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.
You'll hear no argument from me about US interventionism. Bush created a mess we're still cleaning up. Just saying, there'd be genocide and terrorism regardless.
But really, do you honestly not find it suspect that the most welcoming countries, Germany and Sweden, are the ones who have decreasing populations and high job vacancies? The ones who stand to gain the most by importing warm bodies to replace an aging population? Sure, they may have to pony up some $$ at first, but I would think they are expecting these "refugees" to work eventually. Plenty of unskilled jobs and moreover, a lot of the "refugees" are supposedly educated as well. Of course, Germany and Sweden think they can actually integrate these populations and to that I say "good luck with that." But if you aren't seeing what's really going on here, you aren't seeing the forest for the trees.
You are partly right on the declining populations. Much like Illegals are a constant topic in the US same for Europe. The parties want to buy the vote of the minority population. If you are viewed as pro immigrant you just bought a vote. That's what Germany is doing. Merkel doesn't give a ***** about what happens in Syria. If she did she would back NATO more and push for a coalition to stop ISIS.
Remember Bosnia? The Europeans just watched genocide in their back yards and even supported it to some degree. This is nothing more than buying votes at the expense of the people. Do you really think encouraging ppl to risk their lives across the Med or through the Balkans has their best interest in mind? If Merkel loves them so much she should allow a family to stay with her. Haven't seen that offer yet.
The Syrians are Caucasians. There is no race difference here. If you look at the face of those immigrants, there is hardly much difference from many Europeans, especially the southerners.
A) You need glasses
B) Oslo isn't the rape capital of Europe because of southern Europeans.
Quote:
People like you are disgraceful. If someone else did a great thing, yes, it must be due to ulterior motivations! I am sure you apply that kind of philosophy in life.
There is no logical reason to allow the cancer of humanity into your lands, let alone pay them to do so.
This is suicide driven by a slave mentality to proving how "not racist" they are.
I've already seen video of "refugees" stealing and assaulting (aka enriching via diversity), would you like me to share them with you?
The Middle East did have continuous conflicts, but it is their own business. It is the interventionist policy of the US that made it far worse. Russia is at least close by, while the US is like a million miles away, why the f8ck does it always try to control an area that is nowhere near itself? To contain "communism?? Do you want China to interfere with America's racial conflicts? It is the same idea.
Why does everyone expect the US to be the world's police? I think most Americans would be happy if other developed countries took the laboring oar more often.
Why does everyone expect the US to be the world's police? I think most Americans would be happy if other developed countries took the laboring oar more often.
Because the rest of the world cant do much far from their borders. Euro countries have a skeloton military. They depend on the US to do most of their heavy lifting. If the US were to pull out Euro bases theres not much to stop Russia from further expansion.
Because the rest of the world cant do much far from their borders. Euro countries have a skeloton military. They depend on the US to do most of their heavy lifting. If the US were to pull out Euro bases theres not much to stop Russia from further expansion.
Please keep your fairy-tales for someone else.
If the US pulls out from Euro bases, it's more like Germany will be free to do what it's pleased to do.
Yeah, that's more like it. And that's a concern for the US. Big concern.
The Middle East did have continuous conflicts, but it is their own business. It is the interventionist policy of the US that made it far worse. Russia is at least close by, while the US is like a million miles away, why the f8ck does it always try to control an area that is nowhere near itself? To contain "communism?? Do you want China to interfere with America's racial conflicts? It is the same idea.
You really, really, really need to read up on Middle East history. The fact that you think the US (with a bit of meddling on the side by the UK apparently, and some somehow justified meddling by Russia since they're "close by") is the root of the problems in the Middle East is very telling.
For the time being, forget ancient or medieval history (though those have a heckuva lot to do with current instability since this region has been at war with itself basically since the inception of Islam) - just focus on the late 1800s or even the early 1900s through present day.
It wasn't the US which created newly formed "Middle Eastern countries" from colonized regions during the first third of the 20th century - it was the UK and France predominately. These "new" countries have about as much stability and sticking power as, oh...Czechoslovakia and Bosnia.
The region was already a cultural hot mess when WW2 came along - and most of the Middle Eastern countries sided with the Nazis. Bad move. Once again, they found themselves being used as bargaining chips and being divvied up after WW2 - by the Allies as well as Russia.
The UNITED NATIONS (not just the Allies or Soviets) approved the establishment of the nation of Israel, further destabilizing the region.
The Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s was primarily focused on rebelling against the autocratic Soviet rule of many regions, as well as Nasser's policies - not simply the US or the UK. From this hotbed of animosity toward Israel, the west, the Soviets, you name it, sprung such unsavory characters as Muammar Khaddafi, Hafez al Assad, and Saddam Hussein.
It was not until the 1970s that oil became the huge issue that it is now. With the rise of this industry in the Middle East, came an influx of ruthless leaders in that region - leaders who now had an unlimited supply of revenue at their disposal - revenue that somehow never manages to trickle down to the people of those countries, I might add.
Where the US messed up was investing in the growth of that region at the expense of more exploration and therefore independence from the need for oil from that region. This was the era of the rise of people such as Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Ayman al Zawahiri. Don't forget for a moment that the leaders of the Middle East have consistently marketed to their oppressed people the "evils of Western Civilization and Israel," while they have consistently abused and oppressed their own people, and practiced genocide and the suppression of basic human rights at horrific levels. This era also saw religious fundamentalism and states ruled by religious leaders become commonplace and widespread in that region.
Osama bin Laden's rise to power was in response to SOVIET war and upheaval in Afghanistan.
Please keep your fairy-tales for someone else.
If the US pulls out from Euro bases, it's more like Germany will be free to do what it's pleased to do.
Yeah, that's more like it. And that's a concern for the US. Big concern.
What are you going on about? The US has been pulling out of Europe since the early 1990s. Most of the remaining bases are very small.
The US continues to shut down bases there and I'm very happy to see that.
Personally I much prefer for Europe and the Middle East to handle their own dramas. But we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Don't act as if Europeans don't expect our tax dollars and our involvement when things get crunk. See Bosnia and NATO.
Speaking of NATO, it makes sense for the US to continue to have some US presence in Europe, since the US is far removed physically from it's NATO allies - and since most European allies appreciate that we spend our tax dollars on NATO's involvement in various capacities, in their communities and countries. Don't think for a MINUTE that our NATO partners (28 countries, mostly in Europe and North America) actually want us to withdraw completely. The governments may pander to the people with cheap talk but the reality is that NATO powers expect us to maintain a military presence in Europe.
Please keep your fairy-tales for someone else.
If the US pulls out from Euro bases, it's more like Germany will be free to do what it's pleased to do.
Yeah, that's more like it. And that's a concern for the US. Big concern.
How well did it go the last time Germany did as it pleased? Euro will never allow US bases to pull out. They love our money too much and they have no interest in investing in their own defense outside of a few quick reaction forces. W/O the US presence in Europe, they are defenseless.
How well did it go the last time Germany did as it pleased? Euro will never allow US bases to pull out. They love our money too much and they have no interest in investing in their own defense outside of a few quick reaction forces. W/O the US presence in Europe, they are defenseless.
You really, really, really need to read up on Middle East history. The fact that you think the US (with a bit of meddling on the side by the UK apparently, and some somehow justified meddling by Russia since they're "close by") is the root of the problems in the Middle East is very telling.
For the time being, forget ancient or medieval history (though those have a heckuva lot to do with current instability since this region has been at war with itself basically since the inception of Islam) - just focus on the late 1800s or even the early 1900s through present day.
It wasn't the US which created newly formed "Middle Eastern countries" from colonized regions during the first third of the 20th century - it was the UK and France predominately. These "new" countries have about as much stability and sticking power as, oh...Czechoslovakia and Bosnia.
The region was already a cultural hot mess when WW2 came along - and most of the Middle Eastern countries sided with the Nazis. Bad move. Once again, they found themselves being used as bargaining chips and being divvied up after WW2 - by the Allies as well as Russia.
The UNITED NATIONS (not just the Allies or Soviets) approved the establishment of the nation of Israel, further destabilizing the region.
The Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s was primarily focused on rebelling against the autocratic Soviet rule of many regions, as well as Nasser's policies - not simply the US or the UK. From this hotbed of animosity toward Israel, the west, the Soviets, you name it, sprung such unsavory characters as Muammar Khaddafi, Hafez al Assad, and Saddam Hussein.
It was not until the 1970s that oil became the huge issue that it is now. With the rise of this industry in the Middle East, came an influx of ruthless leaders in that region - leaders who now had an unlimited supply of revenue at their disposal - revenue that somehow never manages to trickle down to the people of those countries, I might add.
Where the US messed up was investing in the growth of that region at the expense of more exploration and therefore independence from the need for oil from that region. This was the era of the rise of people such as Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Ayman al Zawahiri. Don't forget for a moment that the leaders of the Middle East have consistently marketed to their oppressed people the "evils of Western Civilization and Israel," while they have consistently abused and oppressed their own people, and practiced genocide and the suppression of basic human rights at horrific levels. This era also saw religious fundamentalism and states ruled by religious leaders become commonplace and widespread in that region.
Osama bin Laden's rise to power was in response to SOVIET war and upheaval in Afghanistan.
History started a long time before the 1990s.
Just don't forget to add, Kathryn, that at that point in time America was supporting the same forces as Osama Bin Laden. Back then - those two were working hand in hand. Against the Russians, of course, that had BIG concerns for creation of Islamic state on the border with its own Islamic population, that Russians were de-islamisizing in consistent manner, though all the years of their ruling over the region.
Overall I have to note that Saudis and the US are so closely intertwined ( for obvious reasons,) that no politics of Saudis go without American approval.
Here is just the latest example of it, when it comes to Syria.
At the end - it's all about oil and world domination for the US.
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.
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.
Against the Russians, of course, that had BIG concerns for creation of Islamic state on the border with its own Islamic population, that Russians were de-islamisizing in consistent manner, though all the years of their ruling over the region.
