Politics, politics, politics

[the dza]

Could, but apparently won't. You can try and shame them into it, as Grays suggests, but they've not been shamed thus far, so if that doesn't work then what do you do?

I agree with you that we should take more refugees and help. But I think that unless we get the likes of Saudi Arabia working in ways that help stabilise things and help deal with the humanitarian situation, we won't be able to do enough, there will still be too many people left in the sh1t.

syria has already gone to ****

it doesn't matter what other people do, we should do all we can

I know its not a popular view, and maybe i'm responding to the graphic sensationalism of recent news but I do think we should intervene, we're either against tyranny or we're not, if we have to deliver democracy and religious freedom with weapons then so be it

Intervene how and against who? Not long ago, Cameron would have been happy to blunder in and help ISIS fight Assad. There are bad people in all sides of the fight over there and when you look at Libya and Iraq, removing one bad dictator can end up leading to worse things. Air Strikes won't do it, so how many troops should we send? And how many have to die before it becomes an unacceptable cost to our nation?

I think that you want the right things for the people out there, but I don't think it's as easy as sending in our forces or even sending over weapons. As an example, much of the weaponry that was meant for the Iraqi army to fight ISIS with has ended up belonging to ISIS. IMO, we need to do all we can to stop the flow of arms to the region and try to incentivise Saudi Arabia to do their part, incentivise Turkey to at least leave the Kurds alone for the time being (so they can fight ISIS) and maybe help out countries like Jordan and Turkey financially, so they can more easily cope with refugees. Even Iran can be talked to nowadays.

Most of this depends on the yanks, of course.

 

[scaramanga]

Again though, it'll take years to sort out the complete mess over there. These people are in immediate need of help.

The problem would have already been solved if Labour hadn't been so busy playing politics.

 

[the dza]

The problem would have already been solved if Labour hadn't been so busy playing politics.

Milliband might have been playing politics, but the problem wouldn't have been solved by dropping a few bombs in concert with the yanks. It just isn't that simple and it would be playing politics to claim that it is.

 

[Robbo]

If the UAE and Qatar wasn't too busy ripping off the Sub Continent worker, they might help?

Failing that Sweden, Copenhagen and Norway have a booming economy....

Unfortunately us (Norway) have a government whose existence relies on an borderline extremist right wing party whose views on immigrants are basically: We don't want them. Not a single one.

The Norwegian parliament recently decided to accept 8000 Syrian refugees this year, with only this right wing party refusing to be a part of the deal. Instead their leader, coincidentally also our finance minister, urges local communities to say no to the refugees. Which in itself is a disgrace.

We're so bloody well off in our tiny, frozen country, which makes it extra sickening that our leaders refuse to help more than a tiny fraction of the thousands and thousands of people in urgent need of the basics: Food, shelter, safety. We could easily have helped 100.000 without our living standard even noticeably diminishing.

This is not to say that nothing should be done in Syria, in the region, but that's not gonna help the desperate refugees - people with dreams and lives just like us - fleeing right now.

Unfortunately we're a country whose leaders are a bunch of cowards, and whose population increasingly consists of selfish and ignorant assholes - which puts us in the situation we're in now, where Norway, one of the richest and most privileged countries in the world, reluctantly agree to take in and help a meager 8000 people in need.

I'm fudging ashamed.

Sorry for the inconsistent rant.

 

[DTA]

What makes me laugh about Turkey is they are going through a boom financially and offer a religious crossroads that would benefit Syria (East v West), let people put pressure on these states that are 500-1000 miles away and within the religions context than 2000 miles to be washed up on the shores.

Saudi Arabia is the head of the Islamic world and also one of the richest states in the world, why not set up some kind of refuge settlement there, invest the money there rather than Kensington Casinos and also show compassion based on the fact that IS is killing in the name of Islam????

Turkey have 2 million Syrian refugees, and the financial boom there seems pretty much over.... Mostly through the ruling parties attempting to maintain governance without receiving a majority.

 

[DTA]

Turkey have taken 1.8 million refugees.

The problems in Syria are caused by Assad and his brutal regime set up by the French and propped up and supported by Western governments for many years.

Libya was stable but went to pot after military intervention by Western forces.

Don't get me wrong these countries arent in this position purely because of the west but you have to respect that these people don't ever want to live under a despot again. they want freedom. As we opened our arms to jews in WW2 maybe we could do the same now and help these human beings.

Actually we didn't, I had the honour of interviewing/filming a survivor last year, and he mentioned Syria, and the refugees, he said the world still hasnt learnt it's lesson, he mentioned how he thought that many Jews could have been saved if other states welcomed them when they we're being persecuted by the Nazis.

 

[scaramanga]

Milliband might have been playing politics, but the problem wouldn't have been solved by dropping a few bombs in concert with the yanks. It just isn't that simple and it would be playing politics to claim that it is.

It probably would have made a massive difference.

At the time the issue went to vote the two sides were at a tipping point. Now it's far too late.

 

[scaramanga]

Is it about what we owe, or common decency? Because someone else isn't doing something, we shouldn't either? If ISIS (or whatever the bunch of clams are supposed to be called now) were coming my way, I'd leg it too and hope someone in a less mental part of the world took pity on me and helped.

Europe needs to work together (what it's for) to work out a fair distribution of these people who need our help, like the Italian ambassador said on Newsnight yesterday, have them apply for European asylum rather than of individual states, and deal with them from a central position. Asylum doesn't necessarily equal permanent residence either, these places might one day achieve some semblance of normality (arf arf) so they can go back, they may even want to, but dead 3 year olds washing up on European beaches isn't really acceptable.

How do you work out a fair distribution?

Most of Europe seems to want to base it on wealth (because it benefits them and costs us), but that doesn't seem particularly relevant.

Surely a relevant measure would be how much spare housing there is in each country. In which case we've probably already taken more than our fair share.

 

[the dza]

It probably would have made a massive difference.

At the time the issue went to vote the two sides were at a tipping point. Now it's far too late.

How do you come to that conclusion? For a start, there are more than two sides. There's Assad (and Hezbollah joined fighting with his forces iirc), then there's the Free Syria Army, who fight against Assad, and then there's ISIS who fight against all of them. And then The Kurds. Even then, I've probably forgotten/missed some out and over-simplified it.

The vote by our government was in August 2013. A year later, the yanks started bombing anyway, leading a coalition of neighbouring countries. From then until now, there have been 6,500 air-strikes in Iraq and Syria, 80% of them done by the USA (this was in the news today). Has it worked? Can ISIS be defeated, along with Assad toppled and the Free Syrian Army take power (assuming they ain't as nuts as the rest of them, which from their alleged war crimes, is no guarantee) via bombs being dropped?

And lets say we dropped the bombs in September 2013 instead of September 2014. Who would have been the target? Assad's forces, because the vote took place as a result of Assad's chemical weapons usage. So if Assad is gone, the power vacuum would be filled by the Free Syria Army and ISIS, both groups with their fair share of ruthless nutters, along with GHod knows how many other splinter groups. Look to Saddam and Gaddafi being overthrown, what has replaced them and is it any better than before?

We have a very recent history of making bad situations even worse, I hope we don't repeat that. We should assist as much as possible with the humanitarian side of it and stop supplying arms to that part of the world.

 

[scaramanga]

How do you come to that conclusion? For a start, there are more than two sides. There's Assad (and Hezbollah joined fighting with his forces iirc), then there's the Free Syria Army, who fight against Assad, and then there's ISIS who fight against all of them. And then The Kurds. Even then, I've probably forgotten/missed some out and over-simplified it.

TL: DR

ISIS weren't anywhere near as heavily involved at the time of the vote. Labour let them in.

 

[Heda SPURSCZ]

So if Assad is gone

Russia and China will not allow this to happen. Especially now, when Russia is beginning to be active militarily in Syria (at least according to the latest speculation).

 

[scaramanga]

Russia and China will not allow this to happen. Especially now, when Russia is beginning to be active militarily in Syria (at least according to the latest speculation).

China would need far, far more than that to get involved. They're doing incredibly well as long a people don't consider them a threat. As soon as they start flexing militarily their economy will dump.

Russia? Meh, the Netherlands could probably take them with one battalion tied behind their backs. Putin and all this oppressive anti-gay anti-black brick needs putting back into its box anyway.

 

[Heda SPURSCZ]

China would need far, far more than that to get involved. They're doing incredibly well as long a people don't consider them a threat. As soon as they start flexing militarily their economy will dump.

China doesn't need to send troops to Syria and they will not do it. But they and Russia will not let the allies remove Assad.

 

[Grays_1890]

Ok here is my solution, pledge monetary aid to Qatar and Saudi saying if we halve the burden you take the refugees now and keep them safe until something can be sorted. Hold a gun to their head on the situation and see what they say, what normal person would say no?

 

[scaramanga]

China doesn't need to send troops to Syria and they will not do it. But they and Russia will not let the allies remove Assad.

In the interest of keeping world trade smooth China will bluff and bluster then eventually let the West do whatever they want.

They can buy influence in just about any part of the Middle East they want - Assad is useful but entirely expendable to them.

 

[LutonSpurs]

The biggest rebel fighting force is Jabhat Nusra which is Al Qaeda affiliated. They are no where near as brutal as Assad or ISIS but it would be madness for the west to arm and support them. It would be like the CIA training the Taliban all over again.

Syria is incredibly complex. The truth is that when Assad started gassing and massacring the world should have taken him out like they did with Ghadafi and maybe the current situation wouldn't have occurred but who could have predicted this.

 

[DTA]

Ok here is my solution, pledge monetary aid to Qatar and Saudi saying if we halve the burden you take the refugees now and keep them safe until something can be sorted. Hold a gun to their head on the situation and see what they say, what normal person would say no?

Offer them money? We might as well offer them oil. Your better off offering huge amounts of money to Turkey Jordon and Lebanon who have the majority of the refugees between them, to integrate them into their economies. But to do that the we would be talking about huge amounts of financial incentives, not because these states are greedy but because intergrating 2 million people (in turkeys case) in one go is a hugely costly and complicated business.

 

[scaramanga]

The biggest rebel fighting force is Jabhat Nusra which is Al Qaeda affiliated. They are no where near as brutal as Assad or ISIS but it would be madness for the west to arm and support them. It would be like the CIA training the Taliban all over again.

Syria is incredibly complex. The truth is that when Assad started gassing and massacring the world should have taken him out like they did with Ghadafi and maybe the current situation wouldn't have occurred but who could have predicted this.

Agreed - the time to have a meaningful effect and safe millions of lives is long gone.

Quick lesson for the Grauniad-reading muesli munchers of the world: A lack of action is often as deadly as taking action.

 

[Sandman]

Offer them money? We might as well offer them oil. Your better off offering huge amounts of money to Turkey Jordon and Lebanon who have the majority of the refugees between them, to integrate them into their economies. But to do that the we would be talking about huge amounts of financial incentives, not because these states are greedy but because intergrating 2 million people (in turkeys case) in one go is a hugely costly and complicated business.

This has to be a better alternative though. Integrating hundreds of thousands of Muslims into Western Europe is asking for trouble. As a culture the majority are not integrating with the countries they move to. So it seems it is better for them to be relocated to countries that offer them a way of life that they want and need. We are already giving over 900 million in aid. Why should Western Europe shoulder the burden at all when neighbouring countries that are better suited are not taking them in.

You have to ask why, if they are getting away from the War that they want to get all the way over to Britain when there are nations much closer. Offering Aid to these countries is a much better solution. Some western European nations may well want to integrate masses of people but some cannot sustain it. Germany has an abundance of housing. But Spain has mass unemployment, as does Portugal. And this is not going to help their economies.

We as a nation are overcrowded in one Location. London. We already have mass housing issues. Must of these left wing liberals that want to let masses of refugees into this country do not live in London or see the non integration issues we are having. This will just cause more.

And I hate to say it. But with seeing how many British Muslims are leaving to get to Syria to join Isis. I just feel we are going to create a breeding ground for mass indoctrination. Praying on our morals whilst losing our own.

 

[parklane1]

Taking action is one of the reasons this mess in happening in the first place. Its amazing that there are still dinosaurs around who think bombing brick out of everyone is helping create a better world.