Why do people hate economic refugees ?

[Mafic]

Gang crime/gang warfare between different criminal groups over territory isn't terrorism.

I think it crosses a line when these groups openly attack civilians or armed personnel representing Sweden as they are making a political statement via violence. To me terrorism involves using violence against civilians to push a political agenda.

- - - Updated - - -

Economics is not a function of people's virtue or lack thereof.

I do not think it has anything to do with virtue to be honest. Japan is not known for being abundant in iron ore, so yeah Japanese drive is a big factor for sure in Japanese economic success.

And their 'Japanese first' attitude acts as a roadblock towards the immigration that would otherwise mitigate the issue of birthrates.

I don't disagree that they are hampering their economy currently with how stringent they are with immigration. However, why should MDCs continue down this path of having less children so they can have more spending power compared to the LDCs given it is not sustainable?

The LDCS are poor because they often have too many children which limits their spending power per household. However, as we are now learning having few or no children as the MDCs are currently heading towards isn't a utopia either. It isn't a utopia because having more money to spend is great for now, but what does it mean in the future when a service economy has no more money flowing into it? What happens next? What happens to government spending when you have less taxpayers? Doesn't government have to shrink by default along with reduced government spending?

- - - Updated - - -

Because all of those things have a stigma attached to them.

But there isn't that stigma in Europe though. That is the big difference which is why the situation there is very different with economic migrants. Plus, if you think about it more deeply a lot of guest workers here in the US or even economic migrants from Mexico send the money they make in the US back to their home nations.

The only example that I can think of that is similar in Europe is how Turkish citizens working in Germany send money back to Turkey. But Turkey has had a strong economy in my recent memory.

- - - Updated - - -

Greece and by extension all of the Eastern half of Europe know well that you can lose your country to foreign invasion and the occupation can last centuries. Western Europe, Scandinavia, and North America have lost a kind of 'Tragic Sense' of life. These societies believe they were born in this luck, and the party will never end. Its a non-stop party until the sun dies. These societies cannot foresee or imagine what for most of humanity and most of humanities history has been foreseeable and imaginable. Eastern Europe and the Balkans know that everything you care about, your holy places, and anything else can be trampled upon and destroyed. They've had that lesson drilled into them by successive waves of invasions.

Germany, Scandinavia, North America, Western Europe in general, have a kindof Humble-Brag belief that their civilization, their countries are indestructible, unsinkable, and can never be destroyed by anything. Poland for its part knows this to be delusional.

A big reason why for a period of time the Americans were very isolationist thinking that conflict was never going to come to their door steps. In the end these lessons seem to be learned the hard way. I don't think western Europe understands how resistant Eastern Europe and the Balkan are to this mass influx of migrants.

[Theodarzna]

A big reason why for a period of time the Americans were very isolationist thinking that conflict was never going to come to their door steps. In the end these lessons seem to be learned the hard way. I don't think western Europe understands how resistant Eastern Europe and the Balkan are to this mass influx of migrants.

To date, the conflict has never come to America's without the United States being the instigator of that conflict. In North America, only Mexico, the Native Americans and the descendants of the slaves in the old South will have a strong cultural memory that approximates what Eastern and Balkans Europe have, or equals it. America was correct in assuming conflict would never come to its doorstep, to date is has not since 1812. The only conflict at its door has been of its own design and in which the US was the instigator of such conflict.

[SherriMayim]

To date, the conflict has never come to America's without the United States being the instigator of that conflict. In North America, only Mexico, the Native Americans and the descendants of the slaves in the old South will have a strong cultural memory that approximates what Eastern and Balkans Europe have, or equals it. America was correct in assuming conflict would never come to its doorstep, to date is has not since 1812. The only conflict at its door has been of its own design and in which the US was the instigator of such conflict.

So... by cutting off resources via trade to Japan, America instigated Pearl Harbor?

And I guess by supporting Israel, America instigated 9/11?


Sounds like you're blaming the victim here.

[Fonduset]

Because i'm a xenaphobic racist?

[Spectral]

I don't hate them, but I don't really want them here. I think this Garrett Jones writeup explains why better than I can in a paragraph or two.

- - - Updated - - -

So... by cutting off resources via trade to Japan, America instigated Pearl Harbor?

And I guess by supporting Israel, America instigated 9/11?

The United States was funding China during the Sino-Japanese war. I think any reasonable analysis leads to the conclusion that Japan was the aggressor in every meaningful sense during the events leading up to Pearl Harbor, but I also think it would be naive to think it was a completely unprovoked attack.

September 11 is obviously a different business because of the difference in targets, but the one thing it shares with Pearl Harbor is that it's silly to act like the United States was an innocent bystander that did absolutely nothing to provoke hostility from Muslims in the Middle East.

[Deleted]

So... by cutting off resources via trade to Japan, America instigated Pearl Harbor?

Given that the point of the sanctions was to force Japan to go to war, (since no War declaration would have passed in congress) - Yes.

[Theodarzna]

So... by cutting off resources via trade to Japan, America instigated Pearl Harbor?

And I guess by supporting Israel, America instigated 9/11?


Sounds like you're blaming the victim here.

In the case of Pearl Harbor, there are enough factors to mitigate the outrage. One is the aggressive stance of America at the time and the other being the fact that Japan attacked a military target.

9/11 is a bit more outrageous because it wasn't a military target, the degrees of separation from our actions and the resulting attack is so much more tenuous.

[downnola]

In the case of Pearl Harbor, there are enough factors to mitigate the outrage. One is the aggressive stance of America at the time and the other being the fact that Japan attacked a military target.

9/11 is a bit more outrageous because it wasn't a military target, the degrees of separation from our actions and the resulting attack is so much more tenuous.

Have you ever read the list of reasons Osama Bin Laden used to justify 9/11? It's one accusation of jewish conspiracy after another, and finishes up with a "call to Islam" because, "You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?"

It's a load of ideological bullshit from top to bottom. Do our actions abroad deserve criticism? Sure, absolutely. However, claiming that we somehow brought this attack on us, or that we somehow deserved it because we put sanctions on Saddam Hussein is contemptible.

[SherriMayim]

The United States was funding China during the Sino-Japanese war. I think any reasonable analysis leads to the conclusion that Japan was the aggressor in every meaningful sense during the events leading up to Pearl Harbor, but I also think it would be naive to think it was a completely unprovoked attack.

Funding China, sure, but this is after Japan had left the League of Nations, and the majority of the funding came after the Nanking Massacre.

Japan and the US had uneasy relations however there was still trade, even while the US was funding China. But that's politics right? Anyways, the Pearl Harbor attack had been planned for a while (at the start of 1941), but it was after the US froze Japanese assets in the US and refused to trade necessary raw materials to Japan in July 1941, that the attack came about in December, 1941.

As far as a completely unprovoked attack, it depends.

If you're going to take to that reasoning, I will accept it as long as we can agree that Muslim nations should be bombed and subjected to military takeover for not trading oil to the US due to their provocation of not trading oil to the US at a rate we deem acceptable.

However, if you feel that denying trade is not an acceptable excuse for an attack on foreign soil, then no, the US did not provoke the Japanese.

September 11 is obviously a different business because of the difference in targets, but the one thing it shares with Pearl Harbor is that it's silly to act like the United States was an innocent bystander that did absolutely nothing to provoke hostility from Muslims in the Middle East.

No, you're completely right. The US should not have intervened in Afghanistan and let the Soviets go in and demolish that third-world nation into a communist third world nation.

Given that the point of the sanctions was to force Japan to go to war, (since no War declaration would have passed in congress) - Yes.

Japan was already at war, not with the US, but with China. Also refer to my previous statement regarding US Provocation and Japanese Oil.

In the case of Pearl Harbor, there are enough factors to mitigate the outrage. One is the aggressive stance of America at the time and the other being the fact that Japan attacked a military target.

Because the US was doing Land Invasions of the Philippines prior to going to war with Japan?

Sounds like you need to bone up on your WW2 History.

Also Nuking Japan was totally justified by the way.

[Theodarzna]

Because the US was doing Land Invasions of the Philippines prior to going to war with Japan?

Sounds like you need to bone up on your WW2 History.

Also Nuking Japan was totally justified by the way.

Given the American's position, had I been in FDR's shoes I would not have done anything differently, nor different from Truman's.

My point being Pearl Harbour was an understandable escalation of a war that was already ongoing. 9/11 was basically an attack on regular non-military personal because a country doesn't follow a specific religious prescription for life.