Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not a joke...for once !

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
    Playing devil's advocate here (as I'm never want to do) There is a difference between a Refugee/Asylum seeker as defined by the UN and what many other countries are experiencing. A true refugee is entitled to seek refuge in countries near the place they are fleeing. At the moment we have boatloads here in Oz coming from the other side of the globe! That means, if you are a genuine refugee then the adjoining countries are your target if you want to be treated as a refugee.
    I agree with your concept here, but let's consider the example of an asylum seeker that originates in Afghanistan. Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan all boarder Afghanistan. For a person seeking freedom and to escape persecution - which of those nations could they choose. For them, they seek out a nation that has prooven itself time and time again for being able and capable of upholding the abilites to shelter and provide freedom. Australia seems to be the only nation in the area that they see able to do so. I understand that it is a bit far out, but it is a tried and true nation.

    Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
    Picking a country on the other side of the globe, then paying a people smuggler to get you there as you transit a whole stack of other contries that are not at war is stretching the definition of 'refugee' to illegal tourist IMHO.
    Again, I agree with you - but let's consider the case of the Tampa Affair - most of those people were transported via Pakistan to the sea - the onto boats then into Indian Ocean. It begs the question - what must people be fleeing so badly to be willing to pay a human trafiicer, to brave the open seas in not worthy ships and then knowingly be treated like criminals when they arrive.
    Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
      I am sorry to hear that things turned out in such a manner. I think (I know, my 'kum by ya - hug and kiss idiocracy') that even though you have a few that abuse the system - most of the time the system works. Do I think that the systems should be changed? Yes, undoubtedly so. But, am I going to say that the system is a failure? No.
      The only failure in the system that no wrong doings in the guest country can avoid getting asylum, if the claimed country of origin is just the "right one".

      I worked with the UNHCR recently at a fund raiser, and also as a volunteer and when reading some of the cases you have to be inhuman to not feel for these people. I understand that when under trauma people tend to exaggerate (as some have said that these people lie and 'work the system to stay here'), but some of the cases (one in particular where a woman from Nigeria had her entire family killed by the family that she married into, only to then have her husband torture her -going as far as dousing her with acid) are so grave that you have to wonder - why would someone fake those traumas.
      No doubt they are real asylum seekers. However, if I look at the German situation then many of our asylum seekers flee their countries to get into out social wellfare systems. "I have been traumatized in the civil war in Lebanon", well which Lebanese has not?

      While I agree with you here - I have to ask (and here I am trying to be as clear as possible, because I do not mean to be rude, but just to be inquisitive and the statement might come off as rude) what constitutes behaving like a guest?
      Simple. No criminal activities and learn the language.

      The problem here, alot of the time, is that the asylum seeker's national laws and legal systems are corrupt and/or perverted by other issues that can prevent fair and blanaced trials/pursuits of justice. As with my example above (of the Nigerian woman), the asylum seeker fled her country illegally (crossing the boarder to a neighbouring nation without a passport) becuase she was going to be tried for adultery under her state's laws. Was she innocent of the charges, she claims that she was. Was the system biased towards her family and more importantly to her husband? The statistics do proove that. So, we have to consider when and where the conviction was made, and if there is a bias involved, and also if the legal system is sound.
      However, it still is a quite strange thing, when somebody who is claiming to be wanted for drug dealing without any reason and facing the death penalty for it in his home country, is caught dealing drugs in his guest country.

      Or when another guy caught for supporting terrorist organisations is wanted for terrorism in the country he fled.

      I am convinced that such behaviours will kill the system, when they have no consequences and become regular behaviour.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
        I agree with your concept here, but let's consider the example of an asylum seeker that originates in Afghanistan. Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan all boarder Afghanistan. For a person seeking freedom and to escape persecution - which of those nations could they choose. For them, they seek out a nation that has prooven itself time and time again for being able and capable of upholding the abilites to shelter and provide freedom. Australia seems to be the only nation in the area that they see able to do so. I understand that it is a bit far out, but it is a tried and true nation.
        Oh, I don't know - just about any of the countries the Afghanis pass through have a higher standard of living and no ongoing wars to directly threaten lives. Pakistan may be stretching the bow a bit far (it's on the verge of war) but India, Malaysia, Indonesia all have better standards of living and are not engaged in wars.

        I didn't set the UN's groundrules - they defined a refugee - and it wasn't that the person could choose a country anywhere on the planet and that country is then obliged to take them. It is supposed to be the nearest safe country isn't it? And if the country is more wealthy than Afg (not hard, its probably per capita one of the poorest in the world) then any of the countries they transit through or past fits the UN definition as a target nation.

        If it were the case that refugees could just select any country, half of Africa, most of the middle east (there always seems to be some group that is marginalised and therefore threatened there)as well as large chunks of Asia as well that should be allowed to just board boats and come here? We are talking potentially about hundreds of millions of people. Australia has enough trouble supplying drinking water for 22 million let alone 10 times that amount. Plenty of these boat people are dying in boats that blow up, sink, or just vanish in the tropical cyclones. Perhaps you would suggest that we should be sending Aircraft too so they do not need to make this hazardous journey?

        Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
        Again, I agree with you - but let's consider the case of the Tampa Affair - most of those people were transported via Pakistan to the sea - the onto boats then into Indian Ocean. It begs the question - what must people be fleeing so badly to be willing to pay a human trafiicer, to brave the open seas in not worthy ships and then knowingly be treated like criminals when they arrive.
        No, I'd guess they did not go just via Pakistan, but also a few other countries. Nearly all of these refugee boats depart Indonesia. The question is why does the UN not have sufficient facilities set up in the countries adjoining these conflicts so these refugees do not have to endanger their lives in flimsy boats? And when the conflict is resolved, for them to be resettled back in their own countries? I view this as a failure of the UN on a near global scale. So as a result of the petty despots in Africa, no end of internal/tribal/civil wars over half the globe and America invading the other half to protect her own interests, Australia, a nation of 22 million should just be expected to soak up all these people who have decided they like the fact that we have worked hard to ensure that we have a stable government and bugger all corruption... I don't get it.

        A small analogy - you and your family work hard, you have through hard work and good fortune (abundant natural resources), have accumulated a decent way of life. In another part of town another family that also started 200 years ago has decided to spend their time and resources fighting internally in the family and as a result is poverty stricken. Should they be able to look out the window, choose an home that looks nice and just walk on over, claim they are refugees and expect to be let in and supported? It may be a bit harsh but it's accurate.

        Both Asia and Africa at the conclusion of WWII were pretty much on level pegging as basket cases. Something like 6 times the amount of foreign aid has been sunk into Africa and parts of the middle east yet these places are still basket cases, whereas Asia is going forward... Although I feel sorry for the people in many of these countries, sometimes you wonder why the above is the case... And whether the amount of aid the developed world is contributing will ever end.

        In one recent conflict in Africa, the UN world Food program was supplying food to pretty much the entire starving population of a country, whilst the government of that same country was buying main battle tanks and guns to fight its neighbour....

        #/rant#

        Comment


        • #34
          It's a great thing that you have never held public office. Alone, your thoughts would give MSNBC enough fodder for Rachel Maddow to retire. Oh, and as for "not attacking Germany," great analysis. Sadly, you got your MBA without ever touching a history book. Better luck next time.
          You really have been baking in the sun far too long. Each of your long winded posts are filled with Liberal Socialist BS and nothing more... Oh considering no one watches MSNBC, even if zombie Hitler was in office they’d still be losing money on that network. Oh and please enlighten us and explain one war the U.S waged that was not to protect or further U.S doctrine? Considering you failed to do so in your last post.

          As for WWII the U.S had no intent on declaring war on Germany. We went to war with Germany because they declared war on us...that’s a fact. If you also bothered to read past your Florida education (that doesn't say much) and did some research you'd learn our support of the British had deep underlying motives to forward U.S influence in the Atlantic. Our Lend-Lease agreement with the Brits never expected them to pay us back but in turn hand over key British strategic locations in the Atlantic that were far more valuable then what we gave them in durable goods. This essentially ended the British dominance of the Atlantic and turned it over to the U.S. This was the second best deal the U.S has ever made next to purchasing Alaska in terms of return on investment.

          Oh my last name...it’s clearly Italian and my family came to the U.S legally 150 years ago, learned to speak English, never took a Gov't hand out, and declared their allegiance to the U.S vs. you who hold dual citizenship. I'm rather certain if push came to shove someone like yourself would run and hide behind your other citizenship if it benefited you. So Trinny answer me this...what flag do you salute?

          Next time I'm down in West Palm I'd love to hear your ideology on America face to face.
          Last edited by tommyalf; 2009-10-20, 14:14.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
            .......As for WWII the U.S had no intent on declaring war on Germany. We went to war with Germany because they declared war on us...that’s a fact.......
            The text of the declaration of war by Germany....

            German Declaration of War against the U.S.
            The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever-increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.
            On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that American destroyers attacked German submarines.
            Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.
            The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:
            Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, (Rubbish, German submarines continually entered U.S. national waters on spy missions ) the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.
            The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.
            Accept, Mr. Chargé d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.
            December 11, 1941
            It should be remembered however, that this declaration came as a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour 4 days earlier. US involvement against Germany prior to this was simply defending national waters from submarine incursions and did not, as far as I know, involve any military outreach past such waters. In my mind, the German declaration of war was politically required to support the Japanese action.
            Ironically....if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour then there is every chance that the U.S. would not have entered the European war....and I might just possibly be typing in German now !
            Last edited by brianw999; 2009-10-20, 16:08.
            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

            Comment


          • #36
            Well, the US was neutral but only so much.

            Apart from Lend and Lease there were:

            - 1940 50 destroyers from the USN reserve are handed over to the Brits
            - US destroyers monitor movements of German ships in the Atlantic and radio their position to British and Dutch ships for interception
            - US extends neutral zone to 300nm. German ships are not allowed to enter it, british are
            - March 1941 Support Force Atlantic starts protecting convoys destined for the UK
            - March 1941 ABC Conference. UK and US agree that the Atlantic fleet will protect British ships crossing the Atlantic
            - March 30 1941 US seizes all German ships in US ports
            - May US flying boats join in the search for the Bismarck
            - June 14 US freezes German assests
            - June 30 US closes German consulat
            - July 4 US Marines replace British troops on Iceland to free them up for fighting the Germans
            - Sept 1941 after the USS Geer incidentthe "Shoot on sight oderder" is put in place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Greer_%28DD-145%29
            - Oct 1941 CL-4 Omaha captures German blockade runner Odenwald
            - Nov.10 US ships escort a convoy of 20.000 commonwealth troops in US ships
            - Nov 11 Leand and Lease for Free French
            - Nov. 13 Neutrality Act from 1939 is changed to allow US troops to enter the warzone and carry troops and weapons and use them against Germans
            - Nov 17 escort carrier Archer is given to the UK

            Without doubt the US would have joined the war sooner or later, Pearl harbour or not.

            Comment

            • Working...
              X