Or, we could put ground troops into Syria and try and stabilise the region and bring an end to the sectarian violence?
You know, treat the cause, not the symptoms?
(
Draconacticus Reject shampoo. Demand real poo!, Fri 17 Jun 2016, 12:01,
Share,
Reply)
Fantastic idea!
Just like "troops on the ground" solved all the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq!
Christ, I wish I'd had such clarity of thought!
Oh, hang on a minute... Sorry... I've just realised a flaw in your masterplan... 13 years of military interventions might actually the root cause of the rise and consolidation of sectarian and extremist groups and ideologies. If only some people had raised this spectre 13 years ago eh?
Shit, I really thought you had the answer to all the world's problems there as well. HashtagSadFace
(, Fri 17 Jun 2016, 12:05, Share, Reply)
Ok, so what is the solution?
We just empty Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, Libya, Nigeria into Europe? We don't try and help fix things? We just turn a blind eye to the ill and infirm that aren't able to make the journey to escape?
(
Draconacticus Reject shampoo. Demand real poo!, Fri 17 Jun 2016, 12:10,
Share,
Reply)
The point is..
That its not a simple situation with a simple answer. In fact, the whole scenario is an absolute clusterfuck and will require a more nuanced response than either closing borders or sending in troops. However, we have a media and a majority of the population who want to portray the situation in the childish paradigm of goodies vs baddies.
The problem is, the people who we call baddies were goodies not too long ago and the goodies were baddies before that, and at some point soon we'll be calling THEM baddies again. Meanwhile, outside the Western geopolitical sphere, there are other players who are calling OUR goodies baddies!!!
What is very patently fucking obvious though to anyone with a modicum of intelligence, is that 13 years of military invention has made things a HELL of a lot worse.
(, Fri 17 Jun 2016, 12:18, Share, Reply)
Whilst the EU sat with its thumb up its arse Putin increased the numbers of refugees fleeing.
No side of the political debate has proposed anything that remotely sounds like trying to find a solution.
(
Draconacticus Reject shampoo. Demand real poo!, Fri 17 Jun 2016, 12:31,
Share,
Reply)
Another minor flaw in your plan...
Soooo, we have a refugee crisis because of an ongoing armed conflict in Syria, yes?
You suggest we ESCALATE the conflict by sending in foreign ground forces, yes?
I'm just wondering, do you think an escalation of the conflict will:
A) decrease the number of refugees
OR
B) increase the number of refugees
I know its a toughie, but if you rub your two brain cells together for a few minutes, I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out.
(I'm a nice guy so I'll give you a clue, the answer is "B")
(, Fri 17 Jun 2016, 12:11, Share, Reply)
Yes, there are only ever two possible outcomes in this digital world.
Clearing an area of hostile forces and having it under UN protection would in no way create a safe area for people to exist and build a life.
The problem we have is the world has lost its appetite to commit long term to anything and the complete mess of alliances and proxy wars means we are just turning a blind eye to the suffering unless it can make its own way to Calais.
(
Draconacticus Reject shampoo. Demand real poo!, Fri 17 Jun 2016, 12:19,
Share,
Reply)
