Portfolio: Germany is to blame for current migrant crisis in Hungary - Lázár
Germany is to blame for the migrant crisis in Budapest and German officials should inform refugees stranded at the Keleti railway station and in reception centres of the rules they must comply with if they want to travel from Hungary to Germany, the minister heading the Prime Minister's Office told journalists on Thursday.
Lázár blames the Germans
Lázár said it is not about Hungary not looking after the refugees, it is only about Hungary telling them where they will be taken care of.
Lázár said Germany is to blame for the current situation for German statements have erased the migrants’ will to co-operate and that is why they refuse to go through the necessary legal proceedings in Hungary.
Update: Refugee crisis ‘a German problem’ says Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban -- Euronews/Reuters
WNU Editor: When I first read Germany's Angela Merkel remarks/statement that the EU has a moral and responsible duty to take care of refugees .... even repeating it today .... Merkel Rebuffs Hungary on Refugees, Calls for EU Quotas (Bloomberg) .... I knew that it would only open the floodgates to millions who would perceive it as an invitation to come to Europe instead of staying in places like Turkey (which is actually a safe place) or go and migrate to other Muslim countries. Is Germany ready to accept literally millions and millions of Middle Eastern and African refugees .... I doubt it .... but like I said .... the floodgates are now open.
I like your blog and read it everyday. Thank you for the work you put in to it. While I don't always agree with the positions you take, I do like the weather in sources you use.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of "migrants".
The Europeans and others who support or sit back and allow their governments to engage in or support interventions in the ME or Africa have themselves to blame. It is no coincidence that these huge influxes of refugees are generally from countries that NATO and Friends (the GCC) have participated in destroying the state.
We have sown the wind; now we reap the whirlwind.
I meant I like the wealth of sources you use. Stupid auto complete....
ReplyDeleteThe interventions in the Middle East were done in response to grave threats to American and "western" security. While the interventions may have been poorly executed and even misguided, it is important that the context is properly understood.
ReplyDeleteNow that the people who were behind these grave threats to American and "western" security are being rewarded for their deeds with asylum it would seem only more hostile acts can be expected from them. If there countries are now destroyed because of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and others as a result of the threats they posed to us, it would seem that by presenting us with an existential threat that many of them still intend to carry out and are vey capable of carrying out that it is they who have sown the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind. We will also reap bad results if we in turn reward such people with refugee status.
For what its worth, while the threats posed by ISIS, Al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria to America are grave, these are not the gravest threats. The gravest threats are from Russia and China arguably the most powerful military forces on the planet and hostile to the United States.
B.poster
ReplyDeleteEdit
The gravest threats are from Russia and China ARGUABLY the most powerful military forces hostile to the United States.
I'm just glad you put (arguably) in there comrade:)
Phil,
ReplyDeleteArguably is the correct term because the only way to "know" for certain which country/countries are strongest militarily would be to actually fight a war. I've think I've made my position clear elsewhere. As such, no need to revisit the entire case at this point.
As for the term, "comrade" you may be implying a communist or a communist sympathizer. This is not correct. I have extreme dislike for communism and think it should be opposed as an economic policy for the United States and other countries would do well to oppose this model for themselves as well. In case I never made the record clear on that, hopefully I have now.
Even it my analysis elsewhere is correct regarding Russian and Chinese military power relative to the United States is correct, this does NOT mean we surrender. I think I've discussed elsewhere things that could be done. To revisit and to some of the suggestions I've made, some have suggested the US wants to break "Russia." At best, this is unrealistic. Others have suggested trying to "integrate" Russia. Russia does not want to be integrated and it cannot be forced to do so. I'd suggest a new approach. This would be looking for ways to "add value" to Russia and its leadership. This is one way people have been securing healthy relations with the powerful for centuries. Providing things of value to them.
In order to do this, this will require a new approach. We are going to need their assistance with Iran. What can we reasonably offer them to acquire this help?
Approaches such as this combined with sound defense policies should lessen the animosity between us and Russia and give us a reasonable chance to defend our country. Similar approaches should be applied with China. I think we can both agree a war with Russia, China, or both of them is something we should strive to avoid.
It will mean ad
The "security threat" argument holds up if one accepts the "context", see: narative, that creates said threat. It is difficult to see as a working person the threat posed by Iraq circa 2003, Libya circa 2011, or Syria since.
ReplyDeleteIt is apparent that "threats" are in the eye of the beholder no less than the motives for acting on them. An understanding of the context is most certainly necessary. Part of that understanding is knowing just who "we" are and what "our" interests entail.
Agreed that war should be avoided with China or Russia. The problem is that "we" have little or no say in the matter, while certain "interests" push the checker (on our dime of course). Adding value to anything except their already obscenely large bottom lines and privileges is out of the question.
In my view, the issue at hand is more a civil matter.
Regarding ISIS, al Qaeda etc., they are part of the whirlwind. These threats were and are assets. A tremendous amount of obfuscation is committed in order to hide the scent of those who nurtured them. They serve a purpose at home and abroad.
ReplyDeleteIt's apparent that those who have had the latitude to employ or run cover for the employment of said actors are just as much a threat. Calling them traitors would be incorrect as they are not acting against their own.
It is hard to imagine Russia or China as the threats you declare them to be...unless the aforementioned interests continue to antagonize them.
RRH,
ReplyDeleteI agree it is difficult for a working person to understand the threats posed by Iraq in 2003 or Libya in 2011. The working person is generally pressed for time and, as such, relies on the mainstream media for their knowledge of the world. I am a very busy person myself and can understand it takes ENORMOUS effort.
Iraq of 2003 was an existential threat to America that had enormous alliances and influence throughout the world that was likely only going to get even more dangerous for us. As such while the execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom seems to have been poor and perhaps misguided, it is not hard to understand why the governments of the United States and allied countries chose the course of action they did.
As for Libya, this one is a bit more difficult. While Libya under Khaddaffi posed a huge threat, it seems there may have been other approaches that may have worked better. It seems we may have been dragged into this one by our NATO "allies" in Western Europe. Frankly I would not be diametrically opposed to us withdrawing from NATO.
ISIS and Al Qaeda are not "assets" of the United States. These entities especially ISIS have proven to be more effective at capturing territory, holding territory, and doing it faster and more efficiently than the United States military ever could have even before it was worn down from continuing operations around the world. Now the United States could be an "asset" of ISIS and Al Qaeda as there are many people in high positions in the US government, the media, and industry who support these groups even at the expense of their own country because they wish to see America weakened.
As for antagonism of Russia and China. This goes both ways. They are antagonizing us as well. At this point, they seem to be taking the lead in the antagonizing. They are the two most powerful countries on earth militarily right now. They understand this. They are acting accordingly. Now we need to act accordingly.
I'd suggest some kind of a trade with Russia in order to get their support with regards to Iran and other threats facing the United States like Syria for example. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know some of the things I've suggested. Even with such diplomacy there is a possibility that Russia, China, or both of them will still be antagonistic towards America. In which case we are going to have to figure out how we are going to fight a war against and defeat the most powerful military, in Russia, or the two most powerful militaries on earth in Russia and China perhaps backed up by their numerous allies should they choose to invoke these alliances while we are entirely alone. I do hope and pray the folks in the Pentagon are working on this problem. In order to do so, they need to understand it even if they are not telling the media or the elected officials.
The people who posed and are continuing to pose an existential threat to America and the "west" are now seeking refugee status in Western Europe and perhaps America as a result of American and "western" actions to counter this existential threat to us. It seems morally and strategically wrong to allow these people into our countries.
ReplyDeleteIt is strategically wrong because the same people who posed the threat and continue to pose the threat will now be in a much better position to carry out their aims of destroying us. It seems morally wrong for obvious reasons. Where is the compassion for the German people or the American people for that matter> Of course with this media and the people representing us American lives are worth less than all lives while Western European lives while worth slightly more than American lives are still worth not much in their view.
If such behavior is rewarded with allowing these people into our countries, this will likely only encourage more attacks against us.
No advocate for opening the door here. My original point regarding refugees is that the interventions (we can agree to disagree for now on their legitimacy), have spawned this current migration. I was intrigued that you admitted there are those in authority in the US who have their own motives and interests which are detrimental to the country as a whole. This makes any decision regarding foreign policy suspect. For instance, how do we separate those from within who use ISIS for instance from the state in general? By extension, how would a foreign power - or citizen for that matter? If these actors are in positions of influence, then the invasions, bombing campaigns, sanctions etc must be at some level their doing. The backlash, however, is against all of us. This is one reason I believe the primary issue is civil.
DeleteThere is another facet. When we discuss German or American people we have to take into consideration their national cultures and attitudes. I believe it is safe to say, not a great majority are too terribly concerned with the activities of their governments (or the actors within or acting on them) on the world scene. If anything, they are reactive.
Did Iraq, Libya et al present threats? I ll concede yes with the proviso that they were threats to certain interests not necessarily shared by me. The big problem to me is the lack of critical assessment exhibited by the majority. The lack of understanding, or even the desire to understand that "context" you mentioned earlier.
As for lives, I see no more value in a western life than any other or vice versa. I see constant grevous harm done to others by Western interests that breeds hatred towards western people. I have difficulty believing we are not deserving in many cases. I also do not beleve every refugee is a terrorist in waiting...though I'm not interested in testing the theory until we sort out our policies.
Sorry about the multiple posts here. "A moral and responsible duty to take care of refugees..." An extremely stupid statement by Ms. Merkel to say the least. Apparently America is not the only country plagued by stupid leadership. Germany like all nations only has a moral and responsible duty to care for their citizens and when possible to care for the citizens of those nations who have been faithful allies. There is no moral responsibility to care for enemies. Many of the nations these "refugees" are fleeing from pose existential threats to America and the "west." Allowing them into our countries would only make it easier for them to carry out their plans. As such, it seems the "moral and responsible duty" would be to block their entry by any and all means necessary.
ReplyDeleteB. Poster I do take the time to read all the comments in this blog. I am always amazed that you and others take the time and energy to write a comment and/or remark to a story that I have posted. I may not always agree with you ... but I want you to know that I do appreciate that you (and others) do take the time to make your opinion known on this blog.
ReplyDeleteI concur B. poster. Merkel's comments are being broadcast throughout the Middle East and Africa, and people who want a better life are taking notice.
ReplyDeleteHere is a depressing read .... Prepare yourselves: The Great Migration will be with us for decades .... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11842760/Prepare-yourselves-The-Great-Migration-will-be-with-us-for-decades.html
This migration is also a reflection on the failure of the political/economic/social culture in the Middle East. These refugees are not fleeing to fellow Muslim countries ... they are fleeing to the West. The dangerous part is that I would not be surprise if many of these migrants are not going to give up on that culture ... and as a result we will start to see large migrant ghettoes forming in places like Germany that (with time) will even surpass the French banlieues.
Agreed on stupidity of leadership. Hard for me to divorce the leadership from the people who put them there or suffer them to remain.
DeleteAgain, I see the threat as mainly domestic. Regardless, thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me in a respectful manner. I'll keep reading and asking questions.
On the failure of Muslim countries. I have a hard time with this ad it seems to assume it happened in a vacuum. As if no external forces acted upon these societies and collaborated with certain actors to achieve certain outcomes which were not in the best interests of the people as a whole.
DeleteWhy would they flee to Muslim countries that are experiencing civil conflict, controlled by dictatorships (like the Saudis) or in the cross hairs (like Iran)? When was the last time we read about air strikes on Berlin or armour supported security incursions into Paris?
WNU,
ReplyDeleteI may not always agree with you either.:-) I do appreciate your efforts on the blog and find it very informative.
I think the same people who are broadcasting Ms. Merkel's comments throughout the Middle East are the same people who are organizing and providing for the travels of the "refugees." After all the difficulties of traversing such distances would be very difficult if not impossible to accomplish without some kind of support. I think the enemy is trying to gain an even bigger foothold in Western Europe with this.
In aiding and abetting this with her comments, Ms. Merkel is proving herself to be either 1.)dangerously naïve to reality, 2.)blind due to her ideology, or 3.) some combination of 1 and 2. I tend to believe it is 3 being much closer to 2.