Should Europe send refugees to America and the UK?

[Seranthor]

What is wrong with what I said? Isolating the UK and ruining their economy so that they cannot harm Europe the way they have done so far is not an "outright attack". It's pretty much the same as Americans saying Russia should be punished for whatever they do.

I am fully serious about this. If one puppet state in Europe's corner thinks it can act as a traitor and ruin our continent, we should do everything we can to ruin its economy and make it a useless country. What else should we do?

Is your nation traitorous for sending troops to participate in the 'wars'? No, seriously, I gotta know.

[Mayhem]

The United States does not start wars. We finish them. All I am going to say on that topic since it will quickly devolve into exactly what I reported this thread for instigating. Could also fall under the forbidden topic of discussing politics.

Please show on this doll where the thread touched you.

[Seranthor]

If we left them alone, Assad would have gotten the situation under control (especially with Russia's aid), and there wouldn't be these sensationalist headlines you spew out. That scenario is FAR more preferable to the current situation.

Pick: Syria anno 2010 or Syria anno 2016

Come on. You can do better than that.

Of course he would have gotten it under control, by killing those that rose up... Is that how governments should deal with their dissatisfied citizens? Just kill them?

[Deleted]

Is your nation traitorous for sending troops to participate in the 'wars'? No, seriously, I gotta know.

Which one? My home country only sent peacekeepers for stability purposes... not active combatants.

Denmark? Kinda, yes. As I said, I will never know why Denmark chose to be America's buttlicker. Ever. I, and everyone else, is more likely to know the deepest secrets of our universe than the answer to this question. Really, it's a mystery of all mysteries.

[Seranthor]

Which one? My home country only sent peacekeepers for stability purposes... not active combatants.

Denmark? Kinda, yes. As I said, I will never know why Denmark chose to be America's buttlicker. Ever. I, and everyone else, is more likely to know the deepest secrets of our universe than the answer to this question. Really, it's a mystery of all mysteries.

Home country? which one is that? Hmm?

[Deleted]

Of course he would have gotten it under control, by killing those that rose up... Is that how governments should deal with their dissatisfied citizens? Just kill them?

That's their business. Unless he was committing massacres of grand scales and burying his population for the most wicked reasons, we shouldn't meddle.

Uprisings against dictatorships is nothing new. However, they are generally brought under control, and that is better and more preferable in such regions than the alternative. You will never install democracy overnight in the Middle East. Ever. For functional democracy, you need the elite, institutions, and everyone else to be fully behind such a change of political system... and that won't happen in as fragmented and corrupt societies like the Middle Eastern ones.

- - - Updated - - -

Home country? which one is that? Hmm?

Well, obviously Bosnia out of the two in my location, lol.

[Banana1]

Or they just ignore the refugees and build a wall in Turkey. Yeah, let's do that instead.

[Deleted]

Or they just ignore the refugees and build a wall in Turkey. Yeah, let's do that instead.

I'm sure you're not a psychopath, but instead of knowing about refugees from news only, why not look at some videos? Or engage in deep thought where you look into their situation and lives, and imagine the horrors they go through.

Maybe that will make you less likely to say such inhumane things.

[Stormdash]

Tell ya what -- if there are any Europeans who now feel that they need to seek refuge in the US from their own refugees, they can come. That should make everyone happy.

[Deleted]

I find it incredibly funny the OP is from a country that would not exist if not for the US and NATO backing them against Serbia, who moved to another country that absolutely does not want refugees, to force other countries (both of which do actually take in refugees, much more than his adopted country or his home country do) to help clean up a 3rd country's (in this case, Germany) mess. I'm all for helping refugees though.

Also, lol, sending them through Mexico. You might as well just kill them. Mexico won't want them. Sending them through Siberia into Alaska won't work. Canada already takes Syrian refugees. None of your plan or ideas has any merit to them at all.

[porgig]

Mexico would get financial aid from Europe, and would simply have no reason not to. Refugees would go to America, so Mexico can do as good as just look away.

I think you have very little understanding of the world. Mexico needs the US, they don't need Europe. If all of Europe disappeared off the planet tomorrow, Mexico would not even notice. If the US did, their economy would collapse overnight.

Why would they purposely ruin their relationship with a country they need to sustain themselves in order to get a pitiful amount of cash in the form of one-time payments from Europe?

[Deleted]

Tell ya what -- if there are any Europeans who now feel that they need to seek refuge in the US from their own refugees, they can come. That should make everyone happy.

With that said, I'll just note I am strongly against Europeans having dual citizenship with one being American. Every European who pledges allegiance to America should be stripped off of his European citizenship, and not be allowed to return to acquire it for the next 15 or more years. This is for a couple of reasons, one of them being brain drain, another being theft of patriotism and love for people's European homeland.

[Deleted]

Of course he would have gotten it under control, by killing those that rose up... Is that how governments should deal with their dissatisfied citizens? Just kill them?

Pick one:
Syria 2008 or Syria 2016

[Deleted]

I think you have very little understanding of the world. Mexico needs the US, they don't need Europe. If all of Europe disappeared off the planet tomorrow, Mexico would not even notice. If the US did, their economy would collapse overnight.

Why would they purposely ruin their relationship with a country they need to sustain themselves in order to get a pitiful amount of cash in the form of one-time payments from Europe?

Europe would further cooperate with Mexico and establish partnerships. America's economy would be damaged by severed relations with Europe if they rejected the refugees, so it would take a while of thought before they totally rejected refugees.

[Seranthor]

That's their business. Unless he was committing massacres of grand scales and burying his population for the most wicked reasons, we shouldn't meddle.

Uprisings against dictatorships is nothing new. However, they are generally brought under control, and that is better and more preferable in such regions than the alternative. You will never install democracy overnight in the Middle East. Ever. For functional democracy, you need the elite, institutions, and everyone else to be fully behind such a change of political system... and that won't happen in as fragmented and corrupt societies like the Middle Eastern ones.

- - - Updated - - -


Well, obviously Bosnia out of the two in my location, lol.

Bosnia you say, you mean Yugoslavia, right? Let me ask you, did you support the Government backed Bosnian Serb forces that were killing Bosniaks and Croatians? Or did you support the opposition (aided by the US)? Seems that your support of the governments in power are fluid based on your own personal situation, hmm?

[Deleted]

Pick one:
Syria 2008 or Syria 2016

2016 because.... Assad used weapons!!!! that aren't allowed by LAW!! against democrats!!

[judgementofantonidas]

I find it incredibly funny the OP is from a country that would not exist if not for the US and NATO backing them against Serbia, who moved to another country that absolutely does not want refugees, to force other countries (both of which do actually take in refugees, much more than his adopted country or his home country do) to help clean up a 3rd country's (in this case, Germany) mess. I'm all for helping refugees though.

Also, lol, sending them through Mexico. You might as well just kill them. Mexico won't want them. Sending them through Siberia into Alaska won't work. Canada already takes Syrian refugees. None of your plan or ideas has any merit to them at all.

What is even funnier is that he some how feels that the U.S. was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Muslim Bosnians by the Croats and Serbs when it was us the went there and stopped it.

[Deleted]

Bosnia you say, you mean Yugoslavia, right? Let me ask you, did you support the Government backed Bosnian Serb forces that were killing Bosniaks and Croatians? Or did you support the opposition (aided by the US)? Seems that your support of the governments in power are fluid based on your own personal situation, hmm?

Let's say what you say is what actually happened. Why should that war matter in today's happenings? Syria and the Middle East are completely different situations today, and what America did anywhere else before has not necessarily any connection to what they do there.

[porgig]

Europe would further cooperate with Mexico and establish partnerships. America's economy would be damaged by severed relations with Europe if they rejected the refugees, so it would take a while of thought before they totally rejected refugees.

I should also say that Canada is in the same boat. They don't need Europe at all either. The only two countries that border the continental US wouldn't even consider the offer. I also think you overweight just how much the US trades with Europe. Canada, Mexico, China, and Japan are the top exports for the US (in that order). They are also the top imports.

In other words: impact on US economy would be negligible.

[xChurch]

Maybe the US could trade some South American Refugees for Syrian ones?