BruceVC

Oh yes, the US invaded Iraq because Amerians wanted to sprinkle fairy dust on Iraqis, bring Jesus to them, give them Christmas presents and Easter eggs and Disneyland, yadda yadda yadda. Talk about denial and the white savior/superiority complex. Sure because a Democracy and having a free society is a bad idea right ...where do you live again North Korea?

I'm the best thing since sliced bread. The Clinton doctrine lead to the Iraq war. How'd that turn out? Ever heard that pride is the worst sin? Well it isn't but it is bad. We don't have the right to impose our views on other nations at the point of a gun. BTW I'm not "fine with genocide". I'm just not willing to trample on other nations' sovereignty just because they don't adhere to my values. You know Bruce, America once had a civil war of it's own, and I'm happy the world let us resolve it on our own. Not really. I think you may be confusing the Bush Doctrine with the Clinton Doctrine...but lets not blame any doctrines. There were people in the Bush government, primarily the neo-cons, who wanted to invade Iraq and believed the end would justify the means....I also believed that but I was young and uninformed..and hubris dominated my views Anyway this may sound arrogant but you asked a good question " we shouldn't trample on other countries sovereignty " and this may sound reasonable but its not. The West has every right to intervene to prevent gross human rights abuses and war crimes. Any leader of a country that is prepared to inflict this on his own country doesn't deserve to be a leader ...of course the West won't always invade but pressure is sometimes used through sanctions and punitive economic measures

Indeed, conspiracy or idiocy (or shortsighted greed, or blind adherence to market fundamentalism, pick your poison), the end result is the same. The only difference is the level of mustache twirling one suspects to be involved. Personally, and considering the abysmal average level of competence that people in positions of power have demonstrated throughout the ages, and the fact that there is no reliable method to predict and manipulate the economy and social dynamics -only now we are starting to see rigorous analysis of these fields- I'm more inclined to believe that it's the result of a myriad different factors than a classic conspiracy. Hell, there probably is a conspiracy, perhaps even several, each with its own particular petty goals, involved. But one cabal of Wise Men masterfully pulling the strings of it all? Yeah... if only. The one thing I'm missing in all this is the people. Yes, yes, the political elites and 1%ers are huge jerks, but where is everyone else? Why no "Occupy Brussels" to protest TTIP? Why no rioting on the streets to protest the fire sale of critical infrastructure to international investors? Why no mass demonstrations against imperial adventurism in Libya? Heh. edit: whoops, you already mentioned the thing with Greek airports. Clearly past my bedtime. 2133 I'm sorry but I wish you wouldn't support KP misinterpretation of the facts ..he is still young, lets not drag him down the pointless " big corporate's and nebulous Western governments manipulate and control the global economy and live to enrich themselves " path..its so 2008 . He lives in Texas ..think of his future Some good news ...your country mustn't make the egregious mistake of voting in some anti-austerity party...that's the last thing you need but I see the disastrous Greek outcome has weakened there support http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/11370812/Hopes-of-Spains-anti-austerity-party-Podemos-fired-by-Greek-result.html http://www.ibtimes.com/european-anti-austerity-2015-podemos-spains-protest-party-looks-uncertain-future-2079500 Trust me I predict you will be out of austerity in 2 years ...you don't want a distraction to the overall austerity program Also whats wrong with the Germans managing parts of Greece? That was the agreement . You are one union and there doesnt need to be this resentment

So are you suggesting if the West is involved in a military campaign, like Libya, it is now the Wests responsibility to now manage the country? The only issue with that is that the Libyans didn't want the West to be involved in governing Libya after Gaddafi was removed....so what would you suggest? I would have suggested back then to not get involved. I'd suggest now to cut our loses. All can possibly do is make things worse. I don't believe in disrespecting the sovereignty of other nation states. If that means that we cannot forcefully stop a genocide; oh well. We can still: A) Condemn the action. B) Cease all trade with said nation state. C) Offer the people being exterminated refugee status and take them in if they are able to get here, or go collect them if the genocidal nation state is willing to allow it. D) Cease all trade with any nation states that still trade with said nation state. South Africa is a case where it's sovereignty wasn't compromised. Try to use an example of when we did disregard a nation's sovereignty to make your point. You know I like you and I'm not just saying that, you are one of the few people who has decided to not ignore me and not talk to me for a period of days and thats impressive But you don't seem to understand the importance of relevant intervention from the West....there really are valid cases. Sometimes in life direct intervention is required and expected. See the logic behind the Clinton Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Doctrine I support this 100 % and I find it hard to believe that you would be fine with the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people. We are an enlightened and progressive society, this is the greatest era of mankind. We don't allow genocides or mass rapes of civilians This is a good thing and yes it means the West will intervene in certain global events ....this should be celebrated

You see that's fine ...its the consistent usage of it in a paragraph that gets tiring

Volo this is the Volo I know and remember, you are perfectly coherent, cogent and you making excellent points....I don't always agree but thats not the point Now you can compare this to your " NAZI....SJW....EVIL" paroxysms and rants on other threads that no one understands, you are far too bright to act like that . Sorry to raise this but I do care and you know I appreciate constructive criticism. Don't you prefer this type of debate?

I actually think the West, especally the United States, should accept refugees from the Middle East - beacuse it is the West, especially the United States, that has created the refugees crisis in the first place. The United States are especially responsible for the whole mess in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Honestly, it is the US that is mostly responsible, but EU/NATO are also at fault for the destruction of the Middle East that's been going on in the past decade (if not longer.) On the other hand, there is little doubt in my mind that these Arab and Muslim refugees are the beginning fo the end of the European civilzations. By now we should know that Muslim immigrants in Europe are NOT going to assimilate. What they will do is they will overtake. It is not a secret Muslims desire to change Europe into Islamic. The hundreds of thousands - and likely millions - of Arab and Muslim refugees, who will most certainly have a much higher birthrate than the native European poplation, pretty much guarantees that the Islamization of Europe is inevitable, and it speeds up the process. If the Islamization of Europe was a myth, now it has certainly become not. Basically, we are witnessing a historical turning point: the beginning of the end of the Western civilization in Europe. The end will likely happen later in our lifetime. And, it's the West that sowed the seeds of their own downfall - by interfering in the Middle East. Now the West is facing the consequences. Karma rarely comes so swifly, but we are witnessing the full cycle of karma in our lifetime. Nah the USA owes those countries nothing, it has already scarified enough trying to implement a Democracy in Iraq. Yes I also believed it could happen back in 2004....I was supportive of the initial Iraq invasion and naively thought a Democracy would work in the ME It sounds like you want the West to fail? Dont you live in the USA ? And there is no way Muslim immigrants will ever take over the EU or dominate the West.....you mistake the kindness of example Germany taking in Syrian immigrants as a sign of weakness. Remember the West is many things but not weak and we won't compromise on certain things

Not yet, its still very interesting

This post made me laugh " but they proceed to do their absolute best to turn their new country into a copycat of what they just fled " Its not that bad but I do agree that the laws of the land must be obeyed...and if you can't deal with that then rather leave. When I travel to the ME for work I have no rights ...seriously. They treat you well as a white person because you are doing a skilled job but you have no real protection from the law

Vaclav Klaus, former president and prime minister of the Czech Republic gives a better summary: http://blisty.cz/art/78797.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Václav_Klaus I love that man, never heard him say anything other than the unvarnished truth. I don't know why every single party that's skeptical towards immigration has no chance to win elections (apart from unending and united media hostility toward them), I can't believe European citizens are so brainwashed. Logic: Syria is religiously and politically moderate (one of the few ME countries where Christians used to live without fear), reasonably independent. > therefore, US, SA, Turkey with tacit support from Israel arm Al Quaida and Syrian traitors in a bid to wreck the country > country falls apart becoming a warzone hosting a bunch of a savages that cut off people's heads that inspire an entire generation of muslims, local and western born to terrorism - making Bashar look like a saint > these savages are supposedly unbeatable, have an endless supply of everything, and no one knows where its coming from or who is supporting them and apparently can take air strikes from the worlds largest militaries in stride - thank god for pocket plane armies, teleporting supply shipments and cloning vats! and Twitter! > migrants from all over the muslim world materialize in Europe demanding asylum and welfare checks (feeling unsafe in Pakistan bro? mhm) > Europe is guilty for US sponsored wars therefore taking them in is the right thing to do > what you don't want to do the right thing? well **** you, you'll take them in anyway > half a million, or a million or whatever jobless, culturally incompatible, mostly uneducated angry young men dumped in the streets of Europe's capitals... what could possibly go wrong? > Syria still a dump without resolution, West forced to swallow their own **** and admit Bashar wasn't so bad after all, will eventually have to help him get the rest of his country back Summary: things come full circle except US meddling comes back to bite the servile Europlebs in the ass and yet another reasonably moderate muslim state has become a breeding ground for terrorism. FLAWLESS VICTORY! With leadership like that Europe doesn't deserve to exist. Drowsy I want to ask you a serious question and I'm sorry if it feels personal, its not meant to be or meant to catch you out but I am genuinely interested in how you would rationalize this I know you don't like the West, I may not agree but at least I know where you stand . But Serbia has been trying to join the EU for years. Don't you feel conflicted, I know you are a patriot but surly if your country can like the West and see its benefits why can't you ?

Can you imagine ...I would be beheaded for sure, they savages and iconoclasts. They must be the most abhorrent ideology since the Nazis?

there is a saying in my country that i cant really translate, but it means that if you are ashamed of something, you feel like everyone is making fun of you for it. so those who complain about fat shaming, are themselves ashamed of their own fat and lash out on everyone that they think makes fun of them I must be misunderstanding you, I am not overweight at all and train at gym 3-5 times a week I think this whole " fat shaming " is reprehensible. Its not only childish but why would a person of normal and rationale thinking feel the need to tease and mock fat people ? Please explain this to me ?

Vaclav Klaus, former president and prime minister of the Czech Republic gives a better summary: http://blisty.cz/art/78797.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Václav_Klaus I love that man, never heard him say anything other than the unvarnished truth. You like a homophobic right winger who thinks Russia is awesome ...come on Drowsy surly you can find other people to admire or at least respect? Make me your role model

But Amentep what would happen if she was found to be stealing?

This is a good post, thanks for sharing. You have given me some good perspectives So let me ask you a different question. What is the benefit in your view to the UK being part of the EU? As you know I am from British ancestry and I have real ties to the UK and I think its a little unfair how due to the strong social benefits the UK has how many people want to migrate there...I have no issues with immigrants but there has to be some control or balance So what does the UK get from the EU...I have my view but I am interested in yours

Vaclav Klaus, former president and prime minister of the Czech Republic gives a better summary: http://blisty.cz/art/78797.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Václav_Klaus No offense but Vaclav Klaus doesn't even seem to understand the history behind conflicts like Syria ...seriously how can we take what he says as relevant when he wont admit the impact of the Arab Spring? Also I read on that link you posted " His appointment was terminated in September 2014, due to his views on the Ukrainian crisis, his hostility to homosexuality, and support of European far right parties" He doesn't sound very liberal or reasonable We have native populations going down and immigration going up, an unelected commission Brussels that tries to dictate more power to themselves and a global industry reaping the benefits. And now we have illegal settlers running around central europe trying to find which country that gives them most money. It has to be reversed, otherwise another Caesar, Napoleon or Hitler will rise, you can bet on it. It is you, who is fixated on Klaus' level liberalism in this situation, who is unreasonable. I hear you and I'm not patronizing you. I understand your frustration, I don't agree with the way that the EU has opened its doors to all these immigrants For me I am sick and tired of the AU not taking responsibility of its own failed states....so now they become an EU problem. Why should they? So many African people think the AU is doing a great job and love to criticize the West...but the reality is the West still has to resolve Africas problems and it needs to stop if the continent will ever achieve its full potential And the Syrians should have gone into the ME to find refuge. But the reality is even the current ME countries like Turkey that are housing 2.1 million Syrians aren't really integrating them..they live in refugee camps and can't work or travel freely. And the Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE haven't taken a single Syrian So now Europe is expected to just absorb all these people ...no I don't agree with it

Okay your point is fundamental to my view, my understanding she couldn't be fired ....check this link http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027131312 I still dont really understand it but thats the law. So lets accept she cannot be fired ...what would you have done ?

Vaclav Klaus, former president and prime minister of the Czech Republic gives a better summary: http://blisty.cz/art/78797.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Václav_Klaus No offense but Vaclav Klaus doesn't even seem to understand the history behind conflicts like Syria ...seriously how can we take what he says as relevant when he wont admit the impact of the Arab Spring? Also I read on that link you posted " His appointment was terminated in September 2014, due to his views on the Ukrainian crisis, his hostility to homosexuality, and support of European far right parties" He doesn't sound very liberal or reasonable

How is her refusing to issue marriage licenses an example of a lack of free speech? And if you feel she should have lost her job then you must feel she acted inappropriately...but as has been explained many times before she couldn't be fired. So how do you suggest this situation should have been handled ...lets say " Volo is in charge "

I appreciate your honest view but I do understand what most of the issues are but as I explained the rules of the EU have to be driven from Brussels in order for it to succeed But let me ask you a different question because I may be missing something, what are your primary issues with the EU?Can you list a few points from a UK perspective that bother you ? Please go into detail so its clear

Wait what. Germany is planning on destabilizing Europe so German businesses can buy up capital and the EU can push neoliberalism as hard as possible. You missed the part with political "normalization", meaning that a federalization of the states in the EU and more centralized power. People without a strong sense of national community are more passive and will be easier to control in the power vacuum that it creates....or the leaders are simply completely clueless and we are riding the chaos-train. Both of you sound suspiciously like you're spewing tinfoil-hat nonsense, do you have any extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims? (Also, I somehow doubt Woldan meant to allude to that. I'm kinda curious about his insane conspiracy theory as well.) Lets turn it around, what kind of people benefit from nations giving up their sovereignity and the erosion of the nationstate with no distinct ethnic groups? But no matter, here's a carrot for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nikolaus_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi Meshugger do you honestly see the EU as that ? I may be missing something but do you see the EU as " nations giving up their sovereignity and the erosion of the nationstate with no distinct ethnic groups" ? In it's current form, yes. Although it didn't start this way of course. It was quite innocent 50 years ago with the foundation of the coal & steel union, which was based on the idea that countries that are economically interdependent would not so quickly declare war upon another. After the Maastricht-agreement it all went to hell however. Look, we have the following scenarios ahead of us: 1) The current situation is allowed to happen in according to financial and political self-interests, which will end up with civil wars and a balkanization of Europe for future generations 2) The current situation is allowed to happen in according to financial and political self-interests, which will end up with a slow erosion of nations and ultimately a collapse like Rome 3) The current situation has happened because of ineptitude, misplaced altruism and general apathy of the leaders, which will end up with civil wars and a balkanization of Europe for future generations 4) The situation has happened because of ineptitude, misplaced altruism and general apathy of the leaders, which will end up with a slow erosion of nations and ultimately a collapse like Rome I really hope that i am wrong. I really do. But i see little signs of any other thing happening. Thats interesting. Your view is obviously relevant because you are a European, I may not agree with it but end of the day I'm keen to understand where this apparent dislike of the EU comes from So I would just like you to consider two points which hopefully may change your mind Lets get the obvious out the way. The EU is considered for millions of people who live outside of it the perfect place to live and settle down in ...look at all the Syrians and other immigrants who risk death just to get there. Of course this doesn't mean you should change your view but there must be something good if people want to immigrate there? The next point is more important. An economic and political union like the EU is actually much harder to get working and functional than I think you guys realize. Think about the reality, you have all these countries with different governments and different economic models that suddenly had to now be aligned under common rules, a common currency and more importantly under a common economic framework. The criteria to join and stay in the EU has to be very strict or else it will fall apart. Now you may say " nonsense...it can't be that hard " but trust me there is NO other union in the history of mankind that has brought so many disparate countries together to achieve economic prosperity. Look at the abject failure of AU .....one of the main reasons for its failure to transform the continent is the fact that the AU doesn't enforce its own rules and this means there isnt real consensus or political will to make the hard choices. So I know you guys feel the EU is draconian but it has to enforce rules and structures or the entire EU will fall apart. You will always have your own cultural identity and that is something to be proud of but you have to realize that rules are really needed to make the EU work

Actually they are very similar, they both are about the humanitarian precedent In Libya the West intervened initially because of the Siege of Misrata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata That was the catalyst and it should be an easy sale to understand that Western intervention in the beginning of the Syrian conflict and assisting to remove Assad cannot be seen as a bad thing if you look at the reality of Syria now And I'm not suggesting for a second that there arent other factors that influence the West but we cannot ignore the humanitarian aspect Not quite sure sanctions is akin to airstrikes and funneling arms to rebels in an attempt to change a regime just because you dislike them, nor is intervening to stop a verified mass slaughter of people (heh, in practice this is when you dislike a regime, I suppose). How can we look at Syria and the rise of ISIS and figure this wasn't a bad idea. As for Misrata, well, those rebels started a war. Yes I can completely understand this view But lets go back a few years, when the Syrian war started we need to remember the reality of the political and military reality of Syria. Assad and the Syrian military were not a weak or disorganized organisation, the Syrians have always had military. Assad had the entire resources of his army on his side, plus a large percentage of the population and the Iranians were completely supportive of him and I do consider them formidable in the context of the ME And what were the Syrian rebels....seriously? They were thousands of very ideologically anti-Assad people but they lacked the weaponry of the Assad regime. So yes the West funneled weapons through the Saudis but to be honest would that really be enough against air power and the likes of artillery. You are a military man ...do you think the odds were fair ? Which is why the Syrian rebels asked for the West in the beginning to destroy Assads military armaments ...they were quite prepared to do the hard ground to ground fighting. So where I'm going with this is the West did everything it could do but it predictably didnt make much difference. And then you may feel "but why get involved at all" Syria was an enemy of the Sunni states and a friend of Iran. Back then this was meaningful to the West because of the perceived political dynamics of the region so I can understand the West helping the rebels And then yes ISIS is undoubtedly the most destabilizing outcome of the whole Syrian conflict but once again ISIS wouldn't exist today if the Syrian war hadn't dragged on. Think about it there stronghold is considered Al-Raqqah which is a city within Syria....if there was no civil war in Syria do you think this would be possible? Groups like ISIS can only really flourish in failed state So if the Syrian war has ended in 6 months that it could have if the West have intervened ISIS wouldn't be any where as near as prolific or successful

Wait what. Germany is planning on destabilizing Europe so German businesses can buy up capital and the EU can push neoliberalism as hard as possible. You missed the part with political "normalization", meaning that a federalization of the states in the EU and more centralized power. People without a strong sense of national community are more passive and will be easier to control in the power vacuum that it creates....or the leaders are simply completely clueless and we are riding the chaos-train. Both of you sound suspiciously like you're spewing tinfoil-hat nonsense, do you have any extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims? (Also, I somehow doubt Woldan meant to allude to that. I'm kinda curious about his insane conspiracy theory as well.) Lets turn it around, what kind of people benefit from nations giving up their sovereignity and the erosion of the nationstate with no distinct ethnic groups? But no matter, here's a carrot for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nikolaus_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi Meshugger do you honestly see the EU as that ? I may be missing something but do you see the EU as " nations giving up their sovereignity and the erosion of the nationstate with no distinct ethnic groups" ?

Wait what. Germany is planning on destabilizing Europe so German businesses can buy up capital and the EU can push neoliberalism as hard as possible. You missed the part with political "normalization", meaning that a federalization of the states in the EU and more centralized power. People without a strong sense of national community are more passive and will be easier to control in the power vacuum that it creates....or the leaders are simply completely clueless and we are riding the chaos-train. Both of you sound suspiciously like you're spewing tinfoil-hat nonsense, do you have any extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims? (Also, I somehow doubt Woldan meant to allude to that. I'm kinda curious about his insane conspiracy theory as well.) Yes the EU, which Germany has a good deal of influence on, is clearly not pursuing a neoliberal agenda that has done severe damage to the economies of PIGS while benefiting Germany. And past experience has shown that these refugees will not be used as a source of cheap labor and will get along splendidly with the locals. It's got to be crazy talk that neoliberals would bend over backwards to accommodate corporations. KP I'm sorry to have to disagree with you but you have to stop seeing Germany as the " bad guys " in the whole PIGS austerity reality Germany are not the bad guys, Germany are a very important and indispensable foundation of the EU...they aren't the only relevant part of the EU. Of course many other countries are part of the system but I really don't understand why some of you guys think the PIGS were somehow mistreated. All the PIGS countries were the architects of there own economic woes ...thats on them...not the Germans

Actually they are very similar, they both are about the humanitarian precedent In Libya the West intervened initially because of the Siege of Misrata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata That was the catalyst and it should be an easy sale to understand that Western intervention in the beginning of the Syrian conflict and assisting to remove Assad cannot be seen as a bad thing if you look at the reality of Syria now And I'm not suggesting for a second that there arent other factors that influence the West but we cannot ignore the humanitarian aspect