Another superb example of absolute drivel.  Where do you people get these crackpot ideas?

But your not putting forward any counter argument.  Why do you think it is crackpot and drivel?  I am curious.

Perhaps some facts won't go astray...
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/asylum/_files/asylum-stats-march-quarter-2013.pdf

Is that all?
Australia is ranked 49th in number of refugees taken in by any country.
Pretty petty subject... typical election hype

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG/countries/1W?order=wbapi_data_value_2011%20wbapi_data_value%20wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc&display=default

Yep... tell people what to fear, who to blame, repeat it often enough and watch the ratings/votes come in. roll

Global warming/Climate change springs to mind!

Most of your posts are inflammetry to say the least. They do not provoke any thought, they only show ignorance to the subject you are trying to add your opinion to. Post anymore more of this drivel, 2301, and I will warn you heavily. Your ignorance on this subject is offensive.

This has pretty much encapsulated the whole argument - there seems to be a hard core of people who really hate 'boat people' but they have never actually met any and they don't really seem to grasp what the issues actually are.

As I explained in another thread, I've had the opportunity to work with refugees and their situations are incredibly varied and different.  I have mixed feelings about the subject as I acknowledge there are certainly 'economic' refugees among the ones fleeing genuine persecution (I've met both kinds); the most salient issue for me is that they get dumped into the crisis accommodation system displacing Australians already homeless and creating even more strain on an already non-existent social housing system.

That in itself isn't enough for me to hate them because I always think "well if I had the chance to get out of XXX sh*thole country and come to Australia then I would probably do it too!"

This has pretty much encapsulated the whole argument - there seems to be a hard core of people who really hate 'boat people' but they have never actually met any and they don't really seem to grasp what the issues actually are.

As I explained in another thread, I've had the opportunity to work with refugees and their situations are incredibly varied and different.  I have mixed feelings about the subject as I acknowledge there are certainly 'economic' refugees among the ones fleeing genuine persecution (I've met both kinds); the most salient issue for me is that they get dumped into the crisis accommodation system displacing Australians already homeless and creating even more strain on an already non-existent social housing system.

That in itself isn't enough for me to hate them because I always think "well if I had the chance to get out of XXX sh*thole country and come to Australia then I would probably do it too!"

I have no reason to hate them and the debate is not about hate at all or stripping people of their dignity, it is about Government policy and the impact that it is having on society. I am sure some of these people would probably make better citizens than some of the home grown welfare trash.

Cootanee, I feel has been insulting at times, but I like debating and putting an opposing point of view forward, especially on topics like this so I will not let my emotions take over.

However, getting back to Don's point, can you possibly expect to run a country on compassion alone given the magnitude of the world's problems?  You know the old saying, you reap what you sow so I guess the same could be said about policies that Governments make.  Maybe if Australia lets things go the present way long enough we maybe facing problems that some countries in the world are already facing?

I know this is an emotive issue, but the people on the left/socialist side seem to be very touchy about this topic for some reason.  Is there a hidden agenda and are their intentions all that genuine?

Just a theory to throw around.

Well, I am blaming Julia AND the Labor party because their policies are clearly contributing to the problem.  They were the ones that got rid of mandatory detention, closed down off shore processing and stopped temporary protection visas and in the process sent the signal to the people smugglers and their customers that Australia is open for business if you have a wad of cash in your pocket.  You say Julia wasn't the one who told them to get on the boats...but, you don't think that their policies aren't having some effect on this crisis? Indonesia keeps telling  Australia to take the sugar off the table.

Tell me: How do the Indonesian boat people even know about the policy you speak of? I doubt very much that they even know anything about Australian policies, or even laws. They're simply trying to flee their country as quickly as possible.

What evidence do you have that proves your assertion that Labor's policies are at fault for this supposed rise in boat people making their way here? I want some proof of your claims (cite your sources in other words). You have conveniently side-stepped the fact that A) this has been a problem for years, and B) it only seems to rear it's head when there is a federal election on the way. Not a peep about boat people was heard after the last federal election, or the one before. You seem to also have avoided my reference to the Tampa fiasco - here. I have linked it for you, if you had forgotten (conveniently) about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair What about the "Children Overboard" political scare-mongering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_overboard_affair ? You have a very short, and very selective memory.

These people get onto a boat to escape something which is seriously wrong in their country. You say about off-shore processing - this depends on whether or not the Navy pick up on the boat. It's a bit late when they make it to a couple of hundred metres off the shore at Broome. Also, why can't they be processed here? If they fail the tests, then they're on the first plane back to wherever they came from. Those that are found to be genuine cases are granted clemancy to a degree (they're still tracked by government departments for security purposes).

I believe you are drawing a long bow by saying that this issue is only being brought up because of the election, really.  This issue has been festering for the last few years and why shouldn't it be an election issue, after all it is costing everyone a fortune and has major implications for the country not just financially but also for national security and social cohesion.

I'm calling bullsh*t to your claim. Using boat people as an election policy is a way for certain people trying to manipulate votes by using scare tactics. As for your other claim about boat people coming to Australia, and costing us too much money: where is your proof that they are? I want you to cite your sources, and provide concrete proof of how, and not just your word as gospel. Your claims of national security read like one of John Howard's election scare tactics. Refugees are processed, are they not? If they are found to be a risk to security, then they will be sent back to where they came from - simple as that. It won't matter who is in power anyway. Refugees will still try and make their way into Australian waters regardless.

I can't see anywhere where I have been inflammetry apart from referring to Julia as Juliar, because she has clearly lied and misled the public numerous times.  If you hold public office you are open to satire and ridicule-an underpinning fundamental of democracy. What about the names people throw at Abbott and Howard?, and why shouldn't anyone who holds public office be subjected to that no matter what party you represent?, especially if they are clearly doing a bad job.  Yes little Johnny.

So you are telling me that sending genuine refugees back isn't offensive?

Don't try and twist things around. You also forget about John Howard hoodwinking people. No GST. Never ever! You forget that he de-regulated the price of oil to world comparative prices when he was the treasurer for Fraser. He added another tax (GST) onto every other tax we have to pay, plus he is responsible for the stupid prices we now pay at the bowser for fuel. Many people out of the city don't have the luxury of good public transport, and rely on your own car to get you to work, or from point A to point B - it hits you hard in the hip pocket, I can tell you. You seem to forget about both the Tampa, and the Children Overboard Affair - the latter proven to be a total fabrication by John Howard's Liberal Party, so he could scare people into voting for him under a fake security threat...Sounds like a heap of lies so far. The endless kowtowing to the US Government was a total disgrace, and an insult to the people of Australia. Tell me: how much of taxpayers money did he waste on those trips to visit Bush at Camp David? What about the taxpayers money wasted on Peter Reith's phone bills run up by his children?

The Liberals are equally guilty of lying, and mis-spending money from taxpayers. People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

All I am doing is debating the subject, because everyone has different opinions about this topic and good on them, their entitled to their opinion and I will defend their right to it, but just because you think my ignorance is offensive, well that is subjective to say the least because I could say that about you but I refrain.  Don't you think you are being kind of dictatorial in your attitude?

You are not debating. You are simply responding because people have shot your claims to pieces, and you are trying to save face, by attempting to change tact. You have offered nothing in the way of proof for any of your claims, only denigration, and ill-informed claims with zero evidence to back them.

And yes.

If posts are reported because people find them offensive, I do get very dictatorial. It's my job here. So far, you are skating on very, very thin ice. How you respond will determine what action I take.

But your not putting forward any counter argument.  Why do you think it is crackpot and drivel?  I am curious.

Are you really serious?  
I think it's crackpot and drivel simply because it is unproven and unprovable, and in my opinion it is therefore drivel.
I did ask where he got such ideas, and heard nothing.

Your "put forward a counter argument"  is the oldest, dumbest trick in the book.  
Paraphrased, it is "I say such and such; it's now up to you to prove me wrong."
This is the standard tactic of Fundamentalist Bible-bashers, believers in a flat earth, alleged alien abductees, and similar loony mobs.
The proposition cannot have a counter argument because it had no basis in the first place.

(By the way, you mean, "you're not putting forward".
"your" is possessive;  "you're" is a contraction of "you are".)

If Howard stopped the boats, why was there a need for him to tow them back?

Under the Howard government PRECISELY FOUR, that is not three OR five boats were towed back, and not by him I might add. The point is you only need do this a few times (when safe to do so) and guess what the message will get around and create another reason, that being the chance of an expensive journey to the edge of the Australian territory and back, for people not to conduct business with people smugglers.

The towing back was only part of the solution, we had these things called TPVs, they were great, they said to the arrivals YOU can stay here (and no you cannot now mail you family out) and when the turmoil you are fleeing is sorted we will mail you home. YES 93% or whatever of the people that then arrived remained, but that is most likely beacause the NON GENUINE ECONOMIC REFUGEES got the message and never left home in the first place.

In a simplistic nutshell that is how the boats were stopped. You don't need to stop everyone, indeed there are clearly come genuines we should bring in, but those seeking a simply better life are not going to gamble wasting all of their hard earned if they think the end result most likely will involved only being returned home poorer.

Barrington Womble - you mentioned "Children Overboard", that was a particularly low point for Johnny Howard because the whole refugees thing was being exploited to maximum affect by the Liberals at that point in an effort to revive their (at that stage) poor electoral chances.  It was another classic Johnny Howard dog-whistle because the language indicated that they thought boat people were in some way sub-human and put their children deliberately into harms way to get asylum - it was designed to evoke xenophobia and it worked beautifully.  

Like him or loathe him, Johnny was a master manipulator and he was always dead on target with pushing people's hidden fear button(s), his capacity to read and interpret the public mood really demonstrated why he was such a force to be reckoned with.  The whole commentary about 'we don't want people in this country who use their children as bait and throw them off a boat' was designed to take the high moral ground against 'these people'.  There was never any evidence that what he was saying about them was true.  That and the Iraq war were particularly low points in his administration in my opinion; there's no evidence that removing Saddam has made the world a safer place, the whole thing was just a distraction in my opinion.

there's no evidence that removing Saddam has made the world a safer place, the whole thing was just a distraction in my opinion.

You have evidence that keeping him would have made the world safer?

I have a friend who is a GENUINE refugee from Iraq, came the right way through the right channels, still having next to no money, but she's vaguely gainfully employed and along with her parents is making a life in Australia. She will assure you that if not the World, certainly Iraq is a FAR SAFER place without him.

You have evidence that keeping him would have made the world safer?
I have a friend who is a GENUINE refugee from Iraq, came the right way through the right channels, still having next to no money, but she's vaguely gainfully employed and along with her parents is making a life in Australia. She will assure you that if not the World, certainly Iraq is a FAR SAFER place without him.

The opinion of your friend is valuable in terms of life in Iraq, but nobody can say more than that.

Removing Saddam was a good result done illegally - many would say that the end justified the means, but I don't agree.  The USA, or any other country for that matter, has no right to invade a sovereign country and remove its leader. The first excuse was WMD's, and when that was proved to be incorrect, it became the war against terrorism, regardless of the fact that Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq up to that time. Then the final excuse was the removal of Saddam.  None of these excuses justifies an invasion.  There are many leaders who would look good in pine boxes but it's the business of the particular country.

The opinion of your friend is valuable in terms of life in Iraq, but nobody can say more than that.

Removing Saddam was a good result done illegally - many would say that the end justified the means, but I don't agree.  The USA, or any other country for that matter, has no right to invade a sovereign country and remove its leader. The first excuse was WMD's, and when that was proved to be incorrect, it became the war against terrorism, regardless of the fact that Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq up to that time. Then the final excuse was the removal of Saddam.  None of these excuses justifies an invasion.  There are many leaders who would look good in pine boxes but it's the business of the particular country.

Okay then, again, a question Nura often poses to those like you who question the action to remove him. How would have legally removed a despotic leader, known to have used weapons (including of the chemical type) against his own people? Here's a hepful hint, an organised, democratic vote of the public was not going to have a chance of happening.

There is no legal way for any other country to remove him.  Unfortunate, but true.
I think I'd better leave it at that because I fear I am getting off topic.

There is no legal way for any other country to remove him.  Unfortunate, but true.
I think I'd better leave it at that because I fear I am getting off topic.

So you would have us leave those poor Iraqi (or whatever) people not aligned to Saddam's (or whomever's) wishes as lambs to the slaughter? Or perhaps we should be just mobilising whole communities and hundreds of thousands of people to flee? Are you aware that some of the Kurdish people it is known Saddam chemically attacked were on the way out of the country? Sometimes the end does have to justify the means, and after my long conversations with Nura about life in Iraq under Saddam I thoroughly agree that this was one of those cases. Even she thinks the actions taken were right, and she and her family had to flee the conflict zone.

Another thing I forgot, whilst they literally fled with only what they could wear and carry, Nura had no passport, she had no need for one, and probably wouldn't have been issued one anyway. Yet the family still made sure they were carrying birth certificates and other documentary items proving their identities and guess what? Being legit, NOT ONCE did they consider not having the documents with them.

So you would have us leave those poor Iraqi (or whatever) people not aligned to Saddam's (or whomever's) wishes as lambs to the slaughter?

Nowhere did Valvegear say that. He was simply pointing out the legal position.

Sometimes the end does have to justify the means... this was one of those cases.

Possibly...

You have evidence that keeping him would have made the world safer?

I have a friend who is a GENUINE refugee from Iraq, came the right way through the right channels, still having next to no money, but she's vaguely gainfully employed and along with her parents is making a life in Australia. She will assure you that if not the World, certainly Iraq is a FAR SAFER place without him.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.  The premise for removing him was flawed, end of story.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.  The premise for removing him was flawed, end of story.

How is that my opinion?

How is that my opinion?

Your point is right, I can't prove that keeping Saddam would have been safer or less safe.  So we don't know, that's all in the ether.

However, saying that Saddam had these stupid chemical weapons trucks was clearly a lie, as was any intent to acquire the bomb.  And that lie formed a substantial pillar for going to war against him, invading their country, inadvertently killing thousands of civilians.  The stupidity reached its climax when there were numerous bullcrap attempts to link Saddam to September 11 or Al Queda.  That's when you knew for sure they were grasping at straws.

Pakistan has the bomb and they have in the past regularly threatened third parties with it.  Why didn't the morally just USA (with Johnny Howard in tow) go in to remove the dangerous nuclear-armed military autocracy there?  As it turns out, they were actually HIDING the Al Queda leader.  I don't believe the CIA didn't have a clue about that.

What about Israel?  What about Iran? How do you actually meet the criteria for a US invasion?  Obviously having the weapons of mass destruction and threatening others with it isn't sufficient.

Your argument that removing Saddam made the world a safer place doesn't hold any water, Aaron.  The answer is out there in an alternative universe where Bush decided against an aborted attempt at a populist war, a distraction from the failure to respond properly to September 11.

No attempt was made by the international community to remove Hitler until he invaded Poland, nor Mussolini. Stalin and Kim died of natural causes without the west intervening. Pinochet got a mention in a recent thread on Margaret Thatcher, not for military intervention. The Taliban only got removed from Afghanistan because they were harbouring bin Laden in late 2001. The Americans supported bin Laden when he was attacking the Soviet Army.

Removing leaders because they've been described as "despotic" is not something that's normally done.

Don, either you can't read, or you answer questions like a politician (as per your namesake), that being by not answering them.

Your argument that removing Saddam made the world a safer place doesn't hold any water, Aaron.

Where was that MY argument? And further to my previous question, what in your quote was MY opinion?

No attempt was made by the international community to remove Hitler until he invaded Poland

And prior to Poland what in the grand scheme of things had Hitler done? Aside from beginning to re arm Germany the scale of which was not appreciated by the Versailles signatories, not a great deal to warrant an invasion or declaration of war.

The Austrian Chancellor invited the Germans in, there was no invasion there, and the Sudetenland of Czechoslavakia was GIVEN to the Hitler's Germans in the Munich Agreement which I recall was signed by France, the Italians (for what that was worth) and none other than Neville Chamberlain on behalf of Britain. Hitler moved to occupy accordingly, to say Hitler invaded the Sudetenland is to draw a misdirected bow.

Aaron, to refresh your memory from yesterday (further up this page), you were arguing that you knew personally an Iraqi who had assured you that the world was a safer place without Saddam.  You appeared to be endorsing what she had said; you and your friend therefore have opinions that the world is 'safer' without him. I am not convinced - after the invasion they conclusively proved there were no WMD's remaining in Iraq.  Saddam was actually telling the truth that there were no WMD's remaining in that country.

Therefore, you and your Iraqi friend have an opinion (not really backed up by the facts) that the world is safer without Saddam.  If you can PROVE that the world is safer without him, then by all means please enlighten the rest of us.  They went through Iraq after the war with a fine tooth comb and still didn't find any evidence of an immanent threat against any third parties but perhaps you have the missing evidence in your possession?

You appear to forget quickly what you have written previously; perhaps you need to do some short courses in philosophy so you can better develop your arguments.  I would recommend something like a foundation course in epistemology or something similar.

The Gillard and Rudd speeches for tonight's "peaceful" transfer of power do not seem, AFAIK, to have mention the boat people issue.

Problem solved!

Aaron, to refresh your memory from yesterday (further up this page), you were arguing that you knew personally an Iraqi who had assured you that the world was a safer place without Saddam.  You appeared to be endorsing what she had said; you and your friend therefore have opinions that the world is 'safer' without him. I am not convinced - after the invasion they conclusively proved there were no WMD's remaining in Iraq.  Saddam was actually telling the truth that there were no WMD's remaining in that country.

Therefore, you and your Iraqi friend have an opinion (not really backed up by the facts) that the world is safer without Saddam.  If you can PROVE that the world is safer without him, then by all means please enlighten the rest of us.  They went through Iraq after the war with a fine tooth comb and still didn't find any evidence of an immanent threat against any third parties but perhaps you have the missing evidence in your possession?

You appear to forget quickly what you have written previously; perhaps you need to do some short courses in philosophy so you can better develop your arguments.  I would recommend something like a foundation course in epistemology or something similar.

I have no opinion of the state of the world with and without, my post was about my friend's testimony of her experiences, I have had no such experience and hold no opinion.

Perhaps it is you that needs to do some thinking, do you believe that reporters publishing comments and quotes automatically hold an opinion? Especially one in agreement?

If so you must be a confused person.

I spoke to Julia Gillard last year, she said that Labor were doing a terrific job, if you were to speak to her she would assure you that we're better off under her than ANYONE else. - Having posted that you must surely conclude that is my opinion too, but surely you must realise that is not the case.

...

Cootanee, I feel has been insulting at times, but I like debating and putting an opposing point of view forward, especially on topics like this so I will not let my emotions take over.

...

Actually I haven't intended to be insulting to you even if some of the views you align to are simplistic, popularist and fail any detailed analysis.