Barrington, you sound like you really are living in hope.
Condescension noted, but I'd rather have some hope than none.
In your comment you say that our debt is quite small compared to other countries. Don't you think that is a bit like comparing apples to oranges? I am sure the Governments of Greece, Spain, Cypress and the USA to name a few were saying the same thing at one stage. Just because the rest of the world wants to neck themselves why should we follow them under the pretence that because they are doing we should?
The reality is that our debt is small, and it's a favorite ploy of the Liberals to exaggerate that in order to win the votes of skittish people. Also with the amount of things that previous governments **cough**Liberals**cough** have de-regulated, we are now part of that global economy. You can call "oranges and apples" all you like, but it doesn't change that the point I made is valid, and you have no counter argument.
Let's have a look at a few figures which will put things into a bit more perspective. Australia is only getting 15,000 people arriving by boat, and you're worried? Let's have a look at some other countries (which have far higher debts than here), and the amount of refugees THEY have arriving. Admittedly these stats are from 2011, but if we have seen an increase in refugees, it would be naive to presume these countries haven't also had in increase in refugee numbers:
Islamic Rep. of Iran: 886,500
Syrian Arab Rep.: 755,400
United States: 264,800
Where's Australia again? Bitching about 15,000 people trying to seek refuge in their country, and making out that it's a crisis?
You'd better tell Rudd that he's at fault for the number of refugees entering these countries as well.
I suggest for a start that we "stop the boats" so that we stop the costs associated with them, because we could have built some pretty big nation building projects with that 11.6 Billion. I can't see anywhere where the UN has directed Australia to spend $11.6 Billion on illegal immigration, you might like to shed some light on that one if you could?
Australia signed the agreement, and it has cost the country $11.6 Billion to carry out that agreement. Pretty clear cut if you ask me. I wonder if it were the Liberals which signed the agreement with the UN, whether or not your opinion would change.
Attempting to stop the boats is going to cost millions - even billions, with no guarentee that it's going to stop anything. The thing you fail to acknowledge is that you can't stop the boats. It's not a simple equation, or as Cootanee
would say: "I don't subscribe to the A + B = Z theories". You are seriously fooling yourself if you think it's that simple. Towing the boats back won't stop them from coming, and will cost millions/billions. If a boat sinks whilst under tow, what then? Would you also suggest that Australia invade the refugees' country of origin looking for people smugglers, or boats which are about to sail in order to stop them...?
I'm still waiting on you to answer some of my previous questions too.
Yes, the Liberals will have a hard time stopping the boats, but that does not excuse Uncle Kev and Labor for the bloody mess they created and why should their policy failure (Labor) reflect badly on the Liberals when they say "stop the boats" because at the end of the day someone has to stand up to the people smugglers and say enough is enough, you are not going to trash our country so you can make a quick buck
This was one of my original questions to you: what proof do you have to say that the dismantling of the "Pacific Solution" is the cause of the problem? What is the likelyhood of refugees even knowing about Australian political decisions? They are simply fleeing their country to seek refuge - which is a Worldwide trend. We're not an isolated case by a long-shot
It would appear that "Uncle Kev" has done you a big favour by sending the refugees to PNG; which going by the logic you have displayed, you should actually be applauding. As for trashing our country. How are they trashing our country exactly?
This looks more and more like a simple case of bigotry the further we go with this debate.
The Turn the boats back" phrase has a lot to do with symbolism the way I read it. Turning the boats back will symbolise to the crooks and their customers that you will not get your own way, and I personally think that is what it will probably take to get the message through.
Ah yes, symbolism. A rather naive viewpoint you have too. I love this quote from the D-Generation: "Ya know what I like about 'Strailya? You can be sexist, and racist, and still have a social life!". Tell me that quote isn't true.
Towing the boats back won't solve anything. 15,000 people compared with 1,700,000 or even 260,000 is a drop in the ocean (no pun intended). If this country can't at least help these people, then there is something seriously wrong with us.