U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-09-2018, 02:51 PM
 
6,770 posts, read 7,503,107 times
Reputation: 4204

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post
You think this all started with the Iraq War??

European nations have been f---ing with the Middle East for centuries, up to and including the 21st! Not to mention the necessitation of Israel due to Europeans trying to destroy and/or ghetto-ize them for the last 1,000 years.
yes lets go back a thousand years for an explanation as opposed to a more recent occurrence ,awesome " whataboutery " the handy thing about going back a milenia is the usa didnt exists so it cannot be blamed

" dont p1ss down my back and call it rain " springs to mind

Last edited by irish_bob; 07-09-2018 at 03:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2018, 02:54 PM
 
6,770 posts, read 7,503,107 times
Reputation: 4204
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
The instability of Iraq probably had a lot to do what happened to Iraq but ultimately the bulk of the problem is that Syria is led by a dictator that represents only a minority of the people. Indeed, there have been previous revolts against the Assads that have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq.

President Assad inherited his position from his father, Hafez al-Assad, the Syrian dictator who ruled from 1971 to 2000. At first people were hoping that the younger Assad would be unlike his father and be a reformer. But he brutally cracked down on the Arab Spring protestors which led to the Syrian Revolution.

Also important to note is that both Assads are Alawites, a sect of Shia - which explains Shia Iran's long interference in Syria and the Iranian-Syrian Alliance - despite the fact that more than 2/3 of the Syrian population are Sunni.

Since you are Irish, I will use Ireland as an example. Try to imagine if a Protestant dictator took power in Dublin and held his position with military force against the mostly Catholic Irish people for almost 30 years, including using chemical weapons on his own people. Then when he dies, his son inherits the position and continues his father's policies for another 18 years, including suppressing the majority of the Irish with the help of an outside power, the British in London.

That is how many Syrians see it.
the removal of sadamm let loose islamists forces , they are the ones who are causing chaos in syria and also libya , gadaffi kept a lid on the crazies too , most syrians support assad , him being a dictator is not relevant , dictators are everywhere , in china , in saudi arabia , to name just two countries
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Boston, MA
10,955 posts, read 7,732,782 times
Reputation: 5314
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish_bob View Post
yes lets go back a thousand years for an explanation as opposed to a more recent occurrence ,awesome " whataboutery " the handy thing about going back a milenia is the usa didnt exists so it cannot be blamed

" dont p1ss down my back and call it rain " springs to mind
OK, how's this: 100 million people were raped, tortured, enslaved, and genocided during a period of European history that ended a little over 75 years ago.

Better?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Brisbane
3,358 posts, read 5,188,930 times
Reputation: 2694
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovelondon View Post
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

-- written on the Statue of Liberty


One important fact most people today seem to forget was prior to 1965, anyone can enter the US regardless of their wealth, stature, or education (or lack thereof), as long as they were white. Being white was the only requirement. After 1965, US immigration policy moved to being merit-based where you can immigrate if you meet certain requirements, such as educational attainment, money, etc. regardless of your race (which is a good thing). Most of you probably would not have been born American if the same standards today we're applied to your grandparents or great-grandparents when they immigrated.
In the 40 years prior to 1965 they greatly restricted southern European immigration into the USA. Which is one of the reasons the likes of Canada and Australia picked up so many Italian and Greek immigrants at the end of WW2.

Last edited by danielsa1775; 07-09-2018 at 05:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 04:52 PM
 
6,770 posts, read 7,503,107 times
Reputation: 4204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post
OK, how's this: 100 million people were raped, tortured, enslaved, and genocided during a period of European history that ended a little over 75 years ago.

Better?
not even a little bit

"whataboutery" of the highest order

doesnt for a nano second excuse the mess that america made with the 2003 invasion of iraq

you might as well have puked up something about the romans feeding peasants to lions two thousand years ago , has about as much relevance
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 05:42 PM
 
1,986 posts, read 718,048 times
Reputation: 1247
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish_bob View Post
im opposed to allowing migrants from radically different cultures enter europe en masse , doesnt negate the fact that the genesis of the current syrian war and refugee crisis is rooted in the invasion of iraq in 2003 ,this destabalised the region so spare us your " america is the international punching bag " drivel , you created this and should be the ones dealing with it primarily

first of all unfortunately you need to be educated about the huge mess , you seem to think your some sort of victim here as opposed to the perpetrator
I'm not even American in the first place, so in reality this has little bearing on me. The very fact that I as a foreigner am able to see all this proves the fact your theory doesn't hold much weight.

I don't remember ever saying that America wasn't a perpetrator. The key word here is "a". There are over a dozen nations that have actively taken part in Syria (The US, UK, France, Australia, Canada, Russia, Iran, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia...)

This still doesn't negate the fact that the world doesn't operate on the principle of objective morality. Excepting it to suddenly apply in the 21st century is ridiculous. I'm theoretically not opposed to taking in refugees, but it should be done out of compassion and not responsibility.
There are so many refugees in the world. What makes Syrians so special? During the time of the Iraq War, there was a massive conflict happening in the Congo, one far more devastating than Iraq. I don't remember seeing people rushing to help the displaced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 10:50 PM
 
922 posts, read 837,136 times
Reputation: 1078
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovelondon View Post
One important fact most people today seem to forget was prior to 1965, anyone can enter the US regardless of their wealth, stature, or education (or lack thereof), as long as they were white. Being white was the only requirement. After 1965, US immigration policy moved to being merit-based where you can immigrate if you meet certain requirements, such as educational attainment, money, etc. regardless of your race (which is a good thing). Most of you probably would not have been born American if the same standards today we're applied to your grandparents or great-grandparents when they immigrated.
That's not exactly true. Prior to 1965, immigration was governed by the Immigration Act of 1924. The law was passed in response to a populist backlash to a massive wave of immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe. The law set nationality quotas to limit immigration from those areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

"The law was primarily aimed at further decreasing immigration of Southern Europeans, countries with Roman Catholic majorities, Eastern Europeans, Arabs, and Jews."

It's true Asians were banned from immigration prior to 1965. But, "Contrary to popular belief, Latin Americans were not prohibited or limited from immigrating under the law. In most states and under federal law, persons of mixed white and Native American ancestry were considered white... Moreover, unlike Eastern and Southern Europe, no nationality-based quotas were placed on Latin American immigrants. Thus,the law allowed unlimited Latin American immigration, just as it allowed unlimited northwestern European immigration."

Surprisingly (to me), black African were not formally banned for immigrating. Although, in practice the US had little immigration from Africa and had a system of racial apartheid in the south.

Further, the US's current post-65 immigration system is significantly less "skill based" than Canada or Australia, with much larger allowances for "family reunification."

Nonetheless, I agree with your basic points, that US immigration policy has often been shaped by racial exclusion and many white Americans descend from pre-1924 immigrants that wouldn't be accepted under a "skill based" immigration system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 11:13 PM
 
922 posts, read 837,136 times
Reputation: 1078
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer View Post
The United States is in the unenviable position of having a poor, drug-infested country on its southern border. Canada, Australia and most European countries are not in this situation. So, they are a lot luckier in that way.

If millions of African refugees were entering European countries, then that's when the sh*t would really hit the fan.
Given their geography, Canada and Australia have a greater ability to select their immigrants. Not surprisingly, they use that ability to cherry pick a diverse mix of mostly high skilled immigrants with English (or French) language skills. This of course makes immigration far less divisive in those societies than in the US with its large unauthorized flows of low skilled immigrants with limited English proficiency.

But, it is unclear if Europe is better off than the US. In many ways they have a tougher geography than the US with large refugee flows from Africa and the Middle East (in addition to eastern European immigrants). Beyond issues of skill gaps/poverty, there are greater cultural gaps between Europe and ME than US and LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 11:42 PM
 
2,125 posts, read 2,965,482 times
Reputation: 1270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident View Post
I'm not even American in the first place, so in reality this has little bearing on me. The very fact that I as a foreigner am able to see all this proves the fact your theory doesn't hold much weight.

I don't remember ever saying that America wasn't a perpetrator. The key word here is "a". There are over a dozen nations that have actively taken part in Syria (The US, UK, France, Australia, Canada, Russia, Iran, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia...)

This still doesn't negate the fact that the world doesn't operate on the principle of objective morality. Excepting it to suddenly apply in the 21st century is ridiculous. I'm theoretically not opposed to taking in refugees, but it should be done out of compassion and not responsibility.
There are so many refugees in the world. What makes Syrians so special? During the time of the Iraq War, there was a massive conflict happening in the Congo, one far more devastating than Iraq. I don't remember seeing people rushing to help the displaced.
Ah, you mean The 'Coalition of the Willing', from memory what it was called. Unwilling more likely, but unwilling to resist was where the wiliness came into play. America had to make it look like the world, as aspects of it was on side. The fabricated nuclear weapons story, of course easing the plight of certain other nations to convince, at least portions of their populations, that there was little choice.
A fight 'good' against 'evil' indeed.


As refugees, lets see now. Perhaps it has more to do with the western 'stuff up's' as a result of interventions in that area and the more internationally focused, often rather well educated, cosmopolitan nature too often displayed by Syrians and Iraq's that make them more likely candidates to cross borders in the first place?


Of course Congolese are suffering, enormously and in many cases horribly. But by and large they remain within own and neighbouring countries and do not in general come to mind for out of continent resettlement, besides in more limited numbers.


Suffering is of course suffering and in an ideal world, equal consideration would be given to individual need and not nationalities, but such considerations as to compatibility to settlement in very alien environments is not always to the advantage of the seeker of refuge also.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 11:53 PM
 
2,125 posts, read 2,965,482 times
Reputation: 1270
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdivola View Post
Given their geography, Canada and Australia have a greater ability to select their immigrants. Not surprisingly, they use that ability to cherry pick a diverse mix of mostly high skilled immigrants with English (or French) language skills. This of course makes immigration far less divisive in those societies than in the US with its large unauthorized flows of low skilled immigrants with limited English proficiency.

But, it is unclear if Europe is better off than the US. In many ways they have a tougher geography than the US with large refugee flows from Africa and the Middle East (in addition to eastern European immigrants). Beyond issues of skill gaps/poverty, there are greater cultural gaps between Europe and ME than US and LA.

Indeed. Australia certainly 'cherry picks', no turning up at borders and pleading asylum as was the case in Germany and other EU countries. Australia often refers to having the second high intake of refugees after Canada in population terms, and third after USA and Canada in overall terms, but that is only official intake figures.


Germany, Sweden Netherlands and so on take far more, but most do not come under the official UNHCR selection process.


Is USA so much better off with less cultural gaps than Europe? Debatable I suppose. London has a huge African diaspora these days from countries as varied as Congo to Nigeria (very high numbers) and so on.


Belgium is home, naturally enough to many Congolese. France to many West Coast Africans and has the biggest Muslim and Jewish population in Europe.( UK second)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top