(November 20, 2015 at 4:53 pm)Dystopia Wrote: That's normal in a country that is very ethnically homogeneous. Seriously, it's like asking Japan to take in Syrian refugees and being surprised they said "no". I'm not disagreeing with you on anything this time, I'm just noting that it was expected. And sorry for the derail, but aren't you Austrian and isn't Austria with a strong far-right movement? I say this because you're always complaining about the far-right.

Yes, pukeworthy. And your statement about "ethnically homogenous" is right up their avenue. So you shouldn't be surprised why I have you labeled. It's bullshit, of course, since the countries taking in refugees in greater number are what you're calling ethnically homogenous too. So, it rather has more to do with attitude and a general disregard for people in need. Which, again, isn't that surprising for the far right.

(November 20, 2015 at 5:00 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 20, 2015 at 4:53 pm)Dystopia Wrote: That's normal in a country that is very ethnically homogeneous. Seriously, it's like asking Japan to take in Syrian refugees and being surprised they said "no". I'm not disagreeing with you on anything this time, I'm just noting that it was expected. And sorry for the derail, but aren't you Austrian and isn't Austria with a strong far-right movement? I say this because you're always complaining about the far-right.

Yes, pukeworthy. And your statement about "ethnically homogenous" is right up their avenue. So you shouldn't be surprised why I have you labeled. It's bullshit, of course, since the countries taking in refugees in greater number are what you're calling ethnically homogenous too. So, it rather has more to do with attitude and a general disregard for people in need. Which, again, isn't that surprising for the far right.

When I say ethnically homogeneous, I don't mean 80-90% similar, I mean something like 95%-99% as it is the case with Japan.

Please, I have never said anything too revealing about me, and there's things I will never tell people here other than one or two by PM, but if there's something most should know is that my policies are not based on people's ethnicity. You can't change your ethnicity, it's wrong to judge people because of it. The only thing it does is to give people a sense of identity, so everyone who looks themselves on the mirror knows they have X or Y origins of Z ancestors. My girlfriend of 3 years is part gipsy, I have said this many times. If I was really a racist I would never date someone who is according to racists mud-blood. Nazis will never be my friends and I'll never be friends of them. That doesn't mean I can't have other controversial positions, but certainly not based on ethnicity. My country is a very diverse ethnic group by itself, which I find great.

The term I used is the most accurate to describe a country where the majority of the population identifies as the same ethnicity. There is nothing wrong with that.

BTW, do you use far-right to describe all your opponents? Do you realize how blurry the line is between far-right and far-left? Do you also notice that far-right is a diverse group? For example, there's rightists who believe race entails superiority, and then there's integralists who believe interracial relationships are perfectly fine. There's rightists who think eugenics is great, and there's others who disagree. There's rightists who think religion, specially Christianity, should be State sponsored, and there's rightists who think religious belief should be supressed and that religion is stupid, etc. You can't simply make broad statements without evidence.

Also, since disregard for people in need is so bad can I assume that I'm a bad person because I literally never give money to homeless people who have no means of survival? How many people am I forced to help? Also, isn't it disregard for people in need for Germany to force countries with smaller economics to have austerity and hurt employment rates?

Poland is encouraging their neighbors to do the same and create one collective resistance army . maybe a better way to end war is through peace talks those are not always wildly successful but you never know until you try it seems they should try the path of least resistance first , so these refugees can return to their homeland .

One Country's bad economy is going to effect other Countries we are interconnected so its in everyones interest to resolve this conflict in Syria somehow.

(November 20, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Dystopia Wrote: The term I used is the most accurate to describe a country where the majority of the population identifies as the same ethnicity. There is nothing wrong with that.

Other than missing the mark, since it's got nothing to do with how many refugees particular countries take in. It has everything to do with the parties in power. Which are right or far right in the countries refusing to do so.

This is ridiculous. They left to escape, not to be trained to fight.

Tell the reffers to take Poland up on the idea, get the training (and all the financial/material support that goes along with it for them and their families) then when it's time to go, say nope, but thanks anyway. What's the worst they can do, shoot them?

I personally find this to be an OK as long as it is completely optional, no plans are made before they enlist the appropriate amount of soldiers and there is an interview that eliminates Radicals from the Military from Enlistment.
Pretty much fixes everything the OK plans that the US somehow ruined through pure idiocy. Basically I am taking the Yellow Brick Road Middle Ground and saying make provisions to allow Syrian Refugees to Enlist if before they need to be a Citizen.
The only way this would fail would be a hostage situation, but these people should be trained for that sort of situation and not rush in.

(November 20, 2015 at 7:26 pm)Shining_Finger Wrote: Basically I am taking the Yellow Brick Road Middle Ground and saying make provisions to allow Syrian Refugees to Enlist if before they need to be a Citizen.

If they wanted to fight, there were plenty of weapons and dozens of groups to join. They fled, because they didn't want to fight. They fled with their families because they wanted to keep them out of the fight. Sometimes they are kids fleeing on their own to escape the violence.

That's why the proposition in the OP is idiotic, populistic and wrong on too many levels to count.

(November 20, 2015 at 7:26 pm)Shining_Finger Wrote: I personally find this to be an OK as long as it is completely optional, no plans are made before they enlist the appropriate amount of soldiers and there is an interview that eliminates Radicals from the Military from Enlistment.
Pretty much fixes everything the OK plans that the US somehow ruined through pure idiocy. Basically I am taking the Yellow Brick Road Middle Ground and saying make provisions to allow Syrian Refugees to Enlist if before they need to be a Citizen.
The only way this would fail would be a hostage situation, but these people should be trained for that sort of situation and not rush in.

yes you would definately want it to be optional the fighter has to be willing and they shouldn't just accept anyone either if your going to put a gun in someones hand and train them and send them off they have to be trustworthy  , and first they should be at least attempting to resolve it peacefully before talking about armies although i dont know how productive thatll be but some peace talks are productive it depends on the people your negotiating with . but this does create jobs for people if they want to join a military , and as you take people in you have to create work for those new people its joining the army and going to war , Poland is declaring war on Syria more or less if they do this .

(November 20, 2015 at 4:11 pm)Minimalist Wrote: He's going to recruit people who were already running away?


Sounds like something we would do and have done with almost no success.

No, we recruited people who switched sides the first chance they got. At least these people had a chance to switch sides and didn't.

It's one thing to have an army that's like there is no army. It's quite another to have an army and find out it is shooting at you.

(November 20, 2015 at 6:24 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 20, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Dystopia Wrote: The term I used is the most accurate to describe a country where the majority of the population identifies as the same ethnicity. There is nothing wrong with that.

Other than missing the mark, since it's got nothing to do with how many refugees particular countries take in. It has everything to do with the parties in power. Which are right or far right in the countries refusing to do so.

Actually, you're wrong - The EU is deciding how many refugees countries will take and how do quotas work - Before you mention the UK, keep in mind that it's a "country" with different abiding rules for the EU and so it has more power than most EU member states (like they get to keep their own currency) - So it becomes irrelevant really. Obviously, quotas should take into account population numbers, economic issues, etc. It would be irrational for a country like mine (Portugal) with some statististics showing over 30% youth unemployment and a population between 10-11 million to take in the same number of refugees as Germany.

For my point, countries with a population that is very similar will react worse to immigrants simply because they are not used to it. Would you be surprised if you went to a rural area somewhere where people have never seen someone with the same ethnic background as you, and they just stared at you for being there? OF course, diversity doesn't equal tolerance because a diverse population can be racist between groups and some groups may like or dislike another, but a population that is overwhelmingly similar and simultaneously doesn't view other ethnicities favorably will probably react worse to the presence of immigrants. 

BTW, I wonder why the UK isn't taking any refugees? Are they a special snowflake now?