Turnbull and Trump
Happyas, not sure what Merkel has got to do with this but if you want to bring up the European migration issue then maybe you should read what the EU is finally doing about it. Merkel et al, can only sit back for so long while hundreds of refugees are dying in the quest to migrate. Have a look at what Italy is doing, how Libya is managing this. Maybe 'crap' to you but some people care about the lives.
Fecking disgrace. Rich countries with heaps of land. Shelter feed then educate. Trouble makers put in prison with support network. You can justify and label them all you want but they are human beings just like us. Imagine if the ones you love were forced to live like this. As I said before, when you die you only get posed one question, did I love? Be nice to be a bit more loving on this issue wouldn't it!!!
TB. i brought up merkel to show what an actual humanitarian response is and to not be fooled by our govt's rhetoric and mantras about saving a few lives in our little patch of green, only to ignore the real world and where else those refugees might end up. i am not in favour of refugees needing to migrate long distances such as australia and im not opposed to protecting our borders, HOWEVER i dont fall for the rhetoric and garbage our govt's deliver us about "saving lives". if they actualy cared about that they would have upped resettlements to something well above 12,000.
What did you do on Nauru Inzider? Were you an advocate for a New Zealand NGO aligned with the UNHCR or were you a sub-contractor with Serco drawing a hefty salary and distance allowance off the back of the Australian taxpayer?
Tell us about your travels to the Gaziantep camp or maybe Zaatari? Did you listen to their stories too?
And I'm guessing you're writing all this from your batch just outside of Gisborne and not evil Australia. You wouldn't dare take one cent from those filthy Aussies 'eh?
Hypocrite.
You seriously are a knob who knows fuck all about offshore detention.
for starters "Serco" have nothing to do with Nauru
Secondly I was in construction building facilities for the people of Nauru and asylum seekers. Thirdly Employed by a NZ company thanks
Alright pole-smoker, Broadspectrum (formerly Transfield) apologies.
So I'm guessing your un-named NZ company was a non-profit funded by the NZ taxpayer and not sub-contracted by the Australian government?
edit: I get it now, you were being ironic.
Only one thing worse than a hypocrite and that's an ignorant hypocrite.
Fucking keyboard hero, you should stop, you're giving kiwis (a country of which I'm very fond of) a bad name.
https://m.
Ha ha classic.
Spot on.
Anyway, if you go back over my previous posts, I wasn't arguing either way, my issue is the way you speak to people and whether you actually speak to people like that face to face or just from the safety of your keyboard?
Well ignorance is zen , now thats ironic you muppet.
Couldnt give a fuck if i was giving my country a bad name on a second rate website you twat.
Hypocrite you say, what have you done for the refugees on Nauru fuck head
You answer my questions first?
I'll make it easy-
Did you take an Australian taxpayer funded wage whilst working in any capacity on Nauru?
And I'll answer your question-
Specifically refugees on Nauru? Nothing.
But you know nothing about me or what else I've done with my life. I'd like to add, apart from whatever it is that you did on Nauru, what have you done for the refugees on Nauru that you didn't accept payment for?
Inzid, you may wish to become aware of but again, lives are lost at sea - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/refugee-crisis-migrant-bo...
Now, sure Nauru, Manus where ever may not be the best solution but people are still alive. They can live. Maybe in the US, maybe elsewhere but not at the bottom of the ocean.
Supplied learning materials for refugee children.
A laptop and extrnal harddrive loaded with educational stuff.
Baby clothes.
Work boots and clothes
Sunglasses
Kitchen utensils.
A telescope.
Legal help.
Cash.
Friendship.
Hope.
There is a reason the refugees liked the kiwi workers and called us number one over the oz workers. We treated them like humans not animals. One more thing. Fuck you. Yeah I would say it too your face.
I'm done wasting my time with fuck tards. I'm out
It's a pity you have a very bias view on the issue Inzider and seem too just want to abuse people, it would have been great to have an insight of Nauru from someone that has been there from a neutral position.
Nobody here has denied that the situation these poor people face is a complete fuckup and I challenge you to point out where it has been said. My issue is with the way you talk and the cowardly abuse you sling from the safety of your keyboard.
So you tossed these poor souls some second hand stuff in your capacity as a fly in worker? I have to give you credit for that. But, you still haven't addressed my question. Were you getting paid by the Australian taxpayer vicariously through your un-named NZ company?
Pretty much evey single person here has provided these poor people with clothes, food, shelter, computers, phones, medical care, legal representation, education and a myriad of other things they would not get from another country. You think you can take the moral high ground and besmirch every Aussie as heartless keyaunts to use one of your slurs, because of the failings of our goverment? A few Aussies might have a whinge about it but most not, but you think you can tar everybody with the one brush because of your narrowly skewed field of view?
I'm done too, can't waste anymore time on a wanker like yourself.
BTW, this aint no second rate website. This is a fucking great website that people work very hard in providing, that allows people like yourself to have a voice no matter how offensive you are to others.
Zen my man......... Pour a cold one..... Chill....... Recalibrate..... refresh......
Anyhooooooooo very interesting fuckery to come back to.
And yet again amongst all of this bullshit, something I have to point out time and time again has not even surfaced.....The fact we are bombing... the fact we are causing part of this world wide disgrace....
I'll say it till the end of days...... if YOU JOIN A WAR, you should morally give asylum to civilians...... Anyone who disagrees with this simple code, take it up with Geneva.
Get a hold of last Mondays 4 corners.... watch it....
In the meantime, Australia is bombing water supplies in Mosul;
"RAAF pilots have hit IS fighters, car bomb factories, artillery positions, weapons caches, tunnel entrances and WATER SUPPLIES across the city since October, when Iraq and its coalition supporters launched their offensive."
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-bombers...
And it was only a few months ago Australian bombers fucked up, and killed 100 allied troops.....
So everyone can waffle about "queue jumpers" or "boat people" or "illegals" or the THOUSANDS coming here on planes ( obviously have more money than the ones who can only afford a boat).. Bottomline, your taxes are paying for the bombs... And if you have no problem paying for bombs and destroying drinking water in a city full of civilians, you really shouldn't get your knickers in a knot over people fleeing to wherever they can, however they can....
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/34795.html
Out of the goodness of their hearts !
Sheepdog Refugees that come by plane fall into two categories.
1. Those that have applied for resettlement and have been approved and arrive with a visa to allow them to resettle.
2. Arrive on another type of visa, such as a tourist visa or even possibly a visa to work, once they are in Australia they then apply for a protection visa.
It doesn't matter how much money a refugee has, if you are a refugee(or anyone else) you CAN NOT just turn up by plane (or boat) without a visa, it rarely happens because when it does happen they are returned to their departure point at the expense of the airline that allowed them to come to Australia.
That's why refugees who can be very well off and do have passports enter via boat, I'm sure many try first to get a tourist visa etc but the government has made it much harder for people from these countries to get tourist visas.
BTW, Your argument is only half true at best.
1. Because not all refugees come from the result of wars they also become refugees for other reasons, such as famine, natural disasters, persecution.
2. they often become refugees from conflicts that the west has little to no involvement in like in Sri Lanka for example.
3. Although I'm sure there are many cases where our involvement in conflicts results in more refugees, our involvement in many conflicts also helps prevents more refugees, because basically the bad guys win and push all the minority groups out of the country and they all become refugees. (obviously this is what would happen if ISIS was allowed to do as they wish)
BTW. I still have a problem with our taxes paying for conflicts in these countries.
Pure waffle, Indo..... Fact - most asylum seekers come by plane.
Fact - most asylum seekers come from war
Fact - mosta asylum seekers who make it to Australia come from wars we are involved in.
I could supply links AGAIN... But I give up on you, man.
Cheers
We are told America will soon accept approximately 1250 refugees from Australian run offshore camps.
We haven't been told the full details of the deal but its rumoured that we will take refugees/people from Costa Rica in return.
It is also now being suggested that Australia will be asked to put troops on the ground in Syria to help out America.
Question: Is it too high a price for Australia to pay to America (to solve what many would describe as an internal political problem) if we accept refugees from America AND we are asked to put troops on the ground in Syria? At what point do we say no deal to America?
GS, you reckon any refugee does not want to go to the US ?
TonyB, I think its reasonable to say a good many will relish the prospect of settling in the US, subject to the (plus/minus) realities on the ground in Trump's America.
But my question was about the price Australia will be asked to pay. At what point do we say no to the US? Troop deployment in the Middle East for example or some sailing in the South China Sea?
What do you think? where should the line be drawn?
"Fact - most asylum seekers come by plane"
Yes all with visa's to be resettled or technically they don't enter as an asylum seekers or refugee they basically lie and arrive on a tourist visa or other visa then as i said before apply for a protection visa once here.
Technically speaking now, 100% of refugees resettled in Australia come by plane as we don't resettle those that try to enter Australia by boat
Policy on how we deal with this issue is the number one factor on how many refugees try to enter Australia by boat.
Basically if you put a welcome mat out they will come, if you put a no entry sign up, less will.
If you look at the graphs which shows policy and boat arrival numbers you can clearly see how policy influences this and you can see how quickly it influences it.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/BoatArrivals.gif
In 2011 we went from about 4.5 thousand refugees to 17 thousand in 12 months, then by 2013 we hit over 20 thousand per year, there is absolutely no reason this could not have kept rising, if PNG solution and boat turn back scheme were not brought in.
BTW Around the same time 2012-2013 we resettled just over 13,000 refugees, all came by plane.
2,207 through our onshore resettlement program so they arrived on other visa, they came from Pakistan=382, Egypt=342, Iran=309, Libya=192, China (PRC)=144, Iraq=100, Afghanistan= 85, Lebanon=64, India=59, Papua New Guinea=53
11,016 through our offshore resettlement program, Afghanistan=2,754, Iraq=2,364, Myanmar= 1,819, Syria=1,007, Bhutan=507, Iran=431, Congo (DRC)=326, Eritrea=277, Somalia=237, Ethiopia=231 Other=1,073
http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/hum...
Yes most refugees come from war, but not all, and as you can see above we were not involved in conflicts in many of these countries, and even if we were it doesn't mean our actions produce more refugees, in some case yes, but in many cases quite the opposite.
indo. how many syrian refugees have we taken in total since 2011?
Sorry no idea, why?
But Syria is just one place refugees come from, yes in the last few years a huge amount, but does a newly become refugee from Syria deserve our help or resettlement more than a refugee from another country?
Especially those that have been refugees for years, sometimes even up to 15 to 20 years.
Ideally like anything in life things should come to those waiting the longest or those in most need.
If the need is same or similar then it should come down to who has been waiting the longest.
"does a newly become refugee from Syria deserve our help or resettlement more than a refugee from another country?"
we cant be everything to all refugees, and nor should we try to be. for example its not our fault if an african country migrates due to draught or food shortage. however airstrikes are known to compound civilian fear and that results in refugees. its clearly our responsibility as a priority over other refugees.
Change the record. Ain't this thread called TURNBULL & TRUMP? Hmmm, maybe we should add PAULINE, ABBOTT (Again!? Doesn't that guy ever shut up)...oh, and BENITO.
"As the 1930s opened, Mussolini, seated safely in power and enjoying wide support from the middle classes, undertook to shape his regime and fix its image. Italy, he announced, had commenced the epoch of the "Third Rome." The "Fascist Revolution," after the French original, would itself date civilized progress anew: 1922 became "Year I of the New Era"; 1932, Year X. The regime called itself the "Corporate State" and offered Italy a bewildering brood of institutions, all splendidly titled but sparsely endowed. For if the rhetoric impressed, the reality denied.
The strongest economic groups remained entrenched. They had put Mussolini into power, and they now reaped their fruits. While they accumulated unprecedented economic control and vast personal fortunes, while a class of nouveau riche attached itself to the regime and parasitically sucked the nation's blood, the living standard of the working majority fell to subsistence. The daily consumption of calories per capita placed Italy near the bottom among European nations; the average Italian worker's income amounted to one half his French counterpart's, one-third his English, and one-fourth his American. As national leader, Mussolini offered neither solutions nor analyses for Italy's fundamental problems, preferring slogans to facts and propaganda to hard results. The face of the state he indeed refashioned; its substance he left intact. The "new order" was coating only.
Il Duce ruled from the top of this hollow pyramid. A consummate poseur, he approached government as a drama to be enacted, every scene an opportunity to display ample but superficial talents. Cynical and arrogant, he despised men in the same measure that he manipulated them. Without inspired or noble sentiments himself, he instinctively sought the defects in others, their weaknesses, and mastered the craft of corrupting them. He surrounded himself with ambitious opportunists and allowed full rein to their greed and to their other, unnameable vices while his secret agents compiled incriminating dossiers. Count Galeatto Ciano, his son-in-law and successor-designate, defined Mussolini's entourage as "that coterie of old prostitutes." Such was Mussolini's "new governing class."
Hello! Anyone home?
Ring any bells?
Happy, Even if your going to take that view, I'm sure the refugees from places like Iraq, Afghanistan etc don't agree that they should be ignored, especially when there is suppose to be no queue.
The Age is reporting this morning that arrangements are currently being made for our man Mal to travel to the US for a photo opportunity with Trump on a US battleship.
That's not an image I want to see, worrying really, why on a battleship? perhaps the true nature of our "end of the bargain" is coming to light for the US solving our most toxic of domestic political problem.
The Australian navy must be really relishing sailing through the South China Sea any day soon (although I'm reliably told my my ex-navy mates our submarines would already be there).
If you haven't seen this yet it's well worth a look ..... very chilling editing at 2.17
So, my question went unanswered yesterday: What price should we have to pay the US for this refugee deal? e.g. what if it meant a troop deployment or adventure in the South China Sea? Is it still a good deal for us?
My, how jealous Tones must be. Cue: extra sniping.
As for your query, Smiley...all the way with Donald J!
The LNP cringes again!
GS, the US refugee deal is a great deal for the refugees and that's what matters.
TonyB, A good deal for the refugees would have been to go to NZ or Australia although neither were seemingly possible because of Australian domestic politics. While the refugees are now going to a first world country and their prospects should be good my question remains. The US have helped us out of a toxic domestic mess but what if that means we are tied to the US on some military folly? our foreign policy position becomes more not less dependent on Trump's America? Australian military personal lose their lives? at what point do we say we should have done something different? In a sense all of this is rhetorical because we will now not the answers until its too late.
GS, seems only you can answer your rhetorical question ... 'what if...'
GS I hope we get some leadership on this issue because we're already expected to take their deathtrap F-35's just because it's political.
Its interesting that those in favour of this refugee deal with America are either unwilling or unable to offer a personal opinion on the cost to Australia of that deal; potential or otherwise.
GS, don't want to sound flippant, but did you not ask a 'rhetorical question'. You have answered it. Maybe check your dictionary.
TBarber, my questions above and specifically my last comment wasn't primarily directed at you, there are many here that support the refugee deal but the precedent setting nature of you not offering an opinion on a Swellnet forum topic is duly noted. I would still like to hear from others on the nature of our deal with the US and the price we might be asked to pay.
If USA really want us to put troops somewhere, we don't need to do any refugee deals for that to happen.
We do what USA wants us to do no matter who is in power, if we ever say no? it would only be once in a blue moon.
indo. considering we were involved in both the Iraq war and war in Afghanistan then we have a duty to those refugees also.
so how many syrian refugees have we resettled in total?........about 2000. but didnt we promise 12,000?
sorry dude, but that pathetic in anyones book.
I do agree on that one, the government should never have promised/announced the resettlement of these refugees if they were never going to do it.
They need to show they are happy to accept and process refugees who go through the channels we accept and do it as quickly as possible.
For those here interested in where grubby alliance deals with the US can get you there is an investigative article in the Age today on why Australia went to war in Iraq.
" ...... A newly declassified report obtained by Fairfax Media reveals Australia's role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq was undertaken solely to enhance our alliance with the US. ....."
More lies that Howard has to answer for and what will be the price paid for 1,250 refugees?
Yes reading that Age article , brings home do we blindly trust our politicians in times of war and the politics involved to get the peoples support?
Its the same right now with Trump and Turnbull , well all politicians , spouting , versions of what they think we want to hear through fear and exaggerated reporting , to achieve their short term political gains , for their respective party's not the overall good of the nation.
http://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2017/iraq-dossier/
sharkman: could we say that war is another type of commerce, one where lives lost is the currency?
sadly PB , yes , we only have to see in our lifetime the pillaging by Corporations and governments , and the lives lost just never seem to be any of the ruling elite or their financial supporters , damn starting to sound like a bloody commie , and yes I do hide under the bed!
Communism was an honourable cause, many died in the defence of it. All they wanted was to share the wealth, they being the ones who were eventually enslaved by their communist leaders.
Now we gave democracy, lately threatened by fascism, and always under the yoke of capitalism.
Meanwhile, I have an I T job application to make tomorrow that is promising $150 per, plus travel.
Surf's up they say.
Yes communism as an ideal was/is an honorable cause , but humans seem to be able twist and pervert anything so that it suits their personal needs which leads to an elite class no matter what noble systems we try to put in place , hence the need for checks and balances , which often means regulations that are the tool by which we try to implement and safeguard our institutions such as democracy , which as you so rightly point out is tending towards fascism and ol Donald seems to be trying to become the ultimate leader/Dictator, without having to answer to anyone.
It s actually become a bit of a comedy that someone who is illiterate , and a narcissist , has gotten so far , which is really a sign of the apathy that exists currently in Democratic society's , having said that the elimination of Lobby groups within democracy should be what we all should be rallying against , which is the cancer of our current system!
Good luck with your job interview , and may the bluebird of fascism not shit upon you!!
Coming from a family that lived under Communism, I suggest those that wish to support it, spend time review the recent history of Russia and the current Chinese system.
..." but humans seem to be able twist and pervert anything so that it suits their personal needs ....."
No truer words uttered on Swellnet
.