EU mass Immigration

Discussion in 'Everything Else' started by Phisix, Sep 8, 2015.

  1. Re: EU mass Immigration

    I don't have too expect many will go anywhere once they have been granted asylum. 90% will likely stay in Europe.
     
  2. 90%? I doubt it.
     
  3. Re: EU mass Immigration

    Once you are granted asylum you get 5 years to stay at which point if it is not safe for you to go back you can stay longer.

    However I expect during that time most people will have families, make connections, get jobs etc. 5 years a long time to be somewhere else, make a life and then go back to nothing.

    Most will apply for indefinite leave to stay.
     
  4. Hence why England is getting full of Polish and Muslims.
     
  5. You should get down on your hands and needs and kiss their feet. Finally good cuisine comes to the UK.
     
  6. Have three kids already. Can't have them all for everyone else.
     
  7. I'm no fan of Putin, but at least he's now taking the fight to ISIS while everyone else seems to be all talk and no action.

    Beat ISIS with the help of Assad's forces, then have Assad step down sounds like a more reasonable thing than whatever non-plan that worthless blowhard Kerry is proposing.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russias-legislature-authorizes-putin-to-use-military-force-in-syria/2015/09/30/f069f752-6749-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html
     
  8. I don't think anyone really knows what Putin is doing. According to the Pentagon Russia has been bombing targets that aren't held by ISIS and flying planes that are heavily armed for air-to-air combat even though ISIS doesn't have any planes.
     
  9. According to the Pentagon, arming rebels to fight Assad was a great idea 3 years ago.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. It actually sounds like Russia may just be attacking non-ISIS rebels in support of Assad. So I guess things just got more complicated and probably worse.

    Not sure why the Pentagon is claiming the Russian aircraft are heavily armed for air to air combat. Nearly all of the aircraft Russia has commited are Su-25s, which are the Russian counterpart to the A-10 Thunderbolt II. They're ground attack aircraft that may carry a few missiles to protect themselves from other aircraft, the same way the A-10 carries a few sidewinders, but the bulk of their armament is for ground attack. They are not fighters and would not last long against other aircraft.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Just in case someone does actually want to know what's really going on in Syria...

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868

    U.S. approved of supplying arms to "moderate" Syrian rebels in 2014. U.S. provided military support to the Kurds against ISL in Kobane around the same time. That was supposedly a lost cause according to the pundits/media, but ended up being successful.
     
  12. Real successful considering Assad is still in power and ISIS is more powerful than ever.

    Most of the "moderate" rebels we arm just end up joining ISIS or AQ.

    I think Putin probably has the right idea honestly. Work with Assad to beat the Jihadists. Then we can talk about regime change. Assad is evil and murderous, but at least he maintains order. ISIS is even worse than Assad. Unfortunately that is how things usually work in the middle east. Brutal strong men seem to be the best at maintaining some kind of order, otherwise it's Jihad, beheadings, rape, and Sharia Law. That is the unfortunate reality of governing people who are stuck in the middle ages with an abhorrent religion. You have to rule them like a king. Unfortunately Assad is too cruel of a king. Democracy isn't even really an option in these places, and if you try to give them democracy they will either vote for the strong man or for the jihad. It's like trying to teach Calculus to a chimpanzee. Their culture is simply too backwards and inferior to understand a concept like democracy.
     
  13. The success was specific to Kobane. The media treated Kobane like it was symbol of ISL's unstoppable power and Obama's bad strategy...and then they lost. It's too embarrassing for the media to bring up now, so they pretend it didn't really happen.
     
  14. The U.S. has already used that strategy against ISL and it's been reasonably successful. You have to remember that back in 2014, the media made it sound like ISL was about to topple Baghdad and rule Iraq...but now you hardly hear anything about ISL in Iraq from the media. Obama's strategy of air strikes in combination with local ground forces and a small amount of U.S. military advisors was not a failure in Iraq or Syria. Everybody acts like the Obama hasn't done anything yet, when in reality Putin may just be copying the U.S. template...use air power, let the locals do the ground fighting.