Home | About | Donate

The Migrant Crisis: Arms That Welcome, Arms That Kill


#1

The Migrant Crisis: Arms That Welcome, Arms That Kill

Amy Goodman, Denis Moynihan

The flood of people fleeing war and misery is swelling daily, reaching the shores and borders of Europe in a desperate bid for safety. They come from Syria, where a brutal civil war during the past half-decade has killed well over 200,000, and caused the displacement of 12 million people, both inside and outside the country’s borders—half of Syria’s population.


#2

It isn't that the conflicts aren't occurring or that people aren't trying to flee from them. It is that even if the conflicts weren't occurring that people would still be trying to flee from the extreme drought. The stresses on people because of war and extreme drought have been incredible. People in the west should remember that this is an arid region and water resources in the drought are limited. The war also limits aid and distribution of that aid including water. Refugees are made into pawns and treated as expendable or as pressure used to overwhelm the resources of one side or the other in an area. Who would want to stay in a place where water is no longer available?

Five years from now, the extreme drought will continue (likely a permanent change due to rising temperatures) and new wars, civil wars and conflicts will be spoken of as having created a new refugee crisis. Ten years from now will be a new set of wars and more refugees and the same for twenty years from now. More wars and more refugees.

The only thing that will remain consistent is climate change. All the wars are caused by climate change (even if they originally started for different reasons years ago). Things have changed in the world and RAPID climate change begins to overwhelm us.

So yes this present crisis is directly related to the arms trade. It is too late to stop any of that. Trying to collect those arms would spark another armed conflict in the process. Ten years from now we may read another article describing the pernicious influence of arms in the world and decry yet another armed conflict but it will be talking about the symptoms (the wars and conflicts) and not the disease (climate change and extreme drought forcing people to go elsewhere).

Climate refugees is just the reality of our future. Wars and conflicts just give them local names. Here it is the Syrian civil war. There is the anarchy in Libya... etc. Anywhere there are arid conditions, people do not want to stay there during extreme drought. Well duh!

Climate change now exacerbates and causes more wars and refugees will be the end result... that is the reality. Powers have always manipulated conflicts and unrest for local regimes. This time any kind of unrest ends up creating refugees because the extreme drought would have caused them anyway but not in such a huge mass movement.

Maybe for the first time the powers that be might consider that maintaining a state of peace is the better alternative to war because wars will instantly start masses of climate change refugees in motion.


#3

Voices that range from Ellen Brown to David Icke have exposed a devious phenomena best described as: Problem--Reaction--Solution. In far greater detail, Naomi Klein painstakingly chronicles how financial shock done to nations forces their leadership into debt usury that typically results in austerity or shock doctrine "solutions."

When crises don't occur automatically (Katrina to New Orleans) they can be engineered or manufactured. War, given the enormous profits made by those who finance the rebuilding that takes place in its aftermath, serves as the ultimate Exhibit A for Disaster Capitalism.

What is more conducive to the guarantee of further wars than arming lots of people within destabilized nations? THAT explains this horror:

"The conflicts in the Middle East must be resolved. But can that happen while the U.S. (and Russia, and Germany, and France) continue their massive arms sales to belligerents in the region?"

It is to Angela Merkel's credit that she is serving as a voice arguing FOR integrating refugees into nations within the European Union. However, albeit to a far less crippling degree, the complex that grants Mars primacy: that which devotes its scientific/engineering/psychological brain power to products MADE to do enormous harm is once again a bane to Germany. It (the MIC) has totally subducted the U.S. govt. and all arms of law, justice, freedom from surveillance and military muscle, and much else.

Calling out the Beast for what it is and deconstructing the argument that links its ghastly actions with Defense is mandatory. The world cannot afford more in the way of Mars rules. The impacts bleed (out) all over.


#4

..wars will instating start? What is that supposed to mean?

Although your comment works to minimize the trade of arms while sounding empathetic about the rigors of climate change, the impulse on your part to minimize arms sales is telling.


#5

I typed the word instantly and the spell checker from hell changed it into instating (is that a word even?).

You are not a progressive SR. You are extremely biased towards a group - in this case - all men and you never think about how unjust that bias is. You blather about the rhetorical 'we' but never notice how you apply the rhetorical 'them' towards all men.

You want to walk around blaming all men for the state of the world and worse that all men somehow support all the militarism, violence, reactionary bulls*t!

If a man were as biased as you but directed it towards women you'd instantly call them sexist.

You are sexist SR. Which means you are NOT a progressive. Guess what SR?

You blame a lot of innocent people for things they had nothing to do with simply because they are males. I think you would blabber on about the evils of slavery and how the violence stems from men dominating patriarchal authoritarian ... etc. and never once think about the men who were slaves.

You never see the innocent if they are males. You are a sexist person.


#6

Tough choice shot in the face or die of thirst. If only all that money spent and profits made from wars could be applied to resolving death by thirst.


#7

Worse that in a place where water supplies can be cut off or blocked by armed intervention from either side, the innocent who don't belong to either side get the worst of it from both. We in the west have no real understanding of how desperate some of these people really are. To stay where they are is impossible and to leave is made impossible.

Meanwhile leaders around the world ignore the humanity and blather about potential threats or opportunities to aggressively prosecute the wars.

I keep thinking that the wars are being used as an excuse to not help these people more than is being admitted. What will be the excuse for never helping climate refugees? Forever war!

I am appalled that people want to define these people as refugees from war.

To me they are refugees from an area of the world where war goes on FOREVER.

That was the legacy of Bush/Cheney... destabilization of the Middle East and now to that has been added climate change.

Forever war and permanent extreme drought (climate change)...

Pity poor humanity!


#8

Yes they have been running away from wars in these numbers since. Foreve?


#9

This problem is about war.

"War is a business. And when the generals retire, guess where they go to work? Profits swell. War never stops. Whole sections of the earth live in terror. And our nation is disemboweled and left to live under what the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls “inverted totalitarianism.” Libertarians seem to get this. It is time the left woke up."


#10

I am trying to remind people that there have always been wars and people do become refugees (under extreme circumstances) but they want to return (when allowed to) to their homes. The last decade has seen the onslaught of extreme climate change and it is only just in the initial stages. Extreme drought has made the possibility of return for these refugees doubtful. There is nothing there. In many places people are fleeing only climate change even though wherever there is extreme drought in Africa and the Middle East it seems that war soon follows. I think that the wars in the Middle East weren't intended to become Forever War conflicts but that is what they have become. As climate change made a bad situation worse... we see the result. Millions of refugees and no end in sight as the years go by.

This didn't have to be but Bush/Cheney were too incompetent (Bush) and too corrupt (Cheney). They left a endless mess that is like an open wound which climate change rubs salt into.


#11

The US military is the single biggest user of fossil fuels in the whole world. During the Iraq War alone an estimated 250–600 million tonnes of CO2e (C02 equivalent) was used, in comparison, the UK uses just over the top end of this amount each year.


#12

There are more arms in the Middle East region than bread,” Annette Groth but water does come first.


#13

Consider that the USA and Russia are locking gazes across the Arctic looking for oil. We don't need that oil and can't burn it without increasing the onset of catastrophic warming. So why?

One reason is once oil is discovered then it will be a precedent for using it. Obama sold us out. The next president might not permit drilling (though I doubt it)

However (as pursuant to your post) there is another reason.

The Arctic oil would be WAR OIL. Enough new oil to permit a major WW2 sized war to be fought. Fresh sources of oil ... home oil... war oil.


#14

When the only tool you are familiar with is war the others are ignored DIPLOMACY and NEEGOTIATE and PEACE become unmanly.


#15

12 million refugees. There lies a demographic change of which a lot of people in Europe will become very frightened, thus strengthening nazi-style minority parties. Thank you, US of A. Your stupidities are destroying civilisation.