Syrian Refugee Crisis (aka: Muslim Exodus and Europe)

[George Wallace]

Good enuff T6 & George:

Migration = Invasion.

Let me know when you want to start machine gunning kids in the water......  >

This is an example of a group that has/shows no intention of assimilating or melding with Western culture, a Christian multi-faith culture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FwM79XwZw

 

[Remius]

Good enuff T6 & George:

Migration = Invasion.

Let me know when you want to start machine gunning kids in the water......  >

So I guess we can say now that Germany was migrating to France and Poland in WW2?

 

[Acorn]

A mass migration is not likely affect change if there is uninhabited lands that they are migrating to.  When there is a movement of a large population that will effectively change an existing culture, then that is not a migration but an invasion.

Really George? A fraction of the refugees and IDPs from Iraq and Syria are getting into Europe, or even trying to. For some reason I can't access the UNHCR site for actual numbers, but it would not constitute a culture changing "invasion" unless the existing culture is extremely weak. While they are concentrated in some areas, overall Muslims of all ethnicities are less than 5% of the population of the EU. Projections show it at 10% by 2050. I don't think even Harper could get a Parliamentary majority with 10% support.

 

[Tuan]

The Arab world’s wealthiest nations are doing next to nothing for Syria’s refugees

 

[George Wallace]

So I guess we can say now that Germany was migrating to France and Poland in WW2?

I suppose when you look at the Alsace, Austria, parts of Czech Republic, and parts of Poland, you could have said that.  >

 

[Kilo_302]

Well, Mulcair has made one decision easy for me.  Mulcair is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

His solution to the refugee/migrant problem is not to reduce the numbers, but increase their numbers, by his not believing in sending troops in to stop IS from spreading their barbarianism throughout their spheres of influence in the Middle East, Africa and South West Asia.  Sorry Thomas.  Wrong answer.

Will the Canadian public clue in?  Sadly, probably not.

Well that's up for debate. A military escalation would immediately increase the numbers of refugees. As evidenced by the recent Pentagon report (so far the CF has questioned its accuracy) that seems to confirm a CF-18 killed 27 civilians in Iraq, more bombing will in the short term make life harder for those in the war zone. This is not say life is peachy under ISIS. But if you're living in an ISIS controlled town and you're still alive, that will be harder to achieve under even a modest strategic air campaign (currently Canadians are only going after tactical targets from what I understand). Most commentators seem to agree as well that to really combat ISIS we need to go after infrastructure targets. This again would have the effect of increasing the flow of refugees. You might survive under a brutal theocratic cult (miserably of course), but NO ONE can survive if the water is shut off.

What I would like to see is an immediate emphasis on taking care of the displaced people. Plan for 10x the current number. Build more camps, build an international consensus. Encourage the refugees to leave in other words. Give them places to go. Once that safety net is in place, hit ISIS with everything. This plan has a lot of potential problems of course, and there are many variables. But this situation is such a SNAFU that ANY plan could make things worse than they are. We can't have it both ways here. We can't be bombing ISIS (indirectly helping Assad who is killing MORE people than ISIS, unless of course you listen to Putin who claims the opposite), and not have a plan for the refugees. Only a few years ago the same people who would attack Mulcair for not going after ISIS were saying the same thing about not going after Assad. Well, turns out large portions of ISIS are also FSA. Do we just bomb everyone then?

 

[George Wallace]

Well that's up for debate. A military escalation would immediately increase the numbers of refugees. .................................................. Most commentators seem to agree as well that to really combat ISIS we need to go after infrastructure targets. This again would have the effect of increasing the flow of refugees. Y

Yes it is up to debate.  If we let it fester, it will get worse. 

We have to have "REAL" statesmen with "BALLS" to come to terms with this problem.  We need leadership who will commit to an all out eradication of IS.  That will take ground troops of the numbers we have not seen since 1944.  That will take the couraged to send troops in and liberate the lands from which all these refugees have fled.  Unfortunately the WEST has grown soft.  They appease, rather than solve world problems.  They allow radicals to spread their philosophies, the ignorant to rebel enciting a hatred for the successes of nations and cultures that have prospered to fester.  Sorry.  Appeasement has failed so far.  Soft policies have failed. 

 

[Kilo_302]

Yes it is up to debate.  If we let it fester, it will get worse. 

We have to have "REAL" statesmen with "BALLS" to come to terms with this problem.  We need leadership who will commit to an all out eradication of IS.  That will take ground troops of the numbers we have not seen since 1944.  That will take the couraged to send troops in and liberate the lands from which all these refugees have fled.  Unfortunately the WEST has grown soft.  They appease, rather than solve world problems.  They allow radicals to spread their philosophies, the ignorant to rebel enciting a hatred for the successes of nations and cultures that have prospered to fester.  Sorry.  Appeasement has failed so far.  Soft policies have failed.

I 100% agree that our politicians don't have the courage to do much here. None of the parties in Canada seem to have much of an idea. But, as far as solving world problems, we in the West have a lot to answer for in this current situation. So does Russia. This is realist policy biting us AND the Russians in the ass. None of the three major leaders in Canada will even try to address why the current situation in the Middle East is the way it is. That would involve analyzing ancient history, like the 90s and the 2000s. We can't have that, for reasons that we discussed in the media stuff above. This may be straying from the election topic, so I'll leave it that.

 

[suffolkowner]

Well that's up for debate. A military escalation would immediately increase the numbers of refugees. As evidenced by the recent Pentagon report (so far the CF has questioned its accuracy) that seems to confirm a CF-18 killed 27 civilians in Iraq, more bombing will in the short term make life harder for those in the war zone. This is not say life is peachy under ISIS. But if you're living in an ISIS controlled town and you're still alive, that will be harder to achieve under even a modest strategic air campaign (currently Canadians are only going after tactical targets from what I understand). Most commentators seem to agree as well that to really combat ISIS we need to go after infrastructure targets. This again would have the effect of increasing the flow of refugees. You might survive under a brutal theocratic cult (miserably of course), but NO ONE can survive if the water is shut off.

What I would like to see is an immediate emphasis on taking care of the displaced people. Plan for 10x the current number. Build more camps, build an international consensus. Encourage the refugees to leave in other words. Give them places to go. Once that safety net is in place, hit ISIS with everything. This plan has a lot of potential problems of course, and there are many variables. But this situation is such a SNAFU that ANY plan could make things worse than they are. We can't have it both ways here. We can't be bombing ISIS (indirectly helping Assad who is killing MORE people than ISIS, unless of course you listen to Putin who claims the opposite), and not have a plan for the refugees. Only a few years ago the same people who would attack Mulcair for not going after ISIS were saying the same thing about not going after Assad. Well, turns out large portions of ISIS are also FSA. Do we just bomb everyone then?

I can't agree with this. Troops on the ground would have provided stability. How would a refugee camp survive being overrun by ISIS? Especially without military support. Civilians killed? Tragic? Maybe, but an unfortunate cost of any conflict

 

[Kirkhill]

https://video-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xtf1/v/t42.1790-2/11155825_986552331379725_1273635984_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjMwMCwicmxhIjo1MTJ9&rl=300&vabr=130&oh=83e3918e707adf2bcf6fed9e8a0c950d&oe=55EA6764

This video needs to be seen.

This Shows You Why Boat Refugees Don't Fly!

 

[Kilo_302]

I can't agree with this. Troops on the ground would have provided stability. How would a refugee camp survive being overrun by ISIS? Especially without military support. Civilians killed? Tragic? Maybe, but an unfortunate cost of any conflict

Troops would provide stability assuming the West can pony up around 300,000 of them. During the surge in Iraq, the US had slightly more than a third of that in Iraq and was somewhat successful. But they already "owned" it. We would have to retake large swathes of territory, including territory in Syria, and then stabilize those areas. And then you have the whole problem of an increased Western presence on the ground drawing more insurgents to the area. There's every reason to believe ISIS WANTS us to bomb them, it's a great recruiting tool. And again, an offensive like that would destroy the remaining infrastructure, drive people into the arms of ISIS, and kill the very people we're trying to protect at potentially a greater rate than ISIS would. Like I said, it's a lose-lose proposition. Iraq JUST happened, have we forgotten the lessons already?

Mods it might make sense to move the last couple posts to the Syria super thread.

 

[Tuan]

Gents,
We don't have to agree with each other, but let’s put the personal insults away.

Agreed! Lets not insult each other and focus on the immediate threat the world is facing.

'Just wait…' Islamic State reveals it has smuggled THOUSANDS of extremists into Europe
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/555434/Islamic-State-ISIS-Smuggler-THOUSANDS-Extremists-into-Europe-Refugees

I am not sure this article is just some sort of psy-ops or propaganda or reality but this has been the modus operandi of many terrorist organizations world wide. Wondering how the international community and NATO would respond to this.

 

[Altair]

Well, Mulcair has made one decision easy for me.  Mulcair is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

His solution to the refugee/migrant problem is not to reduce the numbers, but increase their numbers, by his not believing in sending troops in to stop IS from spreading their barbarianism throughout their spheres of influence in the Middle East, Africa and South West Asia.  Sorry Thomas.  Wrong answer.

Will the Canadian public clue in?  Sadly, probably not.

I honestly cannot think of one western intervention that has ended well. Afghanistan isn't fairing well.

Iraq has sectarian violence, a corrupt central goverment and a army that runs whenever ISIL shows up.

Libya is in a state of outright anarchy after the western bombing campaign,  and is now a base of these people smugglers sending death boats to Europe.

Hard to see how any intervention in Syria would end well.

Now Iraq went head to head against Iran for 8 years of brutal trench warfare. They should be able to take on ISIL.

Saudi Arabia has one of the strongest militaries in the middle east. So does Iran. Explain why the west needs to get involved?

1. When we get involved, there are calls for jihad and people hate us.

2. When we leave right away we get things like Libya,  failed states

3. When we stay, people kill us. Then we leave and we get Afghanistan and Iraq.

Let the middle east figure this out. Let's help the people there but stay the heck out militarily.

 

[Kirkhill]

Troops would provide stability assuming the West can pony up around 300,000 of them. During the surge in Iraq, the US had slightly more than a third of that in Iraq and was somewhat successful. But they already "owned" it. We would have to retake large swathes of territory, including territory in Syria, and then stabilize those areas. And then you have the whole problem of an increased Western presence on the ground drawing more insurgents to the area. There's every reason to believe ISIS WANTS us to bomb them, it's a great recruiting tool. And again, an offensive like that would destroy the remaining infrastructure, drive people into the arms of ISIS, and kill the very people we're trying to protect at potentially a greater rate than ISIS would. Like I said, it's a lose-lose proposition. Iraq JUST happened, have we forgotten the lessons already?

Mods it might make sense to move the last couple posts to the Syria super thread.

Who said you have to secure Iraq and/or Syria?

How about just securing  Latakia?  Put it under a UN mandate and secure it FROM Syria. What strength do you need then? 

And while I disagree with George on the Migration - Invasion debate, I have no trouble agreeing that the fight needs to be taken to Syria and to ISIL.

Srebrnica could have been a safe haven if the DutchBat had had useful Rules of Engagement.

 

[George Wallace]

I honestly cannot think of one western intervention that has ended well. ..............................yada yada yada

As I said earlier/previously; we don't have any "REAL" statesmen leading our Western nations.  We have become soft  and have been trying to fix world problems with band-aids and not major surgery like in 1944.  The problem in the Middle East, Africa and SW Asia has been festering for several decades.  All our band-aid solutions have failed.  Statements, such as Thomas Mulcair's non commitment of combat troops, and Justin Trudeau's "send them parkas" show that we are seriously lacking in real statesmen to bring us any resolution to the problem.  Let's be honest, the token forces that Stephen Harper sent, are not much better, but still a weak step towards a solution.

 

[Altair]

As I said earlier/previously; we don't have any "REAL" statesmen leading our Western nations.  We have become soft  and have been trying to fix world problems with band-aids and not major surgery like in 1944.  The problem in the Middle East, Africa and SW Asia has been festering for several decades.  All our band-aid solutions have failed.  Statements, such as Thomas Mulcair's non commitment of combat troops, and Justin Trudeau's "send them parkas" show that we are seriously lacking in real statesmen to bring us any resolution to the problem.  Let's be honest, the token forces that Stephen Harper sent, are not much better, but still a weak step towards a solution.

I still fail to see why we need to get involved. Let the middle east sort itself out.

Also, I'm scared when in your world George Bush is a real statesman.

 

[George Wallace]

I still fail to see why we need to get involved. Let the middle east sort itself out.

Also, I'm scared when in your world George Bush is a real statesman.

???

Why we shouldn't have some interest in what happens in the Middle East?  Is that like the "Budget will sort itself out" type of thinking?

Who said anything about George Bush?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I 100% agree that our politicians don't have the courage to do much here. None of the parties in Canada seem to have much of an idea. But, as far as solving world problems, we in the West have a lot to answer for in this current situation. So does Russia. This is realist policy biting us AND the Russians in the ***. None of the three major leaders in Canada will even try to address why the current situation in the Middle East is the way it is. That would involve analyzing ancient history, like the 90s and the 2000s. We can't have that, for reasons that we discussed in the media stuff above. This may be straying from the election topic, so I'll leave it that.

The 90's and 2000's??? Try going back a hundred, thousand, years to start getting to the base of the problems. The US invasion of Iraq certainly didn't help anything, but I suspect that the conflict we're seeing would have erupted at some point because clearly the sunni/shia dynamic wasn't sustainable in the long wrong (going back to the days of muhammed). At the peace of sevres in 1919 Ottoman diplomats warned the french and british that dividing the middle east between them would come to bite them in a hundred years, so clearly the underlying problems were apparent back then.

I dont agree with Mulclair or Trudeau that Canada needs to step in and help out thousands of refugees unless we are in fact willing to allow them to become citizens. If we are going to bring in thousands of people they are going to be here for a long while... it appears the middle east is heading into their own 30 years war, complete with isolated bands, non-professional militaries, and ideological backdrop.

I also dont particularly agree that us dropping the odd bomb on a bridge is going to have any long term effect on the region. ISIS grew out of Sunni anger at growing Shia and other tribes power. If we bomb ISIS out of existence then what? Do we think that ISIS going away is going to solve the underlying tribal and religious hatred? I suspect all we would see is the next ISIS. If we put troops on the ground with significant ROE we (and we would need to work WITH Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, etc) could possible stabilize the region enough to allow for real talks and long term if we are prepared to stay for 10-30 years and invest billions into the region.

So- I agree with both points in that canada can't, or unless we're going to offer these people citizenship, shouldn't take in massive numbers of refugees. I also dont believe a military mission without troops and extensive political will/financial backing has zero chance of success (and the odds of us having financial and political will to stay is almost zero). So what are we to do? Abandon the mid east to its destiny or put ourselves out to assist thousands of refugees with little to no knowledge of their intent, backgrounds, or will to return? That's the billion dollar question.

 

[Kilo_302]

The 90's and 2000's??? Try going back a hundred, thousand, years to start getting to the base of the problems. The US invasion of Iraq certainly didn't help anything, but I suspect that the conflict we're seeing would have erupted at some point because clearly the sunni/shia dynamic wasn't sustainable in the long wrong (going back to the days of muhammed). At the peace of sevres in 1919 Ottoman diplomats warned the french and british that dividing the middle east between them would come to bite them in a hundred years, so clearly the underlying problems were apparent back then.

I dont agree with Mulclair or Trudeau that Canada needs to step in and help out thousands of refugees unless we are in fact willing to allow them to become citizens. If we are going to bring in thousands of people they are going to be here for a long while... it appears the middle east is heading into their own 30 years war, complete with isolated bands, non-professional militaries, and ideological backdrop.

I also dont particularly agree that us dropping the odd bomb on a bridge is going to have any long term effect on the region. ISIS grew out of Sunni anger at growing Shia and other tribes power. If we bomb ISIS out of existence then what? Do we think that ISIS going away is going to solve the underlying tribal and religious hatred? I suspect all we would see is the next ISIS. If we put troops on the ground with significant ROE we (and we would need to work WITH Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, etc) could possible stabilize the region enough to allow for real talks and long term if we are prepared to stay for 10-30 years and invest billions into the region.

So- I agree with both points in that canada can't, or unless we're going to offer these people citizenship, shouldn't take in massive numbers of refugees. I also dont believe a military mission without troops and extensive political will/financial backing has zero chance of success (and the odds of us having financial and political will to stay is almost zero). So what are we to do? Abandon the mid east to its destiny or put ourselves out to assist thousands of refugees with little to no knowledge of their intent, backgrounds, or will to return? That's the billion dollar question.

I was being facetious about the dates, of course the history goes back a long ways, but the immediate situation is a result of more recent policy decisions (the invasion of Iraq etc).

It's definitely a mess. There are many billion dollar questions. For example, any plan would require the US and given the political situation there an inclusive approach that involves Iran is a non-starter. I really think there are no good options here.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The US was so hot and horny to invade Afghanistan and Iraq,  why are they sitting on their hands with Isis?

NATO needs to stand up some kind of force and exterminate those scumbags.