Explosion near Stadium in Paris, multiple shootings and hostage taking...

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Matata

Much of the violence and instability in the middle east is a direct result of western intervention. Our governments and corporations have spent a century ravaging the middle east for their own benefit (which happens to be the exact same amount of time that they've been aware of the middle east's massive oil reserves, I wouldn't call that a coincidence). To spend a hundred years exploiting a region and spilling an ocean of blood, then to walk away and say "it's your problem now"... That doesn't sound like justice or a path to peace to me.

Oh please. Oceans of blood, ravaging...

[GreenLantern2814]

6 ways to prevent the terrorists from winning.


http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-t...ning-world_p2/

Remember, good wins.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

You cannot export democracy to tribal societies. Democracy functions only in places where there is loyalty to the nation. That allows for peaceful transfer of power - the Democrats and Republicans hate each other, but in the end they know that each is American first and foremost. In the Middle East and most of Africa the first loyalty is to the clan and/or tribe and/or sect, so politics becomes a zero-sum game. You cannot afford to lose power. You can bring in democracy, but it will be of the "one man, one vote, one time" sort. There are certainly exceptions to be found here and there, but the rule holds.

I dont know. South America was pretty tribal and they have embraced democracy. Yes there have been some hurdles and dictatorships but as a whole its worked.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I dont know. South America was pretty tribal and they have embraced democracy. Yes there have been some hurdles and dictatorships but as a whole its worked.

Not that tribal and haven't really embraced, aside from Chile and sort of Brazil.

[dammage79]

Sounds like the manhunt is on. Seeing reports that the Eiffel Tower is being evacuated along with the Pullman Hotel. I'm hoping yesterday was not the beginning of something much bigger.

Right now I'm going to assume that this is just the French in overdrive. Which is to be expected.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Refugees will pay their way once they are settled and working. The premise that they're a burden on the system isn't supported by facts.

How do you know that? Can you provide one credible research source that supports your statement?

[Matata]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Oh please. Oceans of blood, ravaging...

All estimates of civilian casualties during the Afghanistan war are in the six figures, what exactly was the Afghanistan war about? Why did hundreds of thousands of civilians have to die?

That is one war in an century long chain of wars the west has waged against the middle east. To this day we use drones to wipe them out with a horrifying casualness and embarrassing accuracy. Millions have died in wars over oil, that somehow weren't about oil. I would call that an ocean of blood.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Thank god the majority of Canadians don't share your views...

You tend to resort to generalized passionate statements when your don't have a rational argument. That's a sign of poor logical thinking ability. You need to use your brain a little more.

How do you know what the majority of Canadians share? A much more logical and fair assumption would be that, perhaps, half of Canadians would share my view. An even more logical and rational assumption would be that the majority of taxpaying Canadians would share my views on this subject.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Sounds like the manhunt is on. Seeing reports that the Eiffel Tower is being evacuated along with the Pullman Hotel. I'm hoping yesterday was not the beginning of something much bigger.

Right now I'm going to assume that this is just the French in overdrive. Which is to be expected.

false alarm, according to the French police.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

How do you know what the majority of Canadians share? A much more logical and fair assumption would be that, perhaps, half of Canadians would share my view. An even more logical and rational assumption would be that the majority of taxpaying Canadians would share my views on this subject.

Well since you just called him out for not having any facts to back up his statement.........do you have any facts to back up these statements?

[PeteMoss]

Here's this:

A study released this week from Oxford Economics, a U.K-based forecasting and analysis firm, estimated the impact 1 million new asylum-seekers will have on Germany, the world’s fourth-biggest economy. The researcher found that if Germany accepted an extra 1 million refugees over the next three years, it “could raise GDP by 0.6% by end-2020 and reduce inflationary pressures.”

That boost to Germany’s GDP, according to the Oxford Economics research, would come thanks to a “rise in the labour supply” which would also “ease growing supply bottlenecks in the labour market and ease wage pressures.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/2228972/re...onomic-burden/

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Well since you just called him out for not having any facts to back up his statement.........do you have any facts to back up these statements?

What facts did he claim?

In fact he clearly stated "assumptions'.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Itse

If you were a philosophy student, you would have failed a test there. The answer is not the problem, it's the way you frame it, and the things you ignore. You are trying to reduce the logic behind actions you don't like as "grand gestures", which is completely unfair.

I mean seriously, you really think all those politicians all over Europe who are accepting those immigrants are just being nice? You don't get to power by being nice. Not in Europe, not in Canada, not anywhere.

As was abundantly clear in the hypothetical, as it is in real life, refusing to take in refugees is in no way a guarantee of safety.

It just trades one type of risk for another type of risk. You can make that trade if you like, but IMO the facts suggest that probably taking in the refugees is in the long run the safer choice.

Funny thing is that I agree with most of your post except its basic premise. You are concluding that not taking refugees does not increase safety of the country. I agree with you. But it does take away from its economic well-being. On the issue of open refugee acceptance: Arabic districts in Paris (banlieue) are a strong proof that the immigration and refugee policies of France had failed their objectives miserably. That was my argument on your dilemma question.

ISIS does not share the same philosophical (and economical) imperatives that liberal democracies around the world base their decision-making process on. ISIS declared a war on the world and they intend to win the war using all means possible without any respect for your philosophical tests. The bigger (biggest) question is would the world be able to withstand ISIS by maintaining liberal democracy principles? History teaches us that the wars are won by those who are willing to do anything for the victory.

[PeteMoss]

Do these types of bombers usually carry passports when they do it?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Matata

All estimates of civilian casualties during the Afghanistan war are in the six figures, what exactly was the Afghanistan war about? Why did hundreds of thousands of civilians have to die?

That is one war in an century long chain of wars the west has waged against the middle east. To this day we use drones to wipe them out with a horrifying casualness and embarrassing accuracy. Millions have died in wars over oil, that somehow weren't about oil. I would call that an ocean of blood.

I am not even sure what you are talking about. What century of wars? Which Afghanistan war? The Soviet? "West against the Middle East"? WTF does that mean? There is no Middle East. It's not like there is a united entity. The closest was the Arabs against Israel, and Israel took care of that by itself. The bloodiest war was Iran v Iraq. Right now it's Shia vs Sunni, and the "West" is kind of on the Sunni side, but then ISIS is Sunni, so that's a bit complicated...
The invasion of Iraq was certainly stupid. The "West" would have been much better off to have left Saddam in charge. The rest (the first Iraq war and Afghanistan) was sort of necessary, given invasion of Kuwait and 9/11, but could have been done differently. Bush Sr. was a lot smarter than his son, and Obama is just hopeless.
There hasn't been any century-long war of the West against Middle East. Maybe you've spent too much time reading ISIS literature.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Matata

Much of the violence and instability in the middle east is a direct result of western intervention. Our governments and corporations have spent a century ravaging the middle east for their own benefit (which happens to be the exact same amount of time that they've been aware of the middle east's massive oil reserves, I wouldn't call that a coincidence). To spend a hundred years exploiting a region and spilling an ocean of blood, then to walk away and say "it's your problem now"... That doesn't sound like justice or a path to peace to me.

so how do you explain the hundreds of years of wars that occurred loooong before any western intervention even had a chance of happening because we didn't even exist as such at the time?


that whole region has been killing one another for quite literally thousands of years.

If you want to say that the west buying oil from the producing nations and in turn protecting their interests spawned bigger conflicts, that's fine. It's also true that there have been some big time poor decisions made in regards to that region that resulted in backlash from the populace.

But to pin the hateful nonsense they spew as something purely inspired and a direct result of the west is complete BS.

[worth]

Infowars is a conspiracy website and should not be used as a legitimate source.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Matata

Much of the violence and instability in the middle east is a direct result of western intervention. Our governments and corporations have spent a century ravaging the middle east for their own benefit (which happens to be the exact same amount of time that they've been aware of the middle east's massive oil reserves, I wouldn't call that a coincidence). To spend a hundred years exploiting a region and spilling an ocean of blood, then to walk away and say "it's your problem now"... That doesn't sound like justice or a path to peace to me.

Egypt kicked out the West and nationalized the Suez Canal 60 years ago, and been charting its own course since then. Things are worse for most people now than they were before Nasser. Khomeni took over Iran almost 40 years ago. Even with its oil wealth the country is more medieval than not.

Southeast Asia kicked out its colonizers around the same time, and most of those countries have moved on and become stable and prosperous.

You can't blame colonizers and the West forever. Not when dozens of former colonies have moved on and become functioning states with strong economies. Culture matters, and the Middle East's brand of extreme social conservatism is proving a severe handicap to modernization and economic growth.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

...
There hasn't been any century-long war of the West against Middle East. Maybe you've spent too much time reading ISIS literature.

More likely, Facebook. Most of today's Internet writers have a stunningly lacking knowledge and understanding of significant world events history.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Genuine question - and I actually agree that a multilateral solution is required.

Assume you're successful. Then what happens? Who governs? Will the NATO and UN force or other groups stick around after to ensure the population has access to food, education, opportunity law & order?

What's the exit strategy?

Obviously it's a complicated matter and I am certainly bereft of the knowledge to have a definitive answer on this stuff.

I would like to think that as a group the UN and/or NATO could throw the smartest minds they have together and work with leaders from various areas of Syria and anywhere else that wants to work to a peaceful settlement. The biggest obstacles there would be Russia and China I would suggest but it doesn't seem impossible.

Maybe I am naïve but I believe that if an operation was allowed to start and finish and the above statement implemented, that other areas in that region and others would ask for the same sort of thing to happen in their countries.

I will say it one more time though....doing nothing is not a real option.