4 ms·

> state sponsored or otherwise pushing an anti-humanitarian cause. What's the anti-humanitarian cause? Throwing enough resources at the fight to keep it going

by ashark 9y ago

> state sponsored or otherwise pushing an anti-humanitarian cause. What's the anti-humanitarian cause? Throwing enough resources at the fight to keep it going for years instead of weeks/months, but not enough to actually end it, for what I hope are callous realpolitik reasons and not simple incompetence?

deeth_starr_v 9y ago
There are a bunch of reasons. I recently sat next to an Asian mom at the passport office and when the news came on about Syrian refugees she said to me "no Syrian refugees." She complained they cost us money. I asked her a couple questions about Syria and Iraq and she was completely clueless and not interested in learning about the situation. With her accent it's likely she emigrated from Asia. People constantly amaze me.
Udik 9y ago
You hope that the international actors- among which, prominently, the USA- have willingly fuelled a bloodbath for years for "realpolitk" reasons instead of having done that unwillingly, out of incompetence?
- ashark 9y ago
  I hope that there's been some hidden benefit I'm unaware of that's so large it could from some point of view that's not simply insane or stupid justify fueling a massive immigration crisis in Europe, with all the consequences that've fallen out of that, and causing years and years of suffering and death in countries halfway around the world from us while in many ways strengthening the radical jihadist movement(s), yes. The alternative is that we've been too dumb, for years on end, to just stop, or else that we've done it because we made a (huge) mistake initially and are trying to save face, both of which I judge to be somewhat worse. Iraq may have been more expensive but this is shaping up to be a much bigger strategic blunder, if there's not some really smart hidden agenda driving it. It's certainly a massive humanitarian disaster. I've found it utterly bizarre that in all the partisan bickering this didn't take central stage in the "Obama (and Hillary) aren't fit leaders" narrative, since on the surface the whole thing looks like a gigantic policy disaster on the part of the US—and I feel that way as someone who almost always supports Democrats over Republicans, and protested Iraq II. I don't get how more blame for the situation isn't publicly falling on the US and the Obama administration.
  - Udik 9y ago
    Then it seems to me that you're missing a third option: the bloodbath has been fuelled for years because it benefits some of the players directly or indirectly involved; and there's no greater good that justifies what's happening, only gains of one party or group over the other. Which would mean it's not incompetence and it's not for the greater good either.

by ashark 9y ago

deeth_starr_v 9y ago

There are a bunch of reasons. I recently sat next to an Asian mom at the passport office and when the news came on about Syrian refugees she said to me "no Syrian refugees." She complained they cost us money. I asked her a couple questions about Syria and Iraq and she was completely clueless and not interested in learning about the situation. With her accent it's likely she emigrated from Asia. People constantly amaze me.

Udik 9y ago

You hope that the international actors- among which, prominently, the USA- have willingly fuelled a bloodbath for years for "realpolitk" reasons instead of having done that unwillingly, out of incompetence?

ashark 9y ago
I hope that there's been some hidden benefit I'm unaware of that's so large it could from some point of view that's not simply insane or stupid justify fueling a massive immigration crisis in Europe, with all the consequences that've fallen out of that, and causing years and years of suffering and death in countries halfway around the world from us while in many ways strengthening the radical jihadist movement(s), yes. The alternative is that we've been too dumb, for years on end, to just stop, or else that we've done it because we made a (huge) mistake initially and are trying to save face, both of which I judge to be somewhat worse. Iraq may have been more expensive but this is shaping up to be a much bigger strategic blunder, if there's not some really smart hidden agenda driving it. It's certainly a massive humanitarian disaster. I've found it utterly bizarre that in all the partisan bickering this didn't take central stage in the "Obama (and Hillary) aren't fit leaders" narrative, since on the surface the whole thing looks like a gigantic policy disaster on the part of the US—and I feel that way as someone who almost always supports Democrats over Republicans, and protested Iraq II. I don't get how more blame for the situation isn't publicly falling on the US and the Obama administration.
- Udik 9y ago
  Then it seems to me that you're missing a third option: the bloodbath has been fuelled for years because it benefits some of the players directly or indirectly involved; and there's no greater good that justifies what's happening, only gains of one party or group over the other. Which would mean it's not incompetence and it's not for the greater good either.