Refugees everywhere

I know everyone has heard about the "refugee crisis" that's been going on in the middle east and Europe for some time now. It's getting really bad in some areas where the locals simply can't absorb any more and the refugees/migrants get bumped from country to country.

One of the problems that occurred to me recently (during an interview with a Syrian he said he was about to be conscripted into the military so he left the country) is that it appears that millions of people aren't willing to take up arms in order to make their homeland what they want it to be and are simply bailing out. Over and over I hear it said that "when things get better they will return". But who is going to make them better? Just running away isn't helping anything.

What's the solution? Millions of people are displaced from their homelands with no end in sight, something needs to change about that.

This is why Civil wars are problematic. A country tears itself apart from within.

They're some dudes with AK47s going up against a modern military with attack helicopters and fighter jets, and chemical weapons to drop from them. They're not going into a fair fight, not even close. Would you throw your meat at that battle?

This is why Red Dawn was a stupid movie.

Also, if anyone was asking to see some climate refugees, here they are.

In reply to KyAllroad:

My friends in Germany say they are sick and tired of them being portrayed as women & children....they claim 85% are able bodied men alone. Stark contrast to the news we hear, and with our recent media track record, it wouldn't surprise me if it's accurate.

GameboyRMH wrote: They're some dudes with AK47s going up against a modern military with attack helicopters and fighter jets, and chemical weapons to drop from them. They're not going into a fair fight, not even close. Would you throw your meat at that battle? This is why Red Dawn was a stupid movie. Also, if anyone was asking to see some climate refugees, here they are.

I'm not saying a dozen high school kids should take on the Soviets. I'm talking about literally millions of people bailing on their homelands.

I was wondering the exact same thing when this first started happening. Pretty much the same could be said about the Iraqis. They had no trouble fighting when Saddam was running everything. But we spent dozens of years and billions of $$ trying to train an army that is pathetic.

Edit: And what pissed me off the most were the demands these Syrian SOBs were making.

If we don't like the idea of all these refugees then we should demand that stop bombing and destabilizing the countries they are coming from. This is largely a european problem to deal with at this point, but it is a U.S. caused problem by and large.

I know refugees well, my wife worked to resettle them for almost 7 years and we had many friends who were refugees from Bhutan/Nepal and various countries in Africa. She herself worked with refugees from Iraq.

The vast majority of these people are not fighters. They could care less about politics. All they want to do is drive a nice car, live in a big house, have lots of kids, and live our exported American dream in peace.

Unfortunately, as you can imagine, the reality sets in when they come to America. The most common trend we've seen is that most refugees believe that all jobs in America pay really well, and nobody does labor jobs. What they find is that the only jobs open to refugees are labor jobs that pay poorly. Biggest hurdle to employment? English skills.

The Arabs are probably the worst when it comes employment after resettlement. Why? They come from nations that have been developed off and on for the last couple of decades. My wife has resettled teachers, doctors, engineers, journalists, all with credentials that are worthless once they resettle. They come here wanting to drive a Lexus and live in a huge house, only to live in what we'd call a slum.

What sucks is that the realities of life based on higher populations of people with lower than average skills or worthless credentials isn't told in stories back home. Refugees rarely call home and say "it sucks here, finding a job is hard, stay home." They say "American's don't like us, they don't give us work, we are starving, but its better than our war torn home. Come help us pay rent."

Despite lack of work, poor living conditions, language difficulty and other issues, many refugees stay in the USA and Europe for one main reason: peace. Even the worst case scenario in the developed world is still better than living like a king and trying to raise a family in a war zone. We offer free schools, rule of law, freedom of religion, and an informal economy that allows many refugees communities to thrive, even if they aren't formally employed. They know to pay taxes and aspire to own homes. Most of their kids value education and become quite successful contributors to our economy.

I'm not sure which is better: a nation like North Korea where brainwashed starving people live out their lives locked inside their borders, or countries that go through boom-and-bust periods like those of the middle east. Is it better to let lock a humanitarian crisis within the borders of a nation at risk of genocide or mass murder, or let the wars and its causalities spill out in neighboring countries?

We obviously can't seem to prevent the war from starting, can we do anything about the aftermath?

I really don't see a simple solution, or really, any solution at all. There are two extremes, politically, just like in everything else, so one group says "Bring all those poor suffering people here", and the other group says "Lock down the borders! They are all terrorists". As always, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

I was listening to Romeo Dallaire ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom%C3%A9o_Dallaire ) on the radio the other day, and he is a man with some experience in these situations. He said the best and fastest way to deal with it was to assign the military to the task. They do have experience dealing with large groups in hotspots around the world, they know how to build encampments quickly, they have the equipment to procure fresh water, etc. The two problems I see there are, would the doogooders accept the military into a job like this, and how hard is it going to be to talk a refugee into a strangers big green airplane?

I bet Germany is starting to get crowded. Apparently, its against their constitution to deny entry to refugees.

When it all settles out, it will be interesting to see how many bad guys show up in the crowd.

GameboyRMH wrote: They're some dudes with AK47s going up against a modern military with attack helicopters and fighter jets, and chemical weapons to drop from them. They're not going into a fair fight, not even close. Would you throw your meat at that battle?

The people in Syria being conscripted right now are on the Assad side in the largest numbers at least IE they have the good weapons. Both sides are leaving as expected. I can tell you we are not going to Europe next year to travel due to this not a cluster that I want to deliberately walk into.

GameboyRMH wrote: They're some dudes with AK47s going up against a modern military with attack helicopters and fighter jets, and chemical weapons to drop from them. They're not going into a fair fight, not even close. Would you throw your meat at that battle? This is why Red Dawn was a stupid movie. Also, if anyone was asking to see some climate refugees, here they are.

A mass of infantry with bolt action rifles, machine guns, and garbage artillery stopped the Nazis...... Same tactic nearly pushed the US off the Korean peninsula after we had essentially turned North Korea into a whipping boy. The tactic works, with enough people that you absolutely don't give a damn about, you'll win.

This attitude the Arabs in that region have is nothing new however......it's the same attitude that has allowed Israel to keep beating them since 1948.....

This is a very interesting topic, but as Streetwise said, there's no easy solution (or as I say maybe no politically acceptable solution). We can only give opinion, which leaves us open to criticism from either side. The Syrian refugee situation is primarily a European crisis, although I think the commitment has been made that the U.S. will accept a few thousand. It really comes down to economics. Which U.S. cities can afford to assimilate the refugees? I live in RI, and RI has been a sanctuary state for illegals for many years. We have assimilated "refugees," or "undocumented immigrants," or "illegal aliens," whatever you chose to call these fine people, from Mexico, Central, and South America for years. The capitol city of Providence, RI, has seen 1000+ new and unexpected students in the schools every year for the past ten years or so (and there have been far more than that in total influx). These are students who can't speak English and have special learning needs as a result. The parents don't pay taxes. That's expensive for the legal taxpayers. Also, the city of Providence is on the verge of bankruptcy due to a number of reasons, which could very well bring down the entire state. There's also the issue of health care, housing, food subsistence, etc. for new "undocumented" immigrants. So from a financial standpoint the logical conclusion would be to stop any new influx of undocumented immigrants since the economy can't sustain it. Support for these undocumented immigrants goes directly on the backs of the legitimate taxpayers, who are already overburdened. I'm speaking about our local dilemma, but I'm sure this can can be applied nationally and internationally. Like I said, this is my view, from my perspective, and the situation in my state. Others may disagree and say we need to make cuts in national defense, tax the wealthy, etc., to subsidize the undocumented immigrants. That's an alternate opinion but would take a lot of effort to effect. I say work with your Congress people to make those changes before we allow any more undocumented people into the country. Otherwise, taxpayers will fund the undocumented immigrants' new American lifestyle. I'm not a racist, bigot, or evil person, so don't vilify me personally for offering an opinion. I'd like to see a financially practical solution to allow all these fine people to enter into our society and help contribute to our continuing success.

wearymicrobe wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: They're some dudes with AK47s going up against a modern military with attack helicopters and fighter jets, and chemical weapons to drop from them. They're not going into a fair fight, not even close. Would you throw your meat at that battle?

The people in Syria being conscripted right now are on the Assad side in the largest numbers at least IE they have the good weapons. Both sides are leaving as expected. I can tell you we are not going to Europe next year to travel due to this not a cluster that I want to deliberately walk into.

That's another one of the issues. It's not really "both" sides. There are a good number of sides depending on how you split them up (and a number of religious variations, making it worse). A good number of people on these sides aren't even from the country.

If you want to fight for your country, which side do you fight on? I suspect it most has to do with which side gets to you first to "recruit" you.

Also, I don't think the Syrian military is quite as sophisticated as you might think. One of their common tactics is to drop Barrel Bombs on targets. These are literally drums or barrels filled with explosives and scrap metal with bolted on fins that are pushed out of the open doors of helicopters.

In reply to aircooled:

The Syrian military has been somewhat of a paper tiger.....half the tanks they claim to have are probably rusting hulks on the Golan....

GameboyRMH wrote: They're some dudes with AK47s going up against a modern military with attack helicopters and fighter jets, and chemical weapons to drop from them. They're not going into a fair fight, not even close. Would you throw your meat at that battle? This is why Red Dawn was a stupid movie. Also, if anyone was asking to see some climate refugees, here they are.

errmmmm ummmm ask Russia about Afghanistan in the 80s and us in the new millennia (although our strategy there was faulty do to politics).

And on topic:

I feel for these people because who wants to be in the middle of the war? My problem is most gov'ts taking in these refugees are spending a ton of monies on these people. These people then demand these gov'ts change how things are in the country to cater to their religion and ways of life. Then there is that whole trojan horse thing.

In reply to DirtyBird222:

I say berkeley them at that point.....if you don't like it the way it is, you should have stayed in the Arab world that shares your belief structure and isn't currently at war.....oh wait, they don't want them either.

If I were to end up there, I wouldn't expect or demand they change their entire belief system to match mine of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster.

DirtyBird222 wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: They're some dudes with AK47s going up against a modern military with attack helicopters and fighter jets, and chemical weapons to drop from them. They're not going into a fair fight, not even close. Would you throw your meat at that battle? This is why Red Dawn was a stupid movie. Also, if anyone was asking to see some climate refugees, here they are.

errmmmm ummmm ask Russia about Afghanistan in the 80s and us in the new millennia (although our strategy there was faulty do to politics).

They're getting away with it by hiding among the population, basically using their own people as human shields, that's the difference. Should Syria do the same?

If China can build islands at 8 acres a day, relocate them there. (/sarcasm)

My church had an "international day" at the start of the month. We have several immigrant and refugee groups that usually meet separately from the main congregation as they usually have marginal English proficiency. This day, instead, they had everyone show up at one service. It was pretty eye opening - it seemed like 20-25% of the people there were from the foreign language congregations.

As for the Syrian refugees - I can't take credit for this line, but that civil war is like Alien Vs Preditor. Whoever wins, we lose. A lot of the people there expect they'd be hosed whether the Asads, ISIS, or some other faction takes power. But I kind of wonder if a lot of people just running away is helping. That means fewer farmers to feed the troops, fewer people who could be taxed to support an army, fewer people who could be conscripted, and overall putting a dent in all factions' ability to wage war.

MadScientistMatt wrote: ...But I kind of wonder if a lot of people just running away is helping. That means fewer farmers to feed the troops, fewer people who could be taxed to support an army, fewer people who could be conscripted, and overall putting a dent in all factions' ability to wage war.

You do wonder how the economy works at all there (most of the original Syrian economy was oil based). I think the real answer to that question though is that there is a lot of foreign money / support for most of the sides. I think the whole thing would be far less serious if there wasn't so much of everything pouring in from other countries.

Taking a quick look at where the oil field are:

and the approximate areas held:

It looks the the Syrian government holds very little of it's former primary form of income. So what is it operating on? It's also pretty clear ISASssholes have been very focused on capturing those fields (not surprising since many of them are ex-Iraqis from the oil rich northern Iraq area)

Streetwiseguy wrote: When it all settles out, it will be interesting to see how many bad guys show up in the crowd.

This. Over 3/4 of the "refugees" are military age men. When has this ever been the demographics of a "refugee crisis" in the past?

Oh that's right, never.

Toebra wrote: This. Over 3/4 of the "refugees" are military age men. When has this ever been the demographics of a "refugee crisis" in the past? Oh that's right, never.

That might be a wee bit of an overstatement:

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — which refers refugees for resettlement in other countries — says there are more than 4 million registered Syrian refugees. Its figures on the demographic makeup of refugees is based on available data on the 2.1 million who were registered by the UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. (Another 1.9 million Syrian refugees were registered by the Government of Turkey, and more than 24,000 were registered in North Africa.) UNHCR’s data show that 50.5 percent of refugees are women. Females age 18 to 59 make up 23.9 percent of the refugees, while males in that age group make up 21.8 percent. Even younger males — age 12 to 17 — represent 6.5 percent of refugees, while females that age are 6.1 percent. The majority of refugees — 51.1 percent — are under age 17, including 38.5 percent who are younger than 12 years old. These numbers were as of Sept. 6.

There is this:

We have seen a different set of UNHCR numbers cited on a few conservative websites — figures for refugees and migrants who have tried to enter Europe by crossing the Mediterranean Sea. There have been more than 400,000 such “sea arrivals” in 2015, and 51 percent are Syrian. The rest have come mainly from nine other countries. Most of these refugees and migrants have been men — 72 percent — but these are not figures on Syrian refugees or even solely the 200,000-some Syrians who have been willing to take some type of boat to reach Europe by sea.

Seems like a bit of cherry picking. It's not really unreasonable that sea bound refugees would be a stronger and younger population.

All I can say is that I have no idea how I would handle trying to live and have a family in a war torn country. I guess that is one thing I have really lucked out of.

If a refugee family showed up at my door you can bet i'd house them and feed them until they were able to get their feet.

In fact, my wife and I discussed just that earlier this summer. Anyone done it?

when the powers that be destroy any hope or reason for you to have any attachment or fondness to where you are at, there is no desire or need to fight to stay.

Home is where the heart is. When your heart is gone, there is no reason to fight to stay.