The current refugee wave in Europe

[BruceVC]

Again, leave them to themselves... their societies need to evolve on their own and they first need to have majority of population backing the same idea.

 

As it is, there are too many diversified groups that have different agendas, even opposing each other.

 

There is no Arab spring... that's a term created by the wishful media in our countries, who wanted to label the events over there to the EU spring of nations from 18-19th century that moved many nations into the republican type of government, with elections etc.

 

In none of the middle-east countries you have governments that follow that suit... Egypt - military heads having the actual power, Turkey, also military guys making sure that the governments remain secular, etc.

 

None of the societies there actually desires such a form of a government in terms of majority of people... You have some groups that want that, but they are not majorities. The culture there still cultivates strong leaders and religion, with shariah being the fundament of law.

 

Igniting the region by arming it, and creating more militarized societies is exactly the opposite of what could lead to the changes in favor of more democratic societies with more emphasis on human rights and equality of genders.

 

Let them fail a few times on their own, and let them evolve on their own... Europe done that on its own, so they can do it to, they might need more time as the idea of democracy is completely alien to them (they are not a greek-roman region of culture) and they were fighting it for the last 3000 years, starting with Greek-Persian wars.

 

I have no idea, why people think that such a change can be done within few years, let alone even 1 generation. This change needs to be procedural evolution, and needs to span through probably 3-4 generations, but our current "leaders" do not want such slow processes, as they want control over natural resources of that region "NOW". Our societies are also to consumer heavy and with too much mentality of "I want it now" to understand the cultural need in that region.

 

Again, the "Arab spring" had nothing similar (aside of revolt) to the "spring of nations" that shaped most if not all Western societies. In majority, the people behind the uprising forces were various islamic movements (some of them very radical)... even the Egypt "voted" for islamic party initially, and eventually it forced Egyptian military to step in and remove the "elected" authorities from power.

 

To sum up... to not meddle in the internal affairs of ME countries, and surely not via making more and more civilian populace more militarized to fight your proxy wars for control over resources.

So there are several things I don't agree with or maybe you are just unaware of them

 

 

So Western intervention in the ME has primarily been about two main reasons, to ensure security around oil and the humanitarian precedent

 

 

You cannot ignore either of these points  for different reasons. Lets be clear when the West gets involved in the ME and various conflicts in the region  it is now patently obvious that the outcome won't be a Western style system of Democracy. This outcome is a good thing by the way as Western countries offer there citizens the best quality of life...so this isn't about the superiority of Western ideology as  its basically been proven in the last 200 years that Western governments and what they believe in are the most effective governments in the world.

 

The ME  needs to follow its own system of Democracy and yes there is still work to be done but end of the day the overall objective is to uplift the quality of life of the citizens of the various countries in the ME and make there governments and rulers more accountable. This should be a universal goal that we should all support 

 

Now back to intervention in the ME and  the justification for it from a Western perspective.

 

Oil....of course the supply and security of the oil use to be paramount to the growth and sustainability of the economies of all countries in the world. And since the majority of oil comes from the ME and the rate of oil production is controlled by OPEC anything that could disrupt this oil supply would be more than enough reason to justify intervention in the ME. So don't assume people really believe that " getting involved in the ME is about helping the Arabs achieve there full potential " ....of course thats not the only reason. The economic impact of having the global oil supply disrupted would be disastrous for the whole world. I would expect the world to intervene on some levels to ensure stability of the region....this is obvious

 

But things have now changed as far as the oil supply is concerned. The USA is now the worlds biggest producer of oil  this has fundamentally changed the urgency of when the West will intervene in the ME

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/04/amy-klobuchar/klobuchar-says-us-worlds-no-1-oil-producer/

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi

 

So now intervention is also about the humanitarian reason, for example the USA only started the recent airstrikes against  ISIS because ISIS were going to basically massacre the Yazidi's who were trapped on Mount Sinjar

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/yazidis-still-reported-trapped-on-mountain-in-northern-iraq-despite-us-assessment/2014/08/14/d85337fb-c5d2-4b82-b53a-410467e0db90_story.html

 

 

So I don't support this view that the West " should just stay out of the ME"  as I have mentioned two reasons, oil security and human rights, that do justify Western involvement in some of the ME conflicts. This cannot just be ignored

Edited September 18, 2015 by BruceVC

[Darkpriest]

@Bruce,

 

You forget that each reaction from the Western countries is a response to deteriorating conditions caused by previous interventions....

 

If you would still have Saddam, Gaddafi, etc in rule, there would be no ISIS problem, the oil would still be flowing as those people, while dictators, were not stupid... I mean, there are double standards it seems... we opened economy and started to trade with Commie China, Theocratic and intolerant Sauds, etc. and those we simply condemn in words if at all.

 

There was nothing wrong with those dictatorships, and our meddling in ME just made things worse and indirectly led to this crisis. (and it all started with creation of Israel on the map, and later meddling in affairs in Iran and Afghanistan during the Cold War era)

 

If there is one thing that we should learn from the past, then that is, stop meddling in ME internal affairs...

 

Now we reached situation where Russians are going for a "check" and deploying their forces in Syria. Will the Western airforce strike at Russians? Do you want more than a proxy war? Or maybe as some US officials rumor, they will actually start co-operating with Russians and Assad to fight ISIS, even though Moscow led alliance of Russian, Iran, Syria so far is a difficult for US to swallow and partner with...

 

What will happen with Kurds, if ISIS will be removed? Will they start using the weapon and new land gains in Iraq to fight with Turks for a part of Turkish land inhabited by Kurds? What will happen then? After all Turkey is in NATO...

 

We are constantly battling problems which we created there in the first place... Sometimes the best course of action is the one to stand on the side and wait for development...

[Elerond]

 

Meanwhile another proof that US ignorance is one of the factors that created these problems:

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-isis-top-commanders-star-165700972.html

 

 

Meanwhile another proof that US ignorance is one of the factors that created these problems:

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-isis-top-commanders-star-165700972.html

Well, as long as it's not a problem for the US it's cool, the thinking is going I assume, heh.

 

Guys come on, you can't possibly blame the USA for training people who later become there enemies. As far as Islamic extremism is concerned it  is this fractured and nebulous movement that often fights within itself. Its not like Islamic extremism is this monolithic group of people who  all have the same motives

 

So in other words you cannot predict if some people who are trained by the USA later turn against them, thats just a reality of this type of conflict

 

Look at the training of the Mujaheddin  by the CIA in Afghanistan ....look how that turned out 

 

Its got nothing to do with ignorance 

 

 

I don't think that he become Islamic extremist, but that he is just man that likes to be at a war, if you look his history you see that he first fought in Chechnya and then in Georgia and then he moved in Syria because he started to have problems with his superiors in Georgia. You can usually find people like him after long wars that just can't stop fighting and because of that they move to seek next conflict where to fight. After WWII we had such people in Finland, who then moved, for example, to USA to join their army to fight in Korea and then Vietnam.

 

One of the world most famous freedom fighter/terrorist Che Guevara had similar personality, he just could not live peaceful life which is why he moved to Congo and then Bolivia after taking over Cuba, instead helping to build Cuba.

 

Although such people are people that extremist movements like to have, as they usually don't care how things are actually run if they only have given opportunity to fight.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The Kurds are NOT a success story... just wait till this conflict is over and it will bite US in the ass when their NATO ally, Turkey, will have big problems with trained and armed Kurds...

 

Apparently South African colonists are as ignorant to the history of the region as the US ones.

Turkey is not doing **** to stop ISIS at best and collaborating with them at worst. They deserve any ass biting coming to them.

[Malcador]

http://news.yahoo.com/eu-members-dont-help-refugees-wont-money-germany-062737661.html

 

"Europe is a community of values based on human sympathy and solidarity. And those that don't share our values can't count on our money over time," said Gabriel.

 

"If it continues like this, then Europe is in danger, more than it was from the financial crisis or the Greece crisis."

[Luj1]

No thats just not true, the USA has trained groups of people in the ME that have definitely aided them in various ways and conflicts ..its not meddling and is in fact prudent

 

The Kurds have been  a success story of Western training

 

Swallow more MSM trash, clown.

[Luj1]

Ofcourse, US & NATO are the ones most responsible for the migrant crisis. They wanted to oust Assad by using ISIS and other groups as lap dogs. Now ISIS spread so much, they cant control it anymore. The moment US & NATO started meddling in ME, it was one disaster after another.

[Luj1]

 

Meanwhile, Coratia closed 7 out of 8 border passes between them and Serbia to limit the influx of refugees.

 

Croatia NO!

 

Please Croatia, stop being racist! Now mutti Merkel is sad again

 

 

 

We may ridicule them , or call them fascists but Croatia and Hungary are the only ones with any sense. Even if they are  traditionally close to that ideology, they are doing the right thing in this matter. They are guarding the borders responsibly and registering migrants by force.

[Luj1]

So I don't support this view that the West " should just stay out of the ME"  as I have mentioned two reasons, oil security and human rights, that do justify Western involvement in some of the ME conflicts.

 

This cannot just be ignored

 

Yes the massive amount of oils cannot be ignored...

Edited September 20, 2015 by Tigranes
lots of angry

[HoonDing]

Plough the ME, Norway has oil. One day they'll be dumb enough to join the EU.

[Meshugger]

 

Again, leave them to themselves... their societies need to evolve on their own and they first need to have majority of population backing the same idea.

 

As it is, there are too many diversified groups that have different agendas, even opposing each other.

 

There is no Arab spring... that's a term created by the wishful media in our countries, who wanted to label the events over there to the EU spring of nations from 18-19th century that moved many nations into the republican type of government, with elections etc.

 

In none of the middle-east countries you have governments that follow that suit... Egypt - military heads having the actual power, Turkey, also military guys making sure that the governments remain secular, etc.

 

None of the societies there actually desires such a form of a government in terms of majority of people... You have some groups that want that, but they are not majorities. The culture there still cultivates strong leaders and religion, with shariah being the fundament of law.

 

Igniting the region by arming it, and creating more militarized societies is exactly the opposite of what could lead to the changes in favor of more democratic societies with more emphasis on human rights and equality of genders.

 

Let them fail a few times on their own, and let them evolve on their own... Europe done that on its own, so they can do it to, they might need more time as the idea of democracy is completely alien to them (they are not a greek-roman region of culture) and they were fighting it for the last 3000 years, starting with Greek-Persian wars.

 

I have no idea, why people think that such a change can be done within few years, let alone even 1 generation. This change needs to be procedural evolution, and needs to span through probably 3-4 generations, but our current "leaders" do not want such slow processes, as they want control over natural resources of that region "NOW". Our societies are also to consumer heavy and with too much mentality of "I want it now" to understand the cultural need in that region.

 

Again, the "Arab spring" had nothing similar (aside of revolt) to the "spring of nations" that shaped most if not all Western societies. In majority, the people behind the uprising forces were various islamic movements (some of them very radical)... even the Egypt "voted" for islamic party initially, and eventually it forced Egyptian military to step in and remove the "elected" authorities from power.

 

To sum up... to not meddle in the internal affairs of ME countries, and surely not via making more and more civilian populace more militarized to fight your proxy wars for control over resources.

So there are several things I don't agree with or maybe you are just unaware of them

 

 

So Western intervention in the ME has primarily been about two main reasons, to ensure security around oil and the humanitarian precedent

 

 

You cannot ignore either of these points  for different reasons. Lets be clear when the West gets involved in the ME and various conflicts in the region  it is now patently obvious that the outcome won't be a Western style system of Democracy. This outcome is a good thing by the way as Western countries offer there citizens the best quality of life...so this isn't about the superiority of Western ideology as  its basically been proven in the last 200 years that Western governments and what they believe in are the most effective governments in the world.

 

The ME  needs to follow its own system of Democracy and yes there is still work to be done but end of the day the overall objective is to uplift the quality of life of the citizens of the various countries in the ME and make there governments and rulers more accountable. This should be a universal goal that we should all support 

 

Now back to intervention in the ME and  the justification for it from a Western perspective.

 

Oil....of course the supply and security of the oil use to be paramount to the growth and sustainability of the economies of all countries in the world. And since the majority of oil comes from the ME and the rate of oil production is controlled by OPEC anything that could disrupt this oil supply would be more than enough reason to justify intervention in the ME. So don't assume people really believe that " getting involved in the ME is about helping the Arabs achieve there full potential " ....of course thats not the only reason. The economic impact of having the global oil supply disrupted would be disastrous for the whole world. I would expect the world to intervene on some levels to ensure stability of the region....this is obvious

 

But things have now changed as far as the oil supply is concerned. The USA is now the worlds biggest producer of oil  this has fundamentally changed the urgency of when the West will intervene in the ME

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/04/amy-klobuchar/klobuchar-says-us-worlds-no-1-oil-producer/

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi

 

So now intervention is also about the humanitarian reason, for example the USA only started the recent airstrikes against  ISIS because ISIS were going to basically massacre the Yazidi's who were trapped on Mount Sinjar

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/yazidis-still-reported-trapped-on-mountain-in-northern-iraq-despite-us-assessment/2014/08/14/d85337fb-c5d2-4b82-b53a-410467e0db90_story.html

 

 

So I don't support this view that the West " should just stay out of the ME"  as I have mentioned two reasons, oil security and human rights, that do justify Western involvement in some of the ME conflicts. This cannot just be ignored

 

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, Coratia closed 7 out of 8 border passes between them and Serbia to limit the influx of refugees.

 

Croatia NO!

 

Please Croatia, stop being racist! Now mutti Merkel is sad again

 

 

 

We may ridicule them , or call them fascists but Croatia and Hungary are the only ones with any sense. Even if they are  traditionally close to that ideology, they are doing the right thing in this matter. They are guarding the borders responsibly and registering migrants by force.

 

 

But protecting a nation's soverignity is racist and xenophobic! The feelings of people seeing dead people on facebook matters more than any principle!

[Luj1]

 

 

Again, leave them to themselves... their societies need to evolve on their own and they first need to have majority of population backing the same idea.

 

As it is, there are too many diversified groups that have different agendas, even opposing each other.

 

There is no Arab spring... that's a term created by the wishful media in our countries, who wanted to label the events over there to the EU spring of nations from 18-19th century that moved many nations into the republican type of government, with elections etc.

 

In none of the middle-east countries you have governments that follow that suit... Egypt - military heads having the actual power, Turkey, also military guys making sure that the governments remain secular, etc.

 

None of the societies there actually desires such a form of a government in terms of majority of people... You have some groups that want that, but they are not majorities. The culture there still cultivates strong leaders and religion, with shariah being the fundament of law.

 

Igniting the region by arming it, and creating more militarized societies is exactly the opposite of what could lead to the changes in favor of more democratic societies with more emphasis on human rights and equality of genders.

 

Let them fail a few times on their own, and let them evolve on their own... Europe done that on its own, so they can do it to, they might need more time as the idea of democracy is completely alien to them (they are not a greek-roman region of culture) and they were fighting it for the last 3000 years, starting with Greek-Persian wars.

 

I have no idea, why people think that such a change can be done within few years, let alone even 1 generation. This change needs to be procedural evolution, and needs to span through probably 3-4 generations, but our current "leaders" do not want such slow processes, as they want control over natural resources of that region "NOW". Our societies are also to consumer heavy and with too much mentality of "I want it now" to understand the cultural need in that region.

 

Again, the "Arab spring" had nothing similar (aside of revolt) to the "spring of nations" that shaped most if not all Western societies. In majority, the people behind the uprising forces were various islamic movements (some of them very radical)... even the Egypt "voted" for islamic party initially, and eventually it forced Egyptian military to step in and remove the "elected" authorities from power.

 

To sum up... to not meddle in the internal affairs of ME countries, and surely not via making more and more civilian populace more militarized to fight your proxy wars for control over resources.

So there are several things I don't agree with or maybe you are just unaware of them

 

 

So Western intervention in the ME has primarily been about two main reasons, to ensure security around oil and the humanitarian precedent

 

 

You cannot ignore either of these points  for different reasons. Lets be clear when the West gets involved in the ME and various conflicts in the region  it is now patently obvious that the outcome won't be a Western style system of Democracy. This outcome is a good thing by the way as Western countries offer there citizens the best quality of life...so this isn't about the superiority of Western ideology as  its basically been proven in the last 200 years that Western governments and what they believe in are the most effective governments in the world.

 

The ME  needs to follow its own system of Democracy and yes there is still work to be done but end of the day the overall objective is to uplift the quality of life of the citizens of the various countries in the ME and make there governments and rulers more accountable. This should be a universal goal that we should all support 

 

Now back to intervention in the ME and  the justification for it from a Western perspective.

 

Oil....of course the supply and security of the oil use to be paramount to the growth and sustainability of the economies of all countries in the world. And since the majority of oil comes from the ME and the rate of oil production is controlled by OPEC anything that could disrupt this oil supply would be more than enough reason to justify intervention in the ME. So don't assume people really believe that " getting involved in the ME is about helping the Arabs achieve there full potential " ....of course thats not the only reason. The economic impact of having the global oil supply disrupted would be disastrous for the whole world. I would expect the world to intervene on some levels to ensure stability of the region....this is obvious

  

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/04/amy-klobuchar/klobuchar-says-us-worlds-no-1-oil-producer/

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi

But things have now changed as far as the oil supply is concerned. The USA is now the worlds biggest producer of oil this has fundamentally changed the urgency of when the West will intervene in the ME

 

 

So now intervention is also about the humanitarian reason, for example the USA only started the recent airstrikes against  ISIS because ISIS were going to basically massacre the Yazidi's who were trapped on Mount Sinjar

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/yazidis-still-reported-trapped-on-mountain-in-northern-iraq-despite-us-assessment/2014/08/14/d85337fb-c5d2-4b82-b53a-410467e0db90_story.html

 

 

So I don't support this view that the West " should just stay out of the ME"  as I have mentioned two reasons, oil security and human rights, that do justify Western involvement in some of the ME conflicts. This cannot just be ignored

 

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, Coratia closed 7 out of 8 border passes between them and Serbia to limit the influx of refugees.

 

Croatia NO!

 

Please Croatia, stop being racist! Now mutti Merkel is sad again

 

 

 

We may ridicule them , or call them fascists but Croatia and Hungary are the only ones with any sense. Even if they are  traditionally close to that ideology, they are doing the right thing in this matter. They are guarding the borders responsibly and registering migrants by force.

 

 

But protecting a nation's soverignity is racist and xenophobic! The feelings of people seeing dead people on facebook matters more than any principle!

 

 

Kissinger said about Oil in ME, the same Albright said about minerals in Russia

 

 

They must be OURS! Lifes don't matter!

[Darkpriest]

http://www.rp-online.de/politik/duesseldorf-salafisten-werben-bei-fluechtlingen-hans-georg-maassen-warnt-aid-1.5403365

 

It is in German, but it says that the chief of German counter espionage claims that the Sunni Muslims refugees are getting conscripted into Islamic Warriors and Extremists.

 

Have fun with accepting everyone without control.

[Varana]

It says that Salafist groups from Germany are trying to establish contacts with refugees and building connections by offering help. Screening those who arrive won't help much against that, though.

 

BTW, the article also says that despite following many leads, German intelligence could not find any proof of ISIS sending terrorists as refugees to Europe, as going to Europe as refugees would be too dangerous. (Really.)

 

Again, leave them to themselves... their societies need to evolve on their own and they first need to have majority of population backing the same idea.

 

As it is, there are too many diversified groups that have different agendas, even opposing each other.

 

There is no Arab spring... that's a term created by the wishful media in our countries, who wanted to label the events over there to the EU spring of nations from 18-19th century that moved many nations into the republican type of government, with elections etc.

 

In none of the middle-east countries you have governments that follow that suit... Egypt - military heads having the actual power, Turkey, also military guys making sure that the governments remain secular, etc.

In our current world, "leave them to themselves" is not really an option. The Middle East is not an island off the coast of Antarctica. Who is "themselves", anyway? Iran is neither Arab nor Shi'ite - is it "themselves"? What about Turkey? Turkey is NATO, are we "themselves" now? Russia has a base in Syria and meddles in the conflict (or is going to, or something) - is Russia "themselves"? What about Israel? Leaving Afghanistan to themselves brought the Taliban into power. Leaving Iraq to themselves by removing the US forces there destroyed what little progress had been made. If we leave e.g. Libya to themselves, what about those who try to sail across the Mediterranean? Let them drown?

Our world is more connected than ever, esp. in a region like the Middle East.

 

Yes, the Arab Spring needs time and then another go at democracy. But in the meantime, there are some things we can't turn a blind eye to, as they're affecting us, if we like it or not.

The West isn't even that involved into the process, any more. Libya is basically being left alone. In Egypt, evenryone is kind of glad that al-Sisi brought stability back. In Syria, they bomb ISIS, but that's about it. In Iraq, there was a frantic run at supporting the Kurds during ISIS' advance but that has died down a lot. The U.S. are supposed to be training the Iraqi military - not very successfully, one might say.

The West currently is trying not to further its entanglement in Mess'o'potamia - simply ignoring the region is, in our time, not possible.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Varana

[Meshugger]

Errr....

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/15/one-in-five-syrians-say-islamic-state-is-a-good-thing-poll-says/

 

wat

 

 

 

BTW, the article also says that despite following many leads, German intelligence could not find any proof of ISIS sending terrorists as refugees to Europe, as going to Europe as refugees would be too dangerous. (Really.)

 

"We better not send Achmed to Berlin to blow himself up in a suicide-attack, the trip is simply too dangerous. He might get hurt", yeah, what great rationale.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Meshugger

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

By the way, do you know the sole reason why they're rioting?

 

I don't.

 

 

Because they know they're not going to be treated the same way as at home, aka shot. During the Arab spring period, there was serious unrest in Bahrein that threatened to topple the reigning monarchy. Without any sort of discussion in the mechanisms of collective security, and with little mention in the media, the Saudi army intervened and shot everyone they found rioting and that was that. No one knows how many people were killed.

 

In this case, they know European police is not going to be anywhere near as brutal as the one at home, so hey why not take a rock out of that nice pavement and chuck it at them.

 

This is how France and Sweden lost territorial sovereignty in their own country and gave up enclaves to immigrant (mostly muslim) gangs, enclaves where the police simply no longer go. I was flabbergasted to find that no-go zones are a thing in Europe in 2015, but hey, live and learn.

[HoonDing]

hehe, no-go zones are a thing only 2 kms away from the European Commission.

[Elerond]

Errr....

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/15/one-in-five-syrians-say-islamic-state-is-a-good-thing-poll-says/

 

wat

 

 

 

BTW, the article also says that despite following many leads, German intelligence could not find any proof of ISIS sending terrorists as refugees to Europe, as going to Europe as refugees would be too dangerous. (Really.)

 

"We better not send Achmed to Berlin to blow himself up in a suicide-attack, the trip is simply too dangerous. He might get hurt", yeah, what great rationale.

 

I would guess that they actually mean that there are easier, safer, faster and more reliable methods to get their members in EU than sent them to travel with refugees in those hazardous routes where there are no guarantees that they get even close to any real targets.

[Drowsy Emperor]

hehe, no-go zones are a thing only 2 kms away from the European Commission.

 

Now that's what I call progress!

Edited September 18, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Meshugger]

President Assad is interviewed by RT about the refugee crisis:

 

http://www.rt.com/news/315482-assad-terrorism-refugees-interview/

 

 

 

"West crying for refugees with one eye, aiming gun with the other"

Edited September 18, 2015 by Meshugger

[Drowsy Emperor]

^ Looks like a real, intimidating, uncompromising, butcher of civilians. Lolzies

 

 

Stalin is not impressed

Edited September 18, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Zoraptor]

It says that Salafist groups from Germany are trying to establish contacts with refugees and building connections by offering help. Screening those who arrive won't help much against that, though.

 

It should help, it just won't be a perfect solution- but assuming that salafis are seen as being a part of the problem excluding them from any accepted refugees would make it harder for existing/ present salafis to influence the more moderate refugees. Or they could accept only druze/ christian/ yazidi refugees; that would remove the threat of muslim extremism from refugees almost entirely albeit that approach has its own obvious problems.

 

Who is "themselves", anyway? Iran is neither Arab nor Shi'ite - is it "themselves"?

Iran is pretty definitively shia, though I'd assume sunni was meant there.

 

Yes, the Arab Spring needs time and then another go at democracy. But in the meantime, there are some things we can't turn a blind eye to, as they're affecting us, if we like it or not.

The West isn't even that involved into the process, any more. Libya is basically being left alone. In Egypt, evenryone is kind of glad that al-Sisi brought stability back. In Syria, they bomb ISIS, but that's about it. In Iraq, there was a frantic run at supporting the Kurds during ISIS' advance but that has died down a lot. The U.S. are supposed to be training the Iraqi military - not very successfully, one might say.

The West currently is trying not to further its entanglement in Mess'o'potamia - simply ignoring the region is, in our time, not possible.

 

Practically I tend to agree that no intervention at all, ever, is as dumb as constant intervention in everything, and the basic realities of the situation as it is now won't be changed positively by complete non intervention. I do however have considerable sympathy for those who throw their hands up either at the fact that for all the money spent and lives lost over the past decade or so things only seem to have gotten worse/ not improved significantly or those who feel that the west's history of intervention has been so consistently wrong headed that they are either so incompetent that anything done is likely to blow up late or so malign that they are deliberately setting things up to blow up later. Looking back at the mess of naive ideology and cynical realpolitik does not raise any hopes that the west will suddenly find a successful path to stability and success in the ME, as such it's very easy to just say they should stay the asterisks out of the whole region as it could scarcely get worse than it is now.

 

Of course in reality it could get a whole lot worse than it is now.

[Darkpriest]

It technically could, but then you can just carpet bomb the whole region and re-colonize it.... (I mean, the only worse scenarios than what we have right now, would be that Radical Islamic groups would form a form of new eastern empire covering the ME region from Iran to Syria, to Egypt's border and covering the whole Arabic peninsula and excluding the current Israel, plus there would be another one covering the whole Northern African coast except Egypt and reaching down to Niger and Sudan's southern borders... and this could cripple heavily the worlds economy, but to be honest I think that new dictators would like the money offered by oil and gas companies from China, Russia and all around the world, but they need to build the new state on some idea)

 

Lets be honest, they need to go through something similar in scope of World War 2 in their region to get to the mass populace that constant warring is not really a good idea, especially on the basis of religion and ideology.

[Zoraptor]

It very likely wouldn't be a WW2 like event though; at best a WW1 type event is far more likely where it 'ends' with a 20 year truce while the loser builds up strength again, or a 30 Years War event with modern weaponry. A full scale war between sunni (well, theoretically the salafi/ wahhabi/ takfiri fringe, but inevitably more moderates would get drawn in and become less moderate) and everyone else in the ME would make what is going on now look like a picnic.

 

And chances are that the radicals would win because by and large people are far more willing to die or uproot themselves to fight for a radical cause than for moderation, people who see their friends getting killed tend to radicalise not moderate and moderates tend to get disheartened as the radicals gain power. I'm deeply sceptical of the west's motives especially and their ability to deliver practically on positives but they do have a passive buffering effect from having some level of engagement even if their more active phases are almost uniformly ill thought out.

[Meshugger]

Bosnian immigrant in Sweden talks about the current refugee crisis: