Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 31 May '16 06:06 / 1 edit
    Which countries are the most welcoming to refugees?
    Some writers here have claimed that only Western societies (including
    the USA) should be considered the most welcoming to refugees.
    A recent survey by Amnesty International has found otherwise.
    China, Jordan, and the ROK (South Korea) are among the ten most welcoming countries.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/19/refugee-crisis-china-germany-uk-most-welcoming-countries-amnesty-international

    "Chinese, Germans, Britons most welcoming to refugees, says report"

    Out of 27 countries surveyed, the top three (by a considerable margin) were
    1) China 2) Germany 3) UK, followed by
    4) Canada 5) Australia 6) Spain 7) Greece 8) Jordan 9) USA 10) ROK (Republic of Korea)
    Russia (increasingly nationalistic) finished last (by a considerable margin).

    Should Americans be happy or not that the survey found they are the
    9th (out of 27) most welcoming people, between Jordanians and South Koreans?

    A remarkably high number (46% ) of Chinese said that they would accept
    refugees living in their own homes. Given their terrible sufferings in the
    20th century (resulting in many refugees), the Chinese may have developed
    more empathy for refugees. In the 1930s-40s, China was a sanctuary of
    last resort for German Jewish refugees, accepting tens of thousands of
    them who had been rejected by Western countries (including the USA and UK).
    This took place when China was fighting alone against a nearly genocidal invasion by Japan.
    Later, China absorbed waves of ethnic Chinese refugees fleeing persecution
    and massacres elsewhere in Asia, particularly in Indonesia (the US-backed
    dictator Suharto approved of a general slaughter of its Chinese minority)
    and Vietnam.

    In recent years, China's most important refugee crisis concerns the DPRK (North Korea).
    Although China has an official policy of returning North Korean refugees
    to the DPRK, this should not be construed to mean that all Chinese lack
    empathy for North Korean suffering. As in any dealing with the DPRK,
    China is in a difficult position. What would happen if China were to declare
    an official policy of welcoming all refugees from the DPRK? In the first place,
    it would provoke extreme hostility from the DPRK regime, which could
    have unpredictable consequences, including possible military action.
    Second, the DPRK's border guards already have orders to shoot every
    refugee attempting to flee into China. As China's new refugee policy
    became known, millions of North Koreans might become desperate
    enough to take their chances, which probably would result in many of
    them being killed attempting to flee into China. So China may believe
    that it should attempt to discourage North Korean refugees in order to avert
    an even more terrible tragedy of them getting killed by the DPRK regime.

    One wonders what the many Chinese (46% ) who would accept refugees
    in their own homes would think about the more affluent Westerners who
    object to refugees even being allowed to live in their own communities.
  2. 31 May '16 17:19
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Which countries are the most welcoming to refugees?
    Some writers here have claimed that only Western societies (including
    the USA) should be considered the most welcoming to refugees.
    A recent survey by Amnesty International has found otherwise.
    China, Jordan, and the ROK (South Korea) are among the ten most welcoming countries.

    http://www.theguardi ...[text shortened]... affluent Westerners who
    object to refugees even being allowed to live in their own communities.
    Who cares what Chinese think about Americans, or visa versa?

    My only question regarding "welcoming refugees" is whether my country will be a better place as a result.

    Are the countries high on the list better places as a result of their policies?
  3. 31 May '16 18:47
    Russia and China are the biggest weapons supplier to Iran ,namely air defence and missiles . The biggest weapons supplier to Syria is Iran .
    So, via Russia and China the cause of the Syrian refugee status could well fall at their feet and because of that China should take in Syrian refugees .
  4. 31 May '16 19:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by phil3000
    Russia and China are the biggest weapons supplier to Iran ,namely air defence and missiles . The biggest weapons supplier to Syria is Iran .
    So, via Russia and China the cause of the Syrian refugee status could well fall at their feet and because of that China should take in Syrian refugees .
    Given his record of bigotry, Phil3000 presumably feels the UK's too welcoming toward refugees.
    And, as usual, the Islamophobic troll Phil3000 gets his 'facts' blatantly wrong.

    First of all, there has been an international arms embargo for years against Iran.
    While there reportedly have been negotiations about Iran buying SAMs from Russia,
    as far as I know, the deal has not been finalized and, certainly, no SAMS have yet been delivered.
    China has not sold arms (e.g. obsolete aircraft) to Iran since much after the time of the Iran-Iraq war
    In fact, the backbone of Iran's air force remains the American aircraft inherited from the Shah.
    Iran continues to use the F-14 Tomcat, F-4 Phantom, and F-5E fighters, long after
    they have been retired from service by the USA. Even to this day, Iran's air force
    reflects its primary heritage of American training, procedures, and equipment.

    And it's absurd for Phil3000 to insinuate the Iran has been primarily responsible for
    the refugee crises in Iraq and Syria. I would submit that the US-led invasion of Iraq
    was primarily responsible for destabilizing the region, setting into motion a sequence
    of events leading to the present crises. And Phil3000 ignores the arms being sent
    by US allies such as Saudi Arabia to the anti-Assad forces (really, the Sunni anti-Alawite side)
    in Syria's civil war. To put it simply, there's ample blame to share about Syria's civil war.

    By the way, a family of apparent Middle Eastern heritage recently became one of my neighbours.
    And I am not in the least more worried about my safety.
  5. 31 May '16 19:24
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Given his record of bigotry, Phil3000 presumably feels the UK's too welcoming toward refugees.
    And, as usual, the troll Phil3000 gets his 'facts' blatantly wrong.

    First of all, there has been an international arms embargo for years against Iran.
    While there reportedly have been negotiations about Iran buying SAMs from Russia,
    as far as I know, the de ...[text shortened]... e recently became one of my neighbours.
    And I am not in the least more worried about my safety.
    Given his record of bigotry,

    Is anyone's record of bigotry even close to yours?
  6. 31 May '16 19:40
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Given his record of bigotry, Phil3000 presumably feels the UK's too welcoming toward refugees.
    And, as usual, the troll Phil3000 gets his 'facts' blatantly wrong.

    First of all, there has been an international arms embargo for years against Iran.
    While there reportedly have been negotiations about Iran buying SAMs from Russia,
    as far as I know, the de ...[text shortened]... e recently became one of my neighbours.
    And I am not in the least more worried about my safety.
    Chemical weapons supplied to Assad's regime ?
    Russia ,Iran and China to name a few .
  7. 31 May '16 19:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by phil3000
    Chemical weapons supplied to Assad's regime ?
    Russia ,Iran and China to name a few .
    As usual, the lying troll Phil3000 cites no sources, making up his 'facts' right out of his mouth.

    "Where did Syria's chemical weapons come from?"
    --Jannis Bruehl (25 September 2013) for ProPublica (Journalism in the Public Interest)

    A US Defense Department spokesman stated that Syria's chemical weapons program was
    'largely indigenous'. But where did Syria get the technology to set up that program?
    The article cites evidence that Syria received chemical weapons technology from both
    the USSR (later Russia) *and western Europe* (largely from Germany).

    "West European firms were instrumental in supplying the required precursor chemicals
    and equipment (to Syria).... I can only surmise that greed is the explanation."
    --William Webster (then director of the CIA, in testimony to the US Senate)

    In fact, the governments of Germany and the UK admitted that they supplied chemicals
    or other equipment that Syria could have used to produce chemical weapons, though
    these governments denied knowing that Syria was going to do it.

    This article cited no evidence to support claims that China or Iran have supplied
    chemical weapons to Syria. But nothing could ever stop the troll Phil3000 from lying.

    To sum up, some western European countries evidently were complicit in Syria's chemical weapons program.
  8. 31 May '16 20:16
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    As usual, the lying troll Phil3000 cites no sources, making up his 'facts' right out of his mouth.

    "Where did Syria's chemical weapons come from?"
    --Jannis Bruehl (25 September 2013) for ProPublica (Journalism in the Public Interest)

    A US Defense Department spokesman stated that Syria's chemical weapons program was
    'largely indigenous'. But where ...[text shortened]... p, some western European countries evidently were complicit in Syria's chemical weapons program.
    Do you ( Duchess64) categorically deny that China has supplied Assad's regime with weapons or chemical weapons ?
  9. 31 May '16 21:06 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by phil3000
    Do you ( Duchess64) categorically deny that China has supplied Assad's regime with weapons or chemical weapons ?
    Of course, the troll Phil3000 wants to ignore the fact that western European countries
    (including the UK) were complicit in Syria's chemical weapons program and put the
    blame on the hated 'Yellow Peril', the Chinese.

    The troll Phil3000 likes to keep 'moving the goalposts' (to quote an Americanism that I hope will irk him).
    Now what's all this about 'weapons (OF ANY KIND) or chemical weapons'?
    I would not be surprised if there was a shop in Syria that sold a gun that's 'made in China'.
    And I would not be surprised if the shop also sold a slingshot (sarcasm) that's 'made in China'.

    According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) in 2013, during
    2006-2010, China supplied only two percent (2% ) of the arms imported by Syria.
    Syria's sources of arms were 1) Russia 48% 2) Iran 21% 3) Belarus 20% 4) DPRK (North Korea) 9%.

    Regarding allegations that it supplied industrial chlorine (which can be used for chemical
    weapons) to Syria, Norinco (a Chinese firm) denied that it had sold it directly to Syria,
    but it did not deny the possibility that Iran could have purchased industrial chlorine
    from Norinco and then shipped it (without Norinco's knowledge) to Syria.

    To sum up, China evidently has had only a minor role in supplying arms in the Syria's Civil War.
    Western arms are being supplied (including by Arab states) to fight Assad in that war.

    Does Phil3000 'categorically deny' that white men commit acts of hateful violence against refugees in the UK?
  10. 31 May '16 21:45
    The Chinese flagrant abuse of the Human rights act doesn't help your claim much .
  11. 31 May '16 21:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by phil3000
    The Chinese flagrant abuse of the Human rights act doesn't help your claim much .
    And some Chinese may eat dogs too! All this is irrelevant to the desperate racist troll Phil3000's
    absurd claims that China is largely responsible for arming forces in Syria's civil war or
    that China's largely responsible for Syria's refugee crisis.
  12. 01 Jun '16 12:40
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Who cares what Chinese think about Americans, or visa versa?

    My only question regarding "welcoming refugees" is whether my country will be a better place as a result.

    Are the countries high on the list better places as a result of their policies?
    "My only question regarding "welcoming refugees" is whether my country will be a better place as a result."
    well decent people might have one or two more questions, like "should i help a fellow human being that is in dire need" or "am i not morally obligated to help someone whose life has been ruined by something my country did?".

    you went straight for the "what's in it for me, syrian".


    "Are the countries high on the list better places as a result of their policies?"
    yes. they are better places because the people living there are willing to make minuscule sacrifices to help people in need a great deal.