European take on the Syrian crisis?

[itsme]

What do my fellow Europeans or Americans think about the Syrian crisis? Should the Euro zone members accept Syrian refugees? The United States has vowed to accept 10K refugees. Do my American friends think that's a good idea?

[Maturin]

The thing is however that they are refugees and all European nations have signed the Geneva convention which gives them the responsibility to do their best to help these people. This is without going into the conversation regarding the moral responsibility to protect non combatants of countries that we have destroyed.

Also remember that refugees are not granted citizenship automatically, they are different to asylum seekers. Someone with a refugee status has a limited number of years, in Sweden it's 3 years, that they can stay in their host country before the government will asses the conditions in their native country and arrange for them to return if the situation has improved.

This situation has given the West the opportunity to put its money where its mouth is and show the world that it is as superior as some people think it is. How we treat vulnerable people, who have nothing, defines the character and worth of our civilization.

[JoJoGunne]

The EU can do whatever they want...I don't really care.  I mean, if they want the burden of tens of thousands of people straining their social and financial infrastructure...have at it.

For the US, I don't think we should let any in our country...for the following reasons:

1.  Security.  I just don't trust that we can detect possible terrorists.

2.  I'm sick and tired of people who have a hard time in their own country abandoning it, thinking they should be welcome in my country.  Why would they care about my country if they don't care about their own?

3.  I question whether they are really "refugees" from the civil unrest in Syria.  Most of those going to the EU countries are not coming from Syria...they actually already left Syria and are coming from Turkey.  They are trying to get to the EU because they'd rather live in a richer country.  In my opinion, that makes them worse than our own illegal aliens because they are lying to get into the US.

[flipflop2]

These are Refugees, NOT illegals trying to worm there way into our country. These are truly persecuted Women, men, and children. They face death. Not financial hardships. I have a hard time believing this is even a question. I served my country with pride for many many years and I saw some wicked things across this great big world. To know that if we can then we should help.

[JoJoGunne]

These are Refugees, NOT illegals trying to worm there way into our country. These are truly persecuted Women, men, and children. They face death. Not financial hardships. I have a hard time believing this is even a question. I served my country with pride for many many years and I saw some wicked things across this great big world. To know that if we can then we should help.

Are you saying they face death while in Turkey?  I haven't heard any such thing.

Here is the truth about why they are leaving Turkey to go to the EU:

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/17/441168633/for-syrian-migrants-many-reasons-to-leave-turkey-for-europe

[Maturin]

Are you saying they face death while in Turkey?  I haven't heard any such thing.

Here is the truth about why they are leaving Turkey to go to the EU:

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/17/441168633/for-syrian-migrants-many-reasons-to-leave-turkey-for-europe

Whilst they do not face death in Turkey, the also face no kind of life or basic human respect there either.  Turkey is not an Arab country and they have been traditionally hostile toward Arab countries - which is actually why they should be commended for doing what they are, despite history.  The camps there, whilst keeping the people alive, are slightly better than prisons - prisons with less basic amenities that is.  I know what I would do if faced with the decison of spending an unknown number of years in the desert, with no opportunity and a hostile population.  I'm pretty sure most people here would make the trip to Europe too if they were ever unlucky enough to have such a situation visited upon them.

Here's a quote directly from this article:

Adil is a 28-year-old mathematics teacher from Syria's Hasakeh province. He spent several months in Turkey before deciding he had to leave. He wound up swimming to Lesbos when the motor died on the boat he was in.

As to why he didn't stay and build a life in Turkey, his emphatic reply is that he did try, but quickly found out that he wasn't allowed to.

"The big problem for anyone in Syria, you live in Turkiya, Turkiya it's very bad," he says, using an Arabic pronunciation for the country. "You can't rent a house, 'cause you are from Syria. And [they] didn't give you anything to be legal in country in Turkiya."

For Adil Mohammad and nearly 2 million other Syrians in Turkey, that's the core of the problem. Turkey doesn't allow non-Europeans to apply for asylum. Instead, they get "temporary protection" — very generous protection, given to vast numbers of people, but it never leads to legal status.

Again it goes back to my point of what right do we have to utterly waste someone's life, sentencing them to sit in tents in the desert dependent on handouts, when we caused the situation and are able to help?

[JoJoGunne]

Whilst they do not face death in Turkey, the also face no kind of life or basic human respect there either.  Turkey is not an Arab country and they have been traditionally hostile toward Arab countries - which is actually why they should be commended for doing what they are, despite history.  The camps there, whilst keeping the people alive, are slightly better than prisons - prisons with less basic amenities that is.  I know what I would do if faced with the decison of spending an unknown number of years in the desert, with no opportunity and a hostile population.  I'm pretty sure most people here would make the trip to Europe too if they were ever unlucky enough to have such a situation visited upon them.

Here's a quote directly from this article:

Adil is a 28-year-old mathematics teacher from Syria's Hasakeh province. He spent several months in Turkey before deciding he had to leave. He wound up swimming to Lesbos when the motor died on the boat he was in.

As to why he didn't stay and build a life in Turkey, his emphatic reply is that he did try, but quickly found out that he wasn't allowed to.

"The big problem for anyone in Syria, you live in Turkiya, Turkiya it's very bad," he says, using an Arabic pronunciation for the country. "You can't rent a house, 'cause you are from Syria. And [they] didn't give you anything to be legal in country in Turkiya."

For Adil Mohammad and nearly 2 million other Syrians in Turkey, that's the core of the problem. Turkey doesn't allow non-Europeans to apply for asylum. Instead, they get "temporary protection" — very generous protection, given to vast numbers of people, but it never leads to legal status.

Again it goes back to my point of what right do we have to utterly waste someone's life, sentencing them to sit in tents in the desert dependent on handouts, when we caused the situation and are able to help?

So...you agree that they are not "refugees" escaping the horrors of war in their native country...Syria...but, rather, are people escaping an untenable financial situation in Turkey for a more lucrative situation in the EU...right?

That was what I was trying to say in point #3 in my post and the link I provided bears that out.

btw, who...exactly...are you talking about when you say that "...we caused the situation..."?  The EU?  The US?  Turkey?  The Syrians, themselves?

[Maturin]

We, as in the Western powers. Initially the Austro-Hungarian Empire, then the Turks, then the British, then the British and the French, then everyone that backed America in it's seach for oil - all of us. 

The rise and triumph of ISIS in Iraq, subsequently turning their attention to Syria, is the fault of Western f-ups and not finishing what they started in Iraq.  Don't forget that the reason given to declare war on Iraq was that it had WMDs and was intending to use them imminently on Western targets - something that Bush and Blair outright lied about.  Service men and women were sent to Iraq on this lie and pretty much destroyed the country - killing 1.5 million Iraqis.  That country is fucked for the forseeable future.  The troops were then pulled out so that the allies' leaders could declare a political victory.  Whilst our soldiers were there, underequipped and undersupplied, the rules of engagment were changed, stopping them directly prosecuting known or potential enemy combatants, leaving these people free to set up what would become ISIS.

I don't agree with your refugee/economic migrant assertion, no. A "lucrative situation" implies that they are economic migrants in search of new shores in which to practice their trade or technical expertise. There is no rule that states a refugee must apply for asylum in the first country that they arrive. Again this is from the Geneva convention.  This is quite obviously to safeguard these people, who have nothing, from becoming dependant on a country neighbouring their own that does not want them or is not treating them humanely.  They are legal refugees when they leave their country, when they arrive in Turkey, leave it and arrive in Greece. As refugees they have the right to transit through Europe and I'm not sure why that point is still being discussed.

In the US I can well understand, to a degree, why there is little empathy for refugees.  The US as it stands will never, ever, be invaded. Americans will never have to think about dropping everything to escape for their lives and livelihoods once war rolls up and swallows their towns.  It is different in Europe.  The next world war will be fought here just like the previous two.  It's all very well us able-bodied men saying, when that happens I'll go down fighting, I'll fight em 'til I drop etc - but what about the people who can't?  The women and children, old men and women, the fathers who would rather see their families safe than fight in someone else's war? (99% of wars are someone else's). When Europe is hit by war and European refugees need a country to help, who is going to assist after we set such an example as the past month. Where will their friends be?

[TBG 150]

I hope never to see WWIII. But with the greedy power hungry politicians the world over, it's sure to happen.

[Maturin]

I hope never to see WWIII. But with the greedy power hungry politicians the world over, it's sure to happen.

It is gonna happen I think. If you look at Russia moving troops into Syria right now to back Assad - well, that aint gonna end well.

[TBG 150]

I always said that if the powers that be want to fight, let them get into a place like the Roman Colosseum and let them fight til the death from there. The loser is the loser along with all of the big money that backs him. The winners are the people of all countries involved that never lose a son or daughter to some idiots lack of the ability to preserve peace. 

The only winners in war are the financial contributors and the recipients of the  money being made from equipment manufacturing.

[JoJoGunne]

We, as in the Western powers. Initially the Austro-Hungarian Empire, then the British, then the British and the French, then everyone that backed America in it's seach for oil - all of us. 

Syria has never been an oil powerhouse and most certainly, in the last ten years or so, they have become more and more an oil importer than an oil exporter.

In any case, saying we bear responsibility for their civil was is akin to saying current-day Americans owe reparations to descendants of slaves.  Nothing but a ridiculous notion.

The rise and triumph of ISIS in Iraq, subsequently turning their attention to Syria,

Whoa, there...before you make a fool of yourself, you should be aware that ISIS have yet to "triumph" anywhere.

is the fault of Western f-ups and not finishing what they started in Iraq.  Don't forget that the reason given to declare war on Iraq was that it had WMDs and was intending to use them imminently on Western targets - something that Bush and Blair outright lied about.  Service men and women were sent to Iraq on this lie and pretty much destroyed the country - killing 1.5 million Iraqis.  That country is fucked for the forseeable future.  The troops were then pulled out so that the allies' leaders could declare a political victory.  Whilst our soldiers were there, underequipped and undersupplied, the rules of engagment were changed, stopping them directly prosecuting known or potential enemy combatants, leaving these people free to set up what would become ISIS.

I'll agree that the US, to a certain extent bears responsibility for the current conditions in Iraq, though I wouldn't put it all on Bush and Blair.  Obama certainly screwed things up due to his inaction, the EU...including the UK...abandoned Iraq early on and Iraq, themselves, let their own people down.

But all that really has little to do with the Syrian people fleeing their homes.  That is due more to Syria's own civil war.  You know...Syrians fighting Syrians.  That civil war is an outcome of the so-called "Arab Spring".  Neither the US nor the EU created that.

I don't agree with your refugee/economic migrant assertion, no. A "lucrative situation" implies that they are economic migrants in search of new shores in which to practice their trade or technical expertise. There is no rule that states a refugee must apply for asylum in the first country that they arrive. Again this is from the Geneva convention.  This is quite obviously to safeguard these people, who have nothing, from becoming dependant on a country neighbouring their own that does not want them or is not treating them humanely.  They are legal refugees when they leave their country, when they arrive in Turkey, leave it and arrive in Greece. As refugees they have the right to transit through Europe and I'm not sure why that point is still being discussed.

LOL!!

I'll admit I'm not an expert on the Geneva Conventions, as you imply that you are, but your contention that they can...or should be able to...take advantage of their "refugee status" forever until they find some country in which they can make the biggest buck...or get the most social benefits...is ludicrous.

In the US I can well understand, to a degree, why there is little empathy for refugees.  The US as it stands will never, ever, be invaded. Americans will never have to think about dropping everything to escape for their lives and livelihoods once war rolls up and swallows their towns.  It is different in Europe.  The next world war will be fought here just like the previous two.  It's all very well us able-bodied men saying, when that happens I'll go down fighting, I'll fight em 'til I drop etc - but what about the people who can't?  The women and children, old men and women, the fathers who would rather see their families safe than fight in someone else's war? (99% of wars are someone else's). When Europe is hit by war and European refugees need a country to help, who is going to assist after we set such an example as the past month. Where will their friends be?

If you are worried about the next world war, do something about it...before it happens...instead of crying about what your choices will be after it happens.

But don't worry too much.  You can be sure that the US will come and help you...we always have.  Even when you take us for granted.

edit:  I just read an article that shows that the leadership in the EU is now realizing just what they are getting into...especially since the bulk of these "refugees" are not refugees at all.  They are also deciding that they just cannot afford to absorb the hundreds of thousands swarming in.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240010/Number-refugees-arriving-Europe-soars-85-year-just-one-five-war-torn-Syria.html