7 ms·

The US conflict with Iraq was unjustified and based on blatant lies. Whatever their reasons for invading, they were certainly to further their own interests, th

by matt_j 7y ago

The US conflict with Iraq was unjustified and based on blatant lies. Whatever their reasons for invading, they were certainly to further their own interests, the economic boost of a war machine and rebuilding infrastructure, geo-politics, etc. The interests of the "poor Iraqi people" come about dead last on the list of reasons the wars occurred. So "protecting your civilisation and way of life" from the fallout of an unjustified war that one's country (coalition of the willing?) participated in, does make one a bit of a bastard, and that's putting it lightly. Last time I checked we're all humans and until we all live in relative comfort there's a bunch of fatties on one end consuming more than their fair share.

cmdshiftf4 7y ago
The social costs of the US directly meddling in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and elsewhere, along with the subsequent fallout that came from this meddling, has not fallen on the USA. It has fallen almost solely on Europe. If the US were providing adequately for its victims, the Middle East taking in their fellow Muslims, and China showing some semblance of humanity in offering a home to some, we wouldn't be seeing the rise of nationalism in Europe that we now are.
- sangnoir 7y ago
  > If the US were providing adequately for its victims, the Middle East taking in their fellow Muslims, and China showing some semblance of humanity in offering a home to some, we wouldn't be seeing the rise of nationalism in Europe that we now are. I don't think you can pin the rise of nationalism solely on migration - non-European countries are also experiencing sharp increase in (right-wing) nationalism - including the US which you noted hasn't bourne the social cost. My pet theory is that nationalism is on rise due to economic frustration post-great recession, as well as a loss of social memory on how awful war is. I remember reading that the big wars tend to happen every 3 generation - I bet nationalist sentiment would closely track that, and our last big war was WWII
  - cheese4242 7y ago
    > I don't think you can pin the rise of nationalism solely on migration - non-European countries are also experiencing sharp increase in (right-wing) nationalism - including the US which you noted hasn't bourne the social cost. Hold on. The US has also seen massive demographic change due to migration (just not from migrations from the Middle East). Indeed there have been US politicians and other mainstream figures openly celebrating the "end of white America".
    - sangnoir 7y ago
      Immigration into the US from central & south America has been steadily going down for years now. The demographic change is mostly due to differences in birthrates, not even whittling down immigration to 0 will change this.
cheese4242 7y ago
No. It's not my problem. It's not our problem. The endless guilt trip ends here. We are not obliged to take a single soul from these countries. Our only obligation is to leave those areas the hell alone and look after our own civilization. They have radically different ideas than us on how society should be run. That means both mass immigration from those countries and our own attempts at spreading liberal democracy to them are both equally foolish.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  If your country is a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees then yes, it is your problem whether or not you feel happy about that.
  - cheese4242 7y ago
    And what will the UN do if we chose not to comply because the original intent of said convention is now being abused as an excuse for mass third-world immigration? No, I'm serious, what will the UN, a cabal of unelected bureaucrats who I have never voted for, do to my country if we don't comply with said convention?
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      Treaties like are predicated on the will of the signatories to sanction each other for non-compliance, which can take subtle or overt forms. While that by itself is no guarantee of change, it may be that you have underestimated the depth of others' political feelings on the topic.
      - cheese4242 7y ago
        In other words, the worse that will happen is strongly-worded letter from timid bureaucrats.

by matt_j 7y ago

cmdshiftf4 7y ago

The social costs of the US directly meddling in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and elsewhere, along with the subsequent fallout that came from this meddling, has not fallen on the USA. It has fallen almost solely on Europe. If the US were providing adequately for its victims, the Middle East taking in their fellow Muslims, and China showing some semblance of humanity in offering a home to some, we wouldn't be seeing the rise of nationalism in Europe that we now are.

sangnoir 7y ago
> If the US were providing adequately for its victims, the Middle East taking in their fellow Muslims, and China showing some semblance of humanity in offering a home to some, we wouldn't be seeing the rise of nationalism in Europe that we now are. I don't think you can pin the rise of nationalism solely on migration - non-European countries are also experiencing sharp increase in (right-wing) nationalism - including the US which you noted hasn't bourne the social cost. My pet theory is that nationalism is on rise due to economic frustration post-great recession, as well as a loss of social memory on how awful war is. I remember reading that the big wars tend to happen every 3 generation - I bet nationalist sentiment would closely track that, and our last big war was WWII
- cheese4242 7y ago
  > I don't think you can pin the rise of nationalism solely on migration - non-European countries are also experiencing sharp increase in (right-wing) nationalism - including the US which you noted hasn't bourne the social cost. Hold on. The US has also seen massive demographic change due to migration (just not from migrations from the Middle East). Indeed there have been US politicians and other mainstream figures openly celebrating the "end of white America".
  - sangnoir 7y ago
    Immigration into the US from central & south America has been steadily going down for years now. The demographic change is mostly due to differences in birthrates, not even whittling down immigration to 0 will change this.

cheese4242 7y ago

No. It's not my problem. It's not our problem. The endless guilt trip ends here. We are not obliged to take a single soul from these countries. Our only obligation is to leave those areas the hell alone and look after our own civilization. They have radically different ideas than us on how society should be run. That means both mass immigration from those countries and our own attempts at spreading liberal democracy to them are both equally foolish.

anigbrowl 7y ago
If your country is a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees then yes, it is your problem whether or not you feel happy about that.
- cheese4242 7y ago
  And what will the UN do if we chose not to comply because the original intent of said convention is now being abused as an excuse for mass third-world immigration? No, I'm serious, what will the UN, a cabal of unelected bureaucrats who I have never voted for, do to my country if we don't comply with said convention?
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Treaties like are predicated on the will of the signatories to sanction each other for non-compliance, which can take subtle or overt forms. While that by itself is no guarantee of change, it may be that you have underestimated the depth of others' political feelings on the topic.
    - cheese4242 7y ago
      In other words, the worse that will happen is strongly-worded letter from timid bureaucrats.