201–210 of 325 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Refusing to accept people fleeing from death, torture and sorrowful life, because you are afraid they might interfere with your way of life, is a bastard move, to say the least.
How many refugees are living in your spare bedrooms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After World War I the British redrew the map of the middle east pretty arbitrarily after defeating the Ottoman Turks founding modern Iraq. It wasn't really guaranteed in the first place to include people who like each other.
It was far from arbitrary. The British drew the map specifically so that they could use the local tensions to divide and conquer. We're still suffering because of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> instead of the commonly cited argument of securing resources for the American empire). I'm sorry but there are very few "citations" that state that the war was about securing resources for the American "empire". It was primarily about exactly the stated reasons and there is a popular and uncited belief that it was about oil. If you have some scholarly articles that state that it was completely about oil I'd love to…
As someone alive and paying attention to that period in time, I got the impression the "for oil" thing was generally hyperbole never explicitly stated but probably loosely true right since the VP was an oil guy. Except that American oil companies didn't get any benefit so how does that make any sense? If we are willing to accept the evidence that oil companies in the US didn't meaningfully benefit, doesn't that whole…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I usually hear this kind of statement, is it really that simple? Aren’t there other geopolitical interests from the strongest economy in the world?
A still-relevant classic analysis of US military-commercial ventures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wanting to protect your own civilization and way of life doesn't make one a bastard. It's this kind of divisive rhetoric that has spurned the division we see today and the rise of hard-right nationalism. Please learn to be somewhat more rational and civil in your discourse.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is exactly what was predicted: "That's a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you could easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have, the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim. Fought over for eight years. In the north, you've got the Kurds. And if the Kurds spin loose and join with Kurds in Turkey,…
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Cheney the one that basically pushed the war? When is this quote from? From the Wikipedia article: > Following the US invasion of Iraq, Cheney remained steadfast in his support of the war, stating that it would be an "enormous success story",[90] and made many visits to the country. He often criticized war critics, calling them "opportunists" who were peddling "cynical and perniciou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The opposite is often true. For instance, in Guatemala and Chile the US helped overthrow democratic governments and installed totalitarian regimes.
To be fair, they weren't totalitarian. That's absurdly overstating things. North Korea or Khmer Rouge Cambodia were totalitarian governments.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_s...
Well mission accomplished .. I guess. A great documentary if you haven't seen it is "Iraq: No End in Sight." It's pretty clear that the completely failed (non-existent) reconstruction efforts of the Bush administration would lead eventually to a failed state. The same thing is happening in Libya after the Obama era bombings. These places weren't democratic paradises before or anything; I'm not saying that. They had c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Refusing to accept people fleeing from death, torture and sorrowful life, because you are afraid they might interfere with your way of life, is a bastard move, to say the least.
The ultra-wealthy Middle East, USA and China should start doing their part so.
https://popula.com/2018/08/27/baizuo/
https://theintercept.com/2018/08/13/china-muslims-uighur-det...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many refugees are living in your spare bedrooms?
Is this argument equivalent to "You can't say you support single-payer healthcare unless you run a hospital from your garage" or "You can't say you support NASA unless you have an orbital rocket launch pad in your garden"?
With his pithy comment, lawnchair_larry touches on an interesting aspect of this discussion. Many of those who support mass 3rd-world immigration (engaging in much grandstanding and moral preening in the process) are entirely removed from the actual consequences of it. They have no "skin in the game" so to speak as they know 3rd-world immigrants will not be settling in their neighborhoods (or guest bedrooms) anytime soon.