Dresden riots: Protesters in Germany attack refugee buses shouting 'foreigners out'

[jilly4ski]

30,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the 30 million immigrants in Europe today.

That is just in one state with a population of 5.5 million or so, not all of the US, though Minnesota has the highest concentration of Somali refugees right now, there are also significant populations on the west coast and some on the east coast. In comparison, Britain has 65 million and Germany 80 million people and both should better be able to integrate a large number of refugees than a place with 5 million. Even with that small population Minnesota is having trouble with extremism, despite the Somali population trying to deal with it from the inside and even with the community having political representation in the legislature (despite some shenanigans with 200 absentee ballots from the same residence).

We have the benefit here, because they mostly have to be invited (airfare and settlement costs are often paid for by the Lutheran social services or Catholic Charities), it is difficult to sneak over via plane. But we have our own refugee problem from Central and South America. Especially unaccompanied minors. I don’t think it would be merciful to the refugees to bring them over without first being able to deal with the refugee problem we already have. (Mainly keeping them in deplorable detention camps).

 

[meltzerboy]

That is just in one state with a population of 5.5 million or so, not all of the US, though Minnesota has the highest concentration of Somali refugees right now, there are also significant populations on the west coast and some on the east coast. In comparison, Britain has 65 million and Germany 80 million people and both should better be able to integrate a large number of refugees than a place with 5 million. Even with that small population Minnesota is having trouble with extremism, despite the Somali population trying to deal with it from the inside and even with the community having political representation in the legislature (despite some shenanigans with 200 absentee ballots from the same residence).

We have the benefit here, because they mostly have to be invited (airfare and settlement costs are often paid for by the Lutheran social services or Catholic Charities), it is difficult to sneak over via plane. But we have our own refugee problem from Central and South America. Especially unaccompanied minors. I don’t think it would be merciful to the refugees to bring them over without first being able to deal with the refugee problem we already have. (Mainly keeping them in deplorable detention camps).

This may sound trivial but isn’t there also an unusually abrupt climate change coming from Somalia and repopulating in Minnesota?

 

[Path_Finder]

George Bush went against their recommendation because in 2008 he signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement which gave a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which “all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory”.

So? We were scheduled to leave Afghanistan, we stayed.

If the responsibility is anyone’s in Iraq, it’s what the executive branch did.

Iran and Syria also teamed up to cause trouble in Iraq, the Quds under Soleimani killed many Americans, Russia has supplied Syria, might as well say they shame too. Same old line.

 

[Ridgerunner]

George Bush went against their recommendation because in 2008 he signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement which gave a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which “all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory”.

No. Bush specifically warned of the consequences of a hasty withdrawal from Iraq, and predicted exactly what would happen if we did. And he was entirely right.

The original Status of Forces agreement was signed in 2008, that’s true. It was to expire in 2011, as it was believed in 2008 the nature of the U.S. force would change by 2011. Actually, it did change to a more static situation in which the largest responsibilities of the U.S. forces would be to maintain the peace, train Iraqis, and also to guard against infiltration from the growing radical insurgency in Syria.

It was always intended to be renegotiated and Maliki did, indeed, negotiate, or try to. What he couldn’t do was get the Iraqi parliament (and himself as well probably) to as few as 3,000 U.S. troops. Everybody, including Maliki and the factions in Iraq knew that would not be of any value. Obama then ran out the clock and left.

The Kurds, the Sunni tribal leaders and the Sistani shiites all begged us to stay. But Obama wouldn’t, because leaving Iraq was an election promise on his part. Again, he admitted in the debate with Romney, when Romney said a status of forces agreement could have been gotten, that his purpose was simply to leave Iraq.

Before Obama pulled out, the Defense Intelligence Agency warned Obama about what was then the predecessor of ISIS in Syria, estimating that it would take three brigades to keep them completely out of Iraq. Obama ignored that as well.

This is Obama’s mess, and “it’s Bush’s fault” just doesn’t work anymore. Obama also engineered the destruction of the government in Libya, which has resulted in murders of Christians, attacks on Egypt, and much of the refugee crisis now afflicting Europe. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with that.

Obama’s successor, whoever it is, will have to deal with the aftermath of his horrible foreign policies. No doubt ISIS knows that, and will undoubtedly do everything it can do to strengthen its position and kill or evict potential opponents to its rule before the U.S. is perhaps governed by a real leader.

 

[meltzerboy]

No. Bush specifically warned of the consequences of a hasty withdrawal from Iraq, and predicted exactly what would happen if we did. And he was entirely right.

The original Status of Forces agreement was signed in 2008, that’s true. It was to expire in 2011, as it was believed in 2008 the nature of the U.S. force would change by 2011. Actually, it did change to a more static situation in which the largest responsibilities of the U.S. forces would be to maintain the peace, train Iraqis, and also to guard against infiltration from the growing radical insurgency in Syria.

It was always intended to be renegotiated and Maliki did, indeed, negotiate, or try to. What he couldn’t do was get the Iraqi parliament (and himself as well probably) to as few as 3,000 U.S. troops. Everybody, including Maliki and the factions in Iraq knew that would not be of any value. Obama then ran out the clock and left.

The Kurds, the Sunni tribal leaders and the Sistani shiites all begged us to stay. But Obama wouldn’t, because leaving Iraq was an election promise on his part. Again, he admitted in the debate with Romney, when Romney said a status of forces agreement could have been gotten, that his purpose was simply to leave Iraq.

Before Obama pulled out, the Defense Intelligence Agency warned Obama about what was then the predecessor of ISIS in Syria, estimating that it would take three brigades to keep them completely out of Iraq. Obama ignored that as well.

This is Obama’s mess, and “it’s Bush’s fault” just doesn’t work anymore. Obama also engineered the destruction of the government in Libya, which has resulted in murders of Christians, attacks on Egypt, and much of the refugee crisis now afflicting Europe. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with that.

Obama’s successor, whoever it is, will have to deal with the aftermath of his horrible foreign policies. No doubt ISIS knows that, and will undoubtedly do everything it can do to strengthen its position and kill or evict potential opponents to its rule before the U.S. is perhaps governed by a real leader.

Four indisputable facts: (1) 9/11 occurred on Bush’s watch, (2) Bush got us into the protracted War in Iraq, (3) our homeland has been safe (so far) from a comparable 9/11 attack under Obama’s watch, so he must be doing SOMETHING right, and (4) Obama took out Osama bin Laden. I rest my case. Your witness…

 

[Tomdstone]

Bush specifically warned of the consequences of a hasty withdrawal from Iraq, and predicted exactly what would happen if we did.

He might have said something to that effect orally, as a political comment, but when it came down to having something in writing, what did he do? Politicians say a lot of things back and forth but what really matters more is the laws and treaties that they have signed, being witnessed, sealed and delivered to the world in writing. In 2008 George Bush** signed** the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement which gave a hard deadline of 31 December 2011, before which “all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory”.

 

[meltzerboy]

He might have said something to that effect orally, as a political comment, but when it came down to having something in writing, what did he do? Politicians say a lot of things back and forth but what really matters more is the laws and treaties that they have signed, being witnessed, sealed and delivered to the world in writing. In 2008 George Bush** signed** the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement which gave a hard deadline of 31 December 2011, before which “all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory”.

Good point. IOW, talk is cheap; show me the money (that is, document).

 

[Path_Finder]

Four indisputable facts: (1) 9/11 occurred on Bush’s watch, (2) Bush got us into the protracted War in Iraq, (3) our homeland has been safe (so far) from a comparable 9/11 attack under Obama’s watch, so he must be doing SOMETHING right, and (4) Obama took out Osama bin laden. I rest my case. Your witness…

Obama withdrew troops from Iraq, thousands have died, ISIS rose after the Bush administration. THOUSANDS HAVE DIED IN LIBYAand this migrant crisis during the Obama administration. Everyone knows that.

Your honor, I rest my case.

 

[Path_Finder]

George Bush went against their recommendation because in 2008 he signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement which gave a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which “all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory”.

So? Obama stayed in Afghanistan, he should have listened to his general, General LLoyd.

Whether it be the USA accepting more migrants, though we are generous or blaming the USA for any problem, seems all you are interested in is undermining the US government.

Russia took in 12 million refugees, right.

 

[Path_Finder]

USA got Bin Laden because of the intelligence established under Bush, everyone knows that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Four indisputable facts: (1) 9/11 occurred on Bush’s watch, (2) Bush got us into the protracted War in Iraq, (3) our homeland has been safe (so far) from a comparable 9/11 attack under Obama’s watch, so he must be doing SOMETHING right, and (4) Obama took out Osama bin laden. I rest my case. Your witness…

I agree with No. 1. But he did not create the underlying conditions for it. If you want to take a partisan approach, Clinton could have had Bin Laden long before, but declined.
2. Bush the Elder and Saddam Hussein got us into the first phase of the Iraq War, which ended with a truce that was repeatedly broken by Saddam Hussein. Bush the Younger, the U.S. Congress and virtually every foreign intelligence agency, as well as Saddam’s shooting at U.S. and Brit planes in violation of the truce, got us into the second phase of the war.
3. While no attack has been as deadly as 911 since then, there have certainly been attacks. One needs to remember that the security apparatus under Obama was set up by Bush.
4. So, one Islamic radical leader was killed? Exactly how has that prevented the rise of ISIS, the takeover of Aden by A.Q., the Islamist takeover of much of North Africa and the flight of refugees from those areas? Manifestly, it did none of those things.

Without any pretense to legal skills, I would nevertheless at this point move for Summary Judgment inasmuch as your four points have neither proved a case against Bush or for Obama, even if the facts asserted are true, (which is not conceded) in the matter of the refugee crisis afflicting Europe and the refugees themselves.

 

[Path_Finder]

That is just in one state with a population of 5.5 million or so, not all of the US, though Minnesota has the highest concentration of Somali refugees right now, there are also significant populations on the west coast and some on the east coast. In comparison, Britain has 65 million and Germany 80 million people and both should better be able to integrate a large number of refugees than a place with 5 million. Even with that small population Minnesota is having trouble with extremism, despite the Somali population trying to deal with it from the inside and even with the community having political representation in the legislature (despite some shenanigans with 200 absentee ballots from the same residence).

We have the benefit here, because they mostly have to be invited (airfare and settlement costs are often paid for by the Lutheran social services or Catholic Charities), it is difficult to sneak over via plane. But we have our own refugee problem from Central and South America. Especially unaccompanied minors. I don’t think it would be merciful to the refugees to bring them over without first being able to deal with the refugee problem we already have. (Mainly keeping them in deplorable detention camps).

There is no evidence of 30 million refugees in Europe, this is totally fabricated, this is counting all migrants at the least.

 

[Path_Finder]

Many more have died in Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan under President Obama,

More US soldiers killed in Afghanistan under Obama.

MORE innocent civilians killed in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush in drone strikes.

Next Witness Your Honor.

 

[Tomdstone]

ISIS rose after the Bush administration. .

No. On 12 October 2006, three groups united with six Sunni Islamic tribes to form the “Mutayibeen Coalition”. It swore by Allah “to rid Sunnis from the oppression of the rejectionists (Shi’ite Muslims) and the crusader occupiers … to restore rights even at the price of our own lives … to make Allah’s word supreme in the world, and to restore the glory of Islam”. A day later,on Octgober 13, 2006, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), comprising Iraq’s six mostly Sunni Arab sectors, was formed.
See: ISIS on wikipedia.

 

[Path_Finder]

No. On 12 October 2006, three groups united with six Sunni Islamic tribes to form the “Mutayibeen Coalition”. It swore by Allah “to rid Sunnis from the oppression of the rejectionists (Shi’ite Muslims) and the crusader occupiers … to restore rights even at the price of our own lives … to make Allah’s word supreme in the world, and to restore the glory of Islam”. A day later,on Octgober 13, 2006, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), comprising Iraq’s six mostly Sunni Arab sectors, was formed.
See: ISIS on wikipedia.

Well, why didn’t we hear of them until 2011? We didn’t and that is good enough for me.

In fact, I’ll bet the oldest story on ISIS is 2012, 2013, maybe as late as 2014 for articles in this forum.

Anyone who says ISIS rose to power in 2006 and heard of them back then would amaze me.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is no evidence of 30 million refugees in Europe, this is totally fabricated, this is counting all migrants at the least.

There are 31,860,300 foreign citizens living in Europe today according to EUROSTAT. 20 million of those are from outside Europe.

 

[Path_Finder]

30,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the 30 million immigrants in Europe today.

We admit 1,000,000 a year, no country beats that. period.

 

[meltzerboy]

I agree with No. 1. But he did not create the underlying conditions for it. If you want to take a partisan approach, Clinton could have had Bin Laden long before, but declined.
2. Bush the Elder and Saddam Hussein got us into the first phase of the Iraq War, which ended with a truce that was repeatedly broken by Saddam Hussein. Bush the Younger, the U.S. Congress and virtually every foreign intelligence agency, as well as Saddam’s shooting at U.S. and Brit planes in violation of the truce, got us into the second phase of the war.
3. While no attack has been as deadly as 911 since then, there have certainly been attacks. One needs to remember that the security apparatus under Obama was set up by Bush.
4. So, one Islamic radical leader was killed? Exactly how has that prevented the rise of ISIS, the takeover of Aden by A.Q., the Islamist takeover of much of North Africa and the flight of refugees from those areas? Manifestly, it did none of those things.

Without any pretense to legal skills, I would nevertheless at this point move for Summary Judgment inasmuch as your four points have neither proved a case against Bush or for Obama, even if the facts asserted are true, (which is not conceded) in the matter of the refugee crisis afflicting Europe and the refugees themselves.

For #2, I did use the term “protracted” war and, further, Obama voted against it in the Senate in the first place. And for #3, you know for a fact the nation’s defense was not modified in any way for the better by Obama?

Since a full counter-rebuttal would take us too far from the OP, the court is adjourned for the day.

 

[Tomdstone]

Well, why didn’t we hear of them until 2011?

Probably because you did not read what was available in 2006:
longwarjournal.org/archives/2006/10/alqaedas_grand_coali.php#
ft.com/cms/s/e239159e-5c6a-11db-9e7e-0000779e2340,Authorised=false.html?siteedition=uk&_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fe239159e-5c6a-11db-9e7e-0000779e2340.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&_i_referer=&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app#axzz3jg8xBGGq

 

[Ridgerunner]

George Bush went against their recommendation because in 2008 he signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement which gave a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which “all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory”.

At no time did Bush go against the generals’ recommendations after 2008. Again, it was anticipated that it would be renegotiated depending on the situation in 2011. Obama wouldn’t renegotiate it meaningfully. Maliki even offered a “president-to-president” agreement on the reduced 10,000 number if the Iraqi parliament wouldn’t accept less than what the generals recommended, but Obama wouldn’t even do that. He didn’t even respond to it.

Obama told the truth in the debate with Romney. He had no objectives in the negotiations. He just wanted to withdraw. He said it himself.

But let’s ask this. If it had been possible to negotiate a status of forces agreement for, say, 25,000 troops, would you have supported doing it?

Or would you have opposed it?