The Migrant crisis, thoughts and feelings.

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • I believe that no nation should be forced to accept incoming people, whether they be refugees or not, if said people offer nothing for the nation in question. You can't expect nor criticising them for not getting complete hospitality from them, in my opinion
      "A knight cannot save the world. They call certain methods of fighting good and others evil, acting as if there were some nobility to the battlefield."

      "Honor? Glory? There's no point in speaking to a killer who indulges in such nonsense."

      "It's a crime we call victory, paid for by the pain of the defeated"
    • I am not a socialist but I think it's our duty as fellow human beings (and because we kinda caused the war) to bring them in. But different countries should bring in different numbers of refugees. Oh, and the controls and the security should be tighter.
      "You can't break a man the way you break a dog, or a horse. The harder you beat a man, the taller he stands." -Jackal (Far Cry 2)

    • bbc.co.uk/news/world-34301521
      One of your beloved Americans said it himself, Syria is the main problem and until the west see that keeping Assad as the leader until stability reigns and then getting rid of him is the best idea Syria will stay the main problem. Onwards,

      wsj.com/articles/the-roots-of-…gration-crisis-1441995372
      In support of your observation.

      And finally.

      Ascertaining motivation is complex, but most of the migrants are refugees, fleeing war and persecution in countries such as Syria, Afghanistan and Eritrea: according to UNHCRdata, as of November 2015, 85% of Mediterranean Sea arrivals come from the world's top ten refugee-producing countries (52% from Syria, 19% from Afghanistan, 6% from Iraq, 5% from Eritrea, 2% from Somalia and 1% from Sudan). The top ten nationalities of Mediterranean Sea arrivals also include Nigeria (2%), Pakistan (2%), Gambia (1%) and Mali(1%).[14][16] Asylum seekers of seven nationalities had an asylum recognition rate of over 50% in EU States in the first quarter of 2015, meaning that they obtained protection over half the time they applied: Syrians (94% recognition rate), Eritreans (90%), Iraqis (88%), Afghans (66%), Iranians (65%), Somalis (60%) and Sudanese (53%). Migrants of these nationalities accounted for 90% of the arrivals in Greece and 47% of the arrivals in Italy between January and August 2015, according to UNHCR data.[63][65] Wars fueling the crisis are the Syrian civil war and the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Somalia, and the war in Darfur. Refugees from Eritrea, one of the most repressive states in the world, flee from indefinite military conscription and forced labour.[11][66]
      British=best. Duh!


    • If we're gonna talk about responsibility for this humanitarian crisis, we mustn’t forget our good friend George W. Bush. May he forever be remembered for his rash invasion of Iraq based on a pretext of lies. And because of said lies, and the drawn-out conflict that cost the lives over 4,000 American Soldiers and countless more innocents, the nation of Iraq has become a failed state. And from that failed state comes the embodiment of evil, ISIS. The reason so many people must flee their homelands for the sake of their lives is Bush.

      -Nope

      May we only hope his brother doesn't get elected. In my view he is second only to Trump for his potential to damage the USA and by extension, Western world.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Liberinsula ().

    • I hope Trump doesn't become president since it would become awkward for the UK since were considering Banning him from the UK. The petition already has around 450,000 signatures and only needs 10,000 for a comment from government and 100,000 for a debate in the House of commons. But moving along, the only way this will end is closing of borders or ending the conflict. they will just keep coming. On another note...im back baby after my small break

      Forum Gang Divine Entity :00000156:

      Taking over the Forum 1 post at a time.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Ellio_98 ().

    • Europe is now in a difficult situation, but first and foremost we need to keep democracy and his composure. We have to solve problems effectively and fairly.

      That is my opinion.


      "I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.


      "Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.
    • I'm all for helping them out, but the ones who act like this


      I say we send these ones back over the border. The immigrants/migrants/refugee's/asylum seekers/whatever we're calling them today. who follow the Country they're staying in laws and respect the customs of the Country. They're the ones can stay, but act up, you're out of here. That outta teach them better than any prison.
      Now remember kids, it's a scientifically proven fact the Mother Land is 100% better than Capitalist Pigland.


      These guys are pretty swell
      |
      V
    • aDudeWhoDoesThings wrote:

      I believe that no nation should be forced to accept incoming people, whether they be refugees or not, if said people offer nothing for the nation in question. You can't expect nor criticising them for not getting complete hospitality from them, in my opinion
      It isn't only our history. It' our life. And I think that it isn't need to take students because they just begin to live. They need to learn.
    • Pablo22510 wrote:

      I am not a socialist but I think it's our duty as fellow human beings (and because we kinda caused the war) to bring them in.
      No, bad opinion. Our duty, as civilized part of the world, is not destroying another countries for political or economical reasons so no refugees will be here. Europe /same as US/ is doing this and it is bad. OK, we have here some really bad regtimes in africa, maybe Iraq (just maybe, cos their culture is totally different, who can say it is bad and kill them for being what they are for centuries ?!? )..., but most of refugees are here just because strong world players make war in their homes.

      But there are more cases... Ukraine, one part (rich for raws) played for east, second part play for west and the west world make there battle playground and force mixed country to decide. Current situation is just the result of west game. So we have here new refugess now...

      Syria is very similar, I suppose nobody belive now about that not real/fictional chemical attacks. Same case as in Iraq with nuclear or chemical weapons or so...

      So.. Europe, or civilized part the world, should stop destroying and abusing the weak countries as our real help to people living there. Accepting refuges is just second step, something like act of our regrets for our ugly mistakes.

      If west world really want help them, we can set up some good business, infrastructure and not selling old products or other gargabe for theirs raw. But it will have consequences, living starndards in west world would have to drop down then... so ok, I dont care about the rest of the world, we should used them, abused them but dont pretend that we are helping them or have human goals. We should admit the reality, if west world want have good live standards, other part of world have to have worse and we dont want be equal. (but most of europans/US dont want admit this sad reality :) )


      Sorry of my english and my stupid opinion :-D.
      --- It is all just about the people! ---

      The post was edited 1 time, last by VorlonFCW ().

    • After struggling through trying to read that and then skimming towards the end, I think the gist that stands out to me is that you think that world economics is a zero-sum game. In fact it is not. More resources can always be added without taking from others. It's called "development". It's called "creation". It's the act of making something useful and needed from that which previously was not useful nor needed.

      As an example, a tree stands on a hillside, doing very little for the world except to make a tiny bit of air and look pretty. But I can cut down that tree, mill it's wood into lumber, combine the sawdust with glues, wood chips, and some thinly-sliced wood sheets to make plywood. I can grind up the smallest limbs and the tree's needles or leaves into compost. And, I can then turn around and sell that lumber, that plywood, and that compost for a profit.

      I did not take anything from anyone else. I simply converted something from our earth into something useful. The lumber is used to frame a house. The plywood is used to make the walls and roof of the house. The compost is used to plant new trees and grass and flowers around the house.

      I can dig up the earth to create a level and healthy growing field. I can dig up stone and cut it to shape to make building blocks and grind it into gravel for cement....both of these are essential foundations for that house. I can grow food in that field that will turn around and feed others. And, like with the food, these materials, the stone and the dirt, are used to make a profit....again taking something useless and valueless and turning it into profit.

      This doesn't require taking from others. It requires using the earth. This is proof that you can make value and a profit without taking from others. And, if you use your newfound wealth from those sales to buy more land to develop, then you are exercising wise entrepreneurship and continuously adding value to the world-wide economy.

      ~O~

      Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. The socialists and their ilk have always taught otherwise. But their sad theory was revolutionized by a famous economist named John M. Keynes. He decided that not only was macroeconomics a zero-sum game, but it was naturally leading to a principle of "oversaving" which was a tendency -- he surmised -- where people in Britain were saving too much of their wealth and thus denying the economy the benefits of recycling that wealth which would generate jobs and resources. Of course this was wrong-thinking, but most of the western economists to this day actually agree with Keynes, and thus "Keynesian economics" was born. However, as my previous example shows, this is still the wrong way to look at an economically-driven society.

      Macroeconomics deals with large-scale economic interactions...and it deals with how multi-variant economic forces can affect each other and it deals with the repercussions of the same. But Keynesian economics limits the potential of an economy by asserting that only through a redistribution of wealth can all participants in an economy be able to best-contribute to that economy. But even that principle is self-defeating because one can't contribute without having a newly-created good or service of value to put into the economy. Just taking someone else's wealth from another and spending that as one's own wealth does not produce anything. It only reapportions. In that aspect, Keynes was right...but not that macroeconomics is inherently a zero-sum game, but that socialism pretends at it, in principle.


      Jack D. Douglas wrote:

      All Western history has proven the socialist myth false. But myths are created and accepted because they appeal to deep feelings, especially those like envy, resentment, fear and aggression. These particular zero-sum myths could not be accepted by many educated people because they were so clearly wrong. But their emotional appeal led inventive people to find a new way—the Keynesian revolution.
      ~ Excerpted from an interesting article by Jack D. Douglas at
      fee.org, website of the Foundation for Economic Education.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Diabolical ().

    • Diabolical wrote:

      More resources can always be added without taking from others.
      I didnt mean just raw or so. It is more complex. West world need to sell garbage goods, need cheap workforce for jobs, which be never made by human in our world (like Africans separating dangerous products with dangerous metals by own hands or so), need battleground to testing armies and so....

      But there are also strategic reasons, like that plan to make gold standards for selling oil or raw in Africa. In one sentence, we will and we are abusing that poor part of the world.





      **Economics is NOT a zero-sum game.


      Actually, for the our west world it is game. We dont have any feeling about the people, we see mostly profit, bribes and ill power. I live in europe, I earn good money for my locality, so I am not speaking from the position like poor guy hate the rich guyes :-). I am just able admit the truth, how it works. Look, I like that rich charitable parties or TV charitable collection where maybe about 50% of obtained money are abused/steal by "system". (some part taxes, other is just ugly business how to divide that money or so). As I said, if the west world want to help poor countries we are able to that, but we never will do that. We just need make some promo action so sensitive rich people will have feel that we are helping to poor people and no matter that reality is different. But I dont care, why to help other part of the world, especially if I dont think that the situation in my locality (central europe) is good. I dont care if there are some wars, if it is not close to my country and if some of our companies can make profit too of it.

      Look on NATO, it is not just defensive pact for years but we all know that the richest countries are making the best profit of every war which even NATO starts. It is business, people can not change it. Governments just had to sell cheap feelings to people that we are the good guys because of election, that is all.


      I dont want change this discussion to economics theories...I just want say that our funny TV promo how we are helping to immigrants is hypocrite. We made immigrants by our activities, so talking about helping is really hypocritical.


      (sorry of bad formating and also again of my bad english :) )
      --- It is all just about the people! ---