EPTBut again, how is the US responsible for the decision made by the EU to take refugees? If we made them, why is it that you think it's our fault that you took them?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7150
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
But again, how is the US responsible for the decision made by the EU to take refugees? If we made them, why is it that you think it's our fault that you took them? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21707 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:37 LegalLord wrote: Free movement with respect to refugees... well I hardly agree that it's irrelevant, though certainly the free movement issue has more to it than that. Though it's far from the point and perhaps worth relegating to the other thread. But again, how is the US responsible for the decision made by the EU to take refugees? If we made them, why is it that you think it's our fault that you took them? I'm fine with taking the 10's of millions of refugees and shipping them off to the US, sure, lets go do that. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:29 LegalLord wrote: The matter's come up in both threads very frequently. But the topic came up right here right now so... yeah. As for what to do: shoot them, deport them, set up refugee camps where it is cheaper to take care of a mass influx of refugees, take them at your own peril, or any other choice. It's your call since it's the union y'all decided to be a part of. But don't go blaming the US for the decision you made. Maybe you will just have to come to terms with the realization that ideals don't always conform with reality and that the "open the floodgates" project is going to show just how frail and problematic the "freedom of movement" provision can be. But that's not the US's fault. Can we agree that shooting people is not an option? If not, then I don't really know what is there to discuss ... Deporting would be nice, but you need two to dance. You can't deport people into a country against that county's will, not to mention that they will just come again. Keeping people in refugee camps is both expensive and dangerous, because those hordes of desperate people without a future might turn into a serious issue. What does freedom of movement have to do with it? There is no freedom of movement across the outside EU border. Yeah, we could have tried to lock them all in Greece and Italy, but that already is us, that solves nothing. Maybe Trump should think about building the wall more inland to save resources, who the hell even cares about Texas, right? | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:37 LegalLord wrote: Free movement with respect to refugees... well I hardly agree that it's irrelevant, though certainly the free movement issue has more to it than that. Though it's far from the point and perhaps worth relegating to the other thread. But again, how is the US responsible for the decision made by the EU to take refugees? If we made them, why is it that you think it's our fault that you took them? The freedom of movement only applies to european citizens. If you study a map closely, you'll find that none of the countries that have american democracy spread in them is part of the union. Hence freedom of movement actually doesn't apply to refugees. Let me emphasise that: freedom of movement doesn't apply to refugees. The underlined comment is so idiotic that i actually don't know how to react to it. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13957 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:19 KwarK wrote: That ceased to be attributable to us after you reined us in at Suez. The Middle East remained an Anglo-French sphere of influence until then. The only European legacy of the region these days is Israel and Jordan. When the United States decided they wanted European economic interests out they kicked out the rest of it too. The US had to make a statement to end the euros colonial empires and show that Israel wasn't going to become a crusader state repeating the conquests of the last millennium. Far be it to topple dictators that gassed their own people but allowing Isreal to simple conquer the Islamic states around it whenever it felt it wanted to would have caused catastrophic consequences down the line. Egypt is one of the only really stable pro western governments that we still have in the region. You arn't going to find many people who think it was a bad idea. The worse idea is that it somehow washed the hands of the people who caused all the divisions in the middle east as it is today. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:37 LegalLord wrote: Free movement with respect to refugees... well I hardly agree that it's irrelevant, though certainly the free movement issue has more to it than that. Though it's far from the point and perhaps worth relegating to the other thread. But again, how is the US responsible for the decision made by the EU to take refugees? If we made them, why is it that you think it's our fault that you took them? I feel like your entire argument basicly boils down to "well yes, we put a bag full of shit on fire and placed it in front of your door before ringing your doorbell.... but it was you guys who hastily decided to best put it out by trying to step on it! So how exactly is it our fault that you got shit on your shoes now?" | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:08 m4ini wrote: So does that mean the US picks up the tab for the costs of refugees that are coming to europe rather than the US from a region that you're (sometimes fully, sometimes partially) responsible for making a hellhole? .. no? Well. Feels a bit hypocritical to me personally to go ahead criticising not enough spending on military while not taking into account that certain european countries pick up the tab for the US in regards to the aftermaths of what you guys constantly started in the last decade. If you think of defense spending in terms of refugees and blame, you might be part of the reason why it's been a one-way street for so long. We could spend this entire year yakking about disparate situations. Like the article said, maybe NATO has just outgrown its place and deserves a slow end. | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10724 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 20 2017 02:53 LegalLord wrote: I wanted to draw attention to this comment on the article: While I don't endorse the comment in full, it makes the good point that the current situation isn't just people leeching off the US - this is by design a US-dominated system. And it can certainly be argued that the EU, a project that is closely tied to NATO in many ways, often bears a lot of the brunt for the fallout of US-dominated actions. The question is, of course, if Americans still want that arrangement. And increasingly since Iraq, the answer has been "no." It might take the FP apparatus a while to catch up to that fact but it's clearly the case that Trump's proposition of making others pay their fair share pursues a more aggressive retrenchment than Obama, who was already doing the same. Though Trump did fuck up the Asia pivot so the US has fewer options now, it's clear that they were headed towards isolationism much more than in the past. Furthermore, NATO grew so big that it is perhaps collapsing under its own weight. Over the past two decades it's been adding commitments like there's no tomorrow, in a way that starts to undermine the core of the alliance. The "historical argument" for its existence has to come to terms with the fact that it no longer serves the purpose it once did. Also, Trump changes his mind ten times a day. I don't buy a commitment to NATO being permanent. He will just give mixed signals for the next four years. Yeah the commitments end is interesting. It's mission is kind of whatever it feels like that year. I Now the topic shift reminds us that it's not germane to total defense spending, like others just deflected to, it's just germane to what Europe wants to do in its own defense now that the USSR is not doing international communism. It would be interesting to learn how much they care about their own defense relative to domestic welfare spending. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13957 Posts
On March 20 2017 05:15 Velr wrote: Against who, except the US, would europe need more budget? Being able to help out in stabilizing and enlightening less developed countries? There are more things to do with your military then just going to war. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote: Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10724 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21707 Posts
On March 20 2017 05:18 Sermokala wrote: Being able to help out in stabilizing and enlightening less developed countries? There are more things to do with your military then just going to war. the EU is already engaged in various peacekeeping missions through the UN. We don't need to up our military spending for that. | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote: repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/ Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote: "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/ Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On March 20 2017 05:15 Velr wrote: Against who, except the US, would europe need more budget? Have you noticed that one country that keeps peeling off parts of countries that we can potentially accept as members in future while we are just watching? But that would be a discussion for the EU thread ... well on a second thought no, it's gonna go down as usual, so that is probably not a discussion to have here at all  | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 20 2017 04:40 Gorsameth wrote: I'm fine with taking the 10's of millions of refugees and shipping them off to the US, sure, lets go do that. Let's face it, we would just dump them on someone else. Americans as a whole are selfish dicks like that. On March 20 2017 04:41 opisska wrote: Can we agree that shooting people is not an option? If not, then I don't really know what is there to discuss ... Deporting would be nice, but you need two to dance. You can't deport people into a country against that county's will, not to mention that they will just come again. Keeping people in refugee camps is both expensive and dangerous, because those hordes of desperate people without a future might turn into a serious issue. What does freedom of movement have to do with it? There is no freedom of movement across the outside EU border. Yeah, we could have tried to lock them all in Greece and Italy, but that already is us, that solves nothing. Maybe Trump should think about building the wall more inland to save resources, who the hell even cares about Texas, right? Shooting people isn't a serious suggestion, no. It's just a hard-line opposite to "let em all in, we can take a limitless quantity" from the other side. People won't come if they don't have a chance of getting in. There's a rather good chance of dying in transit. They will pursue other directions. Refugee camps are a logistically effective way to deal with a large influx in the short term. Relatively cheap, you can take a lot in at once, and Turkey honestly does a commendable job keeping good refugee camps. No, it's not a fun life, but it is away from the war, so it's good enough until you figure out how to redistribute them. And it cuts down on fake "throw away my passport and say I'm from Syria" refugees as well. Freedom of movement has to do with what happens to them once they are already inside of Europe. The political reality is such that, whether or not they are legally allowed to move freely between countries, the political reality is that borders within the EU are much less prominent than they would be between most other countries. So they can travel freely between countries as they like, generally towards Germany regardless of where they are meant to stay (the "Poland takes them but they flee to Germany overnight" issue). The problem of the freedom of movement, broadly speaking, is that keeping it in existence also limits your ability to control your borders - a problem to which refugees contribute. On March 20 2017 04:45 m4ini wrote: The freedom of movement only applies to european citizens. If you study a map closely, you'll find that none of the countries that have american democracy spread in them is part of the union. Hence freedom of movement actually doesn't apply to refugees. Let me emphasise that: freedom of movement doesn't apply to refugees. The underlined comment is so idiotic that i actually don't know how to react to it. As above. Perhaps not legally but free movement does apply as a political reality. As for the underlined comment. Humor me. It seems quite clearly based on a moral obligation to help those in need that obviously doesn't exist in the US. It's less prominent in the EU than leftward-leaning folk would like but among the leadership it's definitely much more strongly there by consensus. But the result is this: the US isn't dumping the problem on Europe, Americans are just selfish shitheads who don't give a fuck. Unless there's some other reason I'm missing. On March 20 2017 05:01 Toadesstern wrote: I feel like your entire argument basicly boils down to "well yes, we put a bag full of shit on fire and placed it in front of your door before ringing your doorbell.... but it was you guys who hastily decided to best put it out by trying to step on it! So how exactly is it our fault that you got shit on your shoes now?" Yeah that's about right. But Americans would prefer that you just scraped it up and tossed it into the streets and said "not my problem." Because that's what we would do in the same circumstance. | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote: it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. You haven't show any prove to your false statement. Just using broken English with no thoughts just because someone is trying to cut America some spending. Having a wasteful attitude is not a good way to get through life. | ||
| ||
