-or- "You don't always get a good option when you have to make a decision."
When you step back and think about it, the solution to the "refugee" problem in Europe is obvious. The Euros need to go into Syria in force, declare it a protectorate and impose order. Once done, the refugees need to be resettled. The Euro presence would have to be, for all intents and purposes, permanent. Local customs in Syria would have to be subordinated to European ones because it's clear that the residents can't manage the place on their own without mounds of corpses and rivers of refugees.
No, that's not a good option. The other option, however, is worse. Dig this.
Greece has now de facto become the collecting point for the vast majority of refugees heading north. The country, says one EU diplomat candidly, "is turning into a single enormous hotspot," referring to the plan to establish central refugee registration points on Europe's periphery. Greece has been in the throes of a deep economic crisis for years and is now completely overwhelmed by the task of providing food and shelter to tens of thousands of refugees. Some 12,000* migrants are currently stranded in the country and the four official camps are hopelessly overcrowded. A spokeswoman from Doctors without Borders says that if Afghans continue to be blocked from continuing northward, the system will collapse "in just eight days." Because there is "no realistic emergency plan," she says, her organization is preparing for the worst. The European Commission is likewise developing emergency aid so as to prevent the collapse of the state on the Turkish border.So somebody is going to get occupied, controlled and have their local customs washed away. It's either going to be Syria or Greece. Why selecting Greece is the best choice is beyond me. It's only the best choice if you're such a total pack of pansies and so completely filled with self-loathing for your culture that you can't stomach even the smallest of colonial actions.
On the plus side, if the British get involved, the Syrians can be introduced to cricket. Oh, come on. It took off in India, didn't it? |
Of course, it's too late for this to be done. Now that the Russians are there, a European invasion would instigate a much larger war. It's telling that the Euros did what they always do, they mistook talk for action and wasted their chance to take decisive steps to cut off and reverse the refugee flow in favor of a lot of blathering in meetings.
* - 12,000 is a delusionally optimistic number. This morning I've read 30,000 elsewhere and that's just at a single border. Given the current flow equations, the number must be much,much higher.
"Why selecting Greece is the best choice is beyond me."
ReplyDeleteWell, that *is* how you feed the crocodile.
^ speaking of which, I expect that the reason they are "eunuch Europe" is because that's what they fed it first.
ReplyDelete"On the plus side, if the British get involved, the Syrians can be introduced to cricket.
ReplyDeleteOh, come on. It took off in India, didn't it?"
1) What's in it for Britain? Don't they already have kabob shops?
2) As I understand it, cricket is intended to be "fun"
2a) As I further understand it, "There is no fun in Islam"
2b) The point being, cricket (assuming it really is fun) seems to be un-Islamic.
Hahaha!
ReplyDeleteIf you wanted a pastime that is thoroughly Islamic, I'd suggest rooting for Newcastle United. The Toon are simply horrible this year. Yesterday's loss to Stoke was as un-fun as 2 hours could ever be.