The End of Europe?

[Gator]

What was the other, 'real' motivation, then ?

Importing cheaper manpower has been the rule since Babylonian times, and continues today with new variations like exporting production .

What was the other, 'real' motivation, then ?

Importing cheaper manpower has been the rule since Babylonian times, and continues today with new variations like exporting production .

Sandro, when I pay an extra 50% or more for a Made in Italy garment, I want it to be made by Italians, not Saharan tribes, not even descendants of Carthage.   

BTW, when did that stop being the case?   

[Larry1]

Sandro, when I pay an extra 50% or more for a Made in Italy garment, I want it to be made by Italians, not Saharan tribes, not even descendants of Carthage.  

BTW, when did that stop being the case?

Call it Hannibal's revenge.

[SANDRO43]

Sandro, when I pay an extra 50% or more for a Made in Italy garment, I want it to be made by Italians, not Saharan tribes, not even descendants of Carthage.

You pay for the brand, regardless of the place of manufacture . In the late 1950s the Lacoste polos made their appearance here and became a rage - later it turned out they were mostly made in Italy .

BTW, when did that stop being the case?

At the end of the Third Punic War in 146 BC, when Publius Cornelius Aemilianus Scipio - later granted the title of Africanus - defeated them utterly and forever .

[HoundDaddyLee]

Just read this story this morning. The way women are treated in Muslim communities is terrible. I, for the life of me, cannot figure out why liberals want to bring in more and more "refugees".
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/03/asia/pakistan-british-woman-raped/index.html


I guess once western societies see this behavior, along with the beheadings, etc. they will realize the mistake. But by then it will be too late. And I am no Trump fan and will be voting libratarian. But how many potentially dangerous migrants do we need to let in before our leaders pull their heads out of their asses and wake up.
HDL

[Gator]

Just read this story this morning. The way women are treated in Muslim communities is terrible. I, for the life of me, cannot figure out why liberals want to bring in more and more "refugees".
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/03/asia/pakistan-british-woman-raped/index.html


I guess once western societies see this behavior, along with the beheadings, etc. they will realize the mistake. But by then it will be too late. And I am no Trump fan and will be voting libratarian. But how many potentially dangerous migrants do we need to let in before our leaders pull their heads out of their asses and wake up.
HDL

It seems you do not trust the vetting system to screen the refugees and eliminate the dangerous ones. 

Another issue is what happens in the years after they arrive.  For two centuries the American Melting Pot has assimilated wave after wave of immigrants into the American culture.  In contrast, European experience has shown the melting pot concept is not working for North Africans and Middle Eastern immigrants.  Will the new refugees assimilate or not? 

If you are indeed concerned, I suggest you reconsider Trump.  Libertarians tend to be tolerant.  I actually prefer tolerance, but not for everything. 

 

[HoundDaddyLee]

It seems you do not trust the vetting system to screen the refugees and eliminate the dangerous ones. 

Another issue is what happens in the years after they arrive.  For two centuries the American Melting Pot has assimilated wave after wave of immigrants into the American culture.  In contrast, European experience has shown the melting pot concept is not working for North Africans and Middle Eastern immigrants.  Will the new refugees assimilate or not? 

If you are indeed concerned, I suggest you reconsider Trump.  Libertarians tend to be tolerant.  I actually prefer tolerance, but not for everything.

Gater,


I completely buy into the "melting pot" concept. But our previous waves of immigrants were willing to assimilate into America. If you think the majority of the current generation of Muslims are willing to this you are kidding yourself. Look at Sweden, where immigrants are raping the local women because their religion calls them whores. Do you want this for our young women? These followers of the "religion of peace" treat women like chattel. And no, I don't trust the vetting system we use. The brothers in Boston proved that the system is flawed. Trump is an ass, I don't want to stop all immigration. I don't want IED's, beheadings and "honor killings" happening in America. Are all Muslims, like this? No. But enough are to warrant the US doing something to prevent it.


But, it won't matter. By the time we reach the tipping point in the US, I suspect you and I will have passed on. I worry for your children and grandchildren.


HDL

[mhr7]

Gater,


I completely buy into the "melting pot" concept. But our previous waves of immigrants were willing to assimilate into America. If you think the majority of the current generation of Muslims are willing to this you are kidding yourself. Look at Sweden, where immigrants are raping the local women because their religion calls them whores. Do you want this for our young women? These followers of the "religion of peace" treat women like chattel. And no, I don't trust the vetting system we use. The brothers in Boston proved that the system is flawed. Trump is an ass, I don't want to stop all immigration. I don't want IED's, beheadings and "honor killings" happening in America. Are all Muslims, like this? No. But enough are to warrant the US doing something to prevent it.


But, it won't matter. By the time we reach the tipping point in the US, I suspect you and I will have passed on. I worry for your children and grandchildren.


HDL

You're not alone HDL. My leanings are usually a tad left of center but, in all honesty, if the US passed a law not allowing Muslims in, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I hate to say that because I know most are harmless but Islam and Western culture are just not compatible.

[tfcrew]

The Latest: May says no 2nd Brexit referendum

British Prime Minister Theresa May says there will be "no second referendum" in the U.K. on exiting the European Union. She says the U.K. will be leaving the EU.
May is meeting with President Barack Obama in China. She says the U.K. plans to continue pursuing an aggressive trade relationship with the U.S. despite the decision to leave the EU.
May and Obama are downplaying concerns that Britain becomes a lower trading priority for the U.S. by leaving the European bloc. The U.S. has been negotiating a broad EU trade deal and said ahead of the Brexit vote that Britain would go to the back of a line for a two-country deal if it left the EU.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/09/04/latest-may-says-no-2nd-brexit-referendum.html

[Boethius]

European experience has shown the melting pot concept is not working for North Africans and Middle Eastern immigrants

Historically, European countries were not melting pots, nor multicultural.  Another issue is that many of their current immigrants are refugees (often due to US policies).  A goat herder, or a petty thief from the streets of Marrakesh, or an illiterate Somali, is going to have different values than a surgeon from Karachi or an engineer from Alexandria.

[Boethius]

The brothers in Boston proved that the system is flawed.

American authorities were warned about the potential radicalization of Tamerlan Tsarnaev.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-explosions-boston-congress-idUSBREA2P02Q20140326

[HoundDaddyLee]

American authorities were warned about the potential radicalization of Tamerlan Tsarnaev.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-explosions-boston-congress-idUSBREA2P02Q20140326

And we let them in anyway. Back to my point that our vetting process is lacking.


As far as the problem is caused by "US Policies". You are correct, in that you would think we would have learned our lesson by arming the Afghan rebels against the Russians and helping to create Al Qeda. We arm Syrian rebels and ISIS is created. Our leaders don't learn from history. But, the common US citizen should not have to pay the price in blood for bad foreign policy (I throw both the Republicans and Democrats under the bus for this). But ultimately these "goat herders" have been cutting each others heads off for a millennia, we don't need to import this.


I have known many Muslim's in my career. I don't think any of them were radicalized. But many would leave a meeting to go pray at the proper time. They owe their allegiance to Allah and will never owe it to the American flag. That will keep them from assimilating to our western ideals and culture.


Of course my experience is anecdotal, but I think I have seen enough evidence of this to form an educated opinion.


HDL   

[Boethius]

And we let them in anyway. Back to my point that our vetting process is lacking.

No, they entered the U.S. in 2002 on a tourist visa, and applied for asylum, which was granted.  Remember, at that time (and perhaps even now) there was a view that Chechens were the victims of Russian aggression.  I remember the better half shaking his head when European countries granted asylum to a known, and wanted in Russia, ruthless killer.  Of course, he did the same in Europe.  Or, Americans encouraging Chechens to use the Pankisi Gorge as a staging point, when the Russians were protesting loudly.

As far as the problem is caused by "US Policies". You are correct, in that you would think we would have learned our lesson by arming the Afghan rebels against the Russians and helping to create Al Qeda. We arm Syrian rebels and ISIS is created.

While I don't disagree with most of that, ISIS was created in Iraq, in the aftermath of the Bushevik invasion.  I linked a story some time ago about its origins.  It is one in a series -

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story

Syrian generals also funded ISIS in those early days (sort of ironic, given they now battle them), as they viewed them as a bulkwark against US invasion.

Our leaders don't learn from history. But, the common US citizen should not have to pay the price in blood for bad foreign policy (I throw both the Republicans and Democrats under the bus for this). But ultimately these "goat herders" have been cutting each others heads off for a millennia, we don't need to import this.

Most Americans supported the invasion of Iraq.  If the American populace was really against these incursions, your foreign policy would change.  The reality is, most Americans aren't engaged, or informed enough, to care.

I have known many Muslim's in my career. I don't think any of them were radicalized. But many would leave a meeting to go pray at the proper time. They owe their allegiance to Allah and will never owe it to the American flag. That will keep them from assimilating to our western ideals and culture.

I disagree with this.  There just has to be a separation of church and state.  I don't have an issue with people praying, as long as their personal beliefs don't enter the public sphere.  I've known many Muslims as well, and have not seen anything that would indicate they wish to impose their beliefs on others.  But then, all the Muslims I interact with are highly educated.

[HoundDaddyLee]

Yes, most American's approved of the Iraq invasion, including your hero Hilary. Obviously, most of the Muslim's I have interacted with have been educated. The bomb makers are mostly engineers. So, your point?


We will never agree with this. You think it is OK to bring in more refugees, I don't. And I was on the Russian's side for the Chechen war. To be honest the only time I have felt we should have directly helped a Muslim country was in Kosovo. As I felt that was becoming a holocaust. In that case I didn't think we should have armed them, we should have just gone in with the UN and fought the Serbs directly. This war by proxy has proven to be a mistake time and time again. But we don't learn... And before you start with the church and state stuff, if a fundamentalist Christian nutter (ala Westboro Baptist Church) moved next door to me, I wouldn't trust them either.


Just my opinion.
HDL

[Boethius]

I've never claimed Hillary Clinton is my hero.  I am Canadian.  I am largely indifferent to US domestic political issues.  I just don't happen to believe she is a she devil.

I think the last president who actually thought about the global picture was Richard Nixon, and he trailblazed the way behind Pierre Trudeau, who opened relations with both the USSR and China before the US did.
 
So your country creates many of the Middle East's refugees through its policies, yet expects the rest of the world to clean it up.   

[LiveFromUkraine]

So your country creates many of the Middle East's refugees through its policies, yet expects the rest of the world to clean it up.

Pretty much.  It's important to isolate the American people from refugees so their votes aren't impacted by reality.       

[Gator]

... ISIS was created in Iraq, in the aftermath of the Bushevik invasion. 

Partially correct.  Worthy of a "C," but more explanation is needed before blaming the mess entirely on the Americans. 

The seeds for ISIS existed long before the 2003 invasion. The ISIS movement is rooted in fundamentalist Islamic teachings and prophesies from 1,400 years ago about establishing a caliphate, living under Sharia law,  fighting Armageddon, etc. 

ISIS sprouted because of the region's warring tribes, a never closing schism between Sunni and Shia sects, radical interpretations of the Quran by a not small segment of fundamentalist followers, the fact that the Muslims largely have not embraced modernity,  a long history of a minority-led dictatorship, and the displacement of the minority dictatorship without a viable replacement.  The last reason is the only one that can be blamed on the Americans and British.  Yet, it was akin to breaking the glass of a cobra cage. 

Historians credit the Jordanian insurgent/terrorist al-Zarqawi with founding the precedent to ISIS in 1999, well before the invasion.  The organization, affiliated with al Qaeda,  remained small and went through a series of affiliations and changes,  usually resulting each time in a new name.  Zarqawi killed Americans yet killed far more Shia in a reign of terror.  He was killed in 2006, and his replacement was later killed in 2010, after which Baghdadi assumed leadership.  Baghdadi is of course the man named in the Guardian article you linked, the man imprisoned at Camp Bucca.

Much of the organization's leadership had been killed in 2010.  Baghdadi replaced them, many being Baathist leaders he met at Camp Bucca as stated in your article.    ISIS improved somewhat under Baghdadi and his Baathist lieutenants.  Because of the growing unrest in Syria, he started an operation there in 2011.   Nevertheless, he was still contained within Iraq, that is until the American troops withdrew.  Soon after the American military withdrew in December 2011, Baghdadi started to launch major, brilliant offensives.  He separated from al Qaeda, freed a large number of prisoners who became his fighters, captured oil and other valuable assets to fund his operations and expansions, and took control of vast amount of territory.  ISIS was firmly in place.   

On 29 June 2014, Baghdadi  proclaimed the organization as a worldwide caliphate, named the Islamic State.  It started focusing on international operations.  It is said that it recruited many fighters from the Syrian Free Army, a rebel group trained and supplied by the American military. 

Syrian generals also funded ISIS in those early days (sort of ironic, given they now battle them), as they viewed them as a bulkwark against US invasion.

Do you have a reference for this? 

[tfcrew]

I've never claimed Hillary Clinton is my hero.  I just don't happen to believe she is a she devil.

She seems to love money very much and....

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

 

[Gator]

I think the last president who actually thought about the global picture was Richard Nixon, and he trailblazed the way behind Pierre Trudeau, who opened relations with both the USSR and China before the US did.

Hmmmmmm!

Carter - okay, you are correct.   

Reagan may not have had a global perspective, yet he made great strides against the evil empire that gave us a peace dividend.  He saved Grenada. 

George HW - Desert Storm was a success, yet who within his administration  missed the signals that Saddam would invade Kuwait?  Don't forget Panama, now the most prosperous country in Central America.

Bill was too busy having a good time, chasing skirt, enjoying the peace dividend.  He did negotiate NAFTA. 

Bush was justifiably occupied with terrorism and the Middle East.

Obama "pivoted" to Asia, thereby withdrawing from the Middle East and allowing Russia, Iran and ISIS to take our place.   How about that! 

Not much attention has been paid to Europe over these decades.

 
 

So your country creates many of the Middle East's refugees through its policies, yet expects the rest of the world to clean it up.

Wowsa!  Five days without golf, the wife saying I am driving her crazy from being housebound, and I have to read this! 


Think about this.  It was not necessary nor smart for Europe to take refugees.  The pragmatic plan would be to fund modern, comfortable refugee communities in the Middle East, where refugees could be trained to return to their countries and rebuild (and fight if they were patriotic). 

A lot of Syrians and Libyans stayed in their countries to fight and take care of each other.  Those are the people who should be supported, rather than giving Western citizenship to  people who ran.   

I almost forgot.  Germany wanted refugees - to help with its dying demographics.  I hope Germans are not complaining given they wanted refugees.  BTW, how is that working out?     

As far as creating the mess, NATO participated in Libya, and the British in Iraq.  It will be a long time before the US does anything else in Europe's neighborhood or even the Middle East. 

[BillyB]

So your country creates many of the Middle East's refugees through its policies, yet expects the rest of the world to clean it up.

You wanted Obama more than I did. Going into a war half assed like Obama did in Syria and let it drag on forever, what does everybody expect? Syrians will live happily ever after? Europe wasn't motivated to take care of the mess in Syria either and they wanted to go into Libya more than Obama did.

Wars are messy and unpopular but when countries become unstable like Syria and Libya did, hostile actors see opportunity to come out on top. America and Europe has to make sure our friends come out on top otherwise the mess comes to us.

[Boethius]

To be honest the only time I have felt we should have directly helped a Muslim country was in Kosovo. As I felt that was becoming a holocaust. In that case I didn't think we should have armed them, we should have just gone in with the UN and fought the Serbs directly.

This is an inaccurate portrayal of what was occurring in Kosovo, though it was how it was portrayed in the Western media.


Why were the Serbs in Kosovo?  Because Albanian Kosovars were murdering Serbs there.  The KLA then started rumours that the Serbs were ethnically cleansing the region.  They were not.


You could make the argument about a potential "holocaust" in Bosnia, but not in Kosovo.  The end result is that the region is now run by criminal elements, with no rule of law, and one in which Serbs were ethnically cleansed. 


Russia refused to follow the Albright narrative on Kosovo, and they were right.

[Boethius]

Partially correct.  Worthy of a "C," but more explanation is needed before blaming the mess entirely on the Americans. 

The seeds for ISIS existed long before the 2003 invasion. The ISIS movement is rooted in fundamentalist Islamic teachings and prophesies from 1,400 years ago about establishing a caliphate, living under Sharia law,  fighting Armageddon, etc. 

ISIS sprouted because of the region's warring tribes, a never closing schism between Sunni and Shia sects, radical interpretations of the Quran by a not small segment of fundamentalist followers, the fact that the Muslims largely have not embraced modernity,  a long history of a minority-led dictatorship, and the displacement of the minority dictatorship without a viable replacement.  The last reason is the only one that can be blamed on the Americans and British.  Yet, it was akin to breaking the glass of a cobra cage. 

Historians credit the Jordanian insurgent/terrorist al-Zarqawi with founding the precedent to ISIS in 1999, well before the invasion.  The organization, affiliated with al Qaeda,  remained small and went through a series of affiliations and changes,  usually resulting each time in a new name.  Zarqawi killed Americans yet killed far more Shia in a reign of terror.  He was killed in 2006, and his replacement was later killed in 2010, after which Baghdadi assumed leadership.  Baghdadi is of course the man named in the Guardian article you linked, the man imprisoned at Camp Bucca.

Much of the organization's leadership had been killed in 2010.  Baghdadi replaced them, many being Baathist leaders he met at Camp Bucca as stated in your article.    ISIS improved somewhat under Baghdadi and his Baathist lieutenants.  Because of the growing unrest in Syria, he started an operation there in 2011.   Nevertheless, he was still contained within Iraq, that is until the American troops withdrew.  Soon after the American military withdrew in December 2011, Baghdadi started to launch major, brilliant offensives.  He separated from al Qaeda, freed a large number of prisoners who became his fighters, captured oil and other valuable assets to fund his operations and expansions, and took control of vast amount of territory.  ISIS was firmly in place.   

On 29 June 2014, Baghdadi  proclaimed the organization as a worldwide caliphate, named the Islamic State.  It started focusing on international operations.  It is said that it recruited many fighters from the Syrian Free Army, a rebel group trained and supplied by the American military. 


Do you have a reference for this?

Well, the "C" will have to go to Fawaz Gerges, because his work on the subject is the one I sourced my information from.


http://www.amazon.ca/ISIS-History-Fawaz-Gerges/dp/0691170002


He has stated without deBaathification, there would be no ISIS.  He also notes that 30% of the military leaders of ISIS are former Baathists. 


Prof. Gerges believes that even if defeated, ISIS will be a force to reckon with in the future, thanks to sectarian violence and proxy wars in the Middle East.

[Boethius]

Reagan may not have had a global perspective, yet he made great strides against the evil empire that gave us a peace dividend.  He saved Grenada. 

The USSR would have collapsed even without Reagan.  It just would have taken longer. 

The Middle East had greater instability under Reagan, including the US aiding Saddam Hussein in Iraq's war against Iran, and of course, the civil war in Lebanon.  And, of course, let's not forget arming the mujahadin who later morphed into the Taliban.

Should we go into the right wing militias in Central America?  (Carter funded them as well, I believe.)

As goes Grenada, so goes the world.

George HW - Desert Storm was a success, yet who within his administration  missed the signals that Saddam would invade Kuwait?  Don't forget Panama, now the most prosperous country in Central America.

Bush's ambassador to Iraq mucked up her meeting with Saddam, so much so, he thought he had a green light to invade Iraq.  That falls on Bush.

Again, as goes Panama, so goes the world.

The end result of Gulf I was more repression in Iraq, depleted uranium that caused thousands of deformed Iraqi babies, and a trade embargo that was so corrupt, several Western countries and UN officials were found to be selling Iraqi oil.

Bill was too busy having a good time, chasing skirt, enjoying the peace dividend.  He did negotiate NAFTA. 

His administration was responsible for the "shock therapy" that lead to Russian babushkas being murdered for their apartments, millions of Russians lining up to buy basic foodstuffs, and the rise of oligarchs in a free for all capitalism.  His administration was also responsible for handing swaths of land to Muslims in the heart of Europe, where now, Wahhabism has taken hold (Bosnia, and, to a lesser degree, Kosovo).

Bush was justifiably occupied with terrorism and the Middle East.

I understood and supported going into Afghanistan when it was about rooting out terrorists.  When it morphed into "establishing democracy", I thought it a disastrous policy.  You can't "establish democracy" in a country.

Bush's invasion of Iraq is the root cause of most of the turmoil in the Middle East today.

You mentioned Carter.  His security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, claims some responsibility for miring down the Soviets in Afghanistan.  That had a deleterious effect on the Soviet economy.  However, Carter did have one major accomplishment, and that was in negotiating the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.  Of course, that could not have occurred without Sadat, but I think Carter played a critical role in bringing Israel to the table, and that treaty has held since his presidency.  So, kudos to him on that.

Obama "pivoted" to Asia, thereby withdrawing from the Middle East and allowing Russia, Iran and ISIS to take our place.   How about that! 

Iran had established itself as the regional hegemon during Bush's presidency.  You can thank handing the government of Iraq to the Shi'a for that.  They have close ties to Iran.

Think about this.  It was not necessary nor smart for Europe to take refugees.  The pragmatic plan would be to fund modern, comfortable refugee communities in the Middle East, where refugees could be trained to return to their countries and rebuild (and fight if they were patriotic). 

I wasn't referring only to Europe.  There are far more refugees in Turkey and Jordan, in the latter, living in horrible conditions in UN refugee camps, than there are in Germany.  Escaping those camps is the reason there are so many refugees in Europe.  Turkey still has far more Syrian refugees than does all of Europe.

A lot of Syrians and Libyans stayed in their countries to fight and take care of each other.  Those are the people who should be supported, rather than giving Western citizenship to  people who ran.   

If you are a Syrian living under a dictator, and all the forces fighting him are equally repugnant, who do you fight for?  Should you choose to fight for a rebel force that will, if it wins, be equally despotic?

I almost forgot.  Germany wanted refugees - to help with its dying demographics.  I hope Germans are not complaining given they wanted refugees.  BTW, how is that working out?     

I actually don't believe this was the reason for Merkel's view.  Remember, her "welcome" came after photo of a the body of a dead Syrian toddler on a beach in Greece was splashed around the world.  I believe her response is part of her Christian belief.  If finding workers were really the impetus, there are far easier ways to do so within the EU, or even with Eastern European labourers, who are of a similar culture, are more literate on the whole, and better educated.

[Boethius]

You wanted Obama more than I did.

Please quote the posts where I stated I wanted Obama as president.  I predicted he would win in 2008 and 2012.  I didn't say I wanted him, as I don't care either way.  Though I do think Sarah Palin would have been a disaster.

[BillyB]

Please quote the posts where I stated I wanted Obama as president.  I predicted he would win in 2008 and 2012.  I didn't say I wanted him, as I don't care either way.  Though I do think Sarah Palin would have been a disaster.

I thought back then Obama would be a disaster and today we are talking about the mess in the world.  You've talked highly of Obama which is more than I ever did. Like you, the world wanted Obama because he promised hope and change and they gave him a Nobel Peace prize before he accomplished anything. In the politics thread I put up a presidential rating from a liberal source of the last 13 presidents. Lynden Johnson, the president who escalated Vietnam over a fabricated incident and dragged the war on for years with no intention of winning, was rated the number one president even over Reagan and FDR. Obama ranked 10th best out of 13. Think about that.

[mhr7]

I thought back then Obama would be a disaster and today we are talking about the mess in the world.  You've talked highly of Obama which is more than I ever did. Like you, the world wanted Obama because he promised hope and change and they gave him a Nobel Peace prize before he accomplished anything. In the politics thread I put up a presidential rating from a liberal source of the last 13 presidents. Lynden Johnson, the president who escalated Vietnam over a fabricated incident and dragged the war on for years with no intention of winning, was rated the number one president even over Reagan and FDR. Obama ranked 10th best out of 13. Think about that.

Not sure what site you used but Gallup has JFK and Dwight Eisenhower as the highest rated presidents.

Gallup also found that the standard of living index has more than doubled since Obama took office.

When Obama entered the White House, the United States was in the midst of the Great Recession, which damaged the housing market, left many Americans out of work and caused the U.S. gross domestic product to plummet. For 2009, the Gallup Standard of Living Index averaged +26, little better than the +24 found in 2008. It has edged up in most years since then, and for the first seven months of 2016, it averaged +50.