Originally Posted by
t43562
The terrorists are getting outside support but apparently the western "I'm alright Jacks" are going to win by doing the opposite? That huge land area filling up with billions of people getting under the control of religious zealots that don't believe in birth control and somehow you think you are going to succeed by pretending your part of the planet can be ring-fenced? Wow.
That is quite the straw man argument. Where did I say 'no outside support'? Foreign aid (I'm against the cut from 0.7%) and UN-backed military activity both have a role to play, but both have their limits in effectiveness. 19 years of Western involvement in Afghanistan haven’t dampened the influence of the religious zealots biding their time for eventual resumption of power, and many would say the countries doing the intervening now bear the greatest moral responsibility for supporting the migrants and refugees displaced by that extended conflict. That pattern is likely to be repeated anywhere that society lacks the ability to resist 'terrorists' - who ultimately are simply using force to achieve political ends with which you disagree. Things don't look great in Mali either from what I can gather. As for birth control, those in control of developing countries have no incentive whatsoever to implement it as long as emigration and aid allow them to ignore the consequences of overpopulation. Change in Western societies has always been generated from within, largely in response to privations suffered by sections of the population. As long as regimes abroad can insulate themselves from such internal pressures then why should we expect anything to change? Continually intervening in non-decisive ways (realistically, the only ways possible within the legal, ethical, societal and resource constraints under which Western militaries operate) prolongs instability and drives population movement while delivering no sustainable outcome.