daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old September 9th, 2015, 12:04 AM   #181
John Maynard
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Lausanne (CH); Warsaw (PL)
Posts: 534
Likes (Received): 376

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponge_bob View Post
Sarkozy, past and (he hopes anyway) future President of France weighs in with a 'helpful' suggestion.

http://www.lindependant.fr/2015/09/0...ie,2080279.php

He wants processing centres in North Africa and also in Serbia OR Bulgaria to preprocess and separate migrants from refugees BEFORE they enter Schengen...of course this means he no longer considers Greece to be part of Schengen apart from the general absurdness of the rest of his point.

The centres would have to be in Turkey, surely, Mr Sarkozy!!!!
Sarkozy is just trying to re-enact his secret treaty with Gaddafi - by installing camps and stopping emigrants right away in Libya - which worked perfectly well...before he decided to bomb his ally. France and Italy are now getting a taste of their own medicine, unfortunately at the cost of all Europe.

Last edited by John Maynard; September 9th, 2015 at 12:09 AM.
John Maynard no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old September 9th, 2015, 12:25 AM   #182
Kanadzie
Registered User
 
Kanadzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,377
Likes (Received): 748

ISIL is working pretty good to keep the migrants from leaving Libya, remember when they were slitting throats on the beach?

There is something to say about how screwed up that whole "south of Mediterranean, east of Urals" part of the world has become...
__________________
100 coups de fouet, si vous n'ętes pas morts de rire !
Kanadzie no está en línea  
Old September 9th, 2015, 01:10 AM   #183
John Maynard
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Lausanne (CH); Warsaw (PL)
Posts: 534
Likes (Received): 376

Yes, they try. But even with all their cruelty and brutality, they are quite inefficient, certainly worse in comparison to Gaddafi.
One can ask himself, why the local people are so afraid to fight them? IMO, better to die from a bullet than to get killed by their hands.

P.S.: I just saw the event you've mentioned, and am absolutely disgusted.
John Maynard no está en línea  
Old September 9th, 2015, 08:38 AM   #184
Proterra
Korpus niedyplomatyczny
 
Proterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Kowaniec
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 230

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanadzie View Post
ISIL is working pretty good to keep the migrants from leaving Libya, remember when they were slitting throats on the beach?

There is something to say about how screwed up that whole "south of Mediterranean, east of Urals" part of the world has become...
I would say, everything south of Mediterranean, east of Chisinau-L'viv-Brest-Narva is completely screwed up.
__________________

Kanadzie liked this post
Proterra no está en línea  
Old September 9th, 2015, 12:19 PM   #185
Proterra
Korpus niedyplomatyczny
 
Proterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Kowaniec
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 230

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Maynard View Post
Yes, they try. But even with all their cruelty and brutality, they are quite inefficient, certainly worse in comparison to Gaddafi.
One can ask himself, why the local people are so afraid to fight them? IMO, better to die from a bullet than to get killed by their hands.

P.S.: I just saw the event you've mentioned, and am absolutely disgusted.
Gadaffi was a dictator, but as far as dictators come, he was one of the better ones; and a lot of sub-Saharan Africans actually emigrated to Libya for work. The West was instrumental in toppling him, somehow hoping that the situation in Tunisia could be recreated there, but failing to understand that Libya is made up of three distinct ethnic groups which would be at each other's throats as soon as the central government would fail and the living standard would plummet.

One needs to understand that the only thing which binds the entire region together is Islam. One can not have peace in the middle-east in its current borders without Islamism, unless we allow them to slaughter each other wholesale as we have done in Europe between 1914 and 1945, so that after two generations of massive, middle-east spanning warfare, and entire countries being decimated and being on the receiving end of massive genocide, they might agree to set aside their disagreements and sue for peace, like we have done in Europe post 1945.

Right now we see two forces at work in the Middle East, one is a force which wants to unify the region under the banner of Islamism, the other is a force which wants to create nation states which mostly don't follow the current national borders, a process which started in Europe in 1918 and was more or less finished around 2000. Because traditional religion stopped being a major force among the European ruling classes around the enlightenment, the role of religion in this era of European history was taken upon itself by the forces of Fascism and Communism which wanted to unify Europe under one ideology, and while only partially succeeding in that, they did succeed in causing division, (civil) war, and ethnic hatred from about 1920 to 1995.

The way I see it, the Middle East is roughly at the same point in history as Europe was around 1925-1935. The large, multi-national empires have fallen, some countries have (partially) succeeded in remodeling their society into something new and more advanced, like Tunisia, others are in turmoil, and in some places, violent ideology is appearing, ready to unify the region under the banner of Islamism, the same way as Fascism was appearing in Italy, Spain and Germany at that point. In the way it deals with this threat, Europe should look at its own past, and try to prevent from making the same mistakes as what Europe did themselves 80-90 years ago, with the noted difference as that we're roughly in the same position nowadays as that the United States was in during the interbellum. If we fail, we can be looking forward to 60 more years of strife in this region, and the outcome might not be the one desirable to us. Success will require a united effort from a Europe unified in its outlook. This might mean that we need to accept hundreds of thousands or even million of refugees fleeing that region, and once the region is stabilized, a new kind of Marshall Plan to ensure prosperity there and the will to cooperate.

And we need to allow countries to break up along ethnic lines. If Libya wishes to split in three, and it will allow two stable states and one unstable one, it's preferable over one large unstable state.
__________________

panchevo, italystf liked this post
Proterra no está en línea  
Old September 9th, 2015, 12:48 PM   #186
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,955
Likes (Received): 2207

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proterra View Post
And we need to allow countries to break up along ethnic lines. If Libya wishes to split in three, and it will allow two stable states and one unstable one, it's preferable over one large unstable state.
We do. I'd point to stable safe Somaliland ...unrecognised for 25 years..for starters.
__________________

Proterra liked this post
sponge_bob no está en línea  
Old September 9th, 2015, 02:50 PM   #187
Proterra
Korpus niedyplomatyczny
 
Proterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Kowaniec
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 230

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponge_bob View Post
We do. I'd point to stable safe Somaliland ...unrecognised for 25 years..for starters.
Exactly. The same with Iraqi Kurdistan. These countries need to be recognized straight away.
Proterra no está en línea  
Old September 9th, 2015, 03:46 PM   #188
italystf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,460
Likes (Received): 2186

It's something I've already said, and is off topic for this thread, but in short words:
I'm glad that in Europe we have democracies, but it doesn't mean that the democratic model should be successful in every corner of the world. In Europe we appreciate democracy because we remember the horrors that we have lived under fascism, national-socialism and\or communism (depend of which country in Europe) and the wars and mass killings that those totalitarian ideologies brought with them. We are used to appreciate ideals like peace, human rights, freedom of press, equality, tolerance,...
In other cultural backgrounds it's not the same: you give them "democracy" (with Western military intervention or political pressure\influence, that in reality is a mean to replace a leader that the USA and consequently EU doesn't like), and they start to shoot each other and destroy the state structure. In Islamic culture values like freedom, tolerance, human right, equality aren't popular as in Europe (except among some highly educated elites), so dictators like Gadaffi, Assad, Saddam, Moubarak and the King of Saudi Arabia are the only way to keep those countries existing and not falling apart. I'm the first one to think that, for example Iran and Saudi Arabia, are very inhumane regimes, but they're none of our business and an eventual intervention from the West to "export democracy" will only bring worse consequences, that we will end up to pay (like disruption of oil supply or mass immigration towards Europe).
__________________
“The transponder’s personalised signal would be picked up when the car passed through an intersection, and then relayed to a central computer which would calculate the charge according to the intersection and the time of day and add it to the car’s bill” - Nobel Economics Prize winner William Vickrey, proposing a system of electronic tolling for the Washington metropolitan area, 1959
In real life, electronic toll collection was first introduced in Bergen, Norway in 1986, and well into the 21th century many countries still struggle to implement it.

Kiru liked this post
italystf no está en línea  
Old September 9th, 2015, 04:56 PM   #189
Kanadzie
Registered User
 
Kanadzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,377
Likes (Received): 748

this is just an assumption that people living in those areas are just stupid yet aggressive and bloodthirsty people and incapable of collectively living peacefully, and so need to be heavily controlled. On one hand it is really offensive but on the other hand, look at a newspaper, maybe you're right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proterra View Post
Exactly. The same with Iraqi Kurdistan. These countries need to be recognized straight away.
I'm tempted to agree, go for Kurds, but that will mean expansionary war in Turkey to have completed Kurdistan (Syria too but it would be easy to take that)
But the war already is there anyway for decades !

As for Islamism vs. consistent bloodshed, it seems like they go hand-in-hand already. We can have killing or killing, wunderbar

The Islamist ideology I am not sure how that could ever be geopolitically stable - right at the core of it is the idea of constant war in the aim of controlling the entire world. This whole thinking is so bad and anti-human that it really needs to die as soon as possible, much like the world did to Nazism generations ago.
__________________
100 coups de fouet, si vous n'ętes pas morts de rire !

JackFrost liked this post
Kanadzie no está en línea  
Old September 9th, 2015, 05:18 PM   #190
Kiru
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 210
Likes (Received): 63

Quote:
Originally Posted by italystf View Post
It's something I've already said, and is off topic for this thread, but in short words:
I'm glad that in Europe we have democracies, but it doesn't mean that the democratic model should be successful in every corner of the world. In Europe we appreciate democracy because we remember the horrors that we have lived under fascism, national-socialism and\or communism (depend of which country in Europe) and the wars and mass killings that those totalitarian ideologies brought with them. We are used to appreciate ideals like peace, human rights, freedom of press, equality, tolerance,...
In other cultural backgrounds it's not the same: you give them "democracy" (with Western military intervention or political pressure\influence, that in reality is a mean to replace a leader that the USA and consequently EU doesn't like), and they start to shoot each other and destroy the state structure. In Islamic culture values like freedom, tolerance, human right, equality aren't popular as in Europe (except among some highly educated elites), so dictators like Gadaffi, Assad, Saddam, Moubarak and the King of Saudi Arabia are the only way to keep those countries existing and not falling apart. I'm the first one to think that, for example Iran and Saudi Arabia, are very inhumane regimes, but they're none of our business and an eventual intervention from the West to "export democracy" will only bring worse consequences, that we will end up to pay (like disruption of oil supply or mass immigration towards Europe).
You are spot on mate, democracies will not work in these middle eastern countries because people are rooted so much into the extreme version of religious belief, thus they can never accept the liberal way of thinking. For them it's easier to kill someone of with different views than accepting them. I should not generalize it though, however, their religious way of bringing up the society does not work in this modern society.
__________________

panchevo, italystf liked this post
Kiru no está en línea  
Old September 9th, 2015, 07:30 PM   #191
italystf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,460
Likes (Received): 2186

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanadzie View Post
this is just an assumption that people living in those areas are just stupid yet aggressive and bloodthirsty people and incapable of collectively living peacefully, and so need to be heavily controlled. On one hand it is really offensive but on the other hand, look at a newspaper, maybe you're right.
I know that it is politically uncorrect, but unfortunately it's the sad truth. The problem is not the single citizen from those country, but the socio-cultural background. If one grows up in an environment where men and women have very different rights and levels of freedom, where people that don't believe in Allah are evil, where Western culture is the enemy number one, where homosexuals are considered criminals, where who kills for Allah is a hero, etc... he will probably keep this way of thinking for his whole life, unless he's enough educated and critical to change his mind. Considering that those countries are usually poor and the education level is low, many people still have those backward views. There are some people in Muslim countries (usually young and educated) who are really secularized, open-minded and pro-democracy (like those who promoted Arab spring protests in 2011), but they aren't the majority to make a pro-democracy political party and win the elections in their country. When Egyptians were let free to vote, they elected an Islamist president. When Spanish and East Europeans were let free to choose in 1975 and 1989 respectively, they chose democracy.
__________________
“The transponder’s personalised signal would be picked up when the car passed through an intersection, and then relayed to a central computer which would calculate the charge according to the intersection and the time of day and add it to the car’s bill” - Nobel Economics Prize winner William Vickrey, proposing a system of electronic tolling for the Washington metropolitan area, 1959
In real life, electronic toll collection was first introduced in Bergen, Norway in 1986, and well into the 21th century many countries still struggle to implement it.

Kiru liked this post
italystf no está en línea  
Old September 9th, 2015, 07:37 PM   #192
JackFrost
Hun Solo
 
JackFrost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sopron/Wien
Posts: 4,296
Likes (Received): 11854

However, this is a very positive phenomenon:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015...isms.html?_r=1

I hope it will spread among them. Maybe they realize at some point that they misery comes mostly from their religion/lifestyle.
JackFrost está en línea ahora  
Old September 9th, 2015, 07:50 PM   #193
Proterra
Korpus niedyplomatyczny
 
Proterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Kowaniec
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 230

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanadzie View Post
As for Islamism vs. consistent bloodshed, it seems like they go hand-in-hand already. We can have killing or killing, wunderbar

The Islamist ideology I am not sure how that could ever be geopolitically stable - right at the core of it is the idea of constant war in the aim of controlling the entire world. This whole thinking is so bad and anti-human that it really needs to die as soon as possible, much like the world did to Nazism generations ago.
I think you misread me - I pointed out that I think the ideology of Islamism is comparable to the likes of Fascism, Stalinism and Nazism. All authoritarian ideologies which believe in a supreme truth which trumps all dissent and deviations from the norm their ideology enforces. Educated people will rightly argue that IS policies are about as far from the Qu'ran as that Stalin's policies were from Das Kapital, which would only further my point.

The Islamist ideology will be geopolitically stable only when it becomes the dominant ideology in the world, just as with Nazism and Stalinism. Simply because authoritarian ideologies such as those stifle all creativity, and nations adhering to such ideologies will hopelessly fall behind in the world over the course of a few decades, and in the end it will just collapse. The only wildcard here is that the Islamists promise an afterlife if somebody takes one for the team, where its secular counterparts in Germany or Russia in the 30's never made such promises.

This might make the Islamists more dangerous than the Nazis or Stalin's Russia, because people are readily willing to blow themselves up for the cause, than they ever were in 1930's Germany or Russia. Fortunately, for the rest of the (Arab) world, they're also much poorer than these industrial powerhouses during that era. Either way, we can not allow the region to be united under the black flag of IS, which brings us to the alternative what's going on in the region: The Arab spring of Nations.

Similar to the European process of the era 1918-1925 or so, there is a secondary movement going on in the region aimed at achieving independence from artificial, multinational states. Currently Kurdistan and Somaliland are the most successful, and these should recognized and propped up with military and economic aid to build successful economies. Whenever an ethnic conflict arises in the region, we should allow peace to take precedence over existing national borders.

Right now, I think there are major parallels between the Middle East today and Europe in the early 1930's. The best way to contain the problem is to learn from our past, and try to apply it there. If this means allowing existing countries to break up, so be it. Because the alternative might be in 10 years that the Middle East becomes similar to Europe in the early 1940's with a strong, totalitarian Caliphate, and tens of millions of refugees on their way out to Europe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by italystf View Post
There are some people in Muslim countries (usually young and educated) who are really secularized, open-minded and pro-democracy (like those who promoted Arab spring protests in 2011), but they aren't the majority to make a pro-democracy political party and win the elections in their country. When Egyptians were let free to vote, they elected an Islamist president. When Spanish and East Europeans were let free to choose in 1975 and 1989 respectively, they chose democracy.
What I mentioned before, I don't think it's a matter of "they can't", but more one of "they're decades behind". I liken the level of societal development in most Middle Eastern countries to that of Europe during the interbellum. And everyone knows what the Germans, Russians and Italians chose when they were let free after Versailles. And most intellectuals from those countries ended up in the States, adding to its massive industrialization in the same era.

If we let history run its course, and assuming it follows the same trajectory, we'll be looking forward to 60 million new Europeans over the next two decades and 40 million dead in the Middle East during the same time.
__________________

Kanadzie, italystf liked this post

Last edited by Proterra; September 9th, 2015 at 07:57 PM.
Proterra no está en línea  
Old September 9th, 2015, 10:42 PM   #194
italystf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,460
Likes (Received): 2186


Nice analysis, but I think we should better continue discussing of history on the RRA.
__________________
“The transponder’s personalised signal would be picked up when the car passed through an intersection, and then relayed to a central computer which would calculate the charge according to the intersection and the time of day and add it to the car’s bill” - Nobel Economics Prize winner William Vickrey, proposing a system of electronic tolling for the Washington metropolitan area, 1959
In real life, electronic toll collection was first introduced in Bergen, Norway in 1986, and well into the 21th century many countries still struggle to implement it.
italystf no está en línea  
Old September 10th, 2015, 12:09 AM   #195
John Maynard
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Lausanne (CH); Warsaw (PL)
Posts: 534
Likes (Received): 376

edit

Last edited by John Maynard; September 10th, 2015 at 12:14 AM.
John Maynard no está en línea  
Old September 10th, 2015, 12:16 AM   #196
John Maynard
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Lausanne (CH); Warsaw (PL)
Posts: 534
Likes (Received): 376

Please, delete this post.

Last edited by John Maynard; September 10th, 2015 at 12:22 AM.
John Maynard no está en línea  
Old September 10th, 2015, 12:22 AM   #197
John Maynard
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Lausanne (CH); Warsaw (PL)
Posts: 534
Likes (Received): 376

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proterra View Post
Gadaffi was a dictator, but as far as dictators come, he was one of the better ones; and a lot of sub-Saharan Africans actually emigrated to Libya for work. The West was instrumental in toppling him, somehow hoping that the situation in Tunisia could be recreated there, but failing to understand that Libya is made up of three distinct ethnic groups which would be at each other's throats as soon as the central government would fail and the living standard would plummet.

One needs to understand that the only thing which binds the entire region together is Islam. One can not have peace in the middle-east in its current borders without Islamism, unless we allow them to slaughter each other wholesale as we have done in Europe between 1914 and 1945, so that after two generations of massive, middle-east spanning warfare, and entire countries being decimated and being on the receiving end of massive genocide, they might agree to set aside their disagreements and sue for peace, like we have done in Europe post 1945.

Right now we see two forces at work in the Middle East, one is a force which wants to unify the region under the banner of Islamism, the other is a force which wants to create nation states which mostly don't follow the current national borders, a process which started in Europe in 1918 and was more or less finished around 2000. Because traditional religion stopped being a major force among the European ruling classes around the enlightenment, the role of religion in this era of European history was taken upon itself by the forces of Fascism and Communism which wanted to unify Europe under one ideology, and while only partially succeeding in that, they did succeed in causing division, (civil) war, and ethnic hatred from about 1920 to 1995.

The way I see it, the Middle East is roughly at the same point in history as Europe was around 1925-1935. The large, multi-national empires have fallen, some countries have (partially) succeeded in remodeling their society into something new and more advanced, like Tunisia, others are in turmoil, and in some places, violent ideology is appearing, ready to unify the region under the banner of Islamism, the same way as Fascism was appearing in Italy, Spain and Germany at that point. In the way it deals with this threat, Europe should look at its own past, and try to prevent from making the same mistakes as what Europe did themselves 80-90 years ago, with the noted difference as that we're roughly in the same position nowadays as that the United States was in during the interbellum. If we fail, we can be looking forward to 60 more years of strife in this region, and the outcome might not be the one desirable to us. Success will require a united effort from a Europe unified in its outlook. This might mean that we need to accept hundreds of thousands or even million of refugees fleeing that region, and once the region is stabilized, a new kind of Marshall Plan to ensure prosperity there and the will to cooperate.

And we need to allow countries to break up along ethnic lines. If Libya wishes to split in three, and it will allow two stable states and one unstable one, it's preferable over one large unstable state.
Gaddafi had an ideal, a vision of uniting Africa and a common currency based on gold. As a matter of fact, Libya under the "dictator" had one of the highest standard of living of the continent, even life expectancy was higher than in many EU countries. Saying that "exporting democracy" have only brought chaos, poverty and bestiality in the last decade. Those Arabic countries does need strong leadership, and implementing democracy right now is an utopia (well, except Tunisia which btw. have more ties with their former "colonizer" than the rest of them).

Nonetheless, I wouldn't compare interbellum Europe which had secular regimes/dictatorships based on modern and "revolutionary" ideologies: fascism/nazism/communism, with the actual situation in Middle East/South Mediterranean which is based on backwater Islamic religious fanaticism. Furthermore, Islam have not lived yet its "enlightenment" like Europe did in the 18th century. From my point of view, ISIS/DAESH is closer to the Middle Ages, especially considering religious wars and forced conversions/inquisition than to the much more complex political systems of the first part of the 20th century.

The third part I didn't follow you completely, how can you compare the period just after WWII in Europe with the current situation in South Mediterranean? First, we had wars between countries and not civil wars; second, almost all Europe was concerned and many many cities were destroyed all over partially if not totally, which is not the case here; third, European people stayed in Europe and were not massively emigrating to the US or elsewhere, which wouldn't be possible anyway because of strong American anti-immigration policies of that time - mostly people with a "plus value" in science, physics, academical fields, etc. were the only one accepted. Not to mention that there wasn't welfare "all inclusive" for free back then - one had to work hardly as an immigrate. Also, Jews were not allowed to emigrate "en masse". An important key feature of the emigration post-WWII that nobody have mentioned so far, especially you as a Pole: most emigration was in fact forced expulsion of Millions of people most of which have lived for centuries in the same place, replaced by totally new settlers, because of border change and "ethnic cleansing" decided by the Allies. We cannot compare the European WWII emigration with the Arabic/African one today, as it's simply completely different.

Fourth part is complete utopia , Marshall plan with ISIS or other Islamic groups in background? Furthermore, who will pay for the millions of refugee that you wish to accept in Europe? Santa Claus? No, of course not: Polish, Hungarian and all European hard working people , because here they have everything "for free": comfortable housings, health care, university education, leisure, holidays, dentist, food, money, transportation, etc. that the average European Joe have to pay hard from his pocket. They don't want to work? But we can't expel them to such "atrocious countries" > No matter if you want to be lazy, here's always your free money!
I repeat, European emigrants had none of this after WWII, they had to work hard and painfully to rebuild everything from ruins.

Besides, if this were "at least" all Christians and secular emigrants, the reality is totally different we will accept all of them, terrorists and fanatics included, as the situation in Hungary just have shown us > No control, no registration, no background check, you're all welcome! Naturally, against all EU laws, but they close their eyes on it!

After all, it's just became perfectly normal to expect situation like this, even is such immigrants loving and generous states like Sweden:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6RM-M6t47M
Of course, all the generosity I received came from Allah! The Swedish/European infidels race, aka providers of all my well being, must be persecuted, slaughtered, terminated!

Europe wake up, before it's too late!
John Maynard no está en línea  
Old September 10th, 2015, 12:25 AM   #198
Kanadzie
Registered User
 
Kanadzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,377
Likes (Received): 748



I just want to throw some points randomly

-Gaddafi was a clown and always a clown. He killed people in the West, let us not forget. He swore he became sober circa 2000 and planes stopped exploding but the guy still richly deserved to get knifed in the sphincter for Lockerbie and the nightclub if nothing else (and there was a lot else!)

- about refugees, "DP's" as were called in English at the end of WWII in Europe. Essentially forced ethnic cleansing, Germans out of the east, Pole into Stettin etc etc. But, Europe had been at war frequently before and afterwards was extremely peaceful.
We consider rightly today ethnic cleansing a war crime but I wonder if such a thing might create a lasting peace in ME? Perhaps impossible as too many tribes, the best you could have would be Shia on one side and Sunni on other.
Then of course anything that we could do would be European / American imperialism of course, so Death to America
but if we do nothing then will blame ISIL on America and they will chant Death to America too, damnit


I think the issue of welfare fraud is simple, just get rid of these over-generous welfare regimes. The countries never could afford them anyway and they produce questionable benefits for the people, really.

Also curiously ISIL has a lot of Marxist / welfare-state things going for it and in its ideology
There is this kind of "everyone working and everyone eating for free, house for free, sex slaves for free..." thing going on. the ISIL has taken control of pretty much all lucrative industry and utilities which is essentially command economy (commanded by AK of course)

taxes on actual private industry are exorbitantly high to pay for that though now. Which is pretty bolshevik you must admit. It is almost kind of like Stalinismo of circa 1937 except instead of one Beria picking girls off the street there are a million Beria!
__________________
100 coups de fouet, si vous n'ętes pas morts de rire !

Proterra liked this post
Kanadzie no está en línea  
Old September 10th, 2015, 10:19 AM   #199
Proterra
Korpus niedyplomatyczny
 
Proterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Kowaniec
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 230

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Maynard View Post
Nonetheless, I wouldn't compare interbellum Europe which had secular regimes/dictatorships based on modern and "revolutionary" ideologies: fascism/nazism/communism, with the actual situation in Middle East/South Mediterranean which is based on backwater Islamic religious fanaticism. Furthermore, Islam have not lived yet its "enlightenment" like Europe did in the 18th century. From my point of view, ISIS/DAESH is closer to the Middle Ages, especially considering religious wars and forced conversions/inquisition than to the much more complex political systems of the first part of the 20th century.

The third part I didn't follow you completely, how can you compare the period just after WWII in Europe with the current situation in South Mediterranean? First, we had wars between countries and not civil wars; second, almost all Europe was concerned and many many cities were destroyed all over partially if not totally, which is not the case here; third, European people stayed in Europe and were not massively emigrating to the US or elsewhere, which wouldn't be possible anyway because of strong American anti-immigration policies of that time - mostly people with a "plus value" in science, physics, academical fields, etc. were the only one accepted. Not to mention that there wasn't welfare "all inclusive" for free back then - one had to work hardly as an immigrate. Also, Jews were not allowed to emigrate "en masse". An important key feature of the emigration post-WWII that nobody have mentioned so far, especially you as a Pole: most emigration was in fact forced expulsion of Millions of people most of which have lived for centuries in the same place, replaced by totally new settlers, because of border change and "ethnic cleansing" decided by the Allies. We cannot compare the European WWII emigration with the Arabic/African one today, as it's simply completely different.
What we see right now trying to make it to Europe are either the young, or the educated and wealthy. Syria was a relatively wealthy and secular country before the civil war, and these make up 80% of the refugees coming in from Syria. Very comparable to those making it out of Europe at the onset of WW2.

The ISIS ideology has far more in common with Nazism than anything else, despite the latter being secular in nature. Religion and ideology are very much the same thing, being a Social Democrat as opposed to a Stalinist is pretty much the same thing as being a regular run-of-the-mill Muslim which goes to Mosque on Friday, doesn't eat pork, and maybe wears a headscarf, as opposed to a jihadi which enjoys cutting the heads of people that he deems as infidels.

And while it's true that the enlightenment in the 18th Century kind of made it uncool for people in Europe to chop of heads and burn people in name of God, they happily replaced it with secular ideologies that could be just as ruthless and violent as the religious ones they replaced. And while enlightenment and the Napoleonic Wars got rid of European theocracies, people were still executed for "crimes" such as sodomy until well into the 19th century, and informal lynchings of witches were still organized in Western Europe until close to 1900, despite the practice having officially ended with the Napoleonic Wars. Barbaric punishments for homosexuality based on interpretations of the Bible lasted until well into the 20th century in Western democracies, Alan Turing comes to mind.

One could also argue that charges as "enemy of the revolution" or "enemy of the race" would be the equivalent of witch trials for the "secular ideologies". So, yes. I think we can compare the two perfectly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanadzie
I think the issue of welfare fraud is simple, just get rid of these over-generous welfare regimes. The countries never could afford them anyway and they produce questionable benefits for the people, really.
I think this would be easy to sort; any fresh immigrant shouldn't have access to public money until they've been paying taxes for an X amount of years.
Proterra no está en línea  
Old September 11th, 2015, 08:21 AM   #200
Le Clerk
AUTOBANN.ED
 
Le Clerk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 35,482
Likes (Received): 12053

Romanian President enters into his first conflict with the EC (and Merkel) on refugees quotas:

Quote:
President Iohannis voices dissatisfaction with mandatory immigrant quotas
BY NINEOCLOCK • SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 AT 4:54 PM 30 VIEWS

The Interior Minister’s mandate at the Justice and Home Affairs Council to gather on Sept. 14 is to not declare Romania’s adherence to the mandatory quotas of immigrants, Romanian President Klaus Iohannis said on Thursday, also voicing dissatisfaction at the European Commission’s announcement regarding the setting up of mandatory quotas for the EU members.
http://www.nineoclock.ro/president-i...igrant-quotas/
__________________
Rebuilding Bucharest's History: Lipscani Area |Victoriei Ave. | Elisabeta Bld.
Yes, it's Dracula's Castle
Best picture collection of UNESCO sites in Romania
Castles and Mansions in Romania

Last edited by Le Clerk; September 11th, 2015 at 08:27 AM.
Le Clerk no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium