|
My Imaginary GF posted:Riddle me this: how much work has Iran done so far on its nuclear program, and will that work be abandoned or merely put on hiatus for a few years? If you're talking about developing nuclear weapons capabilities, they completed most of their preliminary work in 2003; hence the concern over enrichment capabilities and breakout time. Did you know there is actually a diplomatic agreement in the works to limit Iran's enrichment activities? It hasn't passed in the UN yet but the details were finalized weeks ago. It was all over the news--I'm not sure how you could have missed it.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:If you're talking about developing nuclear weapons capabilities, they completed most of their preliminary work in 2003; hence the concern over enrichment capabilities and breakout time. Did you know there is actually a diplomatic agreement in the works to limit Iran's enrichment activities? It hasn't passed in the UN yet but the details were finalized weeks ago. It was all over the news--I'm not sure how you could have missed it. Iran has not been willing to admit to any such work; until such a time as when they are, and as when Iranian policymakers are willing to admit that they attempted to cheat on past agreements, there should be no faith placed in Iranian assurances of future change in policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It is the prevailing opinion of Congress; I do not know anything more serious than a perspective that is able to unite Congress. Well if any group of people understands the Middle East and isn't prone to causal reductionism it's the American Congress. Bush signed the SoFA, not Obama. The SoFA included the timeline for full withdrawal, which Obama had no part in negotiating. Obama tried to negotiate to keep troops in Iraq, but was unwilling to allow US soldiers to be tried in Iraqi courts, same as Bush. This was an intentional sticking point propagated by Maliki and other Iraqi government Shia. That way they did not have to say no outright, but could still avoid an American presence. There's simply too little in the way of support for a claim that Obama owns the withdrawal. Beyond that, the whole idea of who "owns" the withdrawal is centered on purely domestic politics, which are best set apart when analyzing situations outside the country. Rhetoric and hyberbole have a way of ignoring and distorting reality and fact to suit an agenda, inherently introducing bias. We can also discuss the rise of ISIL if you would like. While Obama's foreign policy certainly belongs in the discussion, there are many other factors that led to the current situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Iran has not been willing to admit to any such work; until such a time as when they are, and as when Iranian policymakers are willing to admit that they attempted to cheat on past agreements, there should be no faith placed in Iranian assurances of future change in policy. This is the part they are supposed to tell the IAEA and have it remain secret (with Amano lol) so we'll see what happens. But again it doesn't take faith to monitor how much uranium they are enriching now when they open their whole pipeline to IAEA inspection--it's not exactly something you can keep secret.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Bait and Swatch posted:Beyond that, the whole idea of who "owns" the withdrawal is centered on purely domestic politics, which are best set apart when analyzing situations outside the country.... Please, forgive my ignorance; I am entirely serious when I say that this does not make sense to me. Would ISIL have arisen if Obama did not ignore warnings about AQ's regrouping, Maliki's genicidal intent, and the supreme of failures which was his moment of cowardice when he backtracked from his redline? America does not retreat; we win, and frankly, Obama retreated on WMD's in the hands of a state sponsor of terrorism far worse than Saddam ever was post-'95. eSports Chaebol posted:This is the part they are supposed to tell the IAEA and have it remain secret (with Amano lol) so we'll see what happens. But again it doesn't take faith to monitor how much uranium they are enriching now when they open their whole pipeline to IAEA inspection--it's not exactly something you can keep secret. How much uranium do you trust Iran will not enrich in Syria? You can go look at Iran's operational nuclear facilities in Syria any time you want in Google maps. What of their other sites, which they do not admit to?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:How much uranium do you trust Iran will not enrich in Syria? You can go look at Iran's operational nuclear facilities in Syria any time you want in Google maps. What of their other sites, which they do not admit to? If Syria has any significant enrichment capability (it's possible and arguably more likely than not that they have none and never had any) they certainly won't be able to get any uranium ore from Iran.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
What happens if Iran gets a nuke? The worst-case scenario I've heard is that Saudi Arabia triggers its long-standing agreement to buy one from Pakistan and we get some sort of mini-Cold War in the region with Iran and the KSA engaging in proxy wars while saber-rattling at each other. So basically the status quo but with some nukes sitting in a bunker somewhere while bored guards play dice or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:What happens if Iran gets a nuke? The worst-case scenario I've heard is that Saudi Arabia triggers its long-standing agreement to buy one from Pakistan and we get some sort of mini-Cold War in the region with Iran and the KSA engaging in proxy wars while saber-rattling at each other. The status quo but worse because everyone can be more aggressive in their proxy warfare knowing that the risk of retaliation is even lower. So like the status quo, but even worse (and the status quo is already pretty bad).
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:What happens if Iran gets a nuke? The worst-case scenario I've heard is that Saudi Arabia triggers its long-standing agreement to buy one from Pakistan and we get some sort of mini-Cold War in the region with Iran and the KSA engaging in proxy wars while saber-rattling at each other. I think a unilateral strike by Israel is more likely to happen before Iran gets a bomb. I mean, it's inevitable that Iran gets the bomb, but I think a conflict happens first unless US-Israeli policy changes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:What happens if Iran gets a nuke? The worst-case scenario I've heard is that Saudi Arabia triggers its long-standing agreement to buy one from Pakistan and we get some sort of mini-Cold War in the region with Iran and the KSA engaging in proxy wars while saber-rattling at each other. If Iran gets a nuke, then we'll see a nuclear war within our lifetimes. Think on that, think how nice and stable the mideast is, think on what would have ever happened had imperial Germany gained naval parity with Britain. The whole thing blows up, that's what happens; far better to engage in a limited world war now, than allow that parity situation tomorrow. It is something which cannot be allowed, to the point where it is far better to engage in a controlled nuclear strike with limited risk for outside escalation, than it is to allow such a war to develop out of a regional escalation that would have significant risk of becoming a global holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Please, forgive my ignorance; I am entirely serious when I say that this does not make sense to me. ISIL felt they had won with the implementation of the SoFA in July 09. Abu Umar al Baghdadi put out a statement stating that the worst was over, and that their rise would truly begin with our withdrawal. The Iraqi government did not have the capability to contain them without American intelligence support, and evidently could not engage them on the ground effectively as a hybrid threat. So while Bush started the withdrawal and Obama finished it, it was Maliki who forced it. Maliki's sectarianism was also a key factor, and America's diplomats and generals seemed at a loss on how to control him. This went much deeper than simply cracking down on Sunni protestors and betraying the Sahwa. It was in every facet of everything he did. As an example, in 09, the Shiite south got roughly $2 billion of the Iraqi budget, Anbar got $40 million. In the days when they were AQI and then ISI, they relied on tacit supprt from a populace willing to ignore their activities, which was why local sectarian division was so critical for their operational success when they were a purely insurgent/terrorist group. While they were incredibly weak around the time of withdrawal, Maliki's actions were essentially the tinder that initially fed the fire. We lacked the ability to influence Maliki, and this was the result. Of course it changed once Iran grew tired of him, so now he is out and his blood is in the water. The match, in my opinion, was our killing of Abu Umar al Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al Masri, because it allowed Abu Dua to take command. Those two idiots had run the organization into the ground. While a primary rule of network targeting is to know who the replacement will be, we seemingly had no idea. But we did likely know that whoever it was would be better at running the group than those two. Abu Dua is extremely intelligent, and he used Maliki's sectarianism and the incompetence of the Iraqi Army to slowly start rebuilding the network in Iraq. Not to mention his credibility as an Iraqi, and longtime member of AQI and an Islamic scholar solidified his leadership quiten handily. This largely resulted from a military failure, not really Obama. While he likely approved the operation, it would have been on the advice of the CoS. It was likely viewed as one last parting gift to Iraq, but it seems that it was the quitessential trojan horse. Syria is when the fire really took off. Due to the occupation, numerous former members of AQI/ISI were residing in Syria at the start of the civil war, making for a shake-and-bake network. Abu Dua sent Abu Muhammad al Golani to organize them, but kept their true affiliation with ISI under wraps. This extension wasn't suprising, as ISI previously counted Fatah al Islam (group in Lebanon) amogst their members. When Abu Dua announced ISIL and tried to officially reincorporate JaN, Abu Muhammad wanted to retain autonomy, and pled his case to Zawahiri. Problem is, Abu Dua had not sworn Bayaat to Zawahiri, and felt no need to obey any edict he gave, causing the schism. We all know what happened when ISIL decided to reenter Iraq. Their early success was directly attributable to the failings of the IA. From ghost soldiers, to unpaid soldiers, to the absolute lack of command and control, they repeatedly failed to have any capability to resist. This resulted in the mobilization of the militia and the entrance of Iran. The only option to directly counter this was boots on ground, which would have likely caused terrible 2nd and 3rd order effects due to the militias. That also assumes Maliki would have allowed a reasonable force into Iraq, which is unlikely. He just wanted air power, money and equipment with no strings attached. While we are conducting airstrikes, it is still very questionable if the IA has the capability to take advantage of them. Sunni tribal support has been weak at best, which remains unsurpising. The popular committees are quite unwelcome in Anbar, for obvious reasons. As it currently stands, the desired endstate of our current approach is to force ISIL back into being a purely terrorist organization that hides amongst the populace, rather than holding land. It's unlikely that we had the capability to prevent the reemergence of ISIL, given that it was Abu Dua and on-ground conditions that gave them the opportunity they needed. Unless we could have prevented Syria's collapse and bolstered the IA, we couldn't have done much. Even if we were more involved in Syria early, it's conjecture to say that ISIL would not be where they are, as their network was already in place. Even if we had attempted a higher level of involvement, the cost and risk would have been very high. I would say that through this period, we definitely did not help matters, but our ability to influence events was and is questionable. I do not like Obama's laissez-faire approach to the Middle East, but it's difficult for me to identify an area where American influence had a reasonable chance of improving the situation. Every option came with risks, and it seems he(Obama) chose not to play. As someone who spent a lot of time in Iraq and grew to love the country and its people, it sickens me to see what has happened. A mess this complex has numerous causes, and attempting to blame just one person, group or state does not account for the history and factors at work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Bait and Swatch posted:ISIL felt they had won with the implementation of the SoFA in July 09. Abu Umar al Baghdadi put out a statement stating that the worst was over, and that their rise would truly begin with our withdrawal. The Iraqi government did not have the capability to contain them without American intelligence support, and evidently could not engage them on the ground effectively as a hybrid threat. So while Bush started the withdrawal and Obama finished it, it was Maliki who forced it. This is a great post and it's a shame it was in response to MIGF.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
Wow, nice post Bait and Swatch. Someone add it to the OP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Bait and Swatch posted:The match, in my opinion, was our killing of Abu Umar al Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al Masri, because it allowed Abu Dua to take command. Those two idiots had run the organization into the ground. While a primary rule of network targeting is to know who the replacement will be, we seemingly had no idea. But we did likely know that whoever it was would be better at running the group than those two. Abu Dua is extremely intelligent, and he used Maliki's sectarianism and the incompetence of the Iraqi Army to slowly start rebuilding the network in Iraq. Not to mention his credibility as an Iraqi, and longtime member of AQI and an Islamic scholar solidified his leadership quiten handily. This largely resulted from a military failure, not really Obama. While he likely approved the operation, it would have been on the advice of the CoS. It was likely viewed as one last parting gift to Iraq, but it seems that it was the quitessential trojan horse. I think you're overstating the effect Baghdadi has had for ISIS, given most reports on the inner workings of ISIS during its rise had Baghdadi as a figurehead for the real leader, Haji Bakr, until his death in 2014. And I don't think it was a clever scheme that allowed ISIS to rebuild its networks with it's Sunni allies that helped it secure Mosul when the Iraqi Army withdrew. While Maliki was always sectarian, there was a clear escalation in late 2012-early 2013, when protests were attacked, and that resulted in the political environment changing to one where the Sunni's in Iraq were just done. That's the biggest aspect behind ISIS growth into prominence in Iraq. And while ISIS had networks in Syria, it took a couple years for the situation in Syria to degrade to the point that they were able to establish themselves. They relied on a tacit alliance with the rest of the opposition, who weren't in a position to be turning away people with guns offering to fight. That whole rise started in mid-2013, and by January 2014, the entirety of the opposition paused its fight against Assad to go after ISIS, and nearly drove them out of Syria. If the US had aided in bringing about the end of Assad prior to 2013, preventing the oppositions need to resort to accepting ISIS, or even intervened exactly as we are now, but on behalf of the opposition in January 2014, we'd be looking at a very different ISIS today. Likely one that isn't a household name. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:KSA couldn't have the impact Iran has had in the current state of the Middle East in their wildest dreams How do you figure? KSA leads a bloc of monarchies in the Gulf Cooperation Council, helps finance dictators like Sisi in Egypt, funds conservative religious education in many, many countries, has the third largest defense budget in the world and has been bombing the poo poo out of one of its neighbors with US approval for months now. Iran has some influence in Iraq of course, but they aren't the ones who created the situation there: we are. They are active in Syria, but of course KSA is active by proxy in Syria as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I think you're overstating the effect Baghdadi has had for ISIS, given most reports on the inner workings of ISIS during its rise had Baghdadi as a figurehead for the real leader, Haji Bakr, until his death in 2014. And I don't think it was a clever scheme that allowed ISIS to rebuild its networks with it's Sunni allies that helped it secure Mosul when the Iraqi Army withdrew. While Maliki was always sectarian, there was a clear escalation in late 2012-early 2013, when protests were attacked, and that resulted in the political environment changing to one where the Sunni's in Iraq were just done. That's the biggest aspect behind ISIS growth into prominence in Iraq. And while ISIS had networks in Syria, it took a couple years for the situation in Syria to degrade to the point that they were able to establish themselves. They relied on a tacit alliance with the rest of the opposition, who weren't in a position to be turning away people with guns offering to fight. That whole rise started in mid-2013, and by January 2014, the entirety of the opposition paused its fight against Assad to go after ISIS, and nearly drove them out of Syria. If the US had aided in bringing about the end of Assad prior to 2013, preventing the oppositions need to resort to accepting ISIS, or even intervened exactly as we are now, but on behalf of the opposition in January 2014, we'd be looking at a very different ISIS today. Likely one that isn't a household name. Your points aren't wrong by any means, which is the joy of debating analysis. Part of my inclination to attribute ISIL's success to Abu Dua rather than Hajji Bakr is because I knew of him in Iraq, and knew his position and what he was capable of. Hajji Bakr is not someone I ever heard of in the network, and I have never been a believer of the claims of baathist infiltration of AQI/ISI/ISIL. Aside from who was the mastermind, the overall point that killing Abu Umar al Baghdadi and AAM was a mistake still stands. While the events in Iraq and Syria in 2013-2014 certainly allowed for the full emergence of ISIL, they were putting the pieces in place prior to them. Maliki's sectariansim had been building to a crescendo, and he was pushing the Sunni into a corner. The tacit support for any operations against the government would already had existed, and the protests were indicator of just how bad the situation had become. Given ISIL 's weakened state following coalition efforts aainst them and the instability of their leadership following the death of UBL, AUAB and AAM, they were simply in no place to take advantage of the worsening conditions until 2012ish, and then their effort focused on JaN. I think JaN's split was unexpected, and that this destabilized ISIL and caused reorganization, as fighters from both sides would have had to transition back to the group they sided with. As far as earlier intervention yielding positive results, I'm still unconvinced. Perhaps it could have removed Assad, but a stronger effort in our part is just as likely to have caused an equal escalation on the part of Assad's supporters. It would have been a risk, and I think Obama was to cautious to take it. We also seemed to lack concrete support from regional allies, and unilateral efforts don't fit Obama's view of how the international system works. The redline was a terrible blunder, no doubt about that. I think the fact that Assad was willing to call his bluff, likely with his own bluff, worried the administration to the point of inaction. Obama certainly has made mistakes in his dealings with the region, but the issue is complex and a variety of people and states are responsible. Personally, I blame Assad and Maliki, but dictators gonna dictate. Edit: Also thanks for the kudos and good dicussions everyone. Bait and Swatch fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Bait and Swatch posted:Stuff Just curious but when and where did you serve in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Just curious but when and where did you serve in Iraq. I was in the 1st Cav G-2 for both of my deployments, from October '06 to December '07 and then from January '09 to January '10. Both trips the 1CD AO was MND-B (Baghdad and surrounding areas). Edit: I'm still working on a post for an ask/tell thread, but keep getting distracted with other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Is there a good thread for Iran nuclear deal or does that discussion go here? I follow this thread (though not as closely as I should) and when my friend said the deal was going to make it easier for the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon I got confused and realized I couldn't say anything more than 'I don't think so, I thought the idea was to let them have nuclear power without nuclear weapons' but by then I'd pretty much covered literally everything I knew about the deal. Is this a concern people have or is my friend off base? Anyway if anyone could recommend something I could read to learn more I'd appreciate it. Next time someone says this, ask them to be more specific. One talking point popular with opponents of the deal is that once the terms expire, Iran can do whatever it wants with its nuclear program (I assume this is what your friend meant). But that's true right now, and it will keep being true if there's no deal. Additionally, there's two dubious assumptions smuggled in with that talking point. First: that no extension or followup deal could be negotiated. Second: that nothing will happen to the Iranian government in the next 15 years. If you want to know more about the deal, this is a good place to start: http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8967147/iran-nuclear-deal-jeffrey-lewis
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Obama Clinches Vote to Secure Iran Nuclear Deal So that's good. Hopefully it'll empower the more moderate side of Iran's government and derail any plans for a war or a military strike.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Apparently the rebels in the Sinai may have some MANPADS https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/638755731647258624
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Bait and Swatch posted:Great analysis Just for kicks, I googled Maliki to see what he's up to lately. quote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/18/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-reforms-idUSKCN0QN1GY20150818 Oh, that guy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Apparently the rebels in the Sinai may have some MANPADS They actually shot down an Egyptian heli with one back in January, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
How are u posted:2009 to today is night and day. You've blinded yourself to the change that is actually occurring in the world. The really important piece of evidence there is the regime's own actions - Ahmadinejad got, essentially, told to go gently caress himself by the Guardian Council and the security forces after his hilariously awful mishandling of the 2009 elections. Not that the regime aren't Enormous Shitheads, but if the chief of secret police (allegedly) got in a screaming match with Ahmadinejad about how he's being an idiot and endangering everyone's cushy positions, and Ahmadinejad was definitely out of favor with the Guardian Council by 2012, that sort of suggests that they're real dubious of their ability to keep the lid on through brute force alone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
I'll get back to you when I have more time bait and swatch. In the meantime, 2 boats carrying refugees sank off the coast of Bodrum, Turkey, killing at least 11. The tragedy resulted in likely the most iconic photo to come out in regards to the refugee crisis in the Middle East and Africa. I'm not going to censor it because of the political debate going on in Europe over increased efforts to bring in refugees, and it's important people see exactly what the people struggling to get into European nations have to go through just for a chance at a future.  I imagine this picture will have a big impact on that debate. The good news is that there seems to be a lot of progress on that front in recent weeks, especially in Germany, so hopefully we can put a stop to this kind of disaster soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I'll get back to you when I have more time bait and swatch. Oh god, my heart dropped....
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
The Russian press secretary just said thst the reports from Israeli media about Russian pilots actively bombing ISIL "should not be trusted." Not an outright denial, but definitely the opposite of confirmation. E: ^^^ Jesus, that is a heartbreaking picture. Bait and Swatch fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I imagine this picture will have a big impact on that debate. The good news is that there seems to be a lot of progress on that front in recent weeks, especially in Germany, so hopefully we can put a stop to this kind of disaster soon. What do you imagine Europeans could do that would stop this kind of disaster soon?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
He's talking about the hosed up treatment of refugees in Europe, not the poo poo they're running away from.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:He's talking about the hosed up treatment of refugees in Europe, not the poo poo they're running away from. Then I don't see how the photo, while sad, will have an effect on that. Germany's immigration policy didn't cause a boat accident in another part of the world. Nor will it prevent them if it were changed tonight. *edit Now I see he did mention Europe's efforts to bring in refugees. Are European countries actively doing this to people? spacetoaster fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the logic that the British government and others seem to be operating on when they see pics like that is 'stop the trafficking, send the refugees back, let them try to create lives back home rather than taking these ludicrous risks to get at our sweet, sweet benefit money'. In other words, let them die in North Africa where we can't see them because gently caress brown people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Unfortunately, the logic that the British government and others seem to be operating on when they see pics like that is 'stop the trafficking, send the refugees back, let them try to create lives back home rather than taking these ludicrous risks to get at our sweet, sweet benefit money'. In other words, let them die in North Africa where we can't see them because gently caress brown people. If you let in everyone seeking out from Syria, deserving or not, you don't know what sorts of bangs it'd result in throughout the continent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Then I don't see how the photo, while sad, will have an effect on that. Germany's immigration policy didn't cause a boat accident in another part of the world. Nor will it prevent them if it were changed tonight. There are credible reports of the Greek coast guard towing refugee boats back into international waters... Granted, that was last year and likely a singe incident, but it says a lot. The Italians had an operation to rescue refugees who tried to cross the Mediterranean Sea from Libya, called Mare Nostrum. It was implemented after more than 500 refugees drowned just kilometers from the Italian isle of Lampedusa. But it was an expensive operation, and after repeated calls for the EU or other EU countries to contribute funds to it, Italy decided it was too expensive and scrapped it. Cue refugee drownings in the Mediterranean Sea becoming a more regular thing again. Then this summer, with refugee numbers reaching a record high, and dead refugees at sea logically also sharply increasing, and the media outrage was finally high enough that the EU decided to implement a pan-European operation like Mare Nostrum to rescue people from sea. Basically, getting to Europe by sea is incredibly dangerous, and last year about 75% of worldwide "irregular" migrant deaths were estimated to have been in the Mediterranean Sea, about 3000 out of 4000 migrant deaths. Getting to Europe by land is also very difficult, because the European borders have been shut among the most likely migrant routes. The Turkish-Greek border for example (you can cross the Bosporus by several bridges in Istanbul). So there's no real legal way for refugees to get into Europe, so people pay smugglers to at least take them over the sea, which is just incredibly dangerous. Volkerball posted:KSA couldn't have the impact Iran has had in the current state of the Middle East in their wildest dreams, the bigger issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. I suppose we are to ignore the catastrophe unfolding in Yemen, which is like 99% Saudi Arabias fault.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:What do you imagine Europeans could do that would stop this kind of disaster soon? Stopping them is unrealistic, I admit. But every refugee that Europe takes in legally is one less refugee who has to consider getting a hold of a smuggler. So a more relaxed refugee policy that lets more people get into European countries legally, which many politicians are advocating, would go a long ways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
We could take a million of them and hardly feel it. But the way that politics are going in this country, our leadership would rather have themselves fired out of a cannon than bring a bill offering transport and asylum to any number of Muslim refugees during an election year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Stopping them is unrealistic, I admit. But every refugee that Europe takes in legally is one less refugee who has to consider getting a hold of a smuggler. So a more relaxed refugee policy that lets more people get into European countries legally, which many politicians are advocating, would go a long ways. What's the long term solution though? We take all the refugees from everywhere and pretend the situations driving them don't exist? Is integration with the host nation a goal? Zeroisanumber posted:offering transport and asylum to any number of Muslim refugees during an election year. Why would anyone have an issue with their religion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Why would anyone have an issue with their religion? Not familiar with the direction Western politics have taken in the last fifteen years, are you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Not familiar with the direction Western politics have taken in the last fifteen years, are you? Well I have no idea which country he's talking about. Perhaps there's been some recent unrest or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Why would anyone have an issue with their religion? You obviously have too high of an opinion of the United States of America. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
spacetoaster posted:What's the long term solution though? We take all the refugees from everywhere and pretend the situations driving them don't exist? Of course not. The thing is that the underlying situations causing the influx in refugees can only be solved in two ways. With smart foreign policy focused on resolving the conflicts, or with some luck. Nobody is interested in the former, and if you're betting on the latter showing up in the middle east soon, I've got some bad news. The only not politically toxic thing to do right now is to step up humanitarian aid and do more to resettle refugees, and that's becoming an increasingly popular policy in Europe, with the aim being an eventual EU migration deal that will institutionalize refugee resettlement throughout all of Europe. I wish the US shared the sentiment, but we're greedy, selfish fucks. Sorry Euro goons. At least you can rub in how backwards we are for 20 years or however long we cling on to this archaic policy long after its time has passed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 20:16
|
|