Many recent migrants come from places like Eritrea, Congo, India and Somalia which, while sometimes subject to localized conflicts, people leave mainly for economic reasons. The average Somali doesn’t move to Sweden to “flee war”, they move for an easier, better and more comfortable life. The “war” framework is literally buying into the leftist idea that they are legitimate refugees.
During the entire history of global colonialism countries routinely invaded, conquered, sacked and otherwise reassembled the affairs of countless other countries (including much of the Middle East) with zero mass immigration to Europe. You can just say “no”. Dick Cheney didn’t make Sweden the “humanitarian superpower”. He didn’t make Angela Merkel say “wir schaffen das”. China doesn’t have all of Burma and Mongolia walk in because people know there’s no hope there and they will be returned.
It isn't a universal law that invading a country will create a refugee crisis but both Libya and Syria were dams holding back the tide. Gaddafi quite explicitly said as much, and it's become abundantly clear that he wasn't lying. Unless the Europeans are willing to sink migrant boats by the thousands and let them all drown then simply "saying no" is about as effective as a 5'2 woman "saying no" to a 7' felon. Furthermore, overthrowing these regimes created an enormous power vacuum that created chaos in neighboring countries too. For example, the Sahel only became a hotbed of terrorism after Gaddafi fell and his weapons were smuggled over to the local Al Qaeda affiliates.
The most expensive outlay in the War on Terror (the Iraq invasion) was a humanitarian success. Certainly there were issues (like the brief ISIS thing) and there is a good case to be made that it was a bad deal fiscally for the US (I agree with this assessment), but Iraq today is far more prosperous than it was in 2003. Dollar denominated GDP is up over 1000% (so in real terms), GDP per capita is up 4x even though oil has been in a slump since 2014 (indicating again real economic growth rather than just higher resource revenues). Baghdad is a boomtown now.
Yeah if you brush over the brutal sectarian conflict and ISIS to only look at per capita GDP then it looks great.
West Germany had higher per capita GDP in 1955 than Germany in 1935 too, are we to conclude that Hitler was a humanitarian success?
p
It isn't a universal law that invading a country will create a refugee crisis but both Libya and Syria were dams holding back the tide. Gaddafi quite explicitly said as much, and it's become abundantly clear that he wasn't lying. Unless the Europeans are willing to sink migrant boats by the thousands and let them all drown then simply "saying no" is about as effective as a 5'2 woman "saying no" to a 7' felon. Furthermore, overthrowing these regimes created an enormous power vacuum that created chaos in neighboring countries too. For example, the Sahel only became a hotbed of terrorism after Gaddafi fell and his weapons were smuggled over to the local Al Qaeda affiliates.
Yeah if you brush over the brutal sectarian conflict and ISIS to only look at per capita GDP then it looks great.
West Germany had higher per capita GDP in 1955 than Germany in 1935 too, are we to conclude that Hitler was a humanitarian success?
More options
Context Copy link