Iraq blocks Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram, shuts down internet

I don't know ME but China has a policy of not meddling other's internal fare. It didn't bomb Libya while Europa did.

But it's more than that: Even China didn't cause the refugee disaster of ME but since the disaster was caused by good intention of Europeans with the naive human rights view,and it's already happened, China still should share some responsibility from humanity point of view. However there's another reason at the opposite side that is always misunderstood as selfishness by westerners : Accept a lot of refugee will definitely cause the internal turmoil because of the collision between bastards and non-bastards. That would be a bigger concern by government. Direct cost of settling refugee should be trivial given the size and wealth of China.

The same situation is applicable in Europa. The direct social cost of settling refugees is a relatively smaller problem. The internal conflicts and political polarization is a high-order problem.

Oh my, have we met? I don’t recall commenting on this particular topic previously, let alone often.

I don’t see how my comment would be misunderstood as trolling, to be honest. I’m also far from right wing. My conservative friends, of which I do have a few, give me a hard time for being a lefty, so being called a Nazi is rather perplexing.

I do have a bit more exposure to this issue than most Americans, and admittedly, my experience has caused my view to shift heavily over the past several years.

Not so long ago, I would be calling people out for their lack of compassion on this issue. It turns out that real life is a lot more complicated.

I can be honest with myself. I do have sympathy, but I’m not going to open my home to a refugee. I am not going to sponsor one. I am not xenophobic. Hell, I wouldn’t want my sister-in-law to live with me either.

Unless you’re willing to do those things, then respectfully, I must declare that it is you who is full of BS. Much like I once was. You see, I wanted to see these people helped, and I thought that someone should help them, but it was only an abstract concept. I wanted someone else to do it. Now I realize I have no right or moral high ground to criticize anybody else unless I’m willing to do it myself.

If you in fact are willing and helping, then I will gladly accept criticism from you. And some people are. And I have great respect for them. But personally, I find it difficult enough to take care of my own family.

The backlash in places like Germany, Canada and the UK are very real. All of them poll left-leaning, yet recent polls indicate that the majority of the population feels that they have taken in too many immigrants. That isn’t because they all started reading the Daily Stormer, it’s because unlike you over there calling people out from the cheap seats, they have been faced with complexities that go along with mass immigration of people who are not able to easily integrate with their new society and be self-sufficient.

No. I’m just saying that they used the money that we lost to gain strength and power, and they used those weapons to kill us and many others. Gaining power and resources provided them with the ability to leverage that and grow even more, and to fund new criminal enterprises. Focusing on the relatively small dollar amount we lost to them initially doesn’t really capture the total loss.

It's the plan cooked up in the late 90s by a think tank called "Project for a New American Century"[0]. The founders were a bunch of reganites whose names pepper the list of high officials of the two Bush presidencies. They believed they could secure the middle east's resources and maintain US hegemony by fighting and winning several concurrent foreign wars. The crazy thing is they laid it all out in their publications three years before 9/11 gave them the political capital to mobilize their plans, and very few people talked about it during the war.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...

Edit: relevant entry from the wikipedia article:

in 1998, Kristol and Kagan advocated regime change in Iraq throughout the Iraq disarmament process through articles that were published in the New York Times.[22][23] Following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, core members of the PNAC including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick, and John Bolton were among the signatories of an open letter initiated by the PNAC to President Bill Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein.[19][24] Portraying Saddam Hussein as a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, and emphasizing the potential danger of any weapons of mass destruction under Iraq's control, the letter asserted that the United States could "no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections." Stating that American policy "cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council," the letter's signatories asserted that "the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf."[25] Believing that UN sanctions against Iraq would be an ineffective means of disarming Iraq, PNAC members also wrote a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott,[26] urging Congress to act, and supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655)[27][28] which President Clinton signed into law in October 1998.

Highly unlikely. Look at the bloodletting in Syria or Lebanon for lessons in how much the former Ottoman subjects like each other