Printable View
According to these figures from the UN from the mid-point of 2021, conservative estimates would put the total amount of refugees caused by the United States at half of the 84 million total, and it could be as many as 60 million.
https://twitter.com/CostsOfWar/statu...68299935211529
It's figures like that which make me despise the UK's relationship with the US. It's difficult to not feel guilty by association.
You think war is bad? Are you a communist?
It's 'luvvy lefty snowflake' to you, thank you very much.
Would be interesting to see their rationale here as it seems an extraordinarily number and very difficult to pinpoint on the US.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...ust%202021.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Here is a summary. The OP was a bit loose with language stating that they were all refugees. The overwhelming majority of people analysed by the study are displaced within their own country. Like you I find it difficult to understand why, for instance, the 7.1 million people in the 4 Syrian provinces where there was some active US military activity were displaced or fled the country as a direct consequence of it, rather than say the activities of the Assad regime or ISIS.
Fair comment re: refugees, however, your comment implies that being displaced within your own country isn't as bad as crossing a border into another country - not sure if that was the intention?
The small print provides a little bit more clarity on the Syria figures: "Syria data only includes people displaced during years of direct U.S. military involvement in the war and in five provinces where U.S. forces have fought."
Even if the U.S. military hasn't directly caused every single one of those displacements, and I appreciate that it's impossible to put an exact figure on these things, it's a decent yardstick which shows that wars involving just one nation has caused at least half of the world's displaced people and refugees. Shouldn't a nation with a defence budget larger than most countries' GDP and the most high-tech weaponry on the planet be a little better at avoiding civilian targets? Shouldn't a country that sees itself as the most civilised nation on the planet be a little more concerned about involving civilians in conflict?
It's also worth remembering that the US are comfortably the most prolific nation on the planet when it comes to fighting proxy wars and using 'regime change' to destabilise countries and cause internal or local conflict without any direct involvement from their military.
To be honest I have little idea whether for instance the 3 million Somalis displaced within that country are living worse lives than the 1 million that have fled, many of whom are living in refugee camps in Kenya and Ethiopia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond Holt
My main pushback was the starkness of attributing all this to the US because IT, directly or indirectly got involved in these conflicts. I read the report (5 Syrian provinces not 4 as I originally stated). What I can't see is how the US effort in Syria, which seems based around supporting rebel forces and countering ISIS was solely responsible for the displacement of 7.1 million people and your headline that the US caused this.
I have no doubt the US bears a degree of responsibility for the sins perpetrated by others and in support of their own interests but lets have a proportionate rather than a prejudicial perspective.
Spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
I don't know what it's like to be a refugee either, but I would imagine both scenarios are devastating. A person displaced within their own country is effectively still trapped in that situation, which is potentially worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
I'm sorry, but seeing the US involvement in the Middle East as anything other than purposefully inflammatory is very naïve. It is absolutely fair to attribute almost all of these refugees to the U.S. (and the U.K.). They are usually the aggressor and instigators of conflict.
The British backed a coup in Syria in 1949, among other things..
"In the mid 1950's, Britain also planned the assassination of [Egyptian president] Nasser and the overthrow of the government in Syria. This followed a successful British-backed coup in Syria in 1949." Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit, 2003, p.282
The U.S. involvement in Syria goes back to the same time..
As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. details, “The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949—barely a year after the agency’s creation,” in a coup directed against Syria’s democratically elected president, Shukri al-Quwatli, after he “hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria.”
https://libertarianinstitute.org/art...ring-in-syria/
That entire article is worth a read as it relates nicely to the current crisis we're talking about too.
Things are way more complex than they seem though, take this article from Declassified UK:
https://declassifieduk.org/uk-rearms...ccupied-syria/
So the UK is arming Turkey, to bomb the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces who are who are our key ally in fighting ISIS? WTF!?
The UK plays a far more direct role in the bombing of Yemen and has created what is currently the largest humanitarian crisis on the planet.
"A former BAE worker has said that without the company’s constant support, the Saudi air force would be grounded within a fortnight. BAE has thousands of staff in Saudi Arabia, many maintaining its warplanes which have conducted the majority of over 23,000 airstrikes in Yemen in the past six years."
https://declassifieduk.org/the-engli...bombing-yemen/
I'd actually like to admit that I was wrong to attribute all of those refugees to the U.S. and include the U.K. in this too. It's really uncomfortable reading, and I'm sure some people will think I am unpatriotic etc. but it's actually the opposite. The atrocities carried out in our name are not representative of the vast majority of the people of the UK or the US and that's what frustrates me most.
The US/UK have been actively fuucking the Middle East for so long and with the help of Israel, among others, the overall goal is to make sure it stays as an unstable hellhole so we can plunder its resources and prevent most of the Arab nations from developing. It's as simple as that.
"The US/UK have been actively fuucking the Middle East for so long and with the help of Israel, among others, the overall goal is to make sure it stays as an unstable hellhole so we can plunder its resources and prevent most of the Arab nations from developing. It's as simple as that"Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond Holt
This sounds like something that could be coming out of ISIS or the Iranian Govt's mouths.
No one should doubt the extent of foreign (not just US and UK) involvement in the middle east which has frequently been unhelpful, but to pin the blame of lack of development on them is preposterous.
It's also a curiously colonial attitude; that the countries in question are incapable of development or charting their own course without intervention (good or bad) from the UK and US.
The middle east has had some utterly appalling governments for many many decades. They bare responsibility. It's a mistake to let them off the hook.
Geopolitics eh .