Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Puupi]

That's barbaric.

Shooting people in need. Really? Because they crossed a damn border? You can do things to control that that doesn't involve shooting people.

Or they could just not cross that border.

The more humane, albeit expensive option, is obviously concentration camps (the name has a bad ring to it, but that's just people's ignorance and prejudice judging it) for border crossers and after processing deportation for those who aren't eligible to stay. Not this mess where there are vasts, yet unknown, amount of people roaming around freely and illegally around while our governments are completely toothless and paralyzed to handle the situation. In addition, it really doesn't help the situation that the asylum seekers/illegals are committing disproportionately more criminal actions, especially violent and sexual crimes, than other people.

All this immigration and refugee talk is off-topic for the subject at hand though.

[Slant]

Oh, you've completely missed how they've acted? I guess sticking your head in the ground is easier than realizing the leaders in various European nations need to be replaced with people who aren't bleeding hearts. People like orban are on the right path albeit not fully there. The wars in middle east wouldn't be our problem if we had people actually willing to do what it takes in positions of leadership.

So you don't actually have a point and just want to express your racism and general hate of politicians because that's what people in Sweden do? Gotcha.

- - - Updated - - -

Anything should be on the table. If they try to cross borders they should receive a warning and then increased escalation of force if they won't cease.

They are in Greece. They're not "crossing borders" in as much as they're washing ashore.

[Rhlor]

It seems that there are people who think they will be an easy enemy to defeat, I suppose it is people who do not know they will be able to hit any US base in the region with their missiles.

[Slant]

Russia let them through and brought them right to our doorstep because Russia is doing a show of force against Finland. You really think Russia would allow those refugees into Russia in the first place if they didn't think they could benefit from them?

Oh, of course they are. So, why aren't you dealing with it? Close the damn border. Ah, that's right... you can't. And you want to blame the rest of Europe on this... why? It's not EU policy that's keeping your borders insecure. It's a uniquely Finnish problem of dealing with Russia. They have bullied you for the past 80 years, if you want the EU to actually do something about it, maybe we do need a federalised EU so we can take charge of how you run things. No? Right then...

[Slant]

Or they could just not cross that border.

The more humane, albeit expensive option, is obviously concentration camps (the name has a bad ring to it, but that's just people's ignorance and prejudice judging it) for border crossers and after processing deportation for those who aren't eligible to stay. Not this mess where there are vasts, yet unknown, amount of people roaming around freely and illegally around while our governments are completely toothless and paralyzed to handle the situation. In addition, it really doesn't help the situation that the asylum seekers/illegals are committing disproportionately more criminal actions, especially violent and sexual crimes, than other people.

All this immigration and refugee talk is off-topic for the subject at hand though.

It is not off-topic, because the US is about to create more refugees for you to deal with. And if you lot up north haven't noticed, those refugees are coming from a warzone. That is actually a thing. The stuff you see on the News that you always thought is none of your business? Well, it kind of is now. Deal with it like everyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't come here talking about racism when you called entire regions and cultures to be less evolved in another post.

I actually backed that up with historical evidence, it's not racism, it's a theory I've been developing in the past few years and if you'd like to challenge it, you can do it with a differing view. But shooting them is not what I proposed. And I've never actually said the people were less than humans or less than we were. They're EXACTLY like us. And they would act EXACTLY like us if they had their political system evolve in a similar fashion like we had. Which I think is a natural evolutionary step for nations. See, I was talking about political entities, not people.

So try again, buddy. That was one hecking piss poor attempt at discrediting me.

[Puupi]

Oh, of course they are. So, why aren't you dealing with it? Close the damn border. Ah, that's right... you can't. And you want to blame the rest of Europe on this... why? It's not EU policy that's keeping your borders insecure. It's a uniquely Finnish problem of dealing with Russia. They have bullied you for the past 80 years, if you want the EU to actually do something about it, maybe we do need a federalised EU so we can take charge of how you run things. No? Right then...

So now you are criticizing Finland for not closing borders and/or shooting refugees....?

[Flarelaine]

Only if they fly over Iran. The most common use of B-52s in this scenario is air launched cruise missiles, which don't require them going anywhere near Iran.

edit: The more likely scenario is that they don't want B-52s sitting on the ground right now, while at least two airbases are under attack. They are safer in the air. You really shouldn't consider aircraft launches to be anything other then a safety measure right now.

Don't B-52 s fly from Diego Garcia anyway?

[Slant]

It seems that there are people who think they will be an easy enemy to defeat, I suppose it is people who do not know they will be able to hit any US base in the region with their missiles.

They ARE an easy enemy to defeat. The US would wipe the floor with them within a week. Make no mistake, Iran has ZERO actual chance against surviving an actual US onslaught for longer than a week. That is not the point here. The point is that the US has to learn restraint...

[Skroe]

The massive exodus only started after ISIS started to push hard into Syria.

No. They did not. ISIS wasn't anywhere near the bulk of the population of Syria.

Seriously, compare tehese two maps:



Look at where the people are.

And here are where Russia struck in September/October 2015, when refugees flooded to Europe:


And later that month


And a few months late rin early 2016



It's a goddamn lie to say the refugees came from the part of Syria where people don't live in large numbers, while simultaneously Russia and Assad were targeting the most densely populated parts of Syria.

Yes, of course ISIS created some refugees. But most of those from ISIS controlled regions went to Iraq.
Those being attacked by the government in the South of Syria fled to Lebandon and Jordan. Those in the norht being attacked by Russia/Assad flet to Turkey and Greece.

That map by the way is from the European Commission's Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations. This is a European Union created map.
https://reliefweb.int/organization/echo
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefwe...ees-IDPs_0.pdf
(big version of them map)

This should not be surprising because what the "they all are from ISIS" lie would mean is that the people escaping danger would cross the entirety of their country - mostly vast desert - into more danger (Russia/Assad attacks), before leaving,r ather than going across the border to the refugee camps in Iraq.

Which is why it didn't happen. It's ridiculous. You can even see the flow of this on the Internal Displaced Persons movement mini-map in the corner. Look how many lines (and their thickness) are going to Alleppo and Idleb in the north-west from places places the Syrian government targeted (and between places in the north west too, like the Idleb-Alleppo flow). Now compare compared to Raqqa and Deir-ez-Zor, which were under ISIS control. The flow of people in the Syrian and Russian government targeted areas far far more than the ISIS areas. And that's because that is where the people lived.

It's a goddamn lie the US had anything to do with Europe's refugee problem. And this data from the EU itself reflects that. Not that it'll change a single opinion, but it speaks for itself and is the truth.

You want someone to blame for Europe's refugee problem? Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. Because they were bombing - and displacing - people where more people lived, not where they didn't

[Slant]

So now you are criticizing Finland for not closing borders and/or shooting refugees....?

I'm criticising people like you and player eleven for whinging, mostly, tbh. Your nations have signed up to the EU and the principles in the EU, including solidarity. Now that you have to show some, you're bitching? As for Finland, you have directly signed the Geneva refugee convention. Cancel that if it bothers you that much. Or attack Russia. Either way, what do you want Merkel to do about it?

What is it the lot of you actually want? Because while you bitch and whinge all day long, what you really don't dare to say is this: 1. Shoot refugees at the border/airport as soon as they get in, 2. Invade and destroy fucking Russia and 3. Fuck everyone else up. Is that what you want? Because sure as heck, nothing's gonna change without those conditions. So find another solution, deal with it. Don't look to Germany to solve all of y'alls problems, you are sovereign nations.

[Rhlor]

They ARE an easy enemy to defeat. The US would wipe the floor with them within a week. Make no mistake, Iran has ZERO actual chance against surviving an actual US onslaught for longer than a week. That is not the point here. The point is that the US has to learn restraint...

If I remember correctly the invasion of Iraq began on March 20 and Saddam was just captured in December 2003. Considering that Iran is 3 or 4 times larger than Iraq, I doubt they will be defeated in a week.

unless attacks with nuclear weapons which for me would be a war crime

[Skroe]

To even reach the same rate as Sweden, you need to take some 3 million per year. You are nowhere near our rate. We are a country of roughly 10 million, in one year we had 163k or so come here. That's almost 2% population increase just from refugees in a year. How would that look in the us if you took almost 6 million refugees in a year?

The US adds about 1.2 million legal immigrants a year, which is broadly comparable to the number of refugees Europe saw in a single year. But as I was saying, smaller countries shouldn't take that many. Larger countries should. Germany, France, Italy, the UK and Spain.

But you know, they didn't they found outs.

Sweden didn't have 163k in a year because of any other reason than a policy failure that Sweden and other members of the EU created to have a country of 10 million people take so many at one time.

But you people agreed to that. That's on you. Don't like that? Change how decision making in the EU works.

700 million people in Europe. Adding a couple million people should not have been disruptive. It was made disruptive because of a policy failure. For whatever else the US did, or Russia and Syria did or ISIS did... Europe owns shitting the bed on the other side of the equation... the "how can we handle this" side.

[Slant]

You want someone to blame for Europe's refugee problem? Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. Because they were bombing - and displacing - people where more people lived, not where they didn't

You don't get to whitewash this. The amount of pictures you're posting here shows how desperate you're trying to deflect this. While American publications agree with my viewpoint: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-mosul/599842/

So no, you don't get that out. The US has destabilized the region for the past 20 years. You are the main actor in that theatre and it is your responsibility. Be a fucking grown up and take that responsibility. You fucked up, own it.

And tbh, it doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't even matter what you think about our opinion. It's there. And if it bothers you, it's up to you to change it. But in typical American fashion, you're too good to do that, because you don't care... and thus the US/EU relationship deteriorates further, because while it is irrelevant what you and I personally think, it is symptomatic for what's going on in the big picture.

Good luck fighting another illegal war in Iran then.

[Slant]

This is what you posted. You are saying we need to teach them what's right and there needs to be war because they're lesser evolved.

Screaming about racism when someone doesn't want refugees when you actively want to go the places they live to wage war, to replace their culture with yours. That's simply laughable.

Yep, and we need to make it happen by leaving them the fuck alone. I don't think you understood my point. But I don't care enough about Swedish posters enough... you've taken up enough of my time, be Swedish my man, be as Swedish as you want to be. You're fitting in perfectly with the other Swedish posters here.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not blaming the EU nor do I oppose EU federalization. I don't expect EU to do anything either, because EU is not equipped or willing to deal with it the way it should be. What I want for Finland to do is to apply for NATO yesterday.

I'm just so very very tired of is us Europeans being so fucking scared of true power. Germany's spirit was broken beyond repair after WW2, and it was a goddamn mistake. Now the leading economy on EU is a country who's citizens get mass seizures if you suggest that a military action might or build up might be the best course of action for some specific problem.

People born in the past 50 years are so far removed from the realities of power struggle in the world, that we are easy pray to those who still actually are willing to use force.

Military action? AGAINST WHOM? What the fuck is going on that y'all are so high on a power dose that you want to randomly attack someone... whom even? Turkey? They're a NATO ally my man. Russia? That doesn't work. How many times do European nations need to fail in Moscow until y'all realise it cannot be done?

We are building up, if you haven't read the news. It just doesn't happen overnight, unless you want a bullshit army of 2 million conscripts that run at the first sign of a firefight... Think before you make these grand statements, lest you embarass yourself. Support the EU defense concept Macron is building up.

[Pannonian]

No. They did not. ISIS wasn't anywhere near the bulk of the population of Syria.

Seriously, compare tehese two maps:



Look at where the people are.

And here are where Russia struck in September/October 2015, when refugees flooded to Europe:


And later that month


And a few months late rin early 2016



It's a goddamn lie to say the refugees came from the part of Syria where people don't live in large numbers, while simultaneously Russia and Assad were targeting the most densely populated parts of Syria.

Yes, of course ISIS created some refugees. But most of those from ISIS controlled regions went to Iraq.
Those being attacked by the government in the South of Syria fled to Lebandon and Jordan. Those in the norht being attacked by Russia/Assad flet to Turkey and Greece.

That map by the way is from the European Commission's Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations. This is a European Union created map.
https://reliefweb.int/organization/echo
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefwe...ees-IDPs_0.pdf
(big version of them map)

This should not be surprising because what the "they all are from ISIS" lie would mean is that the people escaping danger would cross the entirety of their country - mostly vast desert - into more danger (Russia/Assad attacks), before leaving,r ather than going across the border to the refugee camps in Iraq.

Which is why it didn't happen. It's ridiculous. You can even see the flow of this on the Internal Displaced Persons movement mini-map in the corner. Look how many lines (and their thickness) are going to Alleppo and Idleb in the north-west from places places the Syrian government targeted (and between places in the north west too, like the Idleb-Alleppo flow). Now compare compared to Raqqa and Deir-ez-Zor, which were under ISIS control. The flow of people in the Syrian and Russian government targeted areas far far more than the ISIS areas. And that's because that is where the people lived.

It's a goddamn lie the US had anything to do with Europe's refugee problem. And this data from the EU itself reflects that. Not that it'll change a single opinion, but it speaks for itself and is the truth.

You want someone to blame for Europe's refugee problem? Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. Because they were bombing - and displacing - people where more people lived, not where they didn't

Yeah, no one would leave the country just because central government is crashing and a few hundred miles there are insurgents. No one would EVER leave! /S

Come on, be realistic, People flee BEFORE Isis is on their doorstep.


Also you're completely ignoring how humans behave. There is a crisis. Of course people don't flee to europe to start a new life immediately. First they go into neighbouring countries and wait a bit - and then after a few months with no improvement they start thinking of alternatives like a new start in europe.

Right now these are just some maps, and i've given you an explanation why they can be interpreted differently.

But let's play - what else did in your opinion started them to move?

[Slant]

If I remember correctly the invasion of Iraq began on March 20 and Saddam was just captured in December 2003. Considering that Iran is 3 or 4 times larger than Iraq, I doubt they will be defeated in a week.

unless attacks with nuclear weapons which for me would be a war crime

Saddam was hiding in a hole for a long time before they found him, the country was defeated pretty much within a week or two. Sure, pockets of resistance still existed, but the country was by and large under US control almost immediately with air superiority being established on day 1, which is current US doctrine.

- - - Updated - - -

But let's play - what else did in your opinion started them to move?

I like the Russian conspiracy theory in that it probably is true in part. Putin probably encouraged that development quite a bit, because it destabilises the EU and as we see now even destabilises NATO. It's funny because it seems Russia might win the Cold War after all... they just played the long game!

[Skroe]

They ARE an easy enemy to defeat. The US would wipe the floor with them within a week. Make no mistake, Iran has ZERO actual chance against surviving an actual US onslaught for longer than a week. That is not the point here. The point is that the US has to learn restraint...

No. We don't. Europe needs to learn to not get out it's "End is Near" signs every time Uncle Sam raises its voice at someone else.

Seriously. The problem here is prudence and belief in deterrence has been replaced by an absolute terror at any type of risk and sociopathic conflict avoidance.

Honestly, if I were Vladimir Putin, I'd take the Baltics by next weekend. Europe won't do anything and Trump won't either. Another President would but not Putin's employee of the quadrennial 2016-2020 period. Europe will talk about negotiated settlements, de-escalation and proportionality and other crap like that while Vladimir Putin, a man the svelte and erudite politicos of Europe are in no way equipped to deal with, starts building up fortifications as to annex them.

This gets back to a conversation we had a while ago. Europe's entire approach to geopolitical affairs is obsolete in the era of Great Power competition, particularly the US-China New Cold War, that is very much here already. Europe has no tools to deal with leaders and countries that don't operate on terms it is comfortable operating in - ideals, international institutions, trade. It doesn't know how to handle countries and leaders more interested in older, and stronger forms of power.

Thats why you council restraint. Not just because you're (overly) concerned about consequence, but because a world where power, territory and control rule is a world Europe can't compete in.

[Slant]

People only came to Europe due to the bleeding heart leaders. We call this "signalpolitik" in swedish. How they're treated by the leaders here is a pull factor. Remove the pull factor and less will come. Merkel was a big factor in this.

You keep repeating that, but you don't actually explain how that is done. Pure propaganda at this point, zero meaning, all about the emotional message. I like how you springled in a German word as if you knew what it meant.

[Slant]

No. We don't. Europe needs to learn to not get out it's "End is Near" signs every time Uncle Sam raises its voice at someone else.

Seriously. The problem here is prudence and belief in deterrence has been replaced by an absolute terror at any type of risk and sociopathic conflict avoidance.

Honestly, if I were Vladimir Putin, I'd take the Baltics by next weekend. Europe won't do anything and Trump won't either. Another President would but not Putin's employee of the quadrennial 2016-2020 period. Europe will talk about negotiated settlements, de-escalation and proportionality and other crap like that while Vladimir Putin, a man the svelte and erudite politicos of Europe are in no way equipped to deal with, starts building up fortifications as to annex them.

This gets back to a conversation we had a while ago. Europe's entire approach to geopolitical affairs is obsolete in the era of Great Power competition, particularly the US-China New Cold War, that is very much here already. Europe has no tools to deal with leaders and countries that don't operate on terms it is comfortable operating in - ideals, international institutions, trade. It doesn't know how to handle countries and leaders more interested in older, and stronger forms of power.

Thats why you council restraint. Not just because you're (overly) concerned about consequence, but because a world where power, territory and control rule is a world Europe can't compete in.

Dude, the end is near? Wtf are you talking about? We're not in hysterics about WW3, that's Americans on the internet dude. Iran is insignificant to us. Wipe them out if you want. In fact, nuke them if you have to do something, that way you won't create Refugees. We really do not care about Iran one bit. Whatever you do, don't create refugees.

You're still not getting it are you. This isn't "risk aversion", this is us being pragmatic and knowing we'll have to deal with the fallout unlike you. At the same time we're faced with a massive dick as your President. See, back in the past, there was a trade off, you be nice to us, we'll overlook the shit you're creating for us. But now, you're a dick to us and expect us to vassellage into your leadership? Yeah fuck that. All we're doing now is increase soft power. Nobody here even expects you lot to listen, because you never do... why would god's chosen nation listen to anyone else? But we'll come out of this as the moderate voice of reason and when you have pissed the entire planet off, they'll be looking to us for guidance and partnership.

Because the US is unreliable. As Saudia Arabia is sure to find out eventually.

[Poe]

Haha, you think he could just annex EU countries with nothing happening?

Yes I do. .