[jacquesm]

It's a bit of a problem, but 'you break it, you own it' is a good rule.

See also: Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and a very large number of other places where proxy wars between western states and meddling in local affairs in order to gain the upper hand in veiled conflicts over resources have made the world a much worse place for a very large number of people.

[jimmyk]

It's a bit of a problem, but 'you break it, you own it' is a good rule.

A good rule for who, exactly?

[jacquesm]

The world. Just like 'polluter pays'.

[jimmyk]

It's good for everyone in the world? Or it's good for the average person in the world?

[jacquesm]

We all share that world don't we? So everyone. Even the richest people still breathe the air.

[jimmyk]

I'm not talking about pollution, I'm talking about the rule "you break it you own it" applied to geopolitics.

[jacquesm]

Same principle, really. In geopolitics if you either go to war or you decide to do some empire building if you want things to remain stable after you turn your back you end up being responsible for the aftermath. And if things go pear shaped and you turn your back they likely will come to haunt you in one way or another. These are not laws, merely extracts from observable reality, from Roman times right up to the present.

Sure it could end different but for some reason it never does.

[redsummer]

The US did the breaking. Sweden had to 'own it'.

[jacquesm]

The US not being very good at cleaning up the messes they make is fairly well documented, props to the Swedes (and quite a few other countries besides) for doing far more than their fair share (which would have been 'nothing to very little') in this.

[tunocina]

Our elites broke it, I don't understand why plain civilians like you have to own it. Why do you feel responsible for those wars? Why do you feel like you have to pay the toll for it? Honest questions.

[krapp]

Americans supported the government and military which waged those wars. Americans absolutely do own the result, morally and financially.

[jacquesm]

Don't you get to vote where you live?

[tunocina]

I get to vote but, in democracy, we are a drop in the ocean.

In any case what's done is done, and if we've already waged war on them, it makes no sense to open our borders to them because most of them are bitter at us and some of them want to and have succeeded in killing us in our own soil. It's simply a security issue.

There are millions of Muslims now scattered everywhere in Europe, and these last attacks are simply the beginning. Now Erdogan can threaten us because he has a dormant army everywhere. And we let them in, like a trojan horse.

(I'm European)

[jacquesm]

> I get to vote but, in democracy, we are a drop in the ocean.

No, we all together own the result and fractionally each of us. That's the price of living in a democracy, and one I gladly accept. In a dictatorship you could argue like you do (and even there there are options, but with a much higher personal price).

> In any case what's done is done, and if we've already waged war on them, it makes no sense to open our borders to them because most of them are bitter at us and some of them want to and have succeeded in killing us in our own soil.

That is a vanishingly small fraction of those entering. In fact, the vast majority would like nothing better than to turn back if not for the fact that their lives are in danger where they lived. Sure, there are people who move with economic motives, but those are even less likely to be a danger.

> It's simply a security issue.

Yes, it is a security issue. And you deal with that like you deal with any other security issue: through law enforcement.

> There are millions of Muslims now scattered everywhere in Europe, and these last attacks are simply the beginning.

Do you actually believe that these 'millions of Muslims' are going to pick up arms and attack the citizens of the countries they have shared their lives with and who for the most part employ them and ensure their bread is buttered over the silly statements of some dictator? What you'll likely see is some angry youths who might rebel, but that's not too far from what Western raised youths do when given half a chance. There are plenty of examples of that.

And given that if your name is 'Muhammed' or 'Mustafa' or your skin a little bit different than lily white they actually have some reasons to be upset.

> Now Erdogan can threaten us because he has a dormant army everywhere.

No, sorry, he really doesn't. Erdogan, for all his bluster is incapable of ruling Turkey the way he wants to without vast human rights violations, there is little to no chance of him being able to rouse the Turks in Western European societies in the numbers required to cause a real problem.

That does leave open the door to polarization and escalation, and because of that those need to be fought tooth and nail, we all of us living here, Turks, Morroccans (and their children, who usually have the nationality of the country they were born in), refugees and natives (who likely were refugees of some war a couple of generations back) need to work out our differences and settle on something long-term viable and give Erdogan the collective finger.

And for the most part, we are doing just that. A few hundred misguided people are not going to change anything, and there are plenty of misguided people in our own ranks.

[tunocina]

>No, we all together own the result and fractionally each of us. That's the price of living in a democracy, and one I gladly accept. In a dictatorship you could argue like you do (and even there there are options, but with a much higher personal price).

Well, you said I could change things, I'm telling you I can't, because I don't get to choose. We all do, and the majority, by now, disagrees with me.

>That is a vanishingly small fraction of those entering. In fact, the vast majority would like nothing better than to turn back if not for the fact that their lives are in danger where they lived. Sure, there are people who move with economic motives, but those are even less likely to be a danger.

I am aware of it, but it's not worth the risk to let any of them in.

>Yes, it is a security issue. And you deal with that like you deal with any other security issue: through law enforcement.

That's supposing law enforcement can stop 100% of terror attacks before they have happened. Isn't it better to just remove the root of the issue?

>Do you actually believe that these 'millions of Muslims' are going to pick up arms and attack the citizens of the countries they have shared their lives with and who for the most part employ them and ensure their bread is buttered over the silly statements of some dictator?

No, not millions of them, but just a few ones are enough to wreak havoc.

And yes, they are going to attack us, first because they are bitter we made them lose everything, and second because there's definitely not enough butter for all of them (in my own country, there isn't even enough butter for us natives!).

>No, sorry, he really doesn't. Erdogan, for all his bluster is incapable of ruling Turkey the way he wants to without vast human rights violations, there is little to no chance of him being able to rouse the Turks in Western European societies in the numbers required to cause a real problem.

Nobody talked about Turks. Turkey will covertly support ISIS as long as ISIS keeps killing Kurds, and they will because, let's be honest, all Muslims hate Kurds. And yes, ISIS lone fighters will keep terrorising us. It just happened yesterday.

About the rest, that's wishful thinking. I don't believe for a second two cultures that are fundamentally so different will ever manage to work together for one specific goal, let alone create something viable in the long term.

[jacquesm]

> I am aware of it, but it's not worth the risk to let any of them in.

You'd rather see 10's or 100's of thousands dead than risk a few incidents?

> That's supposing law enforcement can stop 100% of terror attacks before they have happened.

There are so few of them that even with broken LE the dangers from terrorism are smaller than from smoking.

> Isn't it better to just remove the root of the issue?

Yes, but it is too late for that as you already wrote.

> No, not millions of them, but just a few ones are enough to wreak havoc.

Nah, only when viewed through the magnifying lens of the media. Traffic and obesity kill vastly more people than terrorists ever can.

> And yes, they are going to attack us, first because they are bitter we made them lose everything, and second because there's definitely not enough butter for all of them (in my own country, there isn't even enough butter for us natives!).

Where do you live then?

> Turkey will covertly support ISIS as long as ISIS keeps killing Kurds, and they will because, let's be honest, all Muslims hate Kurds.

Do you realize the majority of Kurds are Muslims? Are you suggesting they hate themselves?

> And yes, ISIS lone fighters will keep terrorising us. It just happened yesterday.

You let it happen to you, yesterday. Statistically speaking I feel no less safe than I did on Thursday last week, and if I see something that hints at an attack in progress I'll act. Until then life goes on.

> I don't believe for a second two cultures that are fundamentally so different will ever manage to work together for one specific goal, let alone create something viable in the long term.

It's already working. What do you suggest?

Isolationism? Close all borders to refugees? Barbed wire borders and soldiers with orders to shoot if the refugees should approach the border?

Are you willing to go and stand there to pull the trigger?