Probably every warmonger involved. The more interesting question is whether those consequences have been accepted collateral damage or explicit strategic goals.
I've never noticed this particular narcissistic comment in the sea of all your other narcissistic comments... You should really try some narcissistic personality disorder test, you will be surprised and your friends and family will be grateful.
"Say something not in need of correcting and I won't need to correct you." Translation: Say something that conforms to U.S. foreign policy and I won't need to correct you.
No, Aesthus. You, Pork, and tshalla are all routinely wrong but in different and unique ways. I was pointing out that it is odd tshalla would be coming to Pork's defense, given that the two probably agree on almost nothing, but I know he couldn't resist the chance to try and insult me.
tsh: by "my stuff" do you mean where I made a single error in an otherwise correct post, that error was pointed out, I readily admitted to the mistake as I always do when anyone points out where I was wrong (unlike some people who never do that), and then moved on? That's what you're going to use to try and score points?
Right, and at least those refugees from China and Vietnam are rather due to purely domestic affairs. However, in the other cases recent or past interventionism has definitively been one of the driving factors.
I wouldn't say it's being simplistic. At least 15 out of the 20 entries are on this list because the source country either tried to establish its own banking system/currency or put up resistance to giving up its natural resources.
Can you back this? I would argue that for all listed countries but China, Vietnam, and Afghanistan past imperialistic "interventionism" is (also a/)the dominant driver. 19th/20th-century-imperialism is there still manifested in terms of arbitrary borders. "It's the economy, stupid!" is indeed too simplistic, IMHO. ;-)
There's a certain naive thread in western circles that assumes that everything would be great in Iran, Congo, and other countries if only they had the "right" leader. Therefore obscure U.S. actions in those countries several decades ago are the reason why they are so messed up.
Half of these countries are on the list because there wasn't an intervention or there was too little of one. Pulling out of Somalia and not going into Syria sure was a good idea, am I right?
Somalia is generally considered to be a more corrupt and less developed than Yemen. Somalia just hasn't got into the media spotlight like Syria, Yemen, and Iraq have.
I don't know how it's different today, but southern Yemen has had a large Somali population for some time (terribly vague, I know). Struggles in the north from about 2006 probably did nothing to change this. I don't know about the stuff since 2012, but I don't think it's guaranteed that there's been a significant movement back, or elsewhere, since then.
It's largely just a collection of countries in the least stable parts of the world. This leads to large population displacements going in various directions.
The population is still adjusting to the schism. They flee to whichever side of the formerly quasi-unified country that is more geopolitically or religiously compatible with them.
As an Australia who has to read about the refugee problem we have here all the time, its absolutely hilarious to me that it doesn't even make the list! Our government is nothing but a great big giant cry-baby, angry that it has to take care of... not many refugees, really.
It’s not quite the same. Syrian refugees’ culture is a lot more similar to Lebanon’s than Australia. So a smaller percentage of Australians is more noticeable and problematic than a larger percentage of Lebanese being refugees.
being a 2018 quiz is a bit outdated, the second largest refugee crisis comes from Venezuela, having almost 2 million refugees, almost a million of them in Colombia, and not as many from Afghanistan anymore that is now third.
Does anyone else find it odd that China is the largest source of refugees to the US? Obviously America has an enormous Chinese population, but I'm pretty sure the majority of them (including all of the ones I know) are here for economic reasons. Does this have anything to do with the caveat (perhaps people fleeing Maoist China in the 60s and 70s for example) or am I just incorrect in my previous assumption?
With the latest update, China is no longer the largest source of refugees to the U.S.
They are now fifth after Venezuela, Guatemala, Cuba, and El Salvador.
But the reason that there are so many from China is that many Chinese gamed the system as a way to immigrate. Since China persecutes Christians (you can argue about the extent of this), the U.S. allowed pretty much any Chinese person to claim to be Christian and use that as a basis for asylum. There were whole agencies set up to facilitate this.
Lebanon's numbers are wrong. Out of the 6 M inhabitants, only 4M are Lebanese, Armenians or legal foreign workers. Refugees from Syria (1.25M), Palestine (600K) and Iraq (~200K) make up the remaining 2 M.
Maybe it's a definitional question, in that most illegal immigrants from Mexico proper into the U.S. may not be classified as refugees or asylum seekers. As opposed to immigrants from other Central American or South American countries who are just transiting through Mexico to get to the U.S. as refugees or asylum seekers.
I'll be controversial and say that there's been an enormous movement of people into Russia from Ukraine that were involuntary movements. Make of THAT what you will.
If you want to get yourself and your family out of a warzone, then you idealy go oposite direction of the front. If the front is between you and the west, you're going east. That hasn't really a lot to do with language.
So basically a roundabout way of saying 'I'm right'?
They are now fifth after Venezuela, Guatemala, Cuba, and El Salvador.
But the reason that there are so many from China is that many Chinese gamed the system as a way to immigrate. Since China persecutes Christians (you can argue about the extent of this), the U.S. allowed pretty much any Chinese person to claim to be Christian and use that as a basis for asylum. There were whole agencies set up to facilitate this.
Here's an NPR report on the asylum mills.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/09/28/652218318/thousands-could-be-deported-as-government-targets-asylum-mills-clients
Yikes.