turn back boats policy doomed to failure

[not_an_eloi]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/barrie-on-asylum-seeker-boat-policy-dound-to-fail/4965582

anybody watch border security - australia's front line    7 network @ 7.30 last evenin'

reality   -  far from wot abbrot and cohorts would 'ave australians believe.

why's AMSA's site been gagged from givin' australians current incident reports.   hmmm ..

[acacia_pycnantha]

I haven't been scammed by any of those scammers that go under the name of Politician.

I know we can't stop the boats and I know we can't turn them back. I'm a realist.

International co-operation on refugee policy is essential.

I think it would also be helpful if we (the usual suspects) had a break from raining down missiles and destruction on their countries, creating the refugees in the first place. Our motives (and I include our allies in this) are a bit questionable at best and at worst, too horrible to contemplate.

We could do worse than refusing to participate in any more foreign wars in support of what our allies refer to as their "national interests".

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@paintsew007 wrote:

No-one in this country Govt or civilians can actually 'stop overseas boats' I suggest you all read up on the Treaties in place. A

lso read the UN papers on this issue and perhaps get properly informed.

Boy, have you all been scammed by an election compaign or what?!!

---

LOL - just LOL

Who enforces the treaties?

What actually happens if we reneg?

I have only done one semester of Transnational Law, but we did cover the treaties and our obligations thereunder and our accountability.

We can do whatever we want to do,, but we also have to take into consideration the ramifications of doing so. That's why it is such a tricky proposition.

[not_an_eloi]

yeh, coalition's conned a lot o' folk about a lot of things, for a long time.

"Coalition has reservations about refugee convention  Updated 18 July 2013, 16:39 AEST

Australia's Opposition's Immigration spokesman Scott Morrison says he has strong reservations about the United Nations Refugee Convention, but he won't say yet whether any Coalition government would remain a signatory."

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/connect-asia/coalition-has-reservations...

gist of the convo. makes it fairly clear, just wot this mob are thinkin', how far they're willin' to go, to make this    it  'appen. 

[freakiness]

---

@the*f*word wrote:

to the placces from where our assylum seekers are originating. I suggested Afghanistan as one place to start as we already have a presence there and a chance of establishing some kind of authenticity of those in danger.

---

Syria has generated a million refugees in about a month. There are about 12 million refugees across the world.

They're not just living in nice little camps somewhere waiting patiently while their children grow up without homes.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@acacia_pycnantha wrote:

I haven't been scammed by any of those scammers that go under the name of Politician.

I know we can't stop the boats and I know we can't turn them back. I'm a realist.

International co-operation on refugee policy is essential.

I think it would also be helpful if we (the usual suspects) had a break from raining down missiles and destruction on their countries, creating the refugees in the first place. Our motives (and I include our allies in this) are a bit questionable at best and at worst, too horrible to contemplate.

We could do worse than refusing to participate in any more foreign wars in support of what our allies refer to as their "national interests".

---

If we can stabilize their governments (I'm thinking Afghanistan) then it reduces the assylum seekers.

[acacia_pycnantha]

I don't think we can stabilise their governments. They have to do it for themselves. It may take a long time.

I think we can offer advice, but bombs and missiles will only create a sort of Maquis, a resistance.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@the*f*word wrote:

to the placces from where our assylum seekers are originating. I suggested Afghanistan as one place to start as we already have a presence there and a chance of establishing some kind of authenticity of those in danger.

---

Syria has generated a million refugees in about a month. There are about 12 million refugees across the world.

They're not just living in nice little camps somewhere waiting patiently while their children grow up without homes.

---

so we take some from Syria too if we can accommodate them.

Freaky, you may have missed this, but I support allowing the "boat people" into Australia. (just not the appeal system) However, our governments both now and in the past seem to think this needs to be restricted and someone back there asked for suggestions. Just throwing ideas around, that's all.

But the bottom line is, we cannot help everybody, but we can help some.

[acacia_pycnantha]

How about we just let Afgahnistan have a Taliban govt and then offer refuge only for Afghani women?

[freakiness]

---

@the*f*word wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@the*f*word wrote:

to the placces from where our assylum seekers are originating. I suggested Afghanistan as one place to start as we already have a presence there and a chance of establishing some kind of authenticity of those in danger.

---

Syria has generated a million refugees in about a month. There are about 12 million refugees across the world.

They're not just living in nice little camps somewhere waiting patiently while their children grow up without homes.

---

so we take some from Syria too if we can accommodate them.

Freaky, you may have missed this, but I support allowing the "boat people" into Australia. (just not the appeal system) However, our governments both now and in the past seem to think this needs to be restricted and someone back there asked for suggestions. Just throwing ideas around, that's all.

But the bottom line is, we cannot help everybody, but we can help some.

---

Some who are refused have been proved to have good reason to appeal.

I don't ahve the answers and it doesn't sound as if you do either.

we can't just go and sort out the areas they come from.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@acacia_pycnantha wrote:

I don't think we can stabilise their governments. They have to do it for themselves. It may take a long time.

I think we can offer advice, but bombs and missiles will only create a sort of Maquis, a resistance.

---

That's a hard one for me,, I too have my doubts.

But you have to remember that they can only do it for themselves if they are capable. (that's not the right word, but go with it, ok?) Burma have been under rule of a millitant government for more than 60 years. The gov don't want to fix the situation, they don't need or want our advice, but the Karen do. They don't need any bombs from us, they are already under bombs from their own government. landmines, bombs, shootings, confiscation of everything, property, papers etc... How do those people "fix it themselves"?

Last june, the Burmese agreed to allow some Karen to leave and cross the border into a Thai camp. They shot at them as they passed by. Killing, maiming and injuring.

I have a friend who is in the SAS and done two tours of Afghanistan, he believes they are making a difference.