Bishop of Manchester: Britain has a moral duty to accept refugees from its wars

[Paprika]

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/25/uk-moral-duty-accept-refugees-from-wars-david-walker-bishop-manchester

The asylum seekers washing up, sometimes all too literally, on Europe’s shores, are not driven to put their lives, and their families’ lives, on the line because they’ve heard that the UK has a generous benefits system. They take appalling risks.

They trust themselves and whatever little money they can scrape together to people smugglers and to overcrowded boats, because life at home has become desperate. They are pushed, not pulled, towards the EU, forced out of their homelands by war, terrorism and the persecution of minorities.

A political rhetoric that characterises them as wilful criminals rather than helpless victims is as unworthy as it is untrue. Welcome though it was that European leaders sat down to talk about the situation, their conclusions seem more directed at making the symptoms less visible than at tackling the disease.

Twenty-first-century Britain still aspires to be an international player. We may no longer be kingmaker across large swaths of the globe, but we like to see our influence, and our military assets, being used to destabilise and engineer the removal of some of the more unpleasant dictators who strut the world stage.

To go on doing this, in the belief that next time round what will ensue will be a peaceful, human-rights observing, multi-party democracy is getting us close to the classic definition of madness.

The moral cost of our continual overseas interventions has to include accepting a fair share of the victims of the wars to which we have contributed as legitimate refugees in our own land.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Idiot....

[Paprika]

Idiot....

I don't think mass immigration is the way to go but he brings up a useful point regarding taking responsibility instead of ignoring the problems until they come to one's doorstep.

[seer]

I don't think mass immigration is the way to go but he brings up a useful point regarding taking responsibility instead of ignoring the problems until they come to one's doorstep.

Taking responsibility for what? It is true that the UN and Obama made a mess of Libya but why does England have to destroy their society by letting these immigrants in.

[Paprika]

Taking responsibility for what?

For screwing up the country by destabilising it, then refusing to stay to help but running away when things got messy.

[Sam]

Taking responsibility for what? It is true that the UN and Obama made a mess of Libya but why does England have to destroy their society by letting these immigrants in.

One could say that if your society is in a place where its actions directly lead to the displacement of tens to hundreds of thousands of people without the majority even acknowledging the obligation to provide sufficient aid in the aftermath, then your society is already ruinous.

[seer]

One could say that if your society is in a place where its actions directly lead to the displacement of tens to hundreds of thousands of people without the majority even acknowledging the obligation to provide sufficient aid in the aftermath, then your society is already ruinous.

BS, but you can thank your hero Obama for the Libya mess.

[Sam]

BS, but you can thank your hero Obama for the Libya mess.

He deserves a lion's share, yes.

But I supported the Libyan intervention on the basis of preventing a humanitarian disaster by mass murder. Turns out, in hindsight, that it was wrong to do so: intervening didn't stop the bloodshed much, if at all. So I bear a small amount of culpability, too.

The difference between Obama and the folks who started the Iraq War is that Obama, at least, learned a hard lesson and has refused to repeat his mistake. The neocons didn't and they're trying to start up an even worse humanitarian disaster with Iran. And they, like you, see their actions as being completely disassociated from any responsibility to the millions of people whose lives are entirely uprooted, if not outright ruined.

[seer]

He deserves a lion's share, yes.

But I supported the Libyan intervention on the basis of preventing a humanitarian disaster by mass murder. Turns out, in hindsight, that it was wrong to do so: intervening didn't stop the bloodshed much, if at all. So I bear a small amount of culpability, too.

No see people like me knew it would be a mess, as most of the Arab spring was.

The difference between Obama and the folks who started the Iraq War is that Obama, at least, learned a hard lesson and has refused to repeat his mistake. The neocons didn't and they're trying to start up an even worse humanitarian disaster with Iran. And they, like you, see their actions as being completely disassociated from any responsibility to the millions of people whose lives are entirely uprooted, if not outright ruined.

What are you talking about? Where did I support the Iraq War? Afghanistan yes. Looking back we should have sold Saddam more tanks instead of removing him from power... Though Iraq did have a chance until O took all the US troops out. Face it Sam, Obama made a mess of the Middle East.

[Sam]

No see people like me knew it would be a mess, as most of the Arab spring was.



What are you talking about? Where did I support the Iraq War? Afghanistan yes. Looking back we should have sold Saddam more tanks instead of removing him from power... Though Iraq did have a chance until O took all the US troops out. Face it Sam, Obama made a mess of the Middle East.

I didn't say you supported the Iraq War; what I said was that you, like the neocons, disassociate their (the neocons') actions from humanitarian obligations resulting from their obligations.

Anyone claiming that it's Obama who deserves sole or primary responsibility for "making a mess" of the Middle East needs to be asked 1) what would you do better, in hindsight? and 2) what's your position on the nuclear deal with Iran?

I don't know what the rationale for selling Hussein more tanks is.

[seer]

I didn't say you supported the Iraq War; what I said was that you, like the neocons, disassociate their (the neocons') actions from humanitarian obligations resulting from their obligations.

But that is not true - the Bush administration spent billions of dollars on infrastructure in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He did try to nation build.

Anyone claiming that it's Obama who deserves sole or primary responsibility for "making a mess" of the Middle East needs to be asked 1) what would you do better, in hindsight? and 2) what's your position on the nuclear deal with Iran?

First, I would have supported Mubarak in Egypt, though el-Sisi is a good man. I certainly would have left Gaddafi alone and I would not have supported the rebels in Syria. Now, I would be arming the Kurds with heavy weapons. I would invade Iran, take and destroy their large nuke sites and leave. If we could do it by air - so much the better.

I don't know what the rationale for selling Hussein more tanks is.

As a bulwark against Iran.

[Sam]

But that is not true - the Bush administration spent billions of dollars on infrastructure in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He did try to nation build.

First, I would have supported Mubarak in Egypt, though el-Sisi is a good man. I certainly would have left Gaddafi alone and I would not have supported the rebels in Syria. Now, I would be arming the Kurds with heavy weapons. I would invade Iran, take and destroy their large nuke sites and leave. If we could do it by air - so much the better.

As a bulwark against Iran.

So ... you're saying that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake that resulted in a humanitarian disaster, that the aid given to Libyan rebels was a mistake that resulted in a humanitarian disaster, that we have no specific obligations to the people who were displaced from Iraq and Libya following those humanitarian disasters but we should invade Iran (or simply use air strikes) to "destroy their large nuke sites and leave."

Lessons unlearned.

[seer]

So ... you're saying that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake that resulted in a humanitarian disaster, that the aid given to Libyan rebels was a mistake that resulted in a humanitarian disaster, that we have no specific obligations to the people who were displaced from Iraq and Libya following those humanitarian disasters but we should invade Iran (or simply use air strikes) to "destroy their large nuke sites and leave."

Lessons unlearned.

Well no, I said nothing about humanitarian disaster. And there doesn't need to be a humanitarian disaster in invading Iran. The large Nuke sites are pretty remote, not near large population centers. Destroy them and get out - leave the infrastructure generally alone.

[Epoetker]

The difference between Obama and the folks who started the Iraq War is that Obama, at least, learned a hard lesson and has refused to repeat his mistake.

If by 'refused to repeat his mistake' you mean 'withdrew from any involvement in the wars and let Victoria Nuland/Hillary Clinton/DEM NEOCONZ engage in their own debacles in Ukraine, Libya, etc. without any oversight or internal scrutiny, then yes.

Going to that media gala while Baltimore was actively burning was kind of the model for his presidency, in case you didn't notice.

[Sam]

Well no, I said nothing about humanitarian disaster. And there doesn't need to be a humanitarian disaster in invading Iran. The large Nuke sites are pretty remote, not near large population centers. Destroy them and get out - leave the infrastructure generally alone.

Even the folks who support destroying Iranian nuclear sites while keeping a foot in reality, acknowledge that would only prevent Iran from creating a nuclear device for one to three years. And it would encourage Iran to build those new sites in very public or heavily-trafficked areas.

What's the next step?