On the immigration crisis and governments untethered from the people’s wishes
These days the US government—executive and legislative branches alike—doesn’t seem to be able to follow the will of the people to block unwanted and illegal immigration. The newspapers, the illegal immigration activists, and the Democratic Party won’t even let us use that word illegal. Not only that, they don’t seem to understand the word “legal” either, accusing opponents of illegal immigration of being against immigration in general. The left pretends to be unwilling or unable to make distinctions between the legal and illegal if it suits their purposes to ignore them.
But the inability of the government to stem the tide of illegal immigration is hardly limited to the US. It’s true in most of western Europe as well, and Italy is having a particularly acute problem with the refugees from Syria and Libya who are currently arriving in boats from those strife-filed, war-torn, terrorist-laden countries.
Italy and the entire west face a tremendous dilemma. On the one hand, there’s the humanitarian impulse to take in refugees from war, although this varies from country to country. A nation like Italy, which is geographically the closest to the African countries in question, has been especially hard-hit. Italy knows that the more people it welcomes, the more people will follow.
Who are these people? No one seems to be able to say for sure. My guess is that the majority of them are bona fide refugees, desperate to get out of those dreadful places. Wouldn’t you be? But some are not; some are likely to be terrorists or criminals or people otherwise up to no good. How to vet them? And what to do with them?
I was already drafting a post on this topic even before I read of the sinking of a Libyan boat loaded with 700 refugees, most of whom are presumed drowned. This is terribly sad in human terms, and ironic as well:
The boat is believed to have capsized when the migrants shifted to one side of the overcrowded vessel as a merchant ship approached.
“The first details came from one of the survivors who spoke English and who said that at least 700 people, if not more, were on board. The boat capsized because people moved to one side when another vessel that they hoped would rescue them approached,” said Carlotta Sami, a UNHCR spokeswoman.
You can read of calls from European leaders asking for safe corridors and a more welcoming response; that includes Pope Francis. You can also read of:
…calls to stop the boats from leaving and even to destroy them.
The leader of the anti-immigrant Northern League party, Matteo Salvini, called for an immediate naval blockade of the coast of Libya while Daniela Santanche, a prominent member of Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia party said Italy’s navy must “sink all the boats.”
Both sets of responses are understandable, and some version of both can definitely exist in the same person: sympathy as well as the desire to protect Europe from the influx of a vast number of traumatized, non-Western, mostly uneducated, third-world arrivals, some of whom may be terrorists and/or criminals and many of whom are devotees of an intolerant creed that neither understands nor supports human rights.
[NOTE: They’re not just fleeing to Italy and Europe, either. The rest of the Middle East has taken on a vast number, many now in refugee camps.
In the article on the boat sinking, I noticed arguments in the comments section between those who rightly pointed out that Obama bears no small responsibility for this mess and those who parried with “blame Bush!”]
Westerners have lost control of their own countries…by design…treasonous politicians!
The strategy appears to be a global one where peoples are dumbed down and made equally miserable and desperate. Which conveniently creates a huge industry of governing elites to infinitely solve all the problems. Because they care.
Morale hazard in this case is enhanced by permitting the refugees to come in their own way.
We will never know about those who went under without witness — but it figures to be an astounding figure.
When the Cuban’s took flight (Jimmah Carter’s error) they hit the Atlantic with ‘craft’ so marginal that they were going under most of the time.
It quickly became apparent that Americans had to pull within four miles of Cuba to rescue the departees.
&&&&&&
And the ugly reality is that Europe can’t possibly handle the staggering flood of impoverished Muslims that are just across the sea.
For starters, such a mass migration must end up with a feral Islamic war campaign. By now, that’s a given.
The most responsible thing would be to rescue the illegal aliens and ship them back to North Africa without any delay, any processing at all.
Bringing their troubles to Europe will make Europe explode, sink its economy, and not solve anyone’s problems.
BTW, Italy has a HUGE problem with criminal Albanians — which the Catholic Church only amplifies.
Yes, they’re Muslims, too.
What it all boils down to is that Muslims can’t work side by side with infidels.
Lest we forget: EVERY Muslim ‘service’/ prayer session consists of damnations and curses against Jews and Christians — and polytheists. It’s built right into their rituals.
Whenever you read of, hear about, any ‘devout’ Muslim — keep that in mind. Islam does not have ANY toleration for non-Muslims. Getting rid of infidels is the MAIN focus of all Muslim ‘devotions.’
It’s not even very tolerant of Muslims!
Consequently, what ever they are doing to each other is NOTHING compared to what they intend to do to their Christian benefactors once they get settled into the place.
MOST of the English jihadis have been found to be on the British dole — even when they’ve got substantial incomes on the side. It’s just the way they roll.
Economic jihad.
But, Neo, what about Hillary hearing from her 4-immigrant grandparents throughout her childhood about the “immigrant Experience”? It was so heavily valuable for her empathy level in later life. Sigh. Swoon.
blert-
The Euros are getting all Sunni. Maybe the solution is to import Shia, and they can take each other out without the Euros having to get their precious hands dirty.
My impression is that in the USA Shia and Sunni stay far from one another; Iranian Shia in So Cal, Sunni muzzies in Dearborn MI, for example. I expect they live in their own clusters in places like NYC and Wash DC.
I’m beginning to understand ethnic cleansing.
I see the open borders folks as the crazy cat lady who reasons that if taking in a few stray cats is charitable, then taking in dozens or hundreds as saintly.
While the impulse to rescue is good, there is a limit to how many immigrants a country, a community can absorb before it becomes a destructive environment for both the refugees and the host. Not even considering the financial burden, dropping a large number of people from a vastly different culture prevents acclimation to the new culture and so many other issues. Our governments either don’t know how and/or don’t care to determine a reasonable immigration limit in order to protect the host citizens/communities as well as the immigrants from these problems.
The humanitarian impulse to take in refugees cannot transcend the human impulse for self-preservation.
”Because there can be no such thing as compulsory compassion or vicarious compassion, therefore it is a humbugging abuse of language, intended to deceive, to talk about a ‘compassionate Government’ or a ‘compassionate party’–or even a ‘compassionate society’, unless one simply means by that a society which happens to contain a lot of compassionate individuals. Nor let anyone protest: ‘Oh, but when I vote for a party which will “make provision on an unprecedented scale for those in need of help”, it means I too shall have to pay my whack and so I am being compassionate after all’. Nonsense! The purpose of your vote is not to make yourself subscribe–that you can freely do at any time–but to compel others. — Enoch Powell
Those who would direct the nation and fellow citizens to compassion ought be put at the head of the line to volunteer their wealth and domiciles for the furtherance of it. Then we would have proof, one way or the other, either of the saintliness of liberalism, or of what Oliver Wendell Holmes had observed of those “so heavenly minded as to be no earthly good.”
Seems to me we are witnessing the front edges of the New World Order.
The US government–executive and legislative branches alike is in active opposition to the will of the people, who overwhelmingly want illegal immigration stopped.
I’m convinced that Obama’s open borders ‘policy’ is an attempt to speed up the decline of American whites to minority status. There will also be repercussions from his refugee policies;
As for Europe. the Islamic imperative to dominate among Muslim immigrants will be the furnace that purifies Europe of its secularism. The submission of Europe’s elite is both an attempt at appeasement and at sustaining multiculturalism’s viability. It will fail at both and, in reaction Europe will eventually throw off its blinders. The only question is how bad the bloodbath will be in doing so.
Reckon when the Muslim “Europeans” sack the Vatican the Pope will still want more immigrants?
According to this report, as a boat was sinking and refugees began praying out loud, several Muslim refugees drowned Christian refugees for…being Christian:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/17/refugees-drowned-for-being-christian.html
Perhaps I should say “When the “youths” sack the Vatican….”
Part of the reason the hellholes have people leaving instead of staying and fighting back is that they have somewhere to run. Humans usually take the path of least resistance. It is to the tyran’ts benefit if they can just dump their population somewhere else and not have to deal with them politically, economically or socially. You fight back if you have no alternatives. This is true in the Middle East as well as south of the US border.
Most, if not all, of this disaster is on Barack and Hillary. No doubt about it. We had Iraq won and Barack gave it away. Obama had a chance early in his term to cause a revolt in Iran and he failed to do so. Obama and Clinton completely bungled the Arab Spring.
Hillary Clinton must not be president.
Humanitarians who advocate sanctuary for anyone who can cross the border, and cite the deplorable conditions that drive the multitudes to seek refuge simply ignore a couple of fairly obvious truths.
One is that any society can only absorb a finite, but unknowable, number of aliens without itself being compromised. It is particularly acute if the alien immigrants have no cultural identification with the society they are joining, as is the case with European oriented societies–including the U.S.– trying unsuccessfully to absorb large numbers of Africans, especially Muslim Africans. For those who would disagree and cite the “melting pot” era in the U.S., they largely prove the point. The masses of immigrants to the U.S. in the past were from Europe. The exception being those from Asia and, to some extent from India. However, these immigrants came from cultures that valued education and advancement; and they seemed to generally comprehend that the best way to advance was to assimilate. Consequently, for the most part they become strong contributors within a generation at most.
Another point is the drain on the social welfare apparatus. Again, European countries are most vulnerable because of their relatively smaller size, and because their more advanced culture of government dependence already taxes their social welfare systems.. We are not so far behind, and are trending strongly in the same direction. Although I open myself to the knee jerk charge of racism, I would point out that we already have a home grown sub-culture of Blacks, and we are developing a rather large second one of Hispanics. I know there are exceptions. How many underachieving sub-cultures can we absorb? There is also the danger of a significant number of “wolves in sheep’s clothing” riding the tide of refugee-immigrants.
Some open- border-humanitarians have forgotten the American adage that “it is better to fight wars on other people’s shores”. I would say it is also better to be pro-active in shaping the conditions that force people to leave their own countries in huge numbers, than to try to give them haven in ours. We need to make choices. If we are to be isolationist, as some, advocate, then we must close down our borders, and become very selective in choosing who we admit. As New Zealand and Australia used to do, we should insist on value added. On the other hand, if we choose not to withdraw into our selves, we must be engaged in a major way outside our borders; and in a cool and calculated way, with the intent of forestalling the development of failed states. This may require military intervention; or it may be limited to precisely targeted aid programs. At any rate, the cost of pro-active international engagement will be high; but, the cost of blindly accepting wave after wave of immigrants from failed states (and Mexico and others in Latin America, along with most in Africa qualify ) could be disastrous.
Immigration of like-minded people is designed to strengthen the community and to offer aid to the disenfranchised and oppressed. Excessive and unmeasured (e.g. illegal) immigration are designed to marginalize and neutralize a native population. Immigration is also designed to stimulate demand, especially in a multi-trillion dollar deficit economy. It is designed to compensate and obfuscate the consequences of elective abortion (i.e. premeditated murder) of around 1 million Americans citizens annually. The Abortionist in Chief (i.e. Obama, head of the “pro-choice” Democrat Party), the Party, and related are elated at Americans committing both voluntary (i.e. sacrificial rite or “choice”) and involuntary (i.e. excessive and illegal immigration) seppuku.
Apparently, this massive surge of Mediterranean immigration from Libya is largely fueled by the barbarity of ISIS there.
Chalk up another consequence of Obama’s “leading from behind” foreign policy.
Neo: “I noticed arguments in the comments section between those who rightly pointed out that Obama bears no small responsibility for this mess and those who parried with “blame Bush!””
Every time the argument arises is a fertile activist opportunity to set the record straight in the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist, both on the grounds for Operation Iraqi Freedom and the consequences of Obama’s course changes from Bush.
Apparently, this massive surge of Mediterranean immigration from Libya is largely fueled by the barbarity of ISIS terrorism, there.
Chalk up another consequence of Obama’s “leading from behind” foreign policy.
In the article on the boat sinking, I noticed arguments in the comments section between those who rightly pointed out that Obama bears no small responsibility for this mess and those who parried with “blame Bush!”]
As much as I supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq, I’ve very reluctantly come to the conclusion that it was the spark that set fire to the Middle East. For all those, including this blog’s host, who blame Obama for the immediate crisis there is an equal logical argument that can be made that no matter how many troops we left there, and for how many decades (or centuries) this would be the ultimate result. How long have they been fighting and killing each other?
Are we so pure of intent that all we really wanted was to give those freedom loving Iraqies their suppressed desire for freedom? You all know damn well that a big part of the war was revenge for 9/11. Unfortunately we were led by the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.
Had we zeroed in on the source it would have led to Saudi Arabia. We knew it at the time and wasted no effort to fly the BinLaden family to safety in short order while Bush was courting the Saudi royal family at his Texas ranch.
Please tell me it isn’t true, that the boat people of Vietnam who perished, that the thousands and perhaps millions of refugees in the Middle East now, that all these suffering souls are not the result of any action on our part. After all, our good intent absolves all. This isn’t how we intended it to turn out, right? Right?
I see this as the Camp of the Saints come to life .
The Other Chuck,
Why choose the arbitrary point of the Iraq War at which to start, and blame the Middle East situation on that? There’s nothing logical about doing that, and it was neither the start of the current mess nor the cause.
I assume you recall that Iraq was full of murder and death, torture and strife prior to that—does the name Saddam Hussein ring a bell? Or the Iran/Iraq war, or the gassing of the Kurds? Or the Gulf War? Or Saddam’s defiance of the UN inspections, that led to the Iraq War? Or the fact that Iraq had stabilized by 2008, and was especially stable by 2011, when Obama unaccountably and irresponsibly withdrew?
We have kept far more troops in Korea since the 1950s than we would have needed to have left in Iraq to keep it relatively stabilized. Every single military person suggested to Obama that some should be kept there, but he refused to listen to any of them. It is highly possible that with that sort of presence there, and the passage of time and even generations raised under more stable conditions and used to some sort of democracy (and I’m talking several decades of this), the country would have become even more stable. It certainly would have been well worth trying, after all we went through there and all the Iraqi people went through. The alternative is probably far worse, and will probably cost far more destruction and death before it is finished.
How is Syria and Libya Bush’s or the Iraq war’s fault? Or what Obama is doing in Iran, and Iran vis a vis Israel?
You are correct that the area has been a violent place for a long, long time. But Obama was bequeathed a less violent area, and he squandered all those gains. He made bad choices in Libya and weak as well as bad ones in Syria (actually, he made bad choices in Egypt as well, and it is only through luck—and certainly not because of anything Obama did—that al Sisi is in charge there right now).
And no, I don’t know that a large part (or any part) of the Iraq war was “revenge” for 9/11. The Afghan war was more directly related to 9/11 because of the al Qaeda training camps (and presence of Bin Laden) there, but it was not revenge either. It was designed to discourage any other country from harboring al Qaeda and allowing them to train there.
We’ve discussed the Iraq war and its causes here many many times. Almost every time commenter “Eric” posts he discusses it. See this and this. See also this and this.
I was going to suggest *Camp of the Saints* as
well, when the shear numbers of the 3rd world
will envelope and sink Western Civilization,
but cheer up fellow posters it will sink the elite Statists too !
The problem is not just “illegal” immigration. The problem is that we have too much immigration, both legal and illegal. Even if we could stop illegal immigration, the amount of legal immigration should be reduced. If the problem is just “illegal” immigration, that could easily be solved by declaring all immigration legal. It is irrational to declare off limits discussion of the optimal level of legal immigration. Unfortunately, that seems to be where we are, even among most conservatives.
Neo: “Almost every time commenter “Eric” posts he discusses it.”
I do that here because I trust you – with your origin-story appreciation of the Left narrative of the Vietnam War’s profound, compounding, epigenetic effect throughout our culture, politics, and policy – understand why it matters to vigorously counter the Left narrative of OIF at every iteration everywhere and not concede the Left activist stratagem as it reproduces its heir to finish the mission of its father.
Building on the activist utility of the Left narrative of the Vietnam War that reached beyond Vietnam and indeed SE Asia, and Presidents Johnson and Nixon, the ambition in the Left narrative of OIF reaches beyond Iraq, the Middle East, and President Bush.
It’s pivotal.
I just read “The Camp of the Saints” last week. This is eerily like that novel’s premise, and the dilemma is the same. Raspail, the author, railed against the West’s suicidal tendencies more than against the refugees.
More about Raspail’s 1973 apocalyptic novel:
http://www.chiltonwilliamson.com/books/the_conservative_bookshelf_the_camp_of_the_saints.html
I think it was Milton Friedman who said that the modern welfare state is incompatible with open borders.
Sure, these people are fleeing war, but they’re also running towards something: a handout.
Additionally, even if immigrants got ZERO benefits, I would still restrict their numbers. There’s only so many people a country can absorb before the country itself is altered. We aren’t the ones who are supposed to be melting here.
There is a Franz Fanon/Edward Said/Saul Alinsky/Frank Marshall Davis/Jeremiah Wright (& Co.) clone occupying in the White House.
(Nor would one wish to forget Valerie Jarret…
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2015/04/12/iran-through-the-eyes-of-valerie-jarrett/ )
We are currently witnessing that clone’s Dreams of His Fathers. They are his own dreams, goals, aims and ambitions, as well.
He is doing his best to turn those dreams into reality.
And he is succeeding.
That is, we are currently witnessing PAYBACK TIME(TM). And soon, many of us will be joining those who are already experiencing PAYBACK TIME(TM).
(And you thought PAYBACK TIME(TM) was only for Bibi? Or the GOP? Or the descendants of Churchill?)
The US is engulfed. Europe is flooded. Their economies are tottering.
The Barbarians at the gate have been unleashed and are pouring through the open gates—the gates opened by the clone and his friends and his mentors.
All of is the whole point of the Obama benighted presidency.
And has been point all along.
For the time has come to bring down Western Civilization. For its sins, of course, and “for the benefit of humanity”.
Of course.
Finally. Irrevocably.
For Obama has not merely “seen the mountain top”. He has reached its pinnacle and is standing astride its highest peaks.
So that the world may finally be “FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST” of the world’s most vile, most despicable, most evil country and the civilization it has anchored and led.
Barry @ 3:49 – – yes, yes and yes.
All of which is the whole point of the Obama benighted presidency. Absolutely yes.
And thus, it is logically impossible for BO not to have a glorious “fuck you” planned as his farewell gift to America.
Forget about his personal incompetence. His hatred is enough. Others (Iran?) will do the heavy lifting with critical political and intelligence connivance from BO.
When it happens, listen carefully to what BO says.
Like so many of his statements on critical issues, it will be perfectly parsed to seem to mean one thing, when it can be understood to mean (and is meant) the opposite.
I think it is an interesting topic and one I don’t really understand. The current flood into Italy doesn’t fit into it imo (side issue). But why the west (from Sweden to the UK to the USA) has done this thing with allowing such wide immigration. The most direct route in the US and UK says change the electorate to the benefit of the left… but the Scandinavian countries did it too. Is there some other reason for the left? The knee jerk conservative response I have is to destroy (ok; fundamentaly transform) the original society but is there something else closer to the truth?
The Other Chuck: “You all know damn well that a big part of the war was revenge for 9/11.”
Neo: “I don’t know that a large part (or any part) of the Iraq war was “revenge” for 9/11.”
Iraq was not blamed for the 9/11 attacks by the Bush administration.
The 9/11 attacks were related to the President’s subsequent decision not to invade Iraq outright, but rather to conclusively enforce Iraq’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441) with UN mandates, particularly the combination of terrorism mandates and disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687 (link), via Saddam’s voluntary compliance preferably but, if failing that, with regime change if necessary:
President Clinton:
“[The] United States shall seek to identify groups or states that sponsor or support such terrorists, isolate them and extract a heavy price for their actions. … The acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by a terrorist group … is unacceptable. There is no higher priority than preventing the acquisition of this capability or removing this capability from terrorist groups potentially opposed to the U.S.” (1995)
— “In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals, who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity — even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.” (1998)
— “The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.” (1998)
President Bush:
“By taking these steps [to make Iraq compliant with UN mandates], and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that’s why two administrations — mine and President Clinton’s — have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.” (2002)
— “our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.” (2002)
— “Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. … Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.” (2003)
UNMOVIC Cluster Document:
“about 100 unresolved disarmament issues … [for example] UNMOVIC has credible information that the total quantity of BW agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq [and] … With respect to stockpiles of bulk agent stated to have been destroyed, there is evidence to suggest that these was [sic] not destroyed as declared by Iraq.” (2003)
* The UNMOVIC Cluster Document was the main trigger for OIF.
Iraq Survey Group Duelfer Report:
“From 1999 until he was deposed in April 2003, Saddam’s conventional weapons and WMD-related procurement programs steadily grew in scale, variety, and efficiency. … ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The network of laboratories could have provided an ideal, compartmented platform from which to continue CW [chemical weapons] agent R&D or small-scale production efforts … The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories were never declared to the UN.” (2004)
* While illicitly preserving Iraq’s WMD capability during the ceasefire, the IIS was also Saddam’s regime arm that worked with terrorists.
Iraqi Perspectives Project report (link), “Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents”:
“Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda … This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a de facto link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals” (2007)
“UNMOVIC has credible information that the total quantity of BW agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq”
BW = biological weapons.
Related:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/obamas_three_premises.html
the governments HAVE to let these people in
if they dont, then the self extermination brought about by ideology and feminism will be seen, and cant be buried in the general numbers any more.
just wait till when the women figure out they been had, and they exterminated their society for no reason!!!!!!!!
Why men won’t get married anymore: Women complain chaps today won’t settle down. Sorry, ladies, but it’s all your fault, argues a wickedly provocative new book
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3046350/Why-men-refuse-marry-Women-complain-chaps-today-won-t-settle-Sorry-ladies-s-fault-argues-wickedly-provocative-new-book-Denigration-Men-PETER-LLOYD.html
been laughing my arse all morning on this one!!!
hey idiots, the cornerstone of the ideology you have pushed to the point of breaking society has as a cornerstone the destruction of what you want, so if you win, you lose…
you win!!!!!!!
[just as the cornerstone of socialism is a dictatorship, so if you win that one, you lose in the bigger realm]
my eyes are watering i am laughing so hard.
[now they are going to lower the standards in the military so that women can pretend they are combat marines… forget that they cant pass the course, and as such, cant pass the harder commander course… but until body bags full of them come back, they will destroy the protection we have just to be pc… note that by putting them in war, you help feminism exterminate the unwanted faster!!!!]
bed
see bed
lie in bed with dogs
wake up alone with fleas and have to do the walk of shame…
ha ha ha..
not my problem.. i am waiting to die
they took away my family, my career, my retirement, forced my wife to be barren and took away my raises…
good luck ladies.
@Eric, all the evidence of terrorist links and WMD capability of the Hussein regime you recount is THE reason I supported the Iraq invasion and war. What you leave out, conveniently, is our support of Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Iraq war and up until his invasion of Kuwait. Did he develop his WMD’s during those years of support? Wasn’t he suppressing the Kurds and Shias as well? And didn’t we withhold support of the Kurdish/Shia uprising in 1991 after the Gulf War?
I’m glad you, and Neo, have the arguments and evidence to back your justification for continued meddling in the region. But you need to face the fact that there is no clean war, that the horror of drowning boat people, the refugee camps, the starvation, the rise of ISIS butchery, all came after our involvement. You say it wouldn’t have happened if only we’d stayed the course? We never intended to leave those poor people at the mercy of…what? Their own primitive, psychotic religion, the religion that has produced exactly those conditions for over a thousand years?
Get over the Messianic crap. We can’t save the whole world. We need to concentrate on saving ourselves. The Arabs are quite capable of killing each other without of help.
The Arabs are quite capable of killing each other without our help.
Neo, excellent response to “the other Chuck”; but, I see that he is undaunted.
Interesting that he cites U.S. support for Sadaam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war. I guess I missed that adventure by Ronald Reagan. Of course, if it really happened, that would be an example of choosing which scorpion to back in a death duel. I don’t know what the official view of Sadaam was at the time; but we knew too much about the regime in Tehran. Of course it was only three years after the end of that war that G.H.W. Bush destroyed Sadaam’s expedition into Kuwait.
Folks continue to ignore that before the invasion of Iraq in ’03, Sadaam had flaunted multiple UN resolutions. Of course the UN once again demonstrated its fecklessness, and they went unpunished. All other considerations aside, Sadaam had by then proven himself to be a serial threat to the region; a strategically important region.
My imperfect grasp of history seems to recall that the region was relatively stable by 2008–with emphasis on the word relatively, as always. There was a reason for that. G.W. Bush had demonstrated that he would use American power when he thought it necessary.
Oldflyer, here’s a little history on Reagan’s support of Hussein:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran—Iraq_wa
Not the caption under the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam:
Donald Rumsfeld meets SaddÄm on 19—20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name.
The Other Chuck:
We need to face the fact that there is no “clean” war? What a bizarre notion, that of a “clean” war, and one no one here has ever said that a clean war is even possible—except you.
Please read this if you want to see my point of view on the withdrawal—before it ever happened. In it, I quote David Warren thusly:
That was in 2006.
I also refer you to—among many other things I’ve written—this, this, this, this, this, and this.
Oh, and the boat people, etc., happened after the Vietnam withdrawal, not before, in case you hadn’t noticed (and the final withdrawal was a withdrawal of funds). Read almost any of my posts on Vietnam if you want my opinion, but in particular try this.
Back to the orginal topic of immigration. The problem in Italy is not recent. If you read the late Orianna Fallaci’s 2002 book, The Rage and the Pride, much of it is a polemic against the Muslim immigrants who act more like invaders than settlers and are ruining Italy.
It’s also interesting because it describes her change from being a lefty who who supported third world types to a quite conservative view point. Her contempt for the Palestinians is just remarkable, especially when compared to her position in Interviews with History, a book of her interviews with famous people. There, she clearly sees Arafat as a homosexual thug in service to a noble cause and Golda Meier as a good woman leading an oppresive cause.
Fallaci was a real changer who underwent a far greater shift in views than Neo and did it for the right reason, because real world results were totally at odds with her initial ideology.
Artfldgr:
I think the progress of narcissistic indulgence has directed too many people to reach the wrong conclusion. Women and men seem to be satisfied with the liberal opiates: wealth, pleasure, and leisure, and their suppliers are more than happy to encourage and support their self-defeating addiction.
Unfortunately, this is likely an inevitable consequence of advanced states of civilization divorced from a religious (i.e. moral) foundation, and with notably a materialistic perspective. The secular state is a cult with an amoral foundation and opportunistic doctrines. Perhaps this is why atheism is so closely associated with left-wing ideologies, where men and women defer and are corrupted by their egos, as they revel in an unacknowledged faith.
Paul in Boston:
Exactly.
The modern mass of immigrants, often those who are classified as “refugees”, demonstrate an ambition to neither assimilate nor integrate with the native population, but rather to disrupt it through installation of their own minority leaders and interests. This is either the outcome of excessive immigration or indoctrination by a subversive domestic group.
Still, they would realize far less leverage if not for the dysfunctional pro-creation policies normalized, and voluntarily accepted, in their host societies. Pass the opiates.
Since germany and geobles speeches to “women!” who dominated the political lanscape, the population collapsing from too many in cities, and too many going into education and work, and not enough being moms, was well known (and something that could be exploited purposfully, under the guise of something else, like liberation)
Calvin College is a top-ranked liberal arts college in Grand Rapids, Mich.
Despite their not exactly progressive view of women, German women in general supported the Nazis. Goebbels gave this speech on 18 March 1933, just six weeks after Hitler took power. The occasion was the opening of a women’s exhibition in Berlin
German Women
by Joseph Goebbels 1933
http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb55.htm
Excerpts:
the only ones who say otherwise are the leftists rewriting history… duh… those who know DETAILS know otherwise. those that believe otherwise, refuse to spend the time to see DETAILS
anyway…
if you read the speeches, you start to understand why feminisms increase came right after that time! the germans showed the way to the progressives and others who favored them from overseas before the war started and it was no longer ok to do so openly.
feminism has always been a communist/fascist ideology in its modern forms… (ergo why they are polar opposites to some of the early feminists)
the whole of it can be found in speeches that mobilized women to like fascism, which was wiling to wisper the same things as today in their ears. you only have to read the speeches and not read someone summarizing stuff they are too lazy toa ctually read themselves and so promote the party line
The liberal attitude toward the family and the child is responsible for Germany’s rapid decline. We today must begin worrying about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by 1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation.
how much more do you have to spell it out?
he informs the left that adoption of liberalism exterminates the group that adopts it… women in american society are the majority power force behind this… (to the point men dont want to even be with them, let alone hav families with them)
to read these speeches and not know who is giving them would clue you in
The national revolutionary government has the duty to rebuilt the nation on its original foundations, to transform the life and work of the woman so that it once again best serves the national good. It intends to eliminate the social inequalities so that once again the life of our people and the future of our people and the immortality of our blood is assured.
oh… eliminte the inequalities for women, rebuild the society, etc…
those that study this, or lived it as my family did, know that what we are doing is a recut of this past for other reasons. where hitler and his people wanted to stop the decline in population, to preserve german culture (the way they wanted it), the western communists and such saw that they could use the same ideas that the women were attracted to, to get them to do what they did in Eden and betray their own. they ALSO knew, as evident in other speeches that the women would never accept the truth, and so, would defend to the end the lie that exterminates them!!!!!!!!!!!
every western liberal nation, and more so under Agenda 21 moving them to the cities, has shown extreme population decline.
in order to hide it, or have to admit that feminism causes birth decline till extermination, they had to let people in. at first they loosened up the immigration laws and lifted the quotas… the more the decline in white population that dominated happened, the more they had to let others in.
following demographics they went from whites in north and south, to race groups together knowing that the whites are about to have a over 30% decline in a short time when the old boomers go… and they are even more afraid that you will notice the numbers.
1930 had the highest level of caucasians
110,286,740 – 89.8% and 1940 118,214,870 – 89.8%
then
1950 89.5%
1960 88.6%
1970 87.5%
1980 83.1%
1990 80.3%
2000 75.1%
2010 72.4%
and last year and this year they have been celebrating
Five Charts That Show Why a Post-White America Is Already Here
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120370/five-graphics-show-why-post-white-america-already-here
[this is why the feminists are losing power to the racialists, there are not enough feminists left to matter as a political force, and so they side with who will dominate demographically]
In comparative terms, whites constituted just 53 percent of America’s young people (down from nearly 70 percent in 1990)
feminism is self exterminating… and unopposable…
census projections show the white child population continuing to decline for years to come. White children will become a minority of children under age 18 well before 2020, and, soon thereafter, the white population as a whole is projected to begin to decrease
now, how do you hide this 30 year change? hide it to the point that even neo will argue (in the past, not necessarily today) that it isnt happening or not that severe
The reason for the divergence is straightforward: In the white population, there will be fewer births than deaths, and nowhere near enough whites emigrating to the United States to make up the difference
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
With white fertility below replacement level, there will not be enough births to keep the total white population from falling. At the same time, there is a growing presence of new minorities among women of childbearing age
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
the white population is aging more rapidly than that of other racial groups. The 2010 census indicated that the median age for whites was 42 years.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
By 2030, approximately 26 percent of the nation’s whites but just 13 percent of minorities will be seniors.
GOOD JOB women… you went out of the family en masse, and you supported abortion, putting off marraige, behaviors that increased STDs, and on and on… (some even talking about post birth abortions now)
you can read tons of articles about this decline, the marraige strike (see above) and so on.
all obama and dems are doing is taking up the early fight to win the hearts of the replacements…
the fun will be watching the power of caucasian feminist women decline to irrelevency, then want their men to “do something”
this group will be more and more put upon to pay for the other groups… they will have their birth rates decline more. jews go with them… eventually they will be a minority being put upon by a majority that thinks they are the opposite, and will happily load them into ovens or exterminate them as they are the reason for all racism and ills in the world..
GAME SET MATCH…
but it will be ignored…
its already just about too late, but until its so undeniable it wont e important enough to discuss in a way that accepts the outcome, and that the reason for this is feminisms rise, and the decline of marraige, a key goal of feminism
and it dont matter if you argue otherwise…
what will be will be even if your wrong but think your right.
and THAT is the whole purpose of these immigration games
the population is in such decline that the Dems know to switch from the party of women, to the party of minorities… the demographic change is unchangeable now.
no group has ever recovered from below replacement.
like in the movie DOA…
the man was alive and talking, but already dead..
being alive and talking and using that current condition to ascertain the outcome was wrong, he would be dead given the poison he took and the conditions. and no matter how healthy he appeared on the surface today, tomorrow, not so much.
we swallowed the poison..
arguing it wont kill you wont work
its already done so…
and there is nothing you can say or do to get the women of the west to suddenly turn around and have dozens of kids to change the outcome…
in fact, given books and such, their power has waned enough that one can say what the end is without being erased, or removed or neutralized… why bother? the end cant be changed.
re: dysfunctional pro-creation policies
Even the Chinese have a “one-child” policy, while “progressive” Western civilizations, notably America, have a pro-choice or selective-child policy — a wicked solution to a “wicked” problem. That and the normalization or promotion of deferred matrimony and child-bearing, as well as excessive and disruptive immigration, are directing us to a dysfunctional convergence. I wonder if the dodos were surprised with the end of their dynasty.
n.n Says:
Women and men seem to be satisfied with the liberal opiates: wealth, pleasure, and leisure, and their suppliers are more than happy to encourage and support their self-defeating addiction.
funny…
but they are poorer now, less money than the past, have fewer kids, are more unhappy, etc.
and dont include the men, they been complaining about this and the outcome for 40 years and been marginalized on it.. to the point were you can read tons of articles and things the describe their bowing out of the game and thats that.
i sure hope neo does not delete my long post.
she has a habit of doing so, and there is no way to prove my case without that long of a post.
not that it matters.
she dont like the women ruined the society post anyway… even if its correct… those that didnt ruin society, sure didnt stop the majority from doing so, and sure benefited from it as well.
but for the most part. people who dont have children are never the future!!! EVER…
Chuck – YES, some are imbued with overreaching sense of mission. (Jean Kirkpatrick was the original one, as far as I can tell – but this belongs to the most recent iteration of the “Jacksonian’s,” as per Walter Russell Meads typology in “Speical Providence.”)
But I’m not – most are not. It is a matter of realism to say that a vast international system cannot be “policed” by any single nation, great power or not, hegemonic “Super Power” or not. But it can be steered or led in certain problem areas.
SEATO, for instance, can organize to check and corral threats from North Korea. But who will lead to solve conflict zones like the Spratly Islands (in the South China Sea), if not the “indispensable nation?”
There are two things missing in Chuck’s plaint about “saving us.” First is the lesson of realism. Thomas P. M Barnett put it in a 20111 lecture (which you can view on Youtube) revisiting “The Pentagon”s New Map” thesis (circa 2001-3) (SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDVOP0lEECk):
the realm of disconnected where most civil strife and violent occurs is shrinking; the process is already in motion because other people want to become richer and enjoy its benefits for themselves, which necessarily entails becoming more connected and more peaceful. The only open question is the degree of blood and violence the road takes for the world to get there.
“It’s not a neocon fantasy, you can’t vote it out of office, it’s just an observable fact,” says Barnett.
Furthermore, equally missing from Chuch’s mantra, “Bush’s War” in Iraq has, indeed, already resulted in epic positive changes for the ME. Popular government (eg, Tunisia, Morroco, Iraq, maybe Egypt) is the new alternative for theocracy, police states, and failed states.
If Barnett is correct, the future is coming sooner than later for the Muslim ME. We have the means to either help steer the course by planting mechanisms promoting peace (eg, in post-Gadaffi Libya – another terror loving dictator the world is now rid of), for example, or risk becoming collateral damage (Obama’s oxymoronic ‘lead from behind’ that’s fomented a Western haven for ISIS in Libya).
But Bush is the true unspoken hero of the early 21st century, helping to father the ME into modern mechanisms of compromise and reform (which survey of the ME have long found they’ve wanted).
I foresaw these changes coming late this decade (roughly 20 years after toppling Saddam). But instead of late, it began early this decade.
‘Why’ the timing was so critical and benefits of Bush’s War started early comes down to the ongoing demographic transition – the bulge of youth initiating revolt ushering in constitutional governance in Tunisa, for example (imitating those ‘purple fingered’ voters in Iraq).
Thomas Sowell explained that the young are taken with radical and risky and revolutionary ideas (like Al Qaida or ISIS or Marxism – Lenin was a young middle class revolutionary), because of economics: the young have the least to lose and most to gain by following the zeal-driven ideological or utopian path. Complementarily, the older and middle aged sorts are less susceptible to utopian ideologies, and ideology in general, because of their station in life. Compromise and avoiding conflict more often and being adaptive and pragmatic are more highly valued because they have more – especially families and homes – to loose.
Thus, the sociology that Bush’s War in Iraq seized upon was deeply and historically sound in fact and dynamic. In other words, the appeal of Jihad for the young was that it provides a righteous path to challenge and overthrow existing rulers in the ME! Is all you have is the One True Religion in Islam, the solution for every problem is Jihad.
But give those same youth’s a functioning secular alternative (popular government and future with jobs), and
those 72 virgins in Heaven may not look like your life’s prime directive. In other words, the Jihadist impulse was becoming tamable during the later Bush years and earlier Obama years.
BO simply squandered much of that progress for his own dopey failed utopian punishments.
Other Chuck…
Rumsfeld recommended that Saddam be TURNED DOWN.
He was.
America NEVER sold Saddam the very stuff he wanted.
So he went shopping with Paris and Moscow — even Bonn.
Saddam was welcome to buy medicine ( Rusmfeld was with GD Searle at that time, IIRC ) his entreaties to buy American war goods when straight into the trash bin.
As for Iran: it was the US CONGRESS, not President Carter, that embargoed Tehran after that regime insulted us and our diplomats.
THAT embargo was the trigger for Saddam’s invasion — something that went on the record only years after the events.
Saddam figured that as long as Tehran was busy giving Congress the finger, the way was clear for him to roll over Iran’s (adjacent ) oil fields.
The mullahs had even ejected — nay imprisoned — their own air force on the eve of his invasion.
Famously, now, the mullahs had to open their prison doors to let flight officers take the war back to Baghdad. You can see (official ) re-enactments on YouTube. The prison part is not included in the video, of course.
The famous Rumsfeld mission was to SELL GD Searle drugs — and those of his peers AND to report back to the President.
Ever since, the American Left has conflated a medical sales call with martial support.
Saddam was Moscow’s boy — going back decades. NO WAY would the President or the Pentagon play ball with him.
You are DREAMING.
Orson…
Update: SEATO is dead, has been dead, for decades.
South East Asia Treaty Organization
The American diplomacy with Korea is strictly bilateral.
[ Japan and Korea still can’t stand each other — and for good (1916-1945) reason. They can do business together — by holding their noses.]
Hence, all dealings with Red China, Korea, Japan, and North Korea are ‘touchy.’
Artfldgr:
While there is a conflict between reality and perception, the latter for a majority in our society is that we are wealthier, happier, and liberated. Perception can and does drive reality in quasi-stable periods, which is where our society currently exists.
You must include men, not all men. We must included women, but not all women. Neither men nor women can be discussed as a monolithic class unless it is on principle. There are feminist men, or men who exploit the leverage created by feminism. There are feminist women, or women who exploit the leverage created by feminism. Feminist men and women exploit other men and women to increase their fitness.
As for neo-neocon, perhaps my only criticism is her pro-choice position, which cannot be reconciled with either science, let alone with self-evident knowledge, and the prevailing religious (i.e. moral) perspective of human life. Pro-choice or selective-child is a wicked solution — more so than “one-child” — to a “wicked” problem.
To conclude, I agree with your assessment. But don’t overlook the opportunistic men, and don’t include the virtuous women. Otherwise, you will miss the complex dynamic and motives which are directing us to realize a dysfunctional convergence.
n.n.:
By the way, my position on abortion can be found here.
Note also that not even religions agree on when life begins (see this—for example, the Jewish point of view).
My political position is that it should be up to the states. I think the Roe court erred in finding a constitutional right of privacy.
@blert
Rumsfeld recommended that Saddam be TURNED DOWN. He was. America NEVER sold Saddam the very stuff he wanted. So he went shopping with Paris and Moscow – even Bonn.
Saddam was welcome to buy medicine ( Rusmfeld was with GD Searle at that time, IIRC ) his entreaties to buy American war goods when straight into the trash bin.
Please read this from the Wiki article that I tried to link above but which apparently failed:
“Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983.[15] According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:”
[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat… The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[16]
The italics quote is from Teicher’s sworn affidavit.
Please read the entire article. If it’s leftist slanted propaganda then it is one good job, even fabricating Rumsfeld’s assistant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war