Comments by "Golag Is watching you" (@golagiswatchingyou2966) on "How the European Union's migration policy is broken" video.

the main problem I'm seeing with the issue of refugees and migration in general is that it's unsustainable, regardless on who takes care of them or who houses them, the reality is that people will keep coming due to climate change, due to wars (sometimes caused by the USA, France, UK or internal conflicts) and Europe being closest to these danger zones (Africa, the Middle east, Central Asia) it will remain a major issue that neither side can realy solve. No migration side is wrong not for not wanting migrants but for not realising just how difficult it is to house and maintain such amount of people who either just want to survive or want to get ahead in life (we all do, that's what humans do), however the open migration side is also wrong because of the problems and costs it brings with it to western nations as well as spark the flames of resentment and nationalism which is not good for a European level solution which is what's actually needed. I would then propose a different solution, one that is unpopular and will set a new geopolitical reality that some of it's big players aren't welcoming of, EU Military peacekeeping missions, what this would mean is the creation of a legitimate EU level military force, to be placed or engage near the entry points of migration flows and outside of EU countries like Morroco, Turkey, Tunnisia, Libya, so on where they would be tasked with maintaining order, help screen refugees and host refugee camps where they can then be transported to host nations or be able to integrate into the local societies, economies or develop skills needed later in life to rebuild their country of origin if possible. the reason why this solution is unlikely to be taken is that the EU does not have the power or right to use such a military force, that it would be a more federated EU type of solution and that it would project an image of neo-collonialism to the rest of the world, as well as agitate certain geopolitical players by seeing a modern EU wide military force near their borders potentially but untill such a long term solution if implemented this will continue to be an issue and it's going to become much, much worse compared to 2015, as we move into the 2030s and 2040s, better to get to work with it now for when it's needed than the scramble later when shit inevitably hits the fan.
82
Adam Somethings loves to blame the ''far right'' for all problems facing Europe but rarely does he look into his own sides actions that allowed for it, remember it was Angela Merkels actions that promoted and encouraged millions of migrants to try their luck coming to Europe, Orban simply responded like many European nations did by blocking his own borders while sending the refugees to other nations around him to be their problem, Adam simply blames Orbans response to Merkels actions and ignores the response from the rest of Europe, Hungary is a tiny country, Greece, Spain, Turkey are all far more guilty of allowing and promoting refugees from going further into Europe and Merkel is the main cause of it. blaming Orban is not a solution, the real, mature solution would have been for the EU and it's main leaders like Merkel and Macron not to be fucking idiots and actually using their militaries and influence as well as ask for money from the EU and other nations to host refugees outside of EU or close to hot spot centers, which they actually did do after months of problems, terrorist attacks and sexual attacks, if I could see this coming around the age of 19 years old, how come Merkel and friends were this stupid? things to think about.
15
@sm3675 not realy, what we realy need to stop is aging and invest in automation, you don't need a massive population but having a young population with stable birthrates and high education in new fields with few old people would be best. Many economists today only look at consumption as marker of economic growth, while they should be looking at value added growth, technological development and stable government policies and property rights. Many migrants today in the west are a burden not a benefit as most of them are low skilled labor, what we should be doing is have immigration based on merit and ability as well as invest in means to raise birthrates like in France and Sweden. The worst thing we could do is raise taxes, promote mass migration of low skilled labor, while ignoring the aging problem, lucky for us old people tend to die off first with disease outbreaks, sadly our governments issue lockdowns for all instead of just the elderly. Our governments are quite incompetent when compared to the rest of the world.
14
I don't remember waves of migrants coming during colonialism, it only realy started to come when colonialism ended and most of these regions fell back into communist, fascistic, dictatorial or just simply authoritarian governments. though to be fair the USA and some allies like France and the UK did cause some of the problems in the region there but while they like to cause problems with selling of arms or backing rebels and what not, few are willing or able to take the hard steps to send military forces to try and rebuild and bring order to these war ravaged countries, in the case of the USA they tried making democracies in places they have to reason to exist in, while bringing down dictatorships that were actually quite stable for the region, the west is naive yet at the same time unwilling to make the hard choices nessisary by great power status, China is more than willing to fill that roll and they don't care about human rights abuses.
11
@Primotef I agree, though in the short term we have to look for our own security first and improve the situation in those regions long term, though that's easier said than done, only time will tell if it can be done or not.
7
@zeke2408 indeed because it's less biased and more accurate than his video.
4
@abdiabdi3225 you do realise nothing is stopping those countries from, idk changing their borders or moving around? The main issue has nothing to do with collonialism at all but basic economics like property rights, law and order and outside investments, african nations that fell to communism became poor, while nations that embraced some form of capitalism thrived, before they were under western administration, laws with some level of investments, slavery was outlawed which came back when the western powers left, along with many people fleeing towards the west along with them. Truth is people don't want to hold african nations to the same standards as the rest of the world and aid to africa, corporations and governments love to exploit their situation, like all things they have to solve their issues themselves, nobody is going to solve it for them.
4
it won't solve anything and in fact will destabalize the EU, nor is the no migrants what so ever a viable solution, the only true solution is a middle ground in which only people that will benefit Europe's economies should be allowed in and be allowed to work and perhaps become full citizens and everyone else has to be kept out or tolorated voluntary by nations willing to take them and provide for them but Europe is under no obligation to have to host them or even provide for them, we do so because it is in our best interest not to have desperate and hungry refugees close to European borders but our obligation is towards the people of Europe first, everything else is second, that's the only way this works long term.
4
@lynn4062 yes, I do know, you don't, that's the problem. What happened was that European powers left due to the USA withholding funds from the Marshall plan if they did not abandon their colonies, many of these colonies fell into dictatorships, local warlords or turned to communism, the borders drawn by the Europeans and then local leaders taking them over left a very unstable situation, many of the investments into the colonial economy vanished and were not maintained by the local leaders. You have to understand how much these places benefited by western rule for a long time compared to the state they were in before, you also have to take into account if the colonial economy was settler based or exploitative based, the Congo is a good example of the later while south africa is a good example of the former. Western powers did very little to fuck up the situation and in fact allowed massive population growth due to improved farming and connection with the rest of the world, Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of Africa before communist Mugabe came into power, the only two things the western powers did that was very bad was 1. Leave and 2. Kept the borders as they were instead of dividing the lands to local leaders based on ethnic, language and vital resources lines. Though regardless the situation was bound to decline and stagnate due to the vastness of Africa itself, the massive populations there and the lack of modern nation states and institutions there, why this myth then of the west becoming rich due to colonialism? Because it's easy and takes responsability away from the natives and blames the west, even though the west was already rich before the scramble for africa, did not make up a big part of their economies and after decolonisation the western powers thrived economically while the former colonies stagnated. Whatifalthist has some video's on the subject if your interested.
3
@kosa9662 yeah because they were trying to make a democracy there, the missions were all over the place and not very clear, there are realistic goals and there are fairytail goals, the USA went for the later one for 20 years in Afghanistan and we saw how quickly that fell apart.
2
@gozden123 your comments got censored I think. Here is a link to Caspian report in case that's what you wanted. https://youtu.be/eNG4t3xNK44
2
@r-t9266 seems to have worked after ww2, sure you can't go in doing stupid stuff like trying to make a democracy where it does not belong or try and hinder economic growth for the locals but you can have very cheap, easy to understand missions that help to maintain peace, a presence and have hard power projection in regions you know are explosive. Regime change is an easy objective, another one is support for local (puppet) governments, the USA has many military bases around the world who engage in training or peacekeeping missions with little to no threat to themselves with the exception of places like Iraq or before a few months ago Afganistan. The idea that military power and suppression of hostile forces does not create peace is very silly to me.
1
Egert Roos pretty much, same with africans in africa or americans in the USA.
1
@richardkister4507 doubt, population projections simply maintain current momentum and don't take into accounts variables and local conditions, if Nigeria gets 400 million people their nation would collapse into civil war.
1
@gozden123 if population growth was all that ever mattered, India and China would have been the world's superpowers long before Europe or the USA. The older populations will largely take care of themselves, the main issue is will they drag the youth down with them? Right now that is a big yes but can't go on forever. People in Europe have stupid leaders and stupid political ideologies, one part older generations stuck thinking in a bygone era and the other part delusional marxist and progressive goobaldy goo thinking that does not result in wealth or competent long term planning. The only plus side going for Europe is they realise they have to work together if they want to surivive in this new world and have functioning democracies which Nigeria and most of Africa is not, if you think they have a very bright future ahead of them then I have some bridges to sell to you.
1
@richardkister4507 we all do, most parts of the world are aging and others are rapidly expanding to the point of causing civil wars and massive humanitarian crisis.
1
@obrnenydrevokocur9344 you are correct, aid does not do much, it mostly goes into the pockets of corrupt leaders or only has minor effect when it's given to the right people. Using one's own armed forces and funds directly gives much more hard power as well as soft power influence in the region, it also allows the potential of regime change if progress becomes too slow or if a dictatorship becomes too authoritarian or genocidal, what's important is to have realistic expectations of such missions, you aren't going to create democracies out of thin air, it won't magically solve economic problems but what it can bring is stability and investments for long term economic growth which may lead to long term stability, sometimes it's going to work and sometimes it's going to fail but not trying or acting is always going to fail for your (pan)national interest.
1
@r-t9266 not sure what you mean, by those metrics everyone is which means the statement means nothing.
1
@pixelghostclyde8717 what peace keeping missions? The UN can't do shit and the USA is not really focused on keeping peace but nation building, at times when they did get involved like in the balkan wars they largely stabalized the region and prevented refugees crisis, it does not always work but it's better than doing nothing, the worst policy is arming terrorists and rebels which the USA did in the middle-east which caused much of the current refugees to come to Europe.
1
@JohnDoe-gf5he lol talk about missing the point.
1
@r-t9266 people stop fighting because one powerfull force stops them from fighting, is that not peace?
1
@gozden123 colonies actually cost a lot of money, Europe was already the richest continent before major colonialism and Germany became very powerfull because it did not have costly colonies. After ww2 and decolonisation Europe experienced an economic miracle while former colonies largely collapsed. Science, technology and new ideas of government is what made Europe so great, the only exception could be the discovery of america which gave Europe access to new resources and new plants like the patato to grow faster in population.
1
@gozden123 sure, whatever.
1
@gozden123 just there is so much bullshit in your ''arguments'' it's just not worth my time. try watching some video's by Caspian report and whatifalthistory about how the western world works and perhaps then we can have a conversation. gl
1
@gozden123 sure whatever, go watch those channels and then come back.
1
Nemusis 999 how to stop aging? Let them die off, we spend too much on the elderly and need to promote more childbirths of our own, aging is just an excuse used by the leftwing to justify unlimited immigration. Who do you think BMW bribes to get more migrants? Most of this is pushed by far leftwing extremists and some corporations, it's only a benefit to the political class and some corporations, everyone else loses big time.
1
@doodie2025 yes, most of Eastern Europe is aware of that due to both Russia and Germany, not to mention the Ottomans.
1
@lynn4062 neo-colonialism is probably worse than actual colonialism due to not having to invest at all into the local economies and being mostly explotative based, settler colonies often had better laws, better economies and setting up institutions for locals to use. Most people don't understand anything of this continent and while the Europeans were racists for sure and did exploit the local population as cheap labor, we do the exact same thing today still, when labor costs are cheap you will find exploitation, the main focus should be if the people are getting enough wealth to get ahead and the education and government systems that lead to multigenerational wealth, if you fall into the hands of brutal warlords or communists those dreams go byebye. Lucky for some parts of Africa they are doing just that, places like Nigeria and Rowanda are improving, though south africa seems close to collapse. There is also the potential east african federation, that might shake things up.
1
@lynn4062 this is simply not true, the Europeans could barely survive in Africa due to the enviroment and diseases there, the continent is vast beyond any other continent, it has barely any shore or deep water shoreline that go into it, the Europeans were only able to supply themselves somewhat due to railroads which were the main investment to try and link african colonies together, there was no mass migration from Europe to africa, only minor settlers went to south africa, most went to north america or australia. as for the genocide and slavery subject, this simply did not happen at all, slaves were bought by europeans from other local african warlords, the slave trade was not as massive as the ottoman slave trade in the same region and was ended on a global scale by the british, something barely even attempted in most of human history. In fact many other african tribes like the Bantu commited genocide against the Koisam people's, the populations in africa exploded during colonialism and the entire concept of a nation like south africa only exists due to western style education and institutions that set it up. that being said there was widespread racism and often times resistances were brutally shut down but nothing like we saw in ww2. I think you like many other people in the west just can't accept that the african populations are as aggresive and unstable like Europe was centuries before, remember the west is the exception to most of human history and it's a miracle it even happened, most of the world is very brutal, unforgiving and harsh and their histories reflect this, this does not excuse any abuse or exploitation the Europeans did inflict on the local people but if you judge them on their bad actions you have to contemplate their positive actions as well which far outweigh their rule of africa, in fact all leaders during that time would have said ''we have to rule these lands or else another european nation might do it and that would make us look weak'' nobody was focused on exploitation or profits in this part of their empires, it was all about prestige and having a huge empire, at best the french, british and germans used colonial troops to add more manpower to their military but that's basically it and their use were very limited and often costed more than they were worth, this is why Germany is such a rich and powerfull nation both at that time and today, it has massive industry and non of these colonies that took resources, manpower and logistics for barely anything worth having. I don't blame you for not knowing, our educational systems don't paint a fair or deep understanding of history or the people there, the media we consume only ever speak of exploitation or racism instead of things like the abolision of slavery or the population explosion, they also don't focus on african history, they don't know anything about the rich and powerfull west and east african kingdoms, nubians, the Bantu people or how the communist Mugabe destroyed Zimbabwe or how Nelson Mandela was a terrorist or how south africa is falling apart due to racism from the majority african populations against the white minority populations. it's so much more complex than you think it is, it's not good or bad, it just is what it is.
1
@lynn4062 I write a whole article about history and explain the actual history of african kingdoms and colonialism in detail and your response "So your a racist, good luck with that"? That says more about you than it does about me buddy, you don't seem to understand that you look like a simpleton who has no understanding of these topics at all, while I do, yet im somehow the racist? That unironically makes people who are racists look objective and intelectual which most of them (of all colours) tend not to be. If anything it looks like a coping mechanism for you to use when you are confronted with new information, ironically that's most often what racists and religeus fanatics do when you try and explain how their view of the world is inaccurate or outright fabricated fantasy. I do hope you grow out of this line of thinking, it's not healthy for you.
1
@lynn4062 what's most sad about your reaction is that it gives no benefit to the african people themselves, who had to suffer through great hardships during decolonisation and the african wars that followed, nobody is saying collonialism was perfect or ideal but many of these places were slowly modernising, they were getting beter and like many other nations before could have become strong nations, linked to the global economy more than just resource extraction, south africa is prove of that, as well as Zimbabwe before Mugabe took power, today places like Nigeria are getting ahead due to investments from both the West and China and embrace of western capitalism which they could have gotten sooner. It's like the nationalists vs the communists in China, the communists won and when Mao died it was one of the poorest nations on earth, they injected some market forces and capitalism into their system and now they are almost at superpower status, imagine if that happened 60 years earlier with the nationalists? The same could have been true for many former african colonies.
1
while there are some migrants that will no doubt have some skills for a modern economy which could then be integrated into Europe rather easily there is no denying that the vast majority of people coming into Europe today and tomorrow aren't in that group and likewise would be equally if not more needed in their own countries once they stabalize if that ever happens of course.
1