Reply to: Which countries are most responsible for the vast rise in refugees?

[OwlHoot]

Which countries invaded Iraq and removed a nasty hard man who nevertheless kept a lid on things?
Which countries destablised Syria and tried and failed to remove a nasty hard man who nevertheless kept a lid on things?
Which countries destablised Libya and removed a nasty hard man who nevertheless kept a lid on things?
Which countries are therefore responsible for ISIS gaining territory?

When will said countries realise that nasty hard men are completely necessary in certain places because they know how to keep a lid on ancient hatreds that we do not understand?

Guess what, you live in one the countries that caused this fook up.

For possibly some balance against this by now corny view, try reading The Truth About Syria, by Barry Rubin, 2008

I bought it in a charity shop a while ago, and it was quite interesting although after a while very repetitive, as if the author was drying to drum his thesis into the reader.

As one Amazon reviewer helpfully summarized, the book's basic points are:

1. The Assad regime is not legitimate and ruthlessly suppresses opponents

2. Syria needs the Israel/Palestine conflict to deflect from the regime's own shortcomings and so is not interested in peace

3. Syria can appear to be the main player in the Arab world without actually getting its hands dirty by use of proxies such as Hezbollah

4. Syria is never punished by the USA or the EU for its misdeeds and is thus encouraged to continue with its course of action

P.S. Typing the above, it occurred to me that repetitive would be better spelt repetititive

[Mainframe gent]

We (the US and UK) didn't stay out of Syria. We funded and supported the rebels against Assad.
The Russians got involved because (1) Syria is a traditional client state of theirs and (2) they, correctly, iMO, made the judgement that Assad was the least of all the evils.

In reality we should be taking in the millions of refugees in the UK

[sasguru]

The reality is the west is striving for peace nowadays.

What we truly need now is some kind of peace envoy. If only there was a peace loving leader waiting in the wings...

Quite apt how the cretins contradict themselves so well, thus proving my point.

[sasguru]

I agree to a point but you can't keep blaming the west for the Middle East's seemingly insatiable appetite for tyrants. When we did stay out of Syria the Russians got involved.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

We (the US and UK) didn't stay out of Syria. We funded and supported the rebels against Assad.
The Russians got involved because (1) Syria is a traditional client state of theirs and (2) they, correctly, iMO, made the judgement that Assad was the least of all the evils.

[PurpleGorilla]

Much of Africa and the Middle East have had nasty bastard rulers for centuries. Look at their contribution in the West African and Muslim Slave trades.

[DimPrawn]

What we truly need now is some kind of peace envoy. If only there was a peace loving leader waiting in the wings...

[vetran]

SAS is 100% spot on here.

Just researching USA and Napalm and Agent Orange, just who are the bad boys?

lets search The Crusades & boiling oil.

The reality is the west is striving for peace nowadays.

[stek]

SAS is 100% spot on here.

Just researching USA and Napalm and Agent Orange, just who are the bad boys?

[Flashman]

Which countries invaded Iraq and removed a nasty hard man who nevertheless kept a lid on things?
Which countries destablised Syria and tried and failed to remove a nasty hard man who nevertheless kept a lid on things?
Which countries destablised Libya and removed a nasty hard man who nevertheless kept a lid on things?
Which countries are therefore responsible for ISIS gaining territory?

When will said countries realise that nasty hard men are completely necessary in certain places because they know how to keep a lid on ancient hatreds that we do not understand?

Guess what, you live in one the countries that caused this fook up.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

George Osborne and other nutters still think we should have intervened in Syria

At least with Killary , Cameron and Osborne out of the way perhaps there' s some hope....

[xoggoth]

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't

It's quite true that these things may well have happened anyway whatever we did but at least our soldiers would not have been killed, our money would not have been wasted and we would not have handed Islamists the excuse to blame us.

PS Damned

[SlipTheJab]

Don't think Syria is the last Middle Eastern conflict. Algeria may be next.

How Algeria could destroy the EU

But Islam is the perfect religion as taught by the only sky fairy that actually exists, surely that means that those countries that have adopted it fully (killing gays, heretics etc) should be ambassadors of peace or am i something and its all bollox, and we're doomed, in other news i believe that hector will deem all PS contractors as outside IR35... now which is the most outlandish statement i've made today I wonder...

[SussexSeagull]

I agree to a point but you can't keep blaming the west for the Middle East's seemingly insatiable appetite for tyrants. When we did stay out of Syria the Russians got involved.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

[greenlake]

Damn. Even Hagrid has joined the Syrian rebels....

[NotAllThere]

Well, logically, as we caused much of the problem, maybe we should be taking in many more refugees than others, like Germany, who didn't get involved?

Could be!

Here are selected numbers of refugees/asylumees per 1000 inhabitans, mid 2015
Lebanon 208.91
Jordan 89.55
Turkey 23.73
Sweden 14.66
Norway 9.14
Switzerland 8.45
Germany 3.10
United Kingdom 1.82

You poor man. Do you have a Swiss bank account?

No. But he has to pay into one regularly to keep his immunity to banning.

[MarillionFan]

Or is our modus operandi to just stir the sh!te and walk away?

It's definitely my modus operandi you dull cretin.