Messages

[You know Saudi - where women have no rights, it's a Capital offence to hold a non Muslim religious service and all the rest.]

Assad isn't a US lackey therefore he has to go.
If the US and the rest hadn't armed the anti Assad (incl IS) we'd have no flood of refugees.
If assholes have to be got rid of in the middle East how about starting in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain?
You know Saudi - where women have no rights, it's a Capital offence to hold a non Muslim religious service and all the rest.
But of course they're pro US assholes so that's grand so.

Exactly. It is these family values that I am talking about.

As for Assad. Its always the same modus operandi isn't it....."weapons of mass destruction, must remove..blah, blah". Thankfully Obama was too weak to act on his red line on the use of chemical weapons otherwise the place would be even more destabilized.

Hopefully order will now be restored by the Assad/Russia and the American backed so-called "Free Syrian Army" that started all this mess will be wiped out.

I wonder would it be possible to restore the Ba'athists to power in Iraq ? I think that is the most feasable option to restore stability to Iraq.

Just like the success in removing Gaddafi in Libya has proven to be.

Sorry, but your reply makes no sense ? Did I pick you up wrong ?

I speculated whether restoring the previous political apparatus (in Iraq) which existed for decades could be restored in the name of stability. You seemed to equate this with removing a political apparatus (in Libya) that existed for decades ??

I am not saying that it IS possible but since the entire western world seem to be saying that it was a mistake to remove the Ba'ath regime then maybe restoring it would be a good thing. If Russia did succeed in shoring up the the (loosely) Ba'athist regime in Syria the platform would be in place to relaunch Ba'athism in Iraq.

To be fair, since there does not appear to be any number specified in any agreement anywhere, Merkel is probably , in her mind, sticking strictly to the "spirit" of the 1951 agreement (I haven't read the 1967 update). She is , however, unilaterally suspending the Dublin agreement by inviting them straight to Germany.

What people don't seem to understand, or don't care, is that once refugees are in a "country" , at least by my interpretation of what I have read, they are free to move anywhere within that "country". Germany may be Nirvana for now. That could change very quickly. Where do they go after that ? Protesting to Germany later on that "you invited them in" will be worthless.

So this idea that we have a say in any "allocation" process will be meaningless. The refugees themselves will make that decision, backed by International law.

I'm not convinced that anyone is making an argument "for" anything on here. This board, in so far as I can see, contains heavy anti-US and anti-EU sentiment yet any suggestion of changing the status quo is not discussed or is actively derided. This is not unique to here of course. I see this on other boards and in the media.

That is the fundamental dynamic in the west. Not only do people not seemed to defend their way of life and the actions of their government they seem to love attacking it...! I understand the need to self-criticism but it has gone to far imo. In Europe It is now a fatal weakness.

I keep hearing about the cost of leaving the EU...is that cost offset by the debt we've been landed in and the loss of political freedom ? The cost of the second part is hard to quantify but it feels huge at this point in time.

But, since this thread is about refugees, the subject should be limited to that.

My position is 4000 over 4 to 5 years is enough. It would seem to me that since (afaik) the protocols and agreements have not specified any numbers we cannot be deemed to have broken any agreements by setting a number ourself.

[http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/11/03/did-turks-vote-to-become-an-islamic-state.html]

Interesting times ahead. It is not hard to imagine a theocratic state evolve in Turkey, a Sunni version of Iran. Turkey may move from an importer of refugees to become a net exporter of refugees.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/11/03/did-turks-vote-to-become-an-islamic-state.html

ok Muppet, you are right.

A better argument is to pick a number. 4000 over , say 4-5 years. fine, that seems reasonable.

but now lets say 100,000. Can we handle it ? What is the cost ? What are the long term implications for social cohesion ?

then take a hypothetical 500, 000. Assess the impact of that.

then 1,000,000 etc

Do you have a limit..should there be a limit ? Its not stated anywhere. I cant see it anywhere in the 1951 agreement or the Dublin agreement.

The problem is they didn't account for ALL the refugees wanting to go to a limited set of countries.

What exactly were these religious values you were proposing a few days ago?

I know your ego is hurt after I showed him up on the Sinai crash thread and now you want a personalized tit-for-tat exchange that will go on for pages and pages. You keep doing this Muppet . How many people have you tangled with at this stage ...?

As for family values,  lets start with treating girls and boys the same and not wanting to depcapitate other families of a different religious persuasion. That sounds like a reasonable place to start.

Now, how many refugees should Ireland take. Put a number on it and defend your position.

I think 4000 is enough. the gates should be shut now.

You signed up on the 23rd October 2015. Newbie my arse.

As for the Sinai crash thread, explain in detail how this works: 'I know your ego is hurt after I showed him up' (who is 'him'?) on the 'Sinai crash thread'. What did you show up?

Also what is this tit-for-tat? You have abused everything from the 'PC Brigade' - which seems to be everyone other than yourself and Vlad - to the US and the EU, but you get all jumpy when anyone traps you in your own hypocrisy. Then you call it tit-for-tat.

I asked you a reasonable question, but you threw the toys out of the pram and go all ad hominem. Yet again.

you do have a thread history you know  . Its not hard to figure out that you are super sensitive to any disagreement and always want the last word.

A better argument is to pick a number. 4000 over , say 4-5 years. fine, that seems reasonable.

but now lets say 100,000. Can we handle it ? What is the cost ? What are the long term implications for social cohesion ?

then take a hypothetical 500, 000. Assess the impact of that.

then 1,000,000 etc

Do you have a limit..should there be a limit ? Its not stated anywhere. I cant see it anywhere in the 1951 agreement or the Dublin agreement.

The problem is they didn't account for ALL the refugees wanting to go to a limited set of countries.

What exactly were these religious values you were proposing a few days ago?

I know your ego is hurt after I showed him up on the Sinai crash thread and now you want a personalized tit-for-tat exchange that will go on for pages and pages. You keep doing this Muppet . How many people have you tangled with at this stage ...?

As for family values,  lets start with treating girls and boys the same and not wanting to depcapitate other families of a different religious persuasion. That sounds like a reasonable place to start.

Now, how many refugees should Ireland take. Put a number on it and defend your position.

I think 4000 is enough. the gates should be shut now.

A better argument is to pick a number. 4000 over , say 4-5 years. fine, that seems reasonable.

but now lets say 100,000. Can we handle it ? What is the cost ? What are the long term implications for social cohesion ?

then take a hypothetical 500, 000. Assess the impact of that.

then 1,000,000 etc

Do you have a limit..should there be a limit ? Its not stated anywhere. I cant see it anywhere in the 1951 agreement or the Dublin agreement.

The problem is they didn't account for ALL the refugees wanting to go to a limited set of countries.

Play the "PC brigade" drinking game. Take a shot every time some Tory gives out about the "PC brigade" insisting on treating their fellow human beings with a bit of dignity.

He has a point. What would your plan be Eamonn ? Its easy to be blasé out there in California.

[Or maybe it was it caused by a Western Hegemony?]

jeez, Muppet...you are not going all "careful now lads" on us are you ? We are relying on your aviation expertise !

So what could cause a jet with circa 250 people on board to just disappear without a trace, just as it reaches it's cruising level?

1) Catastrophic mechanical failure: there are reports on PPRUNE that this aircraft had a minor collision on the ground a few years ago causing damage to the wing tip. I would think it is very unlikely to be a factor 2 years later. Modern aircraft just don't have this type of failure. AF447 started with major failures to the cockpit instruments but that was caused by atrocious weather and a poor response from the co-pilots, weather doesn't seem to be a factor here.

2) A bomb: The fact that it was just reaching it's cruise level makes this a possibility for me. Before all of the recent developments in electronics, bomb makers used to use a type of barometer to detonate bombs on aircraft. As the cabin pressure climbs, and the difference between pressure inside the cain and outside increases, the barometer would measure this and aim to detonate at high altitude to give the bomb the opportunity to do maximum damage. Even with modern electronics, the most effective time for a bomb on board is while the aircraft is pressurised to the maximum, which starts as you reach your cruising level, so whatever device is used this would be the optimum time to detonate a bomb.

That post could just as easily be written for this latest accident, except this latest one hadn't quite reached their cruising level.

I presume you took that from the Malaysian crash thread, but didn't refer to any of my other posts.

To my mind, this one more resembles the AirAsia crash, rather than the Malaysian, as they found the wreckage immediately.

Or maybe it was it caused by a Western Hegemony?

well, now that you mention it, there was that Iran Air flight........

jeez, Muppet...you are not going all "careful now lads" on us are you ? We are relying on your aviation expertise !

So what could cause a jet with circa 250 people on board to just disappear without a trace, just as it reaches it's cruising level?

1) Catastrophic mechanical failure: there are reports on PPRUNE that this aircraft had a minor collision on the ground a few years ago causing damage to the wing tip. I would think it is very unlikely to be a factor 2 years later. Modern aircraft just don't have this type of failure. AF447 started with major failures to the cockpit instruments but that was caused by atrocious weather and a poor response from the co-pilots, weather doesn't seem to be a factor here.

2) A bomb: The fact that it was just reaching it's cruise level makes this a possibility for me. Before all of the recent developments in electronics, bomb makers used to use a type of barometer to detonate bombs on aircraft. As the cabin pressure climbs, and the difference between pressure inside the cain and outside increases, the barometer would measure this and aim to detonate at high altitude to give the bomb the opportunity to do maximum damage. Even with modern electronics, the most effective time for a bomb on board is while the aircraft is pressurised to the maximum, which starts as you reach your cruising level, so whatever device is used this would be the optimum time to detonate a bomb.

some interesting points here about EU expansion.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/enlargement-and-the-euro-two-big-mistakes-that-ruined-europe-1.2414019

There has hardly been a year when the EU has not been on the brink of some crisis: banking, sovereign debt, Russia's annexation of Crimea and now refugees. You can always point fingers at individual politicians and assign blame. But it is highly implausible that the EU's serial failures can always be explained as the product of accident and malice.

I put it down to two catastrophic errors committed during the 1990s and at the beginning of this millennium. The first was the introduction of the euro; the second, the EU's enlargement to 28 members from 15 a couple of decades ago. You might agree with one or other of these statements, or with neither of them. But few people will agree with both.

I was among those who supported monetary union at the time of its introduction. Advocates of the euro at the time came from two different groups, who struck a Faustian Pact.

Members of the first group believed the euro as constructed would fail, and hoped it would somehow be fixed. The others thought the system would stay rigid, and bend the economies of its members into a new shape. This latter group knew that, to withstand the rigours of a fixed-exchange system that resembles nothing so much as the gold standard, countries would have to adjust to economic shocks through shifts in wages and prices — a course, they believed, that the euro's members would be forced to take.

The admission that the euro was a mistake should not be confused with a desire to dissolve it. That would be even more catastrophic. It is merely a recognition that we are trapped in a dysfunctional monetary system.

But how does enlargement play into this? This is not an argument about any particular member state with whose actions one happens to disagree. Nor is it an argument about the principle of enlargement, which is fundamental to the EU. My quarrel is with the speed of accession, and the criteria that aspiring members have to meet. Just as countries have maximum absorption capacities for migrants, the EU has a maximum absorption capacity for new members. I have no idea what that number is in any given time period, but it surely is not 13 members in a single decade.

Enlargement affected Europe's ability to respond to the shocks of subsequent years in two ways. First, it forced the EU to take its eye off the ball at a critical time when it should have focused on building the institutions needed to make the euro work. Second, enlargement meant that EU countries that were not in the eurozone suddenly found themselves in the majority. That shift naturally shaped the EU's own agenda. I recall the obsession during those years with competitiveness, a typical small-country economic issue. Debates on the reform of Europe's treaties during those years focused on voting rights and the protection of minorities. It was the overwhelming view of European officials and members of the European Parliament that the eurozone itself did not need to be fixed.

At that time it would have been comparatively easy to set up a banking union. But once the crisis set in, and banks suffered huge losses, countries could no longer share their deposit insurance schemes, let alone to create a single one for everybody. After the crisis had started, the debate about common insurance mechanisms became intertwined with one about transfers. The crisis thus rudely interrupted the EU's time-honoured, step-by-step approach to integration.

An optimist might interject at this point that it is worth hanging in there. Crises come and go. The EU will still be there. Perhaps so, but then ask yourself: why was the period from the 1950s to the late 1990s more stable compared with the period since?

In the first years of the then European Economic Community, the external security risks were taken care of by Nato. There were almost no risks to financial stability because regulation was extremely stringent by today's standards. While the economic shocks, such as the oil and inflation crises of the 1970s, were no less severe than today, EU members had the ability to absorb them through flexible exchange rates.

Today Brussels suddenly has to look after its own foreign policy interests and run the world's second-largest economy. The EU is not institutionally ready for either job. And its leaders are intellectually not ready either.

We should expect to see more crises, more unilateral action by member states, greater willingness to explore opt-outs, invocation of exceptional circumstances to suspend EU-level action, more rule breaking and the like.

The real risk is not a formal break-up. That would be technically hard to do. But this is no consolation. The real danger is that the EU is simply going to wither away and turn into a ghost.

but if we exited the Euro as well we'd be free to choose whatever monetary policy suits us best. Britain can continue to be our biggest trading partner.

If we exit the Euro and the E U we will be fcuked - in the real world that is.
In fantasy land as inhabited by various loonylefties , extreme right neo Nazis and "Kursk" anything is possible and if someone says something can be done then that's it sorted.
A bit like Alice in wonderland.

It is instructive to see you resort to insults when challenged.

Why don't you explain how we will be "fucked" champ ? or is that the extent of your economic knowledge.  Plenty of counties both big and small do just fine outside of the Eurozone and out of the Euro.

but if we exited the Euro as well we'd be free to choose whatever monetary policy suits us best. Britain can continue to be our biggest trading partner.

[You know Saudi - where women have no rights, it's a Capital offence to hold a non Muslim religious service and all the rest.]

Assad isn't a US lackey therefore he has to go.
If the US and the rest hadn't armed the anti Assad (incl IS) we'd have no flood of refugees.
If assholes have to be got rid of in the middle East how about starting in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain?
You know Saudi - where women have no rights, it's a Capital offence to hold a non Muslim religious service and all the rest.
But of course they're pro US assholes so that's grand so.

Exactly. It is these family values that I am talking about.

As for Assad. Its always the same modus operandi isn't it....."weapons of mass destruction, must remove..blah, blah". Thankfully Obama was too weak to act on his red line on the use of chemical weapons otherwise the place would be even more destabilized.

Hopefully order will now be restored by the Assad/Russia and the American backed so-called "Free Syrian Army" that started all this mess will be wiped out.

I wonder would it be possible to restore the Ba'athists to power in Iraq ? I think that is the most feasable option to restore stability to Iraq.