That 'Caravan'

Discuss politics and current affairs here.

Hot topic: The scourge of negative gearing, Friends of the NBN and wrecking lives.  The economy and Poll tracking— all the polls. New! ELECTION 2016, Issues and Leaders

Special Feature 1: Peter Costello and our current deficits.
Special Feature 2: Dr Turnbull and the wrong NBN prescription
Special Feature 3: The Denigration of science, technology and education.
.
Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Politics is for serious discussion of politics, economics and current affairs.

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Auggie » 04 Nov 2018, 15:06

Aussie wrote:No it is not a good thing. I do not want my Navy acting illegally. No decent Aussie should. It is not Australia's decision to make as to who gets on what boat, shit or otherwise, in some jurisdiction beyond ours. People/kids dying at sea is the same sort of wafer-thin argument Howard tried when he lied about 'kids being thrown overboard' to woo the voters. Mind you, that is a bilateral thing politically now, and I don't care. It is wrong.


So if they were in Australian waters, then this would be acceptable?

The question is why are they turning away boats in international waters and not waiting for them to arrive in Australian waters? There must be a reason why the navy is doing this?
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Auggie » 04 Nov 2018, 15:12

SethBullock wrote:
You lost me. Why would I support the displacement of any indigenous people, regardless of color?


Presumably, you support the EU project, which supports mass immigration?
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Aussie » 04 Nov 2018, 15:13

Auggie wrote:
Aussie wrote:No it is not a good thing. I do not want my Navy acting illegally. No decent Aussie should. It is not Australia's decision to make as to who gets on what boat, shit or otherwise, in some jurisdiction beyond ours. People/kids dying at sea is the same sort of wafer-thin argument Howard tried when he lied about 'kids being thrown overboard' to woo the voters. Mind you, that is a bilateral thing politically now, and I don't care. It is wrong.


So if they were in Australian waters, then this would be acceptable?

The question is why are they turning away boats in international waters and not waiting for them to arrive in Australian waters? There must be a reason why the navy is doing this?


Of course there is. You must have missed where I explained it previously. If they get into our waters, and they claim asylum, we are bound to act in accordance with the UN Convention. Best way to avoid that...... intercept them (ie piracy) outside our jurisdiction, where they cannot successfully claim asylum.
User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
 
Posts: 7180
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 18:25

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Auggie » 04 Nov 2018, 15:16

Aussie wrote:
Auggie wrote:
Aussie wrote:No it is not a good thing. I do not want my Navy acting illegally. No decent Aussie should. It is not Australia's decision to make as to who gets on what boat, shit or otherwise, in some jurisdiction beyond ours. People/kids dying at sea is the same sort of wafer-thin argument Howard tried when he lied about 'kids being thrown overboard' to woo the voters. Mind you, that is a bilateral thing politically now, and I don't care. It is wrong.


So if they were in Australian waters, then this would be acceptable?

The question is why are they turning away boats in international waters and not waiting for them to arrive in Australian waters? There must be a reason why the navy is doing this?


Of course there is. You must have missed where I explained it previously. If they get into our waters, and they claim asylum, we are bound to act in accordance with the UN Convention. Best way to avoid that...... intercept them (ie piracy) outside our jurisdiction, where they cannot successfully claim asylum.


Ok, so because anyone can claim asylum and is not an illegal entrant if they do so, would you agree that the most effective way of controlling the number of people who can claim asylum is achieved by intercepting them before they reach Australian waters?
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Aussie » 04 Nov 2018, 15:27

Of course, and......it is just as effective as it is highly illegal.

What would you be saying if the Chinese Navy, intercepted, and under force of arms, prevented an Aussie Naval vessel sailing in the South China Sea (High Seas.)
User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
 
Posts: 7180
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 18:25

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Auggie » 04 Nov 2018, 15:30

Aussie wrote:Of course, and......it is just as effective as it is highly illegal.

What would you be saying if the Chinese Navy, intercepted, and under force of arms, prevented an Aussie Naval vessel sailing in the South China Sea (High Seas.)


The question you have to ask yourself is the following:

1) would you accept 10,000 asylum seekers by boat so that we don't conduct illegal activities, or would you rather conduct illegal activities so that we don't allow those 10k boats to arrive?

This is the trade-off.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby SethBullock » 04 Nov 2018, 15:41

Auggie wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
You lost me. Why would I support the displacement of any indigenous people, regardless of color?


Presumably, you support the EU project, which supports mass immigration?


I am not familiar with "the EU project", but I am aware that there has been a lot of migration to Europe from North Africa and Middle Eastern countries lately.

In general, I am not against all immigration. I believe it should be controlled, and immigrants should be vetted. I believe immigration should be to the benefit of a country, not to its detriment. I also believe that immigrants should assimilate to the customs and mores of their new country, they should obey its laws, and they should be loyal to it above any other.

European nations should not allow their western secular culture to be overwhelmed by the mass immigration of people from other parts of the world who don't share the same values.

Seth
"Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends." - Dwight D Eisenhower
User avatar
SethBullock
Pitbull terrier
 
Posts: 341
Joined: 22 Oct 2018, 13:37
Location: Oregon, USA
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Aussie » 04 Nov 2018, 15:52

Auggie wrote:
Aussie wrote:Of course, and......it is just as effective as it is highly illegal.

What would you be saying if the Chinese Navy, intercepted, and under force of arms, prevented an Aussie Naval vessel sailing in the South China Sea (High Seas.)


The question you have to ask yourself is the following:

1) would you accept 10,000 asylum seekers by boat so that we don't conduct illegal activities, or would you rather conduct illegal activities so that we don't allow those 10k boats to arrive?

This is the trade-off.


While we are a signatory to that UN Convention, the answer is an unequivocal 'yes.' I want my Country known acknowledged and recognised and admired as one if its word. If we sign up, we stick to the deal.

Having said that....if we don't want what you describe, we simply repudiate the Convention. Then, I have no point to make, but the politicians will then have to answer to its International peers, and they will not like being called what they will be called.
User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
 
Posts: 7180
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 18:25

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Auggie » 04 Nov 2018, 16:04

Aussie wrote:
Auggie wrote:
Aussie wrote:Of course, and......it is just as effective as it is highly illegal.

What would you be saying if the Chinese Navy, intercepted, and under force of arms, prevented an Aussie Naval vessel sailing in the South China Sea (High Seas.)


The question you have to ask yourself is the following:

1) would you accept 10,000 asylum seekers by boat so that we don't conduct illegal activities, or would you rather conduct illegal activities so that we don't allow those 10k boats to arrive?

This is the trade-off.


While we are a signatory to that UN Convention, the answer is an unequivocal 'yes.' I want my Country known acknowledged and recognised and admired as one if its word. If we sign up, we stick to the deal.

Having said that....if we don't want what you describe, we simply repudiate the Convention. Then, I have no point to make, but the politicians will then have to answer to its International peers, and they will not like being called what they will be called.


I agree with the first point.

On the second point, who cares what the world says about us? They'll talk about it for two days and then move on to something else.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Aussie » 04 Nov 2018, 16:11

So.....the next question is pretty predictable, Auggie. So.....if it is of zero impact, why don't we just have the balls to repudiate?

:tweed
User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
 
Posts: 7180
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 18:25

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Auggie » 04 Nov 2018, 18:15

Aussie wrote:So.....the next question is pretty predictable, Auggie. So.....if it is of zero impact, why don't we just have the balls to repudiate?

:tweed


Because we don't have the balls to do it. I have no doubt that the UN and our allies will be pissed off, but what are they going to do? Impose economic sanctions on us?
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Aussie » 04 Nov 2018, 18:44

Auggie wrote:
Aussie wrote:So.....the next question is pretty predictable, Auggie. So.....if it is of zero impact, why don't we just have the balls to repudiate?

:tweed


Because we don't have the balls to do it. I have no doubt that the UN and our allies will be pissed off, but what are they going to do? Impose economic sanctions on us?


Nothing....other than giving us a tirade of abuse about our inhumanity......ignoring, of course, the reaction inside Australia which would be significant.

Our Pollies are aware they can repudiate. They have not. That they have not, makes my point.
User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
 
Posts: 7180
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 18:25

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby johnsmith » 04 Nov 2018, 19:01

Auggie wrote:I have no doubt that the UN and our allies will be pissed off, but what are they going to do?


I don't believe it's about our allies. The Aussie govt. just loves to lecture china, Zimbabwe, Nth Korea etc on their human rights records. If we pull out of the un convention all these despots will throw it back at us every time we lecture them and we'll lose face.
The libs would much prefer we don't keep up our end of the bargain
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 6528
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Auggie » 04 Nov 2018, 20:26

johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:I have no doubt that the UN and our allies will be pissed off, but what are they going to do?


I don't believe it's about our allies. The Aussie govt. just loves to lecture china, Zimbabwe, Nth Korea etc on their human rights records. If we pull out of the un convention all these despots will throw it back at us every time we lecture them and we'll lose face.
The libs would much prefer we don't keep up our end of the bargain


Come on, you and I both know that one can't equate human rights' abuses in Zimbabwe, China and North Korea with pulling out of the Convention.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Auggie » 04 Nov 2018, 20:31

Aussie wrote:
Auggie wrote:
Aussie wrote:So.....the next question is pretty predictable, Auggie. So.....if it is of zero impact, why don't we just have the balls to repudiate?

:tweed


Because we don't have the balls to do it. I have no doubt that the UN and our allies will be pissed off, but what are they going to do? Impose economic sanctions on us?


Nothing....other than giving us a tirade of abuse about our inhumanity......ignoring, of course, the reaction inside Australia which would be significant.

Our Pollies are aware they can repudiate. They have not. That they have not, makes my point.


What do you think would earn us more disrepute? To pull out of the convention or to say no to sending operational planes to Syria??

It cuts both ways you know - we're being grabbed by the balls by the US in their imperial wars overseas, and at the same time, we're responsible for those whose homes we've bombed as a result of being grabbed by the balls.

I'll tell you: let's pull out of the UN Convention and no longer fulfill out treaty obligations with the United States. This will even the score.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Aussie » 04 Nov 2018, 21:27

As you know Auggie, I play a straight bat...so:

What do you think would earn us more disrepute? To pull out of the convention or to say no to sending operational planes to Syria??


Pulling out of the Convention. 4 operational Jet/Bombers in Syria is mere tokenism.

It cuts both ways you know - we're being grabbed by the balls by the US in their imperial wars overseas, and at the same time, we're responsible for those whose homes we've bombed as a result of being grabbed by the balls.


No, we are not being grabbed by the balls. We willingly go for the ride as we always have. I am fine with that.

I'll tell you: let's pull out of the UN Convention and no longer fulfill out treaty obligations with the United States. This will even the score.


Nah.....we actually need them far more than they need our token support.
User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
 
Posts: 7180
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 18:25

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby pinkeye » 04 Nov 2018, 21:28

Auggie wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:I have no doubt that the UN and our allies will be pissed off, but what are they going to do?


I don't believe it's about our allies. The Aussie govt. just loves to lecture china, Zimbabwe, Nth Korea etc on their human rights records. If we pull out of the un convention all these despots will throw it back at us every time we lecture them and we'll lose face.
The libs would much prefer we don't keep up our end of the bargain


Come on, you and I both know that one can't equate human rights' abuses in Zimbabwe, China and North Korea with pulling out of the Convention.


Umm are those Countries signatories.?
sleeping is good for you
User avatar
pinkeye
Jaguar
 
Posts: 2144
Joined: 01 Oct 2017, 21:59
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby johnsmith » 04 Nov 2018, 21:44

Auggie wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:I have no doubt that the UN and our allies will be pissed off, but what are they going to do?


I don't believe it's about our allies. The Aussie govt. just loves to lecture china, Zimbabwe, Nth Korea etc on their human rights records. If we pull out of the un convention all these despots will throw it back at us every time we lecture them and we'll lose face.
The libs would much prefer we don't keep up our end of the bargain


Come on, you and I both know that one can't equate human rights' abuses in Zimbabwe, China and North Korea with pulling out of the Convention.



what we know is irrelevant, it won't stop the despots trying, and other people supporting their claims
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 6528
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Auggie » 04 Nov 2018, 21:47

Aussie wrote:Pulling out of the Convention. 4 operational Jet/Bombers in Syria is mere tokenism.


So, our bombing means that we are responsible for the influx of asylum seekers, which JS and many here have stated is our obligation because of the bombing. We bomb them, and then take them in. We can't just not bomb them and and not take them in?

Aussie wrote:No, we are not being grabbed by the balls. We willingly go for the ride as we always have. I am fine with that.


Do you really believe that we could buy cheap petrol from Iran if we really wanted to? I doubt it.

Aussie wrote:Nah.....we actually need them far more than they need our token support.


Exactly, which means that a certain degree our sovereignty is eroded by demands of America.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Auggie » 04 Nov 2018, 21:49

johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:I have no doubt that the UN and our allies will be pissed off, but what are they going to do?


I don't believe it's about our allies. The Aussie govt. just loves to lecture china, Zimbabwe, Nth Korea etc on their human rights records. If we pull out of the un convention all these despots will throw it back at us every time we lecture them and we'll lose face.
The libs would much prefer we don't keep up our end of the bargain


Come on, you and I both know that one can't equate human rights' abuses in Zimbabwe, China and North Korea with pulling out of the Convention.



what we know is irrelevant, it won't stop the despots trying, and other people supporting their claims


And of course those on the Left would happily side with the despots just to stick it up our arse.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby johnsmith » 04 Nov 2018, 21:54

Auggie wrote:
And of course those on the Left would happily side with the despots just to stick it up our arse.


you'd enjoy it auggie

and don't pretend the right wouldn't jump on the despots bandwagon if the left were in govt. if the described scenario unfolded. Tell us again how they voted against the malaysia solution because they were concerned for the welfare of the asylum seekers. That one makes me laugh every time
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 6528
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby johnsmith » 04 Nov 2018, 21:57

Auggie wrote:
So, our bombing means that we are responsible for the influx of asylum seekers, which JS and many here have stated is our obligation because of the bombing


don't misquote me Auggie. You seem to be doing a lot of misrepresenting what people say tonight.

I've always said the wests bombing, of which we are a part of.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 6528
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Auggie » 04 Nov 2018, 22:02

johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:
So, our bombing means that we are responsible for the influx of asylum seekers, which JS and many here have stated is our obligation because of the bombing


don't misquote me Auggie. You seem to be doing a lot of misrepresenting what people say tonight.

I've always said the wests bombing, of which we are a part of.


No, I haven't misrepresented you. You have said repeatedly that Australia should take in refugees from Syria because are responsible in part (as part of the West, as you just claimed) for their plight.

"If you don't want refugees, don't bomb their fucking homes!" Have you not said this numerous times?

So, how have I misrepresented you? And where I have misrepresented other people?
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby Aussie » 04 Nov 2018, 22:20

Auggie wrote:
Aussie wrote:Pulling out of the Convention. 4 operational Jet/Bombers in Syria is mere tokenism.


So, our bombing means that we are responsible for the influx of asylum seekers, which JS and many here have stated is our obligation because of the bombing. We bomb them, and then take them in. We can't just not bomb them and and not take them in?

In a metaphoric way, yes.

Aussie wrote:No, we are not being grabbed by the balls. We willingly go for the ride as we always have. I am fine with that.


Do you really believe that we could buy cheap petrol from Iran if we really wanted to? I doubt it.

I don't recall mentioning Iranian petrol.

Aussie wrote:Nah.....we actually need them far more than they need our token support.


Exactly, which means that a certain degree our sovereignty is eroded by demands of America.

Disagree. Our sovereignty remains until it is taken from us. Hopefully, we can beat off (for example) the Kiwis, but if the Indians (for example,) get needy.....we are no chance without the USA.

User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
 
Posts: 7180
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 18:25

Re: That 'Caravan'

Postby johnsmith » 04 Nov 2018, 23:31

Auggie wrote:"If you don't want refugees, don't bomb their fucking homes!" Have you not said this numerous times?

yes

You have said repeatedly that Australia should take in refugees from Syria because are responsible in part (as part of the West, as you just claimed) for their plight. [/quote]
yes

Auggie wrote:So, how have I misrepresented you? And where I have misrepresented other people?


I've never claimed we were wholly responsible. ..but we play a part in it
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 6528
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest