the genocidal maniac.
How about China and Emperor Qin? There would be no China without Qin. Sure, he was a monster, but he's also the father of China. There would not be a China as we know it without him, and his acts of conquest and homogenization of language and currency and law and whatnot.
I don't deny that horrors would ensue if such a course of action is taken, in the short term, probably more so than otherwise, but in the end, such a thing could be the birth of something new, something great. Obviously Syria as a concept will not work out ever again, and an Islamic State is hardly what anybody wants outside of those fanatics themselves. In cases such a this one, shouldn't the world be more fanatical about its own world views, as far as we manage to agree upon?
I don't doubt that if there is a longterm profit to be made, the international community could agree upon mutually beneficial terms to conquer, dominate, colonize, and civilize the place, and make it great once more. Not just for one tribe or the other, but for everyone. Certainly the opposition needs to be crushed, but doesn't the IS need to be crushed anyways? A war is a big ask, and as long as we don't overtly think in potential benefits, and make longterm plans for the development of these places and our future role in them, the world will never be commited enough to see these conflicts through to proper stability and prosperity.
It's an incredibly difficult topic with no easy fix, but one thing is clear, humanitarian reasons trump all other concerns in the short term.
Personally, simple mind that I am, I'm all for conquest and colonization of all the places that most apparently don't work out anymore, and obviously won't for decades to come, if ever. Just take the United Nations to its logical extreme. Invade countries like Syria and Eritrea with lethal force, take over the entire bureaucracy and security apparatus, with the intention of staying forever, forging a new identiy for the place with utmost on-going dedication. Fairly distribute the personal and financial cost of said invasion and occupation amongst all member states, as well as split up the revenue and opportunities for the efforts, and of course invest heavily in the social and economical developement of this new world territory.
In all, a global political effort needs to be made to transform the concepts of conquest and colonization into politically feasible acts again, making it both lucrative and desirable for the local population, as well as for the global community and economy. In the end, conquest and colonization is the more humanitarian thing to do, rather than to blindly respect dysfunctional backwoods cultures. Yup, sounds like a hairbrain impossibilty of an idea, with horrendous unintended consequence to follow, but as far as I can tell, as far as hope goes, this is the one pro-active step I believe the world at large can take. It's the only way to take charge and curb the inhumanity in these lawless cruel god forsaken places relatively expeditiously, and more importantly lastingly.
Okay; I mean, just in terms of practicality & expense, setting aside complications like power vacuums or the optics on the ground of an outside power suddenly bringing another fire & sword upon people who have only known war & poverty, do you think it might be more a bit more expensive to tool-up for a war, invasion & occupation where the end game is that you attempt to nurse an entire country (which is now full of destroyed infrastructure, guerrillas and other violent agents of nebulous loyalty) into industrialized standards?
The poorest places in Africa are in need of many things, but armed conquest is probably not one of those things.
A little bit of foreign aid & shared wealth would've gone quite a long a few years ago. I'm not sure what can be done at this point; it seems like often different cultures choose to ignore an ongoing problem until it reaches a critical mass and then demand that a magical solution materialize to fix things that have spent decades getting good & broken because now it's an issue.
It's an incredibly difficult topic with no easy fix, but one thing is clear, humanitarian reasons trump all other concerns in the short term.
Personally, simple mind that I am, I'm all for conquest and colonization of all the places that most apparently don't work out anymore, and obviously won't for decades to come, if ever. Just take the United Nations to its logical extreme. Invade countries like Syria and Eritrea with lethal force, take over the entire bureaucracy and security apparatus, with the intention of staying forever, forging a new identiy for the place with utmost on-going dedication. Fairly distribute the personal and financial cost of said invasion and occupation amongst all member states, as well as split up the revenue and opportunities for the efforts, and of course invest heavily in the social and economical developement of this new world territory.
In all, a global political effort needs to be made to transform the concepts of conquest and colonization into politically feasible acts again, making it both lucrative and desirable for the local population, as well as for the global community and economy. In the end, conquest and colonization is the more humanitarian thing to do, rather than to blindly respect dysfunctional backwoods cultures. Yup, sounds like a hairbrain impossibilty of an idea, with horrendous unintended consequence to follow, but as far as I can tell, as far as hope goes, this is the one pro-active step I believe the world at large can take. It's the only way to take charge and curb the inhumanity in these lawless cruel god forsaken places relatively expeditiously, and more importantly lastingly.
Okay; I mean, just in terms of practicality & expense, setting aside complications like power vacuums or the optics on the ground of an outside power suddenly bringing another fire & sword upon people who have only known war & poverty, do you think it might be more a bit more expensive to tool-up for a war, invasion & occupation where the end game is that you attempt to nurse an entire country (which is now full of destroyed infrastructure, guerrillas and other violent agents of nebulous loyalty) into industrialized standards?
The poorest places in Africa are in need of many things, but armed conquest is probably not one of those things.
A little bit of foreign aid & shared wealth would've gone quite a long a few years ago. I'm not sure what can be done at this point; it seems like often different cultures choose to ignore an ongoing problem until it reaches a critical mass and then demand that a magical solution materialize to fix things that have spent decades getting good & broken because now it's an issue.
The thing is, shared wealth and foreign aid cannot work, if tribal interests and corruption prevent these things from working out for the general public. Most places that experience violent strife and instability do so since half a century or much much longer. Isn't it time to put our idea of the future above our respect for local traditions and cultures? Pro-actively pursuing the Golden Age, so to speak.
BranniganSepp on
0
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
It's an incredibly difficult topic with no easy fix, but one thing is clear, humanitarian reasons trump all other concerns in the short term.
Personally, simple mind that I am, I'm all for conquest and colonization of all the places that most apparently don't work out anymore, and obviously won't for decades to come, if ever. Just take the United Nations to its logical extreme. Invade countries like Syria and Eritrea with lethal force, take over the entire bureaucracy and security apparatus, with the intention of staying forever, forging a new identiy for the place with utmost on-going dedication. Fairly distribute the personal and financial cost of said invasion and occupation amongst all member states, as well as split up the revenue and opportunities for the efforts, and of course invest heavily in the social and economical developement of this new world territory.
In all, a global political effort needs to be made to transform the concepts of conquest and colonization into politically feasible acts again, making it both lucrative and desirable for the local population, as well as for the global community and economy. In the end, conquest and colonization is the more humanitarian thing to do, rather than to blindly respect dysfunctional backwoods cultures. Yup, sounds like a hairbrain impossibilty of an idea, with horrendous unintended consequence to follow, but as far as I can tell, as far as hope goes, this is the one pro-active step I believe the world at large can take. It's the only way to take charge and curb the inhumanity in these lawless cruel god forsaken places relatively expeditiously, and more importantly lastingly.
Okay; I mean, just in terms of practicality & expense, setting aside complications like power vacuums or the optics on the ground of an outside power suddenly bringing another fire & sword upon people who have only known war & poverty, do you think it might be more a bit more expensive to tool-up for a war, invasion & occupation where the end game is that you attempt to nurse an entire country (which is now full of destroyed infrastructure, guerrillas and other violent agents of nebulous loyalty) into industrialized standards?
The poorest places in Africa are in need of many things, but armed conquest is probably not one of those things.
A little bit of foreign aid & shared wealth would've gone quite a long a few years ago. I'm not sure what can be done at this point; it seems like often different cultures choose to ignore an ongoing problem until it reaches a critical mass and then demand that a magical solution materialize to fix things that have spent decades getting good & broken because now it's an issue.
The thing is, shared wealth and foreign aid cannot work, if tribal interests and corruption prevent these things from working out for the general public. Most places that experience violent strife and instability do so since half a century or much much longer.
Isn't it time to put our idea of the future above our respect for local traditions and cultures? Pro-actively pursuing the Golden Age, so to speak.
It's an incredibly difficult topic with no easy fix, but one thing is clear, humanitarian reasons trump all other concerns in the short term.
Personally, simple mind that I am, I'm all for conquest and colonization of all the places that most apparently don't work out anymore, and obviously won't for decades to come, if ever. Just take the United Nations to its logical extreme. Invade countries like Syria and Eritrea with lethal force, take over the entire bureaucracy and security apparatus, with the intention of staying forever, forging a new identiy for the place with utmost on-going dedication. Fairly distribute the personal and financial cost of said invasion and occupation amongst all member states, as well as split up the revenue and opportunities for the efforts, and of course invest heavily in the social and economical developement of this new world territory.
In all, a global political effort needs to be made to transform the concepts of conquest and colonization into politically feasible acts again, making it both lucrative and desirable for the local population, as well as for the global community and economy. In the end, conquest and colonization is the more humanitarian thing to do, rather than to blindly respect dysfunctional backwoods cultures. Yup, sounds like a hairbrain impossibilty of an idea, with horrendous unintended consequence to follow, but as far as I can tell, as far as hope goes, this is the one pro-active step I believe the world at large can take. It's the only way to take charge and curb the inhumanity in these lawless cruel god forsaken places relatively expeditiously, and more importantly lastingly.
Okay; I mean, just in terms of practicality & expense, setting aside complications like power vacuums or the optics on the ground of an outside power suddenly bringing another fire & sword upon people who have only known war & poverty, do you think it might be more a bit more expensive to tool-up for a war, invasion & occupation where the end game is that you attempt to nurse an entire country (which is now full of destroyed infrastructure, guerrillas and other violent agents of nebulous loyalty) into industrialized standards?
The poorest places in Africa are in need of many things, but armed conquest is probably not one of those things.
A little bit of foreign aid & shared wealth would've gone quite a long a few years ago. I'm not sure what can be done at this point; it seems like often different cultures choose to ignore an ongoing problem until it reaches a critical mass and then demand that a magical solution materialize to fix things that have spent decades getting good & broken because now it's an issue.
The thing is, shared wealth and foreign aid cannot work, if tribal interests and corruption prevent these things from working out for the general public. Most places that experience violent strife and instability do so since half a century or much much longer.
Isn't it time to put our idea of the future above our respect for local traditions and cultures? Pro-actively pursuing the Golden Age, so to speak.
It's an incredibly difficult topic with no easy fix, but one thing is clear, humanitarian reasons trump all other concerns in the short term.
Personally, simple mind that I am, I'm all for conquest and colonization of all the places that most apparently don't work out anymore, and obviously won't for decades to come, if ever. Just take the United Nations to its logical extreme. Invade countries like Syria and Eritrea with lethal force, take over the entire bureaucracy and security apparatus, with the intention of staying forever, forging a new identiy for the place with utmost on-going dedication. Fairly distribute the personal and financial cost of said invasion and occupation amongst all member states, as well as split up the revenue and opportunities for the efforts, and of course invest heavily in the social and economical developement of this new world territory.
In all, a global political effort needs to be made to transform the concepts of conquest and colonization into politically feasible acts again, making it both lucrative and desirable for the local population, as well as for the global community and economy. In the end, conquest and colonization is the more humanitarian thing to do, rather than to blindly respect dysfunctional backwoods cultures. Yup, sounds like a hairbrain impossibilty of an idea, with horrendous unintended consequence to follow, but as far as I can tell, as far as hope goes, this is the one pro-active step I believe the world at large can take. It's the only way to take charge and curb the inhumanity in these lawless cruel god forsaken places relatively expeditiously, and more importantly lastingly.
Okay; I mean, just in terms of practicality & expense, setting aside complications like power vacuums or the optics on the ground of an outside power suddenly bringing another fire & sword upon people who have only known war & poverty, do you think it might be more a bit more expensive to tool-up for a war, invasion & occupation where the end game is that you attempt to nurse an entire country (which is now full of destroyed infrastructure, guerrillas and other violent agents of nebulous loyalty) into industrialized standards?
The poorest places in Africa are in need of many things, but armed conquest is probably not one of those things.
A little bit of foreign aid & shared wealth would've gone quite a long a few years ago. I'm not sure what can be done at this point; it seems like often different cultures choose to ignore an ongoing problem until it reaches a critical mass and then demand that a magical solution materialize to fix things that have spent decades getting good & broken because now it's an issue.
The thing is, shared wealth and foreign aid cannot work, if tribal interests and corruption prevent these things from working out for the general public. Most places that experience violent strife and instability do so since half a century or much much longer.
Isn't it time to put our idea of the future above our respect for local traditions and cultures? Pro-actively pursuing the Golden Age, so to speak.
The thing is, shared wealth and foreign aid cannot work, if tribal interests and corruption prevent these things from working out for the general public. Most places that experience violent strife and instability do so since half a century or much much longer.
Isn't it time to put our idea of the future above our respect for local traditions and cultures? Pro-actively pursuing the Golden Age, so to speak.
Yes, foreign aid is now mostly impossible in places like Eritrea. That's why I laid down the qualifier of 'years ago'; it's certainly too late now.
And, really, do you think the issue is just that there is 'too much respect' for African traditions, cultures and languages? The problem can't be, say, that a chasm of ignorance carved by lack of interest on the part of those most able to build a bridge of understanding & goodwill (those living in the world's wealthiest countries) has grown so large that the effort to build said bridge is now an all but impossible feat?
With Love and Courage
0
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
It's an incredibly difficult topic with no easy fix, but one thing is clear, humanitarian reasons trump all other concerns in the short term.
Personally, simple mind that I am, I'm all for conquest and colonization of all the places that most apparently don't work out anymore, and obviously won't for decades to come, if ever. Just take the United Nations to its logical extreme. Invade countries like Syria and Eritrea with lethal force, take over the entire bureaucracy and security apparatus, with the intention of staying forever, forging a new identiy for the place with utmost on-going dedication. Fairly distribute the personal and financial cost of said invasion and occupation amongst all member states, as well as split up the revenue and opportunities for the efforts, and of course invest heavily in the social and economical developement of this new world territory.
In all, a global political effort needs to be made to transform the concepts of conquest and colonization into politically feasible acts again, making it both lucrative and desirable for the local population, as well as for the global community and economy. In the end, conquest and colonization is the more humanitarian thing to do, rather than to blindly respect dysfunctional backwoods cultures. Yup, sounds like a hairbrain impossibilty of an idea, with horrendous unintended consequence to follow, but as far as I can tell, as far as hope goes, this is the one pro-active step I believe the world at large can take. It's the only way to take charge and curb the inhumanity in these lawless cruel god forsaken places relatively expeditiously, and more importantly lastingly.
Okay; I mean, just in terms of practicality & expense, setting aside complications like power vacuums or the optics on the ground of an outside power suddenly bringing another fire & sword upon people who have only known war & poverty, do you think it might be more a bit more expensive to tool-up for a war, invasion & occupation where the end game is that you attempt to nurse an entire country (which is now full of destroyed infrastructure, guerrillas and other violent agents of nebulous loyalty) into industrialized standards?
The poorest places in Africa are in need of many things, but armed conquest is probably not one of those things.
A little bit of foreign aid & shared wealth would've gone quite a long a few years ago. I'm not sure what can be done at this point; it seems like often different cultures choose to ignore an ongoing problem until it reaches a critical mass and then demand that a magical solution materialize to fix things that have spent decades getting good & broken because now it's an issue.
The thing is, shared wealth and foreign aid cannot work, if tribal interests and corruption prevent these things from working out for the general public. Most places that experience violent strife and instability do so since half a century or much much longer.
Isn't it time to put our idea of the future above our respect for local traditions and cultures? Pro-actively pursuing the Golden Age, so to speak.
Golden Age for whom?
Everyone who gets with the program.
I assume you'll have something like the Spanish Inquisition then afterwards for people who don't get with the program.
I don't doubt that if there is a longterm profit to be made, the international community could agree upon mutually beneficial terms to conquer, dominate, colonize, and civilize the place, and make it great once more. Not just for one tribe or the other, but for everyone. Certainly the opposition needs to be crushed, but doesn't the IS need to be crushed anyways? A war is a big ask, and as long as we don't overtly think in potential benefits, and make longterm plans for development of these places and our future role in them, the world will never be commited enough to see these conflicts through to proper stability and prosperity.
The number of problems I have with your posts is difficult to estimate, but I'd at least like to point out that your use of "civilized" is offensively off base. Syrians are for the most part a civilized people (the semi-nomadic Bedouins are arguably an exception, but they are a small minority of the population). Same with Iraqis. People in this region have been civilized for far longer than people in Europe. "Civilization" has a definition and it isn't "white and English-speaking."
Isn't the problem much less that any particular people are civilized, and more that the international system encourages some places to have shithole governments that end up either collapsing or lurching around murdering citizens because that's easier than providing basic services? It's not an accident the term "resource course" exists.
We have a system where trillions of dollars of wealth goes out of these "poor" nations, billions go in, but the populace see nothing. There's a reason that even Eritrea has neighborhoods with houses that look like this.
Unless we want to start building MegaCity One and Two to house the billions of people who would love to GTFO their home nation, I think the easiest solution is to examine just why exactly so many places on the planet are going rancid. We need global policies that help keep some of the global capital extracted from these places in the country, and passed around to more hands than the people in Dear Leader's inner circle.
The riddle to solve is not why Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc. are so poor and the people so uneducated. And that's because there's a fallacy within it - none of these countries lack wealth. The riddle to solve is where that wealth is going and why. The world needs more small business owners and government services, and that's not going to happen so long as entire swaths of the globe operate as plantations for the developed world.
And to touch on the "just invade and conquer" idea beyond just inserting a clip of Triumph of the Will, it ignores the fact that the current setup worked very well for the nations that would be doing the invading until very recently. This entire house of cards was built because developed nations, international corporations and the local leaders who did deals with them did extremely well for years by acting like sharks.
You realize that much of the current instability in the Middle East is a direct result of western interventions which destabilized the region and left a power vacuum?
"man we totally fucked their nation all up, well I guess there's nothing we can possibly do to fix it except walk away into the sunset, shaking our heads about what a shame it all is"
I don't deny that horrors would ensue such a course of action, in the short term, probably more so than otherwise, but in the end, such a thing could be the birth of something new, something great.
When the justification for your your plan sounds like something a cartoon villain would say, your plan is bad.
I don't deny that horrors would ensue such a course of action, in the short term, probably more so than otherwise, but in the end, such a thing could be the birth of something new, something great.
When the justification for your your plan sounds like something a cartoon villain would say, your plan is bad.
Personally, simple mind that I am, I'm all for conquest and colonization of all the places that most apparently don't work out anymore, and obviously won't for decades to come, if ever. Just take the United Nations to its logical extreme.
Free question. Didn't the Bush years proved that "nation building" doesn't work? I mean, European countries only got Western-aligned dictators to keep order at best, but the Iraq war at worst...well.
I think it would be more accurate to say The Bush years proved that placing young, newly graduated ivy league kids in charge of rebuilding doesn't work.
That and the double edged sword of purging Baathists out of the government, military, and police.
For the type of "nation building" Brannigan is talking about, we'd have been in Iraq for another 1 to 4 decades if we were doing it right.
One of the issues is: The people in Europe can't really empathize with the enormous refugee camps and all the death and misery that comes with people smugling. What they can empathize with is the overrepresentation of second and third generation immigrants in the crime statistics, terror attacks on national soil and the poor integration of these groups. That leads to 1/5 of the public votes going to a far right wing party whose whole election speech was based on restricted access to Denmark for non-western immigrants/refugees. There needs to be a centralized solution from the EU where refugees are split evenly between the member states and "comfort" immigrants are turned down else we'll never see the end of this.
I don't doubt that if there is a longterm profit to be made, the international community could agree upon mutually beneficial terms to conquer, dominate, colonize, and civilize the place, and make it great once more. Not just for one tribe or the other, but for everyone. Certainly the opposition needs to be crushed, but doesn't the IS need to be crushed anyways? A war is a big ask, and as long as we don't overtly think in potential benefits, and make longterm plans for development of these places and our future role in them, the world will never be commited enough to see these conflicts through to proper stability and prosperity.
The number of problems I have with your posts is difficult to estimate, but I'd at least like to point out that your use of "civilized" is offensively off base. Syrians are for the most part a civilized people (the semi-nomadic Bedouins are arguably an exception, but they are a small minority of the population). Same with Iraqis. People in this region have been civilized for far longer than people in Europe. "Civilization" has a definition and it isn't "white and English-speaking."
I mean civilized, as in not acting barbaric and slaughtering the innocent. You don't seriously argue that the IS or the current Syrian Regime isn't acting barbaric? And they're not acting so for the future welfare of the people, but for the future welfare of THEIR people. Tribalism is the worst, and if I had to chose a tribe, it'd be The World United.
In the case of an invasion and further indefinite occupation by the global community, for the sake of establishing a new nation under the administration and control of the global community, I'd say fire at will at everyone who fires at you. Everybody else, who supposedly is willing to adhere to international and humanitarian standards, is certainly better off with *International Overlords* rather than *Tribal Warlords*.
Let's not forget that a majority of the global population is neither white, nor English-speaking. Don't you think you'd need to get as many nations on board with that avenue of action, literally everyone? It cannot be done without the support of China and India and Pakistan and Indonesia and Saudi Arabia and Iran and Russia and literally every country? That's what I'm talking about. If the world manages to be united in the effort to turn a territory from insanity and cruelty and misery into something worthwhile, with forceful violent intervention, then it should be done, and only then it can be done.
I say if one can do the political and social groundwork on a global scale that allows for that kind of intervention, in order to create an absolutely international territory for forever, with appropriate rights and responsibilities for each member country, and relative to their absolute contribution a share of the revenue and economic development investment opportunity, then I'd say the places are better off invaded and occupied. Once the place is pacified/civilized, it is to be colonized by whatever civilians are willing. Not for the indigenous tribes, but for the world at large. I guess that's when many migrants will go home/be sent home, and try to rebuild their lives within that new framework.
As in, let's turn places like Syria into *Earth Territories*. A nation to be colonized by anyone willing to put the work in, and respect international oversight and laws. So that the inevitable violent forceful intervention in such places won't be for nothing, but carries the hope for lasting improvement. The betterment of mankind.
The thing is, most migrants flee their countries for reasons such as genocidal maniacs fucking shit up. Letting those reasons persist is hardly the right thing to do. As long as these conflicts are allowed to play out as they do, they will remain self-perpetuating. There is no end to all this misery without forceful intervention.
Disowning the perpetrators of such insanity, taking away their reasons to fight one another, and instead have them face the might of the entire world, that makes much more sense to me. The world is not defenseless, unlike these migrants. The world is literally legion. And these petty squabbles cannot stand against our combined might. Not for long.
I think it's the humanitarian thing to do, to disown the perpetrators, and end their petty squabbles and the senseless violence, and instead own these conflicts ourselves. Make it bigger, and about what it means to us. Give the violence proper meaning. We believe in a world without petty squabbles turning murderously violent, where people can live productive lives in peace, and follow their dreams, and we will fight you to the death to make it so.
You surely don't believe idiocy as seen in Syria will lead to anything worthwhile ever, without a firm forceful hand intervening? Whatever order is achieved by such intervention, unless the intent is to stay indefinitely, it will not last. So really, the only thing to do is to conquer, dominate, and colonize and civilize these places for good, rather than to stand idly by and let the violence go on indefinitely and senselessly. Fight the fight now, and fight it good, for all our sakes. For a better tomorrow.
And sure, I know how idiotic that sounds. But as far as pro-active acts go, conquest, domination, colonization and civilization sounds like the only way to go. Half-steps never work, and doing nothing is hardly the humanitarian thing to do, and I do believe in a forceful solution to these kinds of problems, but not in a peaceful pacifistic one. There needs to be a fight, there needs to be bloodshed, or order cannot be established out of chaos. It never has in the past, and it won't be possible in the near future. So I say, let us fight for what we know is right!
Of course this is a longterm course of action. Short term, the humanitarian thing to do is to help. The actual realities of the matter are beyond me though, I can't offer any practical advice or opinions whatsoever. I'm just a simple minded guy, who'd like what ails the world to be much simpler than it actually is. Something I can smash to smithereens with my fist, and then put it back together better than it was before. The optimist in me thinks it just might be that simple. Of course, no matter what we do, the humanitarian thing to do will never be easy, and it will always be more costly than doing nothing at all.
There is a reason it sounds idiotic- it is. I know it makes sense in your head, but read some history. Any history, of anything, ever. You will see these ideas working zero percent of the time.
I mean, you rally against them, but carrying out your plan would make you the genocidal maniac.
How about China and Emperor Qin? There would be no China without Qin. Sure, he was a monster, but he's also the father of China. There would not be a China as we know it without him, and his acts of conquest and homogenization of language and currency and law and whatnot.
I don't deny that horrors would ensue such a course of action, in the short term, probably more so than otherwise, but in the end, such a thing could be the birth of something new, something great. Obviously Syria as a concept will not work out ever again, and an Islamic State is hardly what anybody wants outside of those fanatics themselves. In cases such a this one, shouldn't the world be more fanatical about its own world views, as far as we manage to agree upon?
I don't doubt that if there is a longterm profit to be made, the international community could agree upon mutually beneficial terms to conquer, dominate, colonize, and civilize the place, and make it great once more. Not just for one tribe or the other, but for everyone. Certainly the opposition needs to be crushed, but doesn't the IS need to be crushed anyways? A war is a big ask, and as long as we don't overtly think in potential benefits, and make longterm plans for development of these places and our future role in them, the world will never be commited enough to see these conflicts through to proper stability and prosperity.
You do realize that if they were ok with horrific conquest and colonization they wouldn't be doing it for the natives.
The facist ideology this would require means that they would genocide the natives in their home countries, for the sake of their own lebensraum.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The thing is, most migrants flee their countries for reasons such as genocidal maniacs fucking shit up. Letting those reasons persist is hardly the right thing to do. As long as these conflicts are allowed to play out as they do, they will remain self-perpetuating. There is no end to all this misery without forceful intervention.
Disowning the perpetrators of such insanity, taking away their reasons to fight one another, and instead have them face the might of the entire world, that makes much more sense to me. The world is not defenseless, unlike these migrants. The world is literally legion. And these petty squabbles cannot stand against our combined might. Not for long.
I think it's the humanitarian thing to do, to disown the perpetrators, and end their petty squabbles and the senseless violence, and instead own these conflicts ourselves. Make it bigger, and about what it means to us. Give the violence proper meaning. We believe in a world without petty squabbles turning murderously violent, where people can live productive lives in peace, and follow their dreams, and we will fight you to the death to make it so.
You surely don't believe idiocy as seen in Syria will lead to anything worthwhile ever, without a firm forceful hand intervening? Whatever order is achieved by such intervention, unless the intent is to stay indefinitely, it will not last. So really, the only thing to do is to conquer, dominate, and colonize and civilize these places for good, rather than to stand idly by and let the violence go on indefinitely and senselessly. Fight the fight now, and fight it good, for all our sakes. For a better tomorrow.
And sure, I know how idiotic that sounds. But as far as pro-active acts go, conquest, domination, colonization and civilization sounds like the only way to go. Half-steps never work, and doing nothing is hardly the humanitarian thing to do, and I do believe in a forceful solution to these kinds of problems, but not in a peaceful pacifistic one. There needs to be a fight, there needs to be bloodshed, or order cannot be established out of chaos. It never has in the past, and it won't be possible in the near future. So I say, let us fight for what we know is right!
Of course this is a longterm course of action. Short term, the humanitarian thing to do is to help. The actual realities of the matter are beyond me though, I can't offer any practical advice or opinions whatsoever. I'm just a simple minded guy, who'd like what ails the world to be much simpler than it actually is. Something I can smash to smithereens with my fist, and then put it back together better than it was before. The optimist in me thinks it just might be that simple. Of course, no matter what we do, the humanitarian thing to do will never be easy, and it will always be more costly than doing nothing at all.
There is a reason it sounds idiotic- it is. I know it makes sense in your head, but read some history. Any history, of anything, ever. You will see these ideas working zero percent of the time.
I mean, you rally against them, but carrying out your plan would make you the genocidal maniac.
How about China and Emperor Qin? There would be no China without Qin. Sure, he was a monster, but he's also the father of China. There would not be a China as we know it without him, and his acts of conquest and homogenization of language and currency and law and whatnot.
I don't deny that horrors would ensue such a course of action, in the short term, probably more so than otherwise, but in the end, such a thing could be the birth of something new, something great. Obviously Syria as a concept will not work out ever again, and an Islamic State is hardly what anybody wants outside of those fanatics themselves. In cases such a this one, shouldn't the world be more fanatical about its own world views, as far as we manage to agree upon?
I don't doubt that if there is a longterm profit to be made, the international community could agree upon mutually beneficial terms to conquer, dominate, colonize, and civilize the place, and make it great once more. Not just for one tribe or the other, but for everyone. Certainly the opposition needs to be crushed, but doesn't the IS need to be crushed anyways? A war is a big ask, and as long as we don't overtly think in potential benefits, and make longterm plans for development of these places and our future role in them, the world will never be commited enough to see these conflicts through to proper stability and prosperity.
You do realize that if they were ok with horrific conquest and colonization they wouldn't be doing it for the natives.
The facist ideology this would require means that they would genocide the natives in their home countries, for the sake of their own lebensraum.
Seeing how most migrants loathe the situation in their home countries so much, that they all but abandon it, and all they want is to live in peace and prosperity, I'd say ending these conflicts by claiming these contested territories for the international community is in their interest too. Certainly they would be the first to return to their homelands, once such territories are pacified and under the stable rule of the international community.
The thing is, most migrants flee their countries for reasons such as genocidal maniacs fucking shit up. Letting those reasons persist is hardly the right thing to do. As long as these conflicts are allowed to play out as they do, they will remain self-perpetuating. There is no end to all this misery without forceful intervention.
Disowning the perpetrators of such insanity, taking away their reasons to fight one another, and instead have them face the might of the entire world, that makes much more sense to me. The world is not defenseless, unlike these migrants. The world is literally legion. And these petty squabbles cannot stand against our combined might. Not for long.
I think it's the humanitarian thing to do, to disown the perpetrators, and end their petty squabbles and the senseless violence, and instead own these conflicts ourselves. Make it bigger, and about what it means to us. Give the violence proper meaning. We believe in a world without petty squabbles turning murderously violent, where people can live productive lives in peace, and follow their dreams, and we will fight you to the death to make it so.
You surely don't believe idiocy as seen in Syria will lead to anything worthwhile ever, without a firm forceful hand intervening? Whatever order is achieved by such intervention, unless the intent is to stay indefinitely, it will not last. So really, the only thing to do is to conquer, dominate, and colonize and civilize these places for good, rather than to stand idly by and let the violence go on indefinitely and senselessly. Fight the fight now, and fight it good, for all our sakes. For a better tomorrow.
And sure, I know how idiotic that sounds. But as far as pro-active acts go, conquest, domination, colonization and civilization sounds like the only way to go. Half-steps never work, and doing nothing is hardly the humanitarian thing to do, and I do believe in a forceful solution to these kinds of problems, but not in a peaceful pacifistic one. There needs to be a fight, there needs to be bloodshed, or order cannot be established out of chaos. It never has in the past, and it won't be possible in the near future. So I say, let us fight for what we know is right!
Of course this is a longterm course of action. Short term, the humanitarian thing to do is to help. The actual realities of the matter are beyond me though, I can't offer any practical advice or opinions whatsoever. I'm just a simple minded guy, who'd like what ails the world to be much simpler than it actually is. Something I can smash to smithereens with my fist, and then put it back together better than it was before. The optimist in me thinks it just might be that simple. Of course, no matter what we do, the humanitarian thing to do will never be easy, and it will always be more costly than doing nothing at all.
There is a reason it sounds idiotic- it is. I know it makes sense in your head, but read some history. Any history, of anything, ever. You will see these ideas working zero percent of the time.
I mean, you rally against them, but carrying out your plan would make you the genocidal maniac.
How about China and Emperor Qin? There would be no China without Qin. Sure, he was a monster, but he's also the father of China. There would not be a China as we know it without him, and his acts of conquest and homogenization of language and currency and law and whatnot.
I don't deny that horrors would ensue such a course of action, in the short term, probably more so than otherwise, but in the end, such a thing could be the birth of something new, something great. Obviously Syria as a concept will not work out ever again, and an Islamic State is hardly what anybody wants outside of those fanatics themselves. In cases such a this one, shouldn't the world be more fanatical about its own world views, as far as we manage to agree upon?
I don't doubt that if there is a longterm profit to be made, the international community could agree upon mutually beneficial terms to conquer, dominate, colonize, and civilize the place, and make it great once more. Not just for one tribe or the other, but for everyone. Certainly the opposition needs to be crushed, but doesn't the IS need to be crushed anyways? A war is a big ask, and as long as we don't overtly think in potential benefits, and make longterm plans for development of these places and our future role in them, the world will never be commited enough to see these conflicts through to proper stability and prosperity.
You do realize that if they were ok with horrific conquest and colonization they wouldn't be doing it for the natives.
The facist ideology this would require means that they would genocide the natives in their home countries, for the sake of their own lebensraum.
I'm also sure that this policy would have the direct result of every functioning nation on Earth deciding that now was the time to get some nuclear weapons. The reason we do not have nukes in every nation isn't because it is too hard. It's because the international system was stable enough that it was better to stay on the right side of non-proliferation treaties than it was to start investing in 1940s-era technology.
The thing is, most migrants flee their countries for reasons such as genocidal maniacs fucking shit up. Letting those reasons persist is hardly the right thing to do. As long as these conflicts are allowed to play out as they do, they will remain self-perpetuating. There is no end to all this misery without forceful intervention.
Disowning the perpetrators of such insanity, taking away their reasons to fight one another, and instead have them face the might of the entire world, that makes much more sense to me. The world is not defenseless, unlike these migrants. The world is literally legion. And these petty squabbles cannot stand against our combined might. Not for long.
I think it's the humanitarian thing to do, to disown the perpetrators, and end their petty squabbles and the senseless violence, and instead own these conflicts ourselves. Make it bigger, and about what it means to us. Give the violence proper meaning. We believe in a world without petty squabbles turning murderously violent, where people can live productive lives in peace, and follow their dreams, and we will fight you to the death to make it so.
You surely don't believe idiocy as seen in Syria will lead to anything worthwhile ever, without a firm forceful hand intervening? Whatever order is achieved by such intervention, unless the intent is to stay indefinitely, it will not last. So really, the only thing to do is to conquer, dominate, and colonize and civilize these places for good, rather than to stand idly by and let the violence go on indefinitely and senselessly. Fight the fight now, and fight it good, for all our sakes. For a better tomorrow.
And sure, I know how idiotic that sounds. But as far as pro-active acts go, conquest, domination, colonization and civilization sounds like the only way to go. Half-steps never work, and doing nothing is hardly the humanitarian thing to do, and I do believe in a forceful solution to these kinds of problems, but not in a peaceful pacifistic one. There needs to be a fight, there needs to be bloodshed, or order cannot be established out of chaos. It never has in the past, and it won't be possible in the near future. So I say, let us fight for what we know is right!
Of course this is a longterm course of action. Short term, the humanitarian thing to do is to help. The actual realities of the matter are beyond me though, I can't offer any practical advice or opinions whatsoever. I'm just a simple minded guy, who'd like what ails the world to be much simpler than it actually is. Something I can smash to smithereens with my fist, and then put it back together better than it was before. The optimist in me thinks it just might be that simple. Of course, no matter what we do, the humanitarian thing to do will never be easy, and it will always be more costly than doing nothing at all.
There is a reason it sounds idiotic- it is. I know it makes sense in your head, but read some history. Any history, of anything, ever. You will see these ideas working zero percent of the time.
I mean, you rally against them, but carrying out your plan would make you the genocidal maniac.
How about China and Emperor Qin? There would be no China without Qin. Sure, he was a monster, but he's also the father of China. There would not be a China as we know it without him, and his acts of conquest and homogenization of language and currency and law and whatnot.
I don't deny that horrors would ensue such a course of action, in the short term, probably more so than otherwise, but in the end, such a thing could be the birth of something new, something great. Obviously Syria as a concept will not work out ever again, and an Islamic State is hardly what anybody wants outside of those fanatics themselves. In cases such a this one, shouldn't the world be more fanatical about its own world views, as far as we manage to agree upon?
I don't doubt that if there is a longterm profit to be made, the international community could agree upon mutually beneficial terms to conquer, dominate, colonize, and civilize the place, and make it great once more. Not just for one tribe or the other, but for everyone. Certainly the opposition needs to be crushed, but doesn't the IS need to be crushed anyways? A war is a big ask, and as long as we don't overtly think in potential benefits, and make longterm plans for development of these places and our future role in them, the world will never be commited enough to see these conflicts through to proper stability and prosperity.
You do realize that if they were ok with horrific conquest and colonization they wouldn't be doing it for the natives.
The facist ideology this would require means that they would genocide the natives in their home countries, for the sake of their own lebensraum.
I'm also sure that this policy would have the direct result of every functioning nation on Earth deciding that now was the time to get some nuclear weapons. The reason we do not have nukes in every nation isn't because it is too hard. It's because the international system was stable enough that it was better to stay on the right side of non-proliferation treaties than it was to start investing in 1940s-era technology.
Unintended consequences are the worst. Aren't they?
Ugh. Can we not shit up an interesting thread on the issue of dealing with waves of immigrants with some off-topic silly goosey nation-building bullshit please?
Greece can't afford the flood of immigrants. Can anyone? For how long?
Over here in the US we're going to be able to deal with it pretty well because the combined power of American Dollars and the cultural juggernaut that is the American Media make it hard to resist assimilation for most immigrants. Within 2 generations we've basically got them: all your cool shit is absorbed into our industrial culture processing machinery and we're pumping out two or three different quality tiers of it for everyone to consume... the rest is relegated to quaint and harmless traditions that we think are really adorable when we marry into them.
Europe doesn't seem motivated to really make that level of integration happen, and the volume of needy people is increasing...
What's on the table in the next 10 years to prevent another situation like the Somalis Sander mentioned, except spread across Europe?
I would probably disagree, and say that most immigrants assimilate just fine into British culture? I can't speak for other countries but I'm curious what would make you think otherwise?
0
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I would probably disagree, and say that most immigrants assimilate just fine into British culture? I can't speak for other countries but I'm curious what would make you think otherwise?
Sanders seems to indicate that the particular flavor of immigrants that Europe has tend to have a lot of trouble assimilating, and that this is a major cause of tension? Like, America largely gets... maybe not the most educated undocumented migrants from Mexico, but we have a lot fewer completely uneducated refugees from war zones and such.
(I am hugely ignorant of this issue, but that's the sense I got from briefly checking out the thread)
Also, the US has a pretty easy task of assimilating the newcomers. After all, nearly all the migrants they get come from the same direction (South), and have a relatively similar culture with other migrants (Latino), which also is quite similar to the US's culture, with both originating from Europe. The few ethnically different refugees we get can't sneak over some border, and tend to be wealthier and more open to assimilation. Or, because North America is mostly made up of immigrants, there's usually a common ethnic community that will help them settle in and become part of the melting pot in 2 generations.
Doesn't stop some floppy haired politicians firing up their political base by advocating building a wall, but nobody's perfect.
I would probably disagree, and say that most immigrants assimilate just fine into British culture? I can't speak for other countries but I'm curious what would make you think otherwise?
Sanders seems to indicate that the particular flavor of immigrants that Europe has tend to have a lot of trouble assimilating, and that this is a major cause of tension? Like, America largely gets... maybe not the most educated undocumented migrants from Mexico, but we have a lot fewer completely uneducated refugees from war zones and such.
(I am hugely ignorant of this issue, but that's the sense I got from briefly checking out the thread)
Ah I see. After a generation or so I'm sure it'd be fine, I was thinking from past experience of refugees who had fit in fine especially their children who had grown up in British schools with a better grasp of the language.
However I could be totally out my depth here, and welcome corrections!
A large percentage of the people desperate enough to hop on a boat that may or may not drown them are unlikely to be educated in any meaningful way. So what do you do with tens of thousands of people who essentially have no skills? Particularly in countries which already have high unemployment.
Also, the US has a pretty easy task of assimilating the newcomers. After all, nearly all the migrants they get come from the same direction (South), and have a relatively similar culture with other migrants (Latino), which also is quite similar to the US's culture, with both originating from Europe. The few ethnically different refugees we get can't sneak over some border, and tend to be wealthier and more open to assimilation. Or, because North America is mostly made up of immigrants, there's usually a common ethnic community that will help them settle in and become part of the melting pot in 2 generations.
Doesn't stop some floppy haired politicians firing up their political base by advocating building a wall, but nobody's perfect.
Mmm this is what I was thinking for us, we have a lot of different ethnic minorities that are already established and may be similar to those coming into the country, I think that was a common reason some refugees cited coming to the UK, that there was already established communities?
Again, I could be talking shite!
Liiya on
0
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Also, the US has a pretty easy task of assimilating the newcomers. After all, nearly all the migrants they get come from the same direction (South), and have a relatively similar culture with other migrants (Latino), which also is quite similar to the US's culture, with both originating from Europe. The few ethnically different refugees we get can't sneak over some border, and tend to be wealthier and more open to assimilation. Or, because North America is mostly made up of immigrants, there's usually a common ethnic community that will help them settle in and become part of the melting pot in 2 generations.
Doesn't stop some floppy haired politicians firing up their political base by advocating building a wall, but nobody's perfect.
Mmm this is what I was thinking for us, we have a lot of different ethnic minorities that are already established and may be similar to those coming into the country, I think that was a common reason some refugees cited coming to the UK, that there was already established communities?
Again, I could be talking shite!
It sounds very much like there's also a distinction between Britain and Europe as a whole here - I don't know much about your migrant situation but it sounds pretty similar to America's, which sounds totally different from what is going on with Europe as a continent.
Also, the US has a pretty easy task of assimilating the newcomers. After all, nearly all the migrants they get come from the same direction (South), and have a relatively similar culture with other migrants (Latino), which also is quite similar to the US's culture, with both originating from Europe. The few ethnically different refugees we get can't sneak over some border, and tend to be wealthier and more open to assimilation. Or, because North America is mostly made up of immigrants, there's usually a common ethnic community that will help them settle in and become part of the melting pot in 2 generations.
Doesn't stop some floppy haired politicians firing up their political base by advocating building a wall, but nobody's perfect.
Mmm this is what I was thinking for us, we have a lot of different ethnic minorities that are already established and may be similar to those coming into the country, I think that was a common reason some refugees cited coming to the UK, that there was already established communities?
Again, I could be talking shite!
It sounds very much like there's also a distinction between Britain and Europe as a whole here - I don't know much about your migrant situation but it sounds pretty similar to America's, which sounds totally different from what is going on with Europe as a continent.
Oh yeah for sure, like I said I'm not an expert in the UK and certainly can't speak for the rest of Europe! But we are in Europe.
A large percentage of the people desperate enough to hop on a boat that may or may not drown them are unlikely to be educated in any meaningful way. So what do you do with tens of thousands of people who essentially have no skills? Particularly in countries which already have high unemployment.
Actually, a lot of the refugees from Syria have been educated professionals. That makes sense, as war refugees are going to represent a more diverse population than economic refugees.
+1
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
You realize that much of the current instability in the Middle East is a direct result of western interventions which destabilized the region and left a power vacuum?
"man we totally fucked their nation all up, well I guess there's nothing we can possibly do to fix it except walk away into the sunset, shaking our heads about what a shame it all is"
My quick, it's been cut!
This is really uncharitable and, frankly, stupid.
I think there is probably a lot of daylight between "invade everyone and the people who get with the program will live" and "walk away into the sunset"
This is an outsiders view of Europe, but it seems that each country is so dedicated on keeping their version of their culture intact, that they basically want enclose their uniqueness in a glass box, and place it in a museum. While North America, being told over and over 'You have no culture', has decided to take in nearly all the other cultures to make this weird, delicious, ever changing mass of 'Culture'.
The UK, with its centuries of world-wide colonization, has it's tendrils of culture everywhere (and because the British were so eager to partake in exotic foods and clothing that they imported), so I guess that it's easier for people to slip into it. After all, who doesn't like tea, gardens, and proper etiquette? And besides, British food can't really compare to what the rest of the world brings.
Economically though, that's a whole different story.
A large percentage of the people desperate enough to hop on a boat that may or may not drown them are unlikely to be educated in any meaningful way. So what do you do with tens of thousands of people who essentially have no skills? Particularly in countries which already have high unemployment.
Actually, a lot of the refugees from Syria have been educated professionals. That makes sense, as war refugees are going to represent a more diverse population than economic refugees.
Are educated professionals really paying smugglers and taking their chances on the sea route?
Ugh. Can we not shit up an interesting thread on the issue of dealing with waves of immigrants with some off-topic silly goosey nation-building bullshit please?
Why what can any one nation do?
Besides helping the migrants in immediate need? Registering their immigration claims? And let the bureaucracy do its work? Every nation has programs in place to deal with immigration. They will have to be scaled up accordingly. As for distributing the load more fairly amongst EU member states? Well, immigration is a super-unpopular political theme, and it will be a slow and painful process to find a compromise. All the while the migrants will be lost in limbo. There's nothing anyone can do to push the issue farther faster than that, because that's how democracy works. It's just your average shittiness of the glacial democratic political process set against a humanitarian crisis that's in need of an immediate respond. Unless you'd do away with democracy of course, though that's certainly not a popular train of thought, so I let it be.
I for one would invest into as cheap as possible, yet still humane temporary housing, and have every adult migrant work a 50% workload at minimum wage in agriculture and forestry and such, whilst additionally providing sufficient food and minimal housing and health care for the duration of the crisis. Ideally I'd convert unused land into agriculturally productive plots, aimed at providing food for the migrants. I'd have my nation's social apparatus organize mandatory language and culture courses for every migrant, and encourage NGOs to organise further education for them. I'd be policing the migrants very strictly, and I'd deport those who get caught commiting crimes with as little due process as possible. Those who don't cooperate with such a mandate, I'd send back too, as far as legally possible. All the while I'd slowly organise more permanent and integrated lives for the migrants, and slowly *upgrade* their status according to their need and ability, and I'd factor in how well they cooperate with my nation's immigration process.
A. I don't know jack shit.
B. All this shit is being dealt with by the appointed organs of the state anyways.
C. It's a super shitty situation, no matter how you look at it.
D. People with a xenophobic agenda will have an easy time galvanizing more people into the far right.
E. It's rather simple, either do the humane thing, or do the selfish thing, and in the end, reality will be something inbetween.
F. Besides idly talking about it, I have no intention whatsoever engaging with this issue personally and productively, so why do I even care?
What's the point of discussing the immediate reality of it, when it sucks so much? I'd rather think of whatever pro-active impossibility could be attempted to tackle the root causes of the problem. I find that more interesting.
A large percentage of the people desperate enough to hop on a boat that may or may not drown them are unlikely to be educated in any meaningful way. So what do you do with tens of thousands of people who essentially have no skills? Particularly in countries which already have high unemployment.
Actually, a lot of the refugees from Syria have been educated professionals. That makes sense, as war refugees are going to represent a more diverse population than economic refugees.
Are educated professionals really paying smugglers and taking their chances on the sea route?
Of course. The alternative is death or a refugee camp in a warzone. We don't have immediate legal entry just because you are an accountant or engineer. War comes, and everyone with the means runs.
Doctors and lawyers can become refugees too. Only the very wealthy have international bank accounts and private jets to take them to Switzerland.
This is an outsiders view of Europe, but it seems that each country is so dedicated on keeping their version of their culture intact, that they basically want enclose their uniqueness in a glass box, and place it in a museum. While North America, being told over and over 'You have no culture', has decided to take in nearly all the other cultures to make this weird, delicious, ever changing mass of 'Culture'.
The UK, with its centuries of world-wide colonization, has it's tendrils of culture everywhere (and because the British were so eager to partake in exotic foods and clothing that they imported), so I guess that it's easier for people to slip into it. After all, who doesn't like tea, gardens, and proper etiquette? And besides, British food can't really compare to what the rest of the world brings.
Economically though, that's a whole different story.
I totally see what you mean but I dunno, look at Germany they're taking in so many immigrants and they've a very strong culture (that unlike the British isn't stolen from others!), to me that would suggest preservation of culture is on the back-burner. I was in the Netherlands last week and there were as many areas dedicated to ethnic minorities as in the UK, assimilation was pretty fine there from what I saw.
I'm super curious what other Europeans think who are actually living it!
Western Europe should embrace immigration. Especially educated people from Syria should be welcome with open arms.
Even if the current immigrants from places like Eritrea are not educated and will cost some money, their children will have to be educated.
If they are not, it's not the immigrants fault.
Posts
There is a reason it sounds idiotic- it is. I know it makes sense in your head, but read some history. Any history, of anything, ever. You will see these ideas working zero percent of the time.
I mean, you rally against them, but carrying out your plan would make you the genocidal maniac.
How about China and Emperor Qin? There would be no China without Qin. Sure, he was a monster, but he's also the father of China. There would not be a China as we know it without him, and his acts of conquest and homogenization of language and currency and law and whatnot.
I don't deny that horrors would ensue if such a course of action is taken, in the short term, probably more so than otherwise, but in the end, such a thing could be the birth of something new, something great. Obviously Syria as a concept will not work out ever again, and an Islamic State is hardly what anybody wants outside of those fanatics themselves. In cases such a this one, shouldn't the world be more fanatical about its own world views, as far as we manage to agree upon?
I don't doubt that if there is a longterm profit to be made, the international community could agree upon mutually beneficial terms to conquer, dominate, colonize, and civilize the place, and make it great once more. Not just for one tribe or the other, but for everyone. Certainly the opposition needs to be crushed, but doesn't the IS need to be crushed anyways? A war is a big ask, and as long as we don't overtly think in potential benefits, and make longterm plans for the development of these places and our future role in them, the world will never be commited enough to see these conflicts through to proper stability and prosperity.
Okay; I mean, just in terms of practicality & expense, setting aside complications like power vacuums or the optics on the ground of an outside power suddenly bringing another fire & sword upon people who have only known war & poverty, do you think it might be more a bit more expensive to tool-up for a war, invasion & occupation where the end game is that you attempt to nurse an entire country (which is now full of destroyed infrastructure, guerrillas and other violent agents of nebulous loyalty) into industrialized standards?
The poorest places in Africa are in need of many things, but armed conquest is probably not one of those things.
A little bit of foreign aid & shared wealth would've gone quite a long a few years ago. I'm not sure what can be done at this point; it seems like often different cultures choose to ignore an ongoing problem until it reaches a critical mass and then demand that a magical solution materialize to fix things that have spent decades getting good & broken because now it's an issue.
The thing is, shared wealth and foreign aid cannot work, if tribal interests and corruption prevent these things from working out for the general public. Most places that experience violent strife and instability do so since half a century or much much longer. Isn't it time to put our idea of the future above our respect for local traditions and cultures? Pro-actively pursuing the Golden Age, so to speak.
Golden Age for whom?
Everyone who gets with the program.
Worked out great in Iraq...
Yes, foreign aid is now mostly impossible in places like Eritrea. That's why I laid down the qualifier of 'years ago'; it's certainly too late now.
And, really, do you think the issue is just that there is 'too much respect' for African traditions, cultures and languages? The problem can't be, say, that a chasm of ignorance carved by lack of interest on the part of those most able to build a bridge of understanding & goodwill (those living in the world's wealthiest countries) has grown so large that the effort to build said bridge is now an all but impossible feat?
I assume you'll have something like the Spanish Inquisition then afterwards for people who don't get with the program.
We have a system where trillions of dollars of wealth goes out of these "poor" nations, billions go in, but the populace see nothing. There's a reason that even Eritrea has neighborhoods with houses that look like this.
Unless we want to start building MegaCity One and Two to house the billions of people who would love to GTFO their home nation, I think the easiest solution is to examine just why exactly so many places on the planet are going rancid. We need global policies that help keep some of the global capital extracted from these places in the country, and passed around to more hands than the people in Dear Leader's inner circle.
The riddle to solve is not why Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc. are so poor and the people so uneducated. And that's because there's a fallacy within it - none of these countries lack wealth. The riddle to solve is where that wealth is going and why. The world needs more small business owners and government services, and that's not going to happen so long as entire swaths of the globe operate as plantations for the developed world.
And to touch on the "just invade and conquer" idea beyond just inserting a clip of Triumph of the Will, it ignores the fact that the current setup worked very well for the nations that would be doing the invading until very recently. This entire house of cards was built because developed nations, international corporations and the local leaders who did deals with them did extremely well for years by acting like sharks.
"man we totally fucked their nation all up, well I guess there's nothing we can possibly do to fix it except walk away into the sunset, shaking our heads about what a shame it all is"
When the justification for your your plan sounds like something a cartoon villain would say, your plan is bad.
I was going to being up Avatar, but you just did.
I think it would be more accurate to say The Bush years proved that placing young, newly graduated ivy league kids in charge of rebuilding doesn't work.
That and the double edged sword of purging Baathists out of the government, military, and police.
For the type of "nation building" Brannigan is talking about, we'd have been in Iraq for another 1 to 4 decades if we were doing it right.
I mean civilized, as in not acting barbaric and slaughtering the innocent. You don't seriously argue that the IS or the current Syrian Regime isn't acting barbaric? And they're not acting so for the future welfare of the people, but for the future welfare of THEIR people. Tribalism is the worst, and if I had to chose a tribe, it'd be The World United.
In the case of an invasion and further indefinite occupation by the global community, for the sake of establishing a new nation under the administration and control of the global community, I'd say fire at will at everyone who fires at you. Everybody else, who supposedly is willing to adhere to international and humanitarian standards, is certainly better off with *International Overlords* rather than *Tribal Warlords*.
Let's not forget that a majority of the global population is neither white, nor English-speaking. Don't you think you'd need to get as many nations on board with that avenue of action, literally everyone? It cannot be done without the support of China and India and Pakistan and Indonesia and Saudi Arabia and Iran and Russia and literally every country? That's what I'm talking about. If the world manages to be united in the effort to turn a territory from insanity and cruelty and misery into something worthwhile, with forceful violent intervention, then it should be done, and only then it can be done.
I say if one can do the political and social groundwork on a global scale that allows for that kind of intervention, in order to create an absolutely international territory for forever, with appropriate rights and responsibilities for each member country, and relative to their absolute contribution a share of the revenue and economic development investment opportunity, then I'd say the places are better off invaded and occupied. Once the place is pacified/civilized, it is to be colonized by whatever civilians are willing. Not for the indigenous tribes, but for the world at large. I guess that's when many migrants will go home/be sent home, and try to rebuild their lives within that new framework.
As in, let's turn places like Syria into *Earth Territories*. A nation to be colonized by anyone willing to put the work in, and respect international oversight and laws. So that the inevitable violent forceful intervention in such places won't be for nothing, but carries the hope for lasting improvement. The betterment of mankind.
You do realize that if they were ok with horrific conquest and colonization they wouldn't be doing it for the natives.
The facist ideology this would require means that they would genocide the natives in their home countries, for the sake of their own lebensraum.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Seeing how most migrants loathe the situation in their home countries so much, that they all but abandon it, and all they want is to live in peace and prosperity, I'd say ending these conflicts by claiming these contested territories for the international community is in their interest too. Certainly they would be the first to return to their homelands, once such territories are pacified and under the stable rule of the international community.
I'm also sure that this policy would have the direct result of every functioning nation on Earth deciding that now was the time to get some nuclear weapons. The reason we do not have nukes in every nation isn't because it is too hard. It's because the international system was stable enough that it was better to stay on the right side of non-proliferation treaties than it was to start investing in 1940s-era technology.
Unintended consequences are the worst. Aren't they?
Greece can't afford the flood of immigrants. Can anyone? For how long?
Over here in the US we're going to be able to deal with it pretty well because the combined power of American Dollars and the cultural juggernaut that is the American Media make it hard to resist assimilation for most immigrants. Within 2 generations we've basically got them: all your cool shit is absorbed into our industrial culture processing machinery and we're pumping out two or three different quality tiers of it for everyone to consume... the rest is relegated to quaint and harmless traditions that we think are really adorable when we marry into them.
Europe doesn't seem motivated to really make that level of integration happen, and the volume of needy people is increasing...
What's on the table in the next 10 years to prevent another situation like the Somalis Sander mentioned, except spread across Europe?
Sanders seems to indicate that the particular flavor of immigrants that Europe has tend to have a lot of trouble assimilating, and that this is a major cause of tension? Like, America largely gets... maybe not the most educated undocumented migrants from Mexico, but we have a lot fewer completely uneducated refugees from war zones and such.
(I am hugely ignorant of this issue, but that's the sense I got from briefly checking out the thread)
Doesn't stop some floppy haired politicians firing up their political base by advocating building a wall, but nobody's perfect.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
Ah I see. After a generation or so I'm sure it'd be fine, I was thinking from past experience of refugees who had fit in fine especially their children who had grown up in British schools with a better grasp of the language.
However I could be totally out my depth here, and welcome corrections!
Mmm this is what I was thinking for us, we have a lot of different ethnic minorities that are already established and may be similar to those coming into the country, I think that was a common reason some refugees cited coming to the UK, that there was already established communities?
Again, I could be talking shite!
It sounds very much like there's also a distinction between Britain and Europe as a whole here - I don't know much about your migrant situation but it sounds pretty similar to America's, which sounds totally different from what is going on with Europe as a continent.
Oh yeah for sure, like I said I'm not an expert in the UK and certainly can't speak for the rest of Europe! But we are in Europe.
Actually, a lot of the refugees from Syria have been educated professionals. That makes sense, as war refugees are going to represent a more diverse population than economic refugees.
My quick, it's been cut!
This is really uncharitable and, frankly, stupid.
I think there is probably a lot of daylight between "invade everyone and the people who get with the program will live" and "walk away into the sunset"
but idk though, maybe not!
The UK, with its centuries of world-wide colonization, has it's tendrils of culture everywhere (and because the British were so eager to partake in exotic foods and clothing that they imported), so I guess that it's easier for people to slip into it. After all, who doesn't like tea, gardens, and proper etiquette? And besides, British food can't really compare to what the rest of the world brings.
Economically though, that's a whole different story.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
Why what can any one nation do?
Besides helping the migrants in immediate need? Registering their immigration claims? And let the bureaucracy do its work? Every nation has programs in place to deal with immigration. They will have to be scaled up accordingly. As for distributing the load more fairly amongst EU member states? Well, immigration is a super-unpopular political theme, and it will be a slow and painful process to find a compromise. All the while the migrants will be lost in limbo. There's nothing anyone can do to push the issue farther faster than that, because that's how democracy works. It's just your average shittiness of the glacial democratic political process set against a humanitarian crisis that's in need of an immediate respond. Unless you'd do away with democracy of course, though that's certainly not a popular train of thought, so I let it be.
I for one would invest into as cheap as possible, yet still humane temporary housing, and have every adult migrant work a 50% workload at minimum wage in agriculture and forestry and such, whilst additionally providing sufficient food and minimal housing and health care for the duration of the crisis. Ideally I'd convert unused land into agriculturally productive plots, aimed at providing food for the migrants. I'd have my nation's social apparatus organize mandatory language and culture courses for every migrant, and encourage NGOs to organise further education for them. I'd be policing the migrants very strictly, and I'd deport those who get caught commiting crimes with as little due process as possible. Those who don't cooperate with such a mandate, I'd send back too, as far as legally possible. All the while I'd slowly organise more permanent and integrated lives for the migrants, and slowly *upgrade* their status according to their need and ability, and I'd factor in how well they cooperate with my nation's immigration process.
A. I don't know jack shit.
B. All this shit is being dealt with by the appointed organs of the state anyways.
C. It's a super shitty situation, no matter how you look at it.
D. People with a xenophobic agenda will have an easy time galvanizing more people into the far right.
E. It's rather simple, either do the humane thing, or do the selfish thing, and in the end, reality will be something inbetween.
F. Besides idly talking about it, I have no intention whatsoever engaging with this issue personally and productively, so why do I even care?
What's the point of discussing the immediate reality of it, when it sucks so much? I'd rather think of whatever pro-active impossibility could be attempted to tackle the root causes of the problem. I find that more interesting.
Of course. The alternative is death or a refugee camp in a warzone. We don't have immediate legal entry just because you are an accountant or engineer. War comes, and everyone with the means runs.
Doctors and lawyers can become refugees too. Only the very wealthy have international bank accounts and private jets to take them to Switzerland.
I totally see what you mean but I dunno, look at Germany they're taking in so many immigrants and they've a very strong culture (that unlike the British isn't stolen from others!), to me that would suggest preservation of culture is on the back-burner. I was in the Netherlands last week and there were as many areas dedicated to ethnic minorities as in the UK, assimilation was pretty fine there from what I saw.
I'm super curious what other Europeans think who are actually living it!
Even if the current immigrants from places like Eritrea are not educated and will cost some money, their children will have to be educated.
If they are not, it's not the immigrants fault.