How much refugees are costing us

[Shady]

Just now, Cannucklehead said:

In Osama Bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",^[3][4] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,^[4][5][6] US support of Israel,^[7][8] and sanctions against Iraq.^[9]

Right.  So nothing about Afghanistan.

[Cannucklehead]

2 minutes ago, Shady said:

Right.  So nothing about Afghanistan.

Except for Al Qaeda.  

[Moonlight Graham]

13 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Dream on, that's not gonna happen in loonie leftist Canada, self defeating Canada drags itself down.

I agree.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

So you want Canada put sanctions against the United States?  There economy is 15 times bigger than ours.  Our economy would be the only one that would suffer.  Mostly middle class and lower class workers.  So you would have them bare the brunt of another countries actions?  That makes absolutely no sense at all.  A reconciliation process sounds nice, but colonialism isn’t why Sunni and Shia are at each others throats.  Those rivalries go back hundreds if not thousands of years.  Before colonial powers even existed.  And what about historical injustices that took place before colonialism?  See, the world is much more complex than you seem to understand.  And generalities and feel good platitudes won’t cut it.

Nuu Chah Nulth and Haida rivalries go back thousands of years too. Didn't stop them from reconciling and the treaties coming out of reconciliation are now the biggest economic driver on the coast.

You say it can't be done while people are doing it anyway. You throw complications up as barriers to progress because it's convenient.

In the meantime Canada should be building a coalition of country's determined to put virtue above economics.

Edited November 19, 2019 by eyeball

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I agree.

It's because of the free money party, Canadian taxpayers don't pay the price of anything, you wont get any hard headed rational assessments until the fiscal bill comes due.

[Rue]

10 hours ago, Shady said:

Right.  So nothing about Afghanistan.

That reminds me Shady....on one level people say the US lied about its invasion of Iraq and should not have invaded but why did the world sit back so long while he gassed Kurds? Refugees are sometimes a consequence of sitting back silently while people are slaughtered as much as it can be blamed on invading countries.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

33 minutes ago, Rue said:

That reminds me Shady....on one level people say the US lied about its invasion of Iraq and should not have invaded but why did the world sit back so long while he gassed Kurds? Refugees are sometimes a consequence of sitting back silently while people are slaughtered as much as it can be blamed on invading countries.

 

More hindsight platitudes worth nothing.

The world did not sit back....many nations sold the chemical weapons pre-cursors and delivery systems to Iraq for oil-soaked cash.

[Shady]

14 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

Except for Al Qaeda.  

Not in what you mentioned above.

[Shady]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

That reminds me Shady....on one level people say the US lied about its invasion of Iraq and should not have invaded but why did the world sit back so long while he gassed Kurds? Refugees are sometimes a consequence of sitting back silently while people are slaughtered as much as it can be blamed on invading countries.

Yep.  It's funny to watch the monday morning quarterbacks.  That' way no matter what course of action they suggest, they can deem it to be correct, after the fact.

[Cannucklehead]

15 minutes ago, Shady said:

Not in what you mentioned above.

Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan.  

But for your types they have to specifically state everything I guess.  

Edited November 19, 2019 by Cannucklehead

[Shady]

1 minute ago, Cannucklehead said:

Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan.  

But nothing about Afghanistan is listed in the letter to America.

[Cannucklehead]

4 minutes ago, Shady said:

But nothing about Afghanistan is listed in the letter to America.

While most of the bin Laden family were astute and successful businessmen, Osama’s talents were seemingly more hands-on and best applied “in the field.” During the 1980s, Osama led militia groups against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. His group was essentially armed, trained, and backed by the CIA.

Once that conflict was over is where things begin to get murky. Many conspiracy theorists contend that Osama bin Laden maintained his links to the CIA, although in a more covert way. It should be noted there is no absolute proof of this, with many of the people making these claims using past CIA actions to back up their current theories.

Officially, Osama bin Laden believed the US influence in the Middle East was too great, and he eventually left his native country and began on the road that would ultimately lead to the 9/11 attacks. This type of action in intelligence circles is called “blowback.” Perhaps the fact that such actions are common enough for intelligence agencies to have a name for them should be telling in itself.

[Shady]

45 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

While most of the bin Laden family were astute and successful businessmen, Osama’s talents were seemingly more hands-on and best applied “in the field.” During the 1980s, Osama led militia groups against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. His group was essentially armed, trained, and backed by the CIA.

Once that conflict was over is where things begin to get murky. Many conspiracy theorists contend that Osama bin Laden maintained his links to the CIA, although in a more covert way. It should be noted there is no absolute proof of this, with many of the people making these claims using past CIA actions to back up their current theories.

Officially, Osama bin Laden believed the US influence in the Middle East was too great, and he eventually left his native country and began on the road that would ultimately lead to the 9/11 attacks. This type of action in intelligence circles is called “blowback.” Perhaps the fact that such actions are common enough for intelligence agencies to have a name for them should be telling in itself.

Yep, I know all that.  None of that is listed as a reason for the attacks.  Which was your premise.

[Cannucklehead]

52 minutes ago, Shady said:

Yep, I know all that.  None of that is listed as a reason for the attacks.  Which was your premise.

Seems you are more of the literal type and are unable to read between the lines.  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

But nothing about Afghanistan is listed in the letter to America.

By dint of the retaliation against US policies on 9/11 Saudi Arabia should have been invaded.

I guess the US needed an easier target to scapegoat.

[Shady]

5 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

While most of the bin Laden family were astute and successful businessmen, Osama’s talents were seemingly more hands-on and best applied “in the field.” During the 1980s, Osama led militia groups against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. His group was essentially armed, trained, and backed by the CIA.

Once that conflict was over is where things begin to get murky. Many conspiracy theorists contend that Osama bin Laden maintained his links to the CIA, although in a more covert way. It should be noted there is no absolute proof of this, with many of the people making these claims using past CIA actions to back up their current theories.

Officially, Osama bin Laden believed the US influence in the Middle East was too great, and he eventually left his native country and began on the road that would ultimately lead to the 9/11 attacks. This type of action in intelligence circles is called “blowback.” Perhaps the fact that such actions are common enough for intelligence agencies to have a name for them should be telling in itself.

You’re just repeating yourself.  Yep, I get that he felt the US influence in the Middle East was too great.  And the support for Israel.  But nothing about helping Afghanistan repel and illegal conquest invasion of Afghanistan had anything to do with what he decided to do a decade later.  Helping Afghanistan in that situation was absolutely the right thing to do.

[Shady]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

By dint of the retaliation against US policies on 9/11 Saudi Arabia should have been invaded.

I guess the US needed an easier target to scapegoat.

Maybe.  But Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.  So you’re advocating that Saudi Arabia should have been invaded too?  What blowback would that have created?

[Cannucklehead]

3 minutes ago, Shady said:

You’re just repeating yourself.  Yep, I get that he felt the US influence in the Middle East was too great.  And the support for Israel.  But nothing about helping Afghanistan repel and illegal conquest invasion of Afghanistan had anything to do with what he decided to do a decade later.  Helping Afghanistan in that situation was absolutely the right thing to do.

That's not what set them off.  Throwing allies under a bus is americas classic move, and they got burnt for it that time.  That's what lead to the invasion of Afghanistan, because they refused to give up Bin Laden.  Isnt this stuff common knowledge?  

[Shady]

27 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

That's not what set them off.  Throwing allies under a bus is americas classic move, and they got burnt for it that time.  That's what lead to the invasion of Afghanistan, because they refused to give up Bin Laden.  Isnt this stuff common knowledge?  

I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but my only point was that helping Afghanistan defend itself from the Soviet Union was the right thing to do, and wasn’t the reason Bin Laden decided to plan terrorist attacks over a decade later.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Shady said:

I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but my only point was that helping Afghanistan defend itself from the Soviet Union was the right thing to do, and wasn’t the reason Bin Laden decided to plan terrorist attacks over a decade later.

 

Agreed....even after the Soviets left Afghanistan, many NGOs provided humanitarian and economic assistance to the country (including refugees), with the U.S. being the largest international contributor.   But the Taliban saw this dependency and influence as a threat. 

American military attacks against al-Qaeda did not begin after 9/11, but in 1998 (Bill Clinton) after embassy bombings in Africa.   The Taliban shifted on Bin-Laden after this.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

Maybe.  But Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.  So you’re advocating that Saudi Arabia should have been invaded too?

I didn't advocate for any invasion. The US should have treated 9/11 as a crime and pursued its grievance on court.

What blowback would that have created?

That the US is not above the law.

Edited November 20, 2019 by eyeball

[Moonlight Graham]

On 11/18/2019 at 4:18 PM, eyeball said:

So, no one can say why killing refugees isn't the answer?

Because it will be one day. Like the refugees floating around on the Titanic's lifeboats we will have some powerfully painful decisions to make.

I'm supposed to believe Canada will be up to that challenge? How?

Why kill refugees when you can divert them to other countries?  IMO the vast majority of refugees should settle in nearby countries of the same region with similar economies and cultures as their own.  Persecuted in Somalia? Go resettle in Kenya.  War in Syria?  Go resettle in other middle eastern countries.  Many do this now, but many millions in Syria fled the middle east and made their way into western countries like Europe not because it was the nearest place to find safety but because we'd give them a free lunch.

I don't want any refugees or immigrants in Canada who can't support themselves properly financially.  We can accept refugees but they need to be at least moderately educated/skilled and know English or French.  Go drive through any neighbourhood in Canada with a high % of refugees.  These neighbourhoods are sh!tholes of poverty and crime.  I'm tired of us turning our neighbourhoods into American-style slums in the name of humanitarianism.  Let them settle elsewhere, we can help in other ways by sending food, medicine, money etc. and can help them resettle.

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Why kill refugees when you can divert them to other countries?

Exactly, and that country is called Canada.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 11/18/2019 at 10:37 PM, eyeball said:

Nuu Chah Nulth and Haida rivalries go back thousands of years too. Didn't stop them from reconciling and the treaties coming out of reconciliation are now the biggest economic driver on the coast.

You say it can't be done while people are doing it anyway. You throw complications up as barriers to progress because it's convenient.

In the meantime Canada should be building a coalition of country's determined to put virtue above economics.

It's not all about economics, it's about power and western security interests.  You need to remember that there's some very bad and dangerous regimes out there desperate to screw us over at the drop of a hat if they could.  Russia, China, Iran etc.

I used to think the US/West should pull out of the middle east to stop making Muslims there so PO'd.  I thought it was all about greed and oil profits.  But what would happen is it would create a huge power vacuum which would be filled by Russia and China.  Then we'd have Russia & China controlling most of the world's oil, and able to decimate our economies if they chose.  Remember the 1970's oil crisis?  If Russia/China convinced the Saudis/Iran/Iraq etc. to block access to oil to us then oil/gas prices in the West would skyrocket as it did in 1972, and our economies would be devastated as they were that year.

Point being, the west may not always do the right things in the ME politically, but there's a reason why we're there and a reason why we kiss the ass of the Saudis despite how evil they are.  Doesn't mean we have to sell them arms but we do need to remain allies.  Hell even if we didn't sell them arms they'd just buy them from another country, like Russia or another western country.  We'd have our virtue but nothing would change minus our economy being out hundreds of millions in contracts.  The world is a complex place

Edited November 20, 2019 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Exactly, and that country is called Canada.

LOL no i mean if refugees come hear, resettle them in other countries if they have little or no hope of adequately supporting themselves here.