Domestic Politics

[Tesla]

Refugees is not a term that should be applicable to young fighting age men.

They should be staying and fighting for the country and society they want to live in, walking into Germany taking selfies on their $1000 smartphones is bullshit 

Do you actually know what the fuck is happening in Syria? Who do you propose they fight for and who do you propose they fight against?

[Pete Heartspur]

I was highlighting the error in what Pete said, and he then went back and edited his post admitting as such.

I made that edit before your reply was even posted, so don't go congratulating yourself too much.

[thisphantomfortress]

I'm all for individual enterprise and think that the private sector should be in charge of most of the charitable work in Australia, that way those who want to participate can opt in and those who don't can choose to ignore.

But I also feel that refugees and asylum seekers are the exception to this rule as the federal government has complete control over immigration, the logic is that if the government are letting them in then we have a responsibility to assist them until the private sector kicks in.

On a personal note I am a strong advocate for increasing our refugee intake. A lot of people on this forum, myself included, are only one or two generations removed from the mass migration following the Second World War so I have a personal conviction to assist those in need, as my grand parents were when fleeing the Nazis/Soviets in Eastern Europe.

[NewConvert]

Reasons for taking more refugees is that Australia has been helping dropping bombs in the neighbourhood. I really don't get the logic that says to a civilian stay right there whilst we drop bombs around you.

As far as Syria is concerned nothing sickens me more than seeing British PM David Cameron claiming a moral high ground when it was he along with Obama that first removed recognition from the Assad regime and then fermented  the civil war by providing intelligence and access to weapons. Australia followed closely behind. Those two are responsible for the mass exodus of Syrian,  Iraqi, and Libyan refugees. And yes I am aware that Assad is as homicidal as his father but Assad is a man we know how to deal with - ditto Hussein and Qaddafi. Islamic State and others we have no idea how they will pan out.

As far as being concerned about infiltrating terrorists the story so far is mixed. The most successful infiltration was of course in 2001 when highly qualified Saudi Arabians (and one Lebanese) were studying in the USA through normal visa channels. The second most successful attack was in Madrid followed by the bus attack in London. I don't know the details of the Madrid bombers but the London attack was conducted by young men born in the UK and by all accounts were reasonably intelligent. The gist is that for terrorist attacks to be successful the terrorist cannot be dumb. So far in Australia, the arrests and killing of Harron Monis have consisted of dumb pricks or with people suffering mental health issues. These cases also tend to be affected by a sense of discrimination (possibly true) and a sense of entitlement. I would be more concerned as to the integration of children into Australian society rather than any direct infiltration. Way back in the 1980s the then Syrian regime had sent an undercover spy into Australia but he was quickly reported to authorities by the Syrians themselves. About a year later a bloke with terrorist tendencies and mental health issues also arrived and once again the local community chose the police to deal with him.

[Duffman]

Reasons for taking more refugees is that Australia has been helping dropping bombs in the neighbourhood. I really don't get the logic that says to a civilian stay right there whilst we drop bombs around you.

As far as Syria is concerned nothing sickens me more than seeing British PM David Cameron claiming a moral high ground when it was he along with Obama that first removed recognition from the Assad regime and then fermented  the civil war by providing intelligence and access to weapons. Australia followed closely behind. Those two are responsible for the mass exodus of Syrian,  Iraqi, and Libyan refugees. And yes I am aware that Assad is as homicidal as his father but Assad is a man we know how to deal with - ditto Hussein and Qaddafi. Islamic State and others we have no idea how they will pan out.

As far as being concerned about infiltrating terrorists the story so far is mixed. The most successful infiltration was of course in 2001 when highly qualified Saudi Arabians (and one Lebanese) were studying in the USA through normal visa channels. The second most successful attack was in Madrid followed by the bus attack in London. I don't know the details of the Madrid bombers but the London attack was conducted by young men born in the UK and by all accounts were reasonably intelligent. The gist is that for terrorist attacks to be successful the terrorist cannot be dumb. So far in Australia, the arrests and killing of Harron Monis have consisted of dumb pricks or with people suffering mental health issues. These cases also tend to be affected by a sense of discrimination (possibly true) and a sense of entitlement. I would be more concerned as to the integration of children into Australian society rather than any direct infiltration. Way back in the 1980s the then Syrian regime had sent an undercover spy into Australia but he was quickly reported to authorities by the Syrians themselves. About a year later a bloke with terrorist tendencies and mental health issues also arrived and once again the local community chose the police to deal with him.

Your analysis in the second paragraph is spot on. First generation migrants tend not to be the ones who carry out attacks, the are too busy trying to settle in a new country and rebuilding their lives. It is almost always the second generation which has difficulties as they struggle to fully integrate into society. This is true of all those idiots who have gone to join or tried to join ISIS.

There's probably not gonna be any ISIS fighters trying to infiltrate the west through refugee immigration because for one they've already got sympathisers over here and two they're doing their best to build a state over there. There's no way they're gonna be sending anyone half-decent to the west when they're in a battle to the death with Assad and Iraq, the individuals might be dumb but their leaders aren't.

[Shahanga]

if I can just correct the above post, up to the present time. Australia had not been involved in the civil war in Syria.

im not sure what we could have done to prevent it, as even backing Asaad (a questionable approach to put it mildly) probably wouldn't have achieved a lot.

as to tesla's argument, well if money's tight why could we waste 1 billion on a tunnel that will be built 1 day anyway?

the only argument that makes sense is the social fabric 1 and that probably doesn't stand close scrutiny (asio can weed out the undesirables)

[Duffman]

if I can just correct the above post, up to the present time. Australia had not been involved in the civil war in Syria.

im not sure what we could have done to prevent it, as even backing Asaad (a questionable approach to put it mildly) probably wouldn't have achieved a lot.

as to tesla's argument, well if money's tight why could we waste 1 billion on a tunnel that will be built 1 day anyway?

the only argument that makes sense is the social fabric 1 and that probably doesn't stand close scrutiny (asio can weed out the undesirables)

We (or rather the US) could've gotten rid of Assad when he crossed Obama's "red line" of using chemical weapons against his own people. Not doing anything about that showed syrians that the free syrian army could never win and the US would never help meaning they could either join ISIS with the hope of beating Assad, sit back and pray Assad didn't drop a cluster bomb on them or get the fuck out of the country ASAP.

[Shahanga]

We (or rather the US) could've gotten rid of Assad when he crossed Obama's "red line" of using chemical weapons against his own people. Not doing anything about that showed syrians that the free syrian army could never win and the US would never help meaning they could either join ISIS with the hope of beating Assad, sit back and pray Assad didn't drop a cluster bomb on them or get the fuck out of the country ASAP.

Obama never should have made that statement, especially given he wasn't prepared to back it up. Anyway if they'd done that IS would just have a bigger territory now, spreading their evil.

[Duffman]

Obama never should have made that statement, especially given he wasn't prepared to back it up. Anyway if they'd done that IS would just have a bigger territory now, spreading their evil.

That's probably true, even without the loss of credibility the US-backed groups probably would've been too weak. I'm glad it's not my decision to make and that it doesn't directly effect me.

[NewConvert]

Obama never should have made that statement, especially given he wasn't prepared to back it up. Anyway if they'd done that IS would just have a bigger territory now, spreading their evil.

This highlights another issue for the "West". The intelligence on the ME is crap. In Iraq they backed an exile who had no support base at all and then ran to join the Iranian backed block. There are so many splinter groups that in this case it is better the devil you know rather than the ones you don't know. After Ariel Sharon died, it was widely reported that he had personally tried to stop the invasion of Iraq by GWB because the forces unleashed would be uncontainable.

At least with Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad women had rights to a education and a modern way of life. It may be unsavoury but the best solution is for the West to recognise Assad as the legitimate government, to remove recognition of all other alternative groups and support Assad to win the war. Then attempt to stabilise the region.

[Tesla]

The west does not give a fuck what is best for the ME. The west cares about stopping Russian influence and that's why they won't back Assad and why they created this whole mess in the first place by supporting opposition groups and destabilising the Assad government.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Tesla

[NewConvert]

The west does not give a fuck what is best for the ME. The west cares about stopping Russian influence and that's why they won't back Assad and why they created this whole mess in the first place by supporting opposition groups and destabilising the Assad government.

Too true but right now the Europeans are going to have to live with the immediate consequences.

[jw1739]

Too true but right now the Europeans are going to have to live with the immediate consequences.

Perhaps the people who should have to deal with and live with the consequences ought to be the countries that export the weapons so that these conflicts can continue.

World's top ten arms exporters, with their share of global exports:

1. United States: 31%
2. Russia: 27%
3. China: 5%
4. Germany: 5%
5. France: 5%
6. U.K.: 4%
7. Spain: 3%
8. Italy: 3%
9. Ukraine: 3%
10. Israel: 2%

See http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/the-worlds-10-largest-arms-exporters.html/?a=viewall

[thisphantomfortress]

Perhaps the people who should have to deal with and live with the consequences ought to be the countries that export the weapons so that these conflicts can continue.

World's top ten arms exporters, with their share of global exports:

1. United States: 31%
2. Russia: 27%
3. China: 5%
4. Germany: 5%
5. France: 5%
6. U.K.: 4%
7. Spain: 3%
8. Italy: 3%
9. Ukraine: 3%
10. Israel: 2%

See http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/the-worlds-10-largest-arms-exporters.html/?a=viewall

Holding the US responsible of anything? You clearly don't get how this all works.

[Tesla]

Too true but right now the Europeans are going to have to live with the immediate consequences.

TBH the EU is hardly devote of responsibility in the west vs Russia bullshit, but I agree it's unfair that all these refugees are heading to the EU and the larger international community needs to take more of the refugees.

It just pisses me off that the US takes fuck all given it's size, population, economic strength, and of course it's role in creating the refugee problem in the first place. 

Australia is a small country population wise and we already take in a generous amount of refugees. If there was a bigger effort internationally, including by the USA, to take in these refugees than I'd be all for Australia doing their fair bit as well to help the problem. 

The other thing is, these refugees are fleeing a war torn country and just looking for safety, so why are they going all the way to the EU and not nations closer? There is clearly an element of economic migration here as well which I think is wrong. If you're a refugee you go to wherever you can that is safe, not where you will get the most benefits.

 

On another note, Abbott said that Australia takes in the most refugees per capita of any nation, while I have been making the argument that we do take in a lot per capita based on the data I have seen, this data I have seen certainly doesn't show Australia as the highest (eg you have nations like Jordan where 1/3 of their country is refugees). I assume there is some sort of difference in definitions between the data (eg people living temporarily in refugee camps vs people being granted PR in a new country), but does anyone know what data Abbott is quoting?

[Duffman]

The west does not give a fuck what is best for the ME. The west cares about stopping Russian influence and that's why they won't back Assad and why they created this whole mess in the first place by supporting opposition groups and destabilising the Assad government.

I don't think it's fair to blame the US for destabilising Assad. That happened when his own people rose up in the Arab Spring, it's just he was one of the the only leaders desperate enough to declare full-scale war on his own population.

On another note, Abbott said that Australia takes in the most refugees per capita of any nation, while I have been making the argument that we do take in a lot per capita based on the data I have seen, this data I have seen certainly doesn't show Australia as the highest (eg you have nations like Jordan where 1/3 of their country is refugees). I assume there is some sort of difference in definitions between the data (eg people living temporarily in refugee camps vs people being granted PR in a new country), but does anyone know what data Abbott is quoting?

I think he means through official UNHCR channels, which I'm pretty sure means straight out of camps based overseas. This makes sense because that is of course the only place we take them from but it is disingenuous considering countries in Europe or the Middle East which have to take the ones which show up inside their land borders.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/fact-and-fiction-with-prime-minister-tony-abbotts-refugee-intake-numbers-20150906-gjgc7q.html

 

[thisphantomfortress]

It just pisses me off that the US takes fuck all given it's size, population, economic strength, and of course it's role in creating the refugee problem in the first place.

By dollar value the US has actually given by far the most in aid.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222405/How-six-wealthiest-Gulf-Nations-refused-single-Syrian-refugee.html

[Tesla]

That happened when his own people rose up in the Arab Spring

LOL. I know being a lefty you like the idea of the people uprising against the dictatorial government using hastags and what not, but the reality is that these opposition elements were tiny minorities and had no power or influence, they wouldn't have even been able to organise a protest of any notoriety let alone launch a full blown rebellion without US assistance. The majority of Syrians supported Assad, even when shit was starting to hit the fan.

Syria is a classic example of the US strategy of finding minority opposition groups in Russian influenced countries, supporting these groups both publicly and through covert operations (and we just know of the covert operations that then become public, who knows what shit is going on that is never made public), these groups create a period of instability in the country but even with US backing they aren't big enough to overthrow the government so the US just waits until the government uses excessive force in fighting back against the opposition, and then once it has this justification it intervenes militarily. It happened over 15 years ago in Kosovo, and it has continued since then with Syria being the most recent example.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Tesla

[Duffman]

LOL. I know being a lefty you like the idea of the people uprising against the dictatorial government using hastags and what not, but the reality is that these opposition elements were tiny minorities and had no power or influence, they wouldn't have even been able to organise a protest of any notoriety let alone launch a full blown rebellion without US assistance. The majority of Syrians supported Assad, even when shit was starting to hit the fan.

Syria is a classic example of the US strategy of finding minority opposition groups in Russian influenced countries, supporting these groups both publicly and through covert operations (and we just know of the covert operations that then become public, who knows what shit is going on that is never made public), these groups create a period of instability in the country but even with US backing they aren't big enough to overthrow the government so the US just waits until the government uses excessive force in fighting back against the opposition, and then once it has this justification it intervenes militarily. It happened exactly like that in Kosovo, it happened exactly like that in Syria.

So poor Assad was forced by the big bad US to use nerve gas (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399) and barrel bombs (http://www.smh.com.au/world/assad-regimes-barrel-bomb-attacks-caused-many-civilian-deaths-in-syria-un-envoy-20150722-giihvw.html) against those damn opposition groups which want democratic reforms. I didn't know a democratic and liberal society was a left wing concern.

[thisphantomfortress]

I didn't know a democratic and liberal society was a left wing concern.

[Tesla]

So poor Assad was forced by the big bad US to use nerve gas (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399) and barrel bombs (http://www.smh.com.au/world/assad-regimes-barrel-bomb-attacks-caused-many-civilian-deaths-in-syria-un-envoy-20150722-giihvw.html) against those damn opposition groups which want democratic reforms. I didn't know a democratic and liberal society was a left wing concern.

Did I ever say Assad is a good bloke or that he didn't commit war crimes? 

I just said that the was no uprising or even any real opposition before the US created it.

And I only mention the left wing bit because we all know the left is obsessed with revolutions and uprisings so I dare say that may be skewing your view on what actually happened in Syria. 

Edited September 7, 2015 by Tesla

[Duffman]

 

Did I ever say Assad is a good bloke or that he didn't commit war crimes? 

I just said that the was no uprising or even any real opposition before the US created it.

That's an easily disprovable conspiracy http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868.

[Tesla]

 

 

That's an easily disprovable conspiracy http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868.

Conspiracy? It's well documented fact. I'm not sure what your article is meant to prove (please explain?), but here's one showing that even after shit started to hit the fan Assad still had the support of the majority of Syrians:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda 

Edited September 7, 2015 by Tesla

[Tesla]

How about this article from the NY Times from 2012 which shows that the CIA was running covert operations to support Syrian rebels? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html

Edited September 7, 2015 by Tesla

[Duffman]

Conspiracy? It's well documented fact. I'm not sure what your article is meant to prove (please explain?), but here's one showing that even after shit started to hit the fan Assad still had the support of the majority of Syrians:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda 

They didn't support him absolutely. 55% supported him remaining "motivated by fear of civil war," and of that 55% percent half believe there must be "free elections in the near future". So the majority of Syrians were actually in favour of a free democracy rather than a civil war. That isn't a very surprising result, probably why it didn't make any major news.

Yeah so what the US was giving fairly small amounts of support to the groups which most closely aligned with western ideals, big surprise. Plus, the group doing the fighting was Syrian, at least they were until they were crushed between ISIS and Assad's forces.

My article had a brief description of why the protest movement emerged.

 

[Tesla]

I believe the 'motivated by fear of civil war' bit is opinion rather than data gathered from the poll, either way it turns out that was a legitimate reason to support Assad given what has happened.

The point is that the majority supported Assad, and there is a long way to go from not supporting Assad to actively opposing him, which shows the rebels were a minority and they were pretty irrelevant until they started receiving external support.

The 'so what'  of the rebels receiving support is that it is evidence of what I said, it wasn't an uprising of the majority, it was a minority receiving external support which destabilised the government. And the 'so what'  of that is that the USA should stop being cunts because they're responsible for destroying this country and they should step up and take in some refugees.

Even if you don't buy that the US orchestrated this, they still were involved in military operations in Syria. As well as fucking up Iraq (at least George Bush didn't try to create some fake uprising which puts civilians at risk of war crimes, he got Saddam before he had much of a chance to do further damage) which is the other country over run by IS and a large source of refugees. So either way they're largely responsible for these refugees and its a load of crap that they aren't doing much about it. 

[NewConvert]

TBH the EU is hardly devote of responsibility in the west vs Russia bullshit, but I agree it's unfair that all these refugees are heading to the EU and the larger international community needs to take more of the refugees.

It just pisses me off that the US takes fuck all given it's size, population, economic strength, and of course it's role in creating the refugee problem in the first place. 

Australia is a small country population wise and we already take in a generous amount of refugees. If there was a bigger effort internationally, including by the USA, to take in these refugees than I'd be all for Australia doing their fair bit as well to help the problem. 

The other thing is, these refugees are fleeing a war torn country and just looking for safety, so why are they going all the way to the EU and not nations closer? There is clearly an element of economic migration here as well which I think is wrong. If you're a refugee you go to wherever you can that is safe, not where you will get the most benefits.

 

On another note, Abbott said that Australia takes in the most refugees per capita of any nation, while I have been making the argument that we do take in a lot per capita based on the data I have seen, this data I have seen certainly doesn't show Australia as the highest (eg you have nations like Jordan where 1/3 of their country is refugees). I assume there is some sort of difference in definitions between the data (eg people living temporarily in refugee camps vs people being granted PR in a new country), but does anyone know what data Abbott is quoting?

Good question which just by coincidence an article was written about in Bloomberg (I had been wondering the same thing myself). Well it turns out that the war between the Sunnis and the Shiites has dominated the ME for well over a millennium. Syria is predominantly  Shiite with a number of other Islamic sects, Christians, Jews as well as different ethnic groups. They all fear the Sunnis so they can only go forth to non-sunni countries which means either Lebanon, Jordan or Iran. Sunni Syrians wishing to flee the fighting have all the other Arab countries. The problem for Lebanon is that the country is in a permanent ceasefire between all the religious factions and any increase in any one group could easily plunge them back into an open civil war - hence the Lebanese are wishing to move them on ASAP. Israel will not even take the Christians. Jordan is taking as many as it can but being a poor country with a large Palestinian refugee population can't cope. The other Arab countries are reluctant to take any refugees because they fear IS will infiltrate their own borders. My rather limited exposure to doing business with Arabs has left me with a rather negative view of Arabs. And by all accounts the Saudis are hated by all other Arabs. If looked at it pessimistically the whole region could erupt so moving from Syria to Turkey may not actually do much (apparently Turks are still not forgiven for centuries of domination). So I guess the nearest location that you can be considered safe is in the EU!

[Tesla]

You'll find Jordan is very much a Sunni dominated country as well, but King Abdullah is probably the most pro-western leader in the region which I think is why they are different to an extent. 

Saudia Arabia is hated because they are pretty much the architects of wahhabism (the irony that they are Western allies lol). 

The other Shia countries you haven't mentioned are Iraq, but they're fucked as well so not really an option, and Bahrain (tbh I have no explanation for Bahrain, probably more interested in keeping peace in their own country). Seemingly some time ago the US choose the Sunnis in this whole Shia vs Sunni mess and have had to continue backing them because that's how alliances and enemies were divided, despite the Sunnis being the ones causing them problems (eg 911). Yemen is a fairly even split but its funny how quickly the west backed the Sunnis and to contrast it with the Western response to the other Arab uprisings tells you all you need to know about Western strategy regarding the ME.

Having said all that, there are still other countries closer than the EU (they'd be safe going through Iran to locations to the East or North for example) and the fact that Hungary isn't good enough but they'd rather go to Germany and the UK still shows there is an element of economic migration 

Edited September 7, 2015 by Tesla

[Pete Heartspur]

My (basic) understanding is that Germany declared they would take them in. So I figure if I had to choose where to go, I'd go to the place I was guaranteed to get into.

[Duffman]

You'll find Jordan is very much a Sunni dominated country as well, but King Abdullah is probably the most pro-western leader in the region which I think is why they are different to an extent. 

Saudia Arabia is hated because they are pretty much the architects of wahhabism (the irony that they are Western allies lol). 

The other Shia countries you haven't mentioned are Iraq, but they're fucked as well so not really an option, and Bahrain (tbh I have no explanation for Bahrain, probably more interested in keeping peace in their own country). Seemingly some time ago the US choose the Sunnis in this whole Shia vs Sunni mess and have had to continue backing them because that's how alliances and enemies were divided, despite the Sunnis being the ones causing them problems (eg 911). Yemen is a fairly even split but its funny how quickly the west backed the Sunnis and to contrast it with the Western response to the other Arab uprisings tells you all you need to know about Western strategy regarding the ME.

Having said all that, there are still other countries closer than the EU (they'd be safe going through Iran to locations to the East or North for example) and the fact that Hungary isn't good enough but they'd rather go to Germany and the UK still shows there is an element of economic migration 

America hasn't actually chosen either side really, they just go with whoever suits their strategic instance at that time. The Iraqi government is practically propped up by them, yet it is shi'a and is very very close to Iran. In fact Iran and the U.S. are reportedly sharing intelligence is the fight against ISIS. So the region is basically a clusterfuck and America is stumbling around making reactionary moves to try and bandaid the problem while actually making it a hell of a lot worse.

bahrain's tiny so I suppose we can let them off. And from memory they have a Sunni king but a majority Shia population, so they probably have no inclination to mess with that balance.

add to the Syrian mix that Assad is an alawite which is a arguably a sect of Shia but arguably not.

[Tesla]

To add to what I said about Yemen, it actually backs up what I've said pretty well. Because in many ways Yemen is similar to Syria, except that the government are Sunnis and therefore natural allies of the west while the rebels are Shia so natural allies of Iran and Russia. And in this case the US haven't supported 'liberty and democracy', but rather they've helped squash the rebels. 

America hasn't actually chosen either side really, they just go with whoever suits their strategic instance at that time. The Iraqi government is practically propped up by them, yet it is shi'a and is very very close to Iran. In fact Iran and the U.S. are reportedly sharing intelligence is the fight against ISIS. So the region is basically a clusterfuck and America is stumbling around making reactionary moves to try and bandaid the problem while actually making it a hell of a lot worse.

bahrain's tiny so I suppose we can let them off. And from memory they have a Sunni king but a majority Shia population, so they probably have no inclination to mess with that balance.

add to the Syrian mix that Assad is an alawite which is a arguably a sect of Shia but arguably not.

America is now working with Iraq and Iran because they realise they fucked up with IS establishing itself, and if course there is no greater enemy of IS than Iran. TBH I haven't followed what went on with Iraq too much but I believe the US had issue with their government's closeness to Iran before all this happened. And the US is just itching to create a Kurd state in Iraq which would inevitably reduce the power of Iraq. 

[Duffman]

To add to what I said about Yemen, it actually backs up what I've said pretty well. Because in many ways Yemen is similar to Syria, except that the government are Sunnis and therefore natural allies of the west while the rebels are Shia so natural allies of Iran and Russia. And in this case the US haven't supported 'liberty and democracy', but rather they've helped squash the rebels. 

America is now working with Iraq and Iran because they realise they fucked up with IS establishing itself, and if course there is no greater enemy of IS than Iran. TBH I haven't followed what went on with Iraq too much but I believe the US had issue with their government's closeness to Iran before all this happened. And the US is just itching to create a Kurd state in Iraq which would inevitably reduce the power of Iraq. 

Iraqs been a Shia for years, the government the U.S. installed was Shia. Sorry but you clearly haven't followed a lot of Iraq. They want a united strong Iraq, if they wanted a Kurdish state there would be a Kurdish stage. America bought Iraq an army, a shitty poorly trained but well equiped army

[Tesla]

Iraqs been a Shia for years, the government the U.S. installed was Shia. Sorry but you clearly haven't followed a lot of Iraq. They want a united strong Iraq, if they wanted a Kurdish state there would be a Kurdish stage. America bought Iraq an army, a shitty poorly trained but well equiped army

Of course they'd install a Shia government in a Shia country, anything else would be retarded. I'm not saying they're pro-Sunni and anti-Shia, rather they've allied themselves with Sunni nations (eg Saudia Arabia & co) and are against Shia nations (Iran) and so naturally they'll be generally allied with other Sunni governments and against other Shia governments. The whole thing is just a USA vs Russia proxy any way, which is why there are exceptions (eg Saddam, because Saddam was aligned with Russia)

As for Kurdistan, would you like to make a wager?

I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, there will be a Kurdish state within the next 5 years.

Hopefully I can still find you then to collect my money.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Tesla

[Moraiwe]

How internationally recognised must the state be for you to win that bet?

[Duffman]

Of course they'd install a Shia government in a Shia country, anything else would be retarded. I'm not saying they're pro-Sunni and anti-Shia, rather they've allied themselves with Sunni nations (eg Saudia Arabia & co) and are against Shia nations (Iran) and so naturally they'll be generally allied with other Sunni governments and against other Shia governments. The whole thing is just a USA vs Russia proxy any way, which is why there are exceptions (eg Saddam, because Saddam was aligned with Russia)

As for Kurdistan, would you like to make a wager?

I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, there will be a Kurdish state within the next 5 years.

Hopefully I can still find you then to collect my money.

Iraqs only roughly 60% Shia, arguably that's why ISIS got so much support, the Sunnis to the north were completely disenchanted by the Shia government in Baghdad. I think a Saudi Arabia vs Iran proxy war is probably closer to the mark.

no way am I taking that bet, betting on anything in the Middle East would be like putting a multi on the last weekend of the afl.

[Tesla]

How internationally recognised must the state be for you to win that bet?

Good point, let me rephrase, there will be a US recognised Kurdish state within the next 5 years.

no way am I taking that bet, betting on anything in the Middle East would be like putting a multi on the last weekend of the afl.

Fair enough TBH.

[NewConvert]

An independent Kurdish state... that will go down well in Turkey - specially with their current president.

[GreenSeater]

 

Having said all that, there are still other countries closer than the EU (they'd be safe going through Iran to locations to the East or North for example) and the fact that Hungary isn't good enough but they'd rather go to Germany and the UK still shows there is an element of economic migration 

I think you'll find they have pretty good reasons for wanting to avoid Hungary. Whilst Germany is welcoming refugees with open arms, the Hungarian government is talking tough on border control. They've set up razor wire fences and have started using police patrols to secure the border and have publicly stated that they plan on using the military to enforce the border. Doesn't sound like the kind of place you'd want to be.

Edited September 8, 2015 by GreenSeater

[jw1739]

I think he means through official UNHCR channels, which I'm pretty sure means straight out of camps based overseas. This makes sense because that is of course the only place we take them from but it is disingenuous considering countries in Europe or the Middle East which have to take the ones which show up inside their land borders.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/fact-and-fiction-with-prime-minister-tony-abbotts-refugee-intake-numbers-20150906-gjgc7q.html

Abbott is almost correct if the discussion is about formal re-settlement of refugees on a permanent basis. We seem to rank either second or third.

Of course the numbers actually resettled are miniscule compared with the total number of refugees in the world. But if you are going to maintain your country's socio-economic infrastructures rather than simply creating refugee camps or slum suburbs, 11,600 people per year is the equivalent of creating a fully-functioning country town about the size of Benalla every year - no mean feat.

Basically the world has a refugee problem that no-one knows how to solve. Politicians and others throwing around arbitrary numbers might feel good for doing so, but they're ignoring the realities and practicalities of actually re-settling large numbers of people.

[Shahanga]

I think you'll find they have pretty good reasons for wanting to avoid Hungary. Whilst Germany is welcoming refugees with open arms, the Hungarian government is talking tough on border control. They've set up razor wire fences and have started using police patrols to secure the Syrian border and have publicly stated that they plan on using the military to enforce the border. Doesn't sound like the kind of place you'd want to be.

Hungary shares a border with Syria?