Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Post inauguration Trump:

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Anywhere, I don't care I don't care I don't care

PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:30 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I’m not sure there’s much point in arguing against borderline-illiterate websites, but that headline alone contains two obvious falsehoods:

1) It’s no secret that much of the American ‘left’ (like most Americans) is heavily US-centric and pays little attention to world events. But progressives with any awareness of world affairs have been concerned about the Erdogan regime for years now. The Guardian, for instance, has run numerous critical articles about the regime of late, and reported on this wall over four years ago, when Donald Trump was still just another airhead on Twitter.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/08/turkey-new-border-wall-kurds-syria

To suggest that ‘the Left’ are hypocrites here is to imply that they are denouncing Trump for seeking to build a border wall while applauding (or at least turning a blind eye to) Turkey’s attempts to do the same. But I know of no leftists – not even on the Putinist ‘alt’ fringes – who are anything other than horrified by the Turkish regime and nearly everything they’re doing right now.

2) The idea that Turkey, a majority-Muslim country with an increasingly Islamicised government, is “keeping out Muslims” is obviously ridiculous on the face of it. So who are they actually keeping out? They say that it’s to stop smuggling, and that may be part of the reason; but the two groups they’re really trying to block are a) Kurds and b) refugees. Kurds belong to a range of religious groups, including Islam and Christianity, but also many others like Yadizism that are considered heretical by mainstream Muslims; and Kurds have traditionally been oppressed and treated as second-class citizens within Muslim-majority countries. At any rate, their religious beliefs have little to do with the reason Turkey is so set on keeping them out; the real reason is Kurdish nationalism, which Turkey has always seen as a threat due to the large Kurdish population within their southern border. I’m guessing the main purpose of the wall on this front is to isolate Turkish Kurds from their allies in Iraq and Syria.

The other reason is the large amount of refugees crossing the border from Syria. Now, before you stand up and applaud this – I know that our government has more or less normalised treating refugees like shit now and that you’re all for it – keep in mind that Turkey borders Syria. Besides Lebanon and Jordan, other countries now with huge refugee populations, these people fleeing the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria (the constant bombs, the gunfire, the disease, the loss of basic resources and any semblance of functional life) have nowhere else to go. At least Mexicans crossing into the US are merely economic migrants; what Turkey is doing here is likely far worse. But of course Trump and his supporters here would be the first to applaud them for it, regardless of the human cost.

_________________
Past the pub that wrecks your body, and the church, all they want is your money; the Queen is dead, boys, and it's so lonely on a limb...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
thesoretoothsayer 



Joined: 26 Apr 2017


PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:13 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Countries have a legitimate right to secure their borders and to decide who enters their territory.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Oxford, England

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:12 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

thesoretoothsayer wrote:
Countries have a legitimate right to secure their borders and to decide who enters their territory.


Indeed, it's amazing how things which were once completely accepted and understood have been thrown in the hazard. If you cannot, do not and will not controil that as a country, what can you hope to control ?

Regrettably, the UN refugee convention has been so widely abused that it is time to abandon it. We should take refugees, but it should be a matter for parliament and organic law, not a treaty obligation. Unfortunately, a very good and decent humanitarian principle has been despoiled by those who pretend to higher compassion.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Anywhere, I don't care I don't care I don't care

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:20 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Unless you think you can eradicate war and natural disaster, refugees have always and will continue to pour over borders in times of crisis, particularly the immediate one (as Turkey is for Syria). Most countries can do little to stop it, in any case; but if you think protecting the border at all costs is a moral imperative, then the only question is how far you'll go to do it. I would have once presumed that most of us would draw the line at landmines and shoot-on-sight commands, but hey, it's a brave new world, isn't it.
_________________
Past the pub that wrecks your body, and the church, all they want is your money; the Queen is dead, boys, and it's so lonely on a limb...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
thesoretoothsayer 



Joined: 26 Apr 2017


PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:17 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's say you're Israel.
You have a small population and millions of Africans want to come to your rich country.
Do you do the "moral" thing and let them all in, thus changing the demographic and religious identity of your nation, or do you keep them out?
Maybe the "moral" thing to do isn't always the "right" thing to do?

Israel has "the right, as in every country, to supervise our borders and remove anyone who is here illegally," Netanyahu said.
He added that Africans who have arrived in recent years “posed a real threat to the future of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/02/israel-african-refugees-youre-not-welcome/804628001/
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Oxford, England

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:53 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Unless you think you can eradicate war and natural disaster, refugees have always and will continue to pour over borders in times of crisis, particularly the immediate one (as Turkey is for Syria). Most countries can do little to stop it, in any case; but if you think protecting the border at all costs is a moral imperative, then the only question is how far you'll go to do it. I would have once presumed that most of us would draw the line at landmines and shoot-on-sight commands, but hey, it's a brave new world, isn't it.


A civilised country should take refugees who are in clear and present danger. But the decision about when, how many, from where, and on what terms and with what verification standards should be reclaimed by sovereign parliaments, not surrendered to the UNHCR. Where a nation is next to a war zone the problem also has a logistical dimension, but for most nations it is now a widely-exploited aperture which needs to be closed, not least to rehabilitate the acceptability of providing succour to truly stricken refugees. Germany and Italy are now turning against legit claimants because they have been overwhelmed by questionable cases claiming UNHCR rights. Such is the irony of excess “compassion”.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:11 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

thesoretoothsayer wrote:
Let's say you're Israel.
You have a small population and millions of Africans want to come to your rich country.
Do you do the "moral" thing and let them all in, thus changing the demographic and religious identity of your nation, or do you keep them out?
Maybe the "moral" thing to do isn't always the "right" thing to do?

Israel has "the right, as in every country, to supervise our borders and remove anyone who is here illegally," Netanyahu said.
He added that Africans who have arrived in recent years “posed a real threat to the future of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/02/israel-african-refugees-youre-not-welcome/804628001/


Israel is a great example of a country that would not exist if it didn't tightly control it's borders.

It's also a great example of a country that has established it's own identity and wants to maintain that. Japan imposes serious limits on all immigration for the same reason, they want to maintain their identity and culture. Places that can't do that get overrun and changed irrevocably. Just ask the Australian Aboriginals, the Native Americans, the Incans, Mayans etc.

_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Anywhere, I don't care I don't care I don't care

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:22 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

thesoretoothsayer wrote:
Let's say you're Israel.
You have a small population and millions of Africans want to come to your rich country.
Do you do the "moral" thing and let them all in, thus changing the demographic and religious identity of your nation, or do you keep them out?
Maybe the "moral" thing to do isn't always the "right" thing to do?

Israel has "the right, as in every country, to supervise our borders and remove anyone who is here illegally," Netanyahu said.
He added that Africans who have arrived in recent years “posed a real threat to the future of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/02/israel-african-refugees-youre-not-welcome/804628001/


If you’re Israel, you herd them into a tiny coastal strip, build a wall around them and then drop bombs on them every few years. Next question, please!

Look, let me turn the question around to you: how many people do you think it’s ‘right’ to leave to die in order to preserve the ‘integrity’ of a culture? 100? 10,000? Infinity?

Just to remind you guys of the scale of this problem, 4.8 million people have fled across Syrian borders since the civil war began. If Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan close the gates, that’s 4.8 million people – beyond the 6.6 million already internally displaced – stuck inside a war zone without a home or likely even the most squalid refugee camp to house them. So, you know, get gung ho about sovereignty all you like, but that’s a lot of lives to wash your hands of.

_________________
Past the pub that wrecks your body, and the church, all they want is your money; the Queen is dead, boys, and it's so lonely on a limb...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
thesoretoothsayer 



Joined: 26 Apr 2017


PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:08 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, 4.8 million people is a huge number.
I assume that, as humanitarians, we should bring them all to Australia if they ask?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:25 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
thesoretoothsayer wrote:
Let's say you're Israel.
You have a small population and millions of Africans want to come to your rich country.
Do you do the "moral" thing and let them all in, thus changing the demographic and religious identity of your nation, or do you keep them out?
Maybe the "moral" thing to do isn't always the "right" thing to do?

Israel has "the right, as in every country, to supervise our borders and remove anyone who is here illegally," Netanyahu said.
He added that Africans who have arrived in recent years “posed a real threat to the future of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/02/israel-african-refugees-youre-not-welcome/804628001/


If you’re Israel, you herd them into a tiny coastal strip, build a wall around them and then drop bombs on them every few years. Next question, please!

Look, let me turn the question around to you: how many people do you think it’s ‘right’ to leave to die in order to preserve the ‘integrity’ of a culture? 100? 10,000? Infinity?

Just to remind you guys of the scale of this problem, 4.8 million people have fled across Syrian borders since the civil war began. If Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan close the gates, that’s 4.8 million people – beyond the 6.6 million already internally displaced – stuck inside a war zone without a home or likely even the most squalid refugee camp to house them. So, you know, get gung ho about sovereignty all you like, but that’s a lot of lives to wash your hands of.


There'd be more that 4.8 Million people currently living in poverty in India who would consider the conditions in a UN refugee camp to be bloody luxury

_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pi 



Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Location: SA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:55 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

apparently the Donald likes his maccas

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/world/new-book-on-donald-trump-reveals-his-unusual-mcdonalds-habit-and-screaming-fits-20171203-gzxwcz

what i dont understand is why Mcsh!ts haven't come out with a Mc Trump meal Laughing

_________________
Pi = Infinite = Collingwood = Always
Floreat Pica
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Oxford, England

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:06 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
thesoretoothsayer wrote:
Let's say you're Israel.
You have a small population and millions of Africans want to come to your rich country.
Do you do the "moral" thing and let them all in, thus changing the demographic and religious identity of your nation, or do you keep them out?
Maybe the "moral" thing to do isn't always the "right" thing to do?

Israel has "the right, as in every country, to supervise our borders and remove anyone who is here illegally," Netanyahu said.
He added that Africans who have arrived in recent years “posed a real threat to the future of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/02/israel-african-refugees-youre-not-welcome/804628001/


If you’re Israel, you herd them into a tiny coastal strip, build a wall around them and then drop bombs on them every few years. Next question, please!

Look, let me turn the question around to you: how many people do you think it’s ‘right’ to leave to die in order to preserve the ‘integrity’ of a culture? 100? 10,000? Infinity?



Infinity is the correct answer, because the question is too presuppositional. Firstly, every day we watch small children die around the world because we prefer to (say) buy new cars, hold expensive weddings, or buy ice creams rather than send them money. We watch people living in squalor on our streets rather than invite them into our own homes. Absolute charity is simply not compatible with a civilised life.

Secondly, allowing whoever arrives with a story to claim stayer’s rights is not the only possible response to a refugee crisis. There are alternatives to the present chaos, such as preferencing families over young men, or those from designated war crisis zones such as Syria, or setting up safe spaces backed by UN military power and money close to home, or enforcing return once war situations cease. We have allowed asylum and illegal migration to become confused, and been emotionally blackmailed into losing control of our national borders.

The world’s diverse cultures - from Morocco to Switzerland to China to Zululand - are things of beauty. In their love of the local, the particular and the familiar, they have spawned real diversity, deep identity and artistic beauty. Mashing them together into an indiscriminate global melange has always been a project of big ideological power-seekers, from big corporations to international socialists, and asylum is merely the latest engine.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Anywhere, I don't care I don't care I don't care

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:21 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:
There'd be more that 4.8 Million people currently living in poverty in India who would consider the conditions in a UN refugee camp to be bloody luxury


Quite. And this is why, while we make the distinction between refugees and economic migrants, it’s still wrong to demonise the second group: many come from situations that are not a great deal less dire than the first. But they generally aren’t, like refugees, in immediate fear for their lives. And most people, even in refugee advocacy groups, acknowledge that fully open borders might not be a good idea (and at any rate, are not feasible in this world of competing nationalisms and cultural superiority complexes). But we can be there to help people in immediate need, as we have been in the past.

Mugwump wrote:
David wrote:

Look, let me turn the question around to you: how many people do you think it’s ‘right’ to leave to die in order to preserve the ‘integrity’ of a culture? 100? 10,000? Infinity?



Infinity is the correct answer, because the question is too presuppositional. Firstly, every day we watch small children die around the world because we prefer to (say) buy new cars, hold expensive weddings, or buy ice creams rather than send them money. We watch people living in squalor on our streets rather than invite them into our own homes. Absolute charity is simply not compatible with a civilised life.


Wrong answer. You’ve just described quite accurately what we do here in this country, but also somehow concluded that it’s a desirable state of affairs. If there’s a direct choice between holding expensive weddings and saving lives – and we know that there must be, at least on some level, because whatever the limitations of charity and foreign aid, a little more money could build a well or fly a doctor over for life-saving treatment, not to mention the much vaster sums that could be contributed on a government level through policy shifts – then how can we possibly justify not making that choice? How could you sleep at night not doing so?

I know quite well why most of us don’t. It’s the old story of out of sight out of mind, empathy dwindling with distance, and all that. Pure human nature. There’s no point in pointing an accusatory finger; no-one’s going to haul you before the morality police for taking an expensive cruise on the Amazon rather than donating money to the starving kids fund. The question is: if you know, do you care? And if you care, how should that inform your actions, as a wage earner and a voter?

thesoretoothsayer wrote:
Yes, 4.8 million people is a huge number.
I assume that, as humanitarians, we should bring them all to Australia if they ask?


There are 197 countries in the world, with varying degrees of wealth and resources. Some of that number could be taken in permanently, others temporarily until it was safe to go back. All it would take is a global agreement, like the kind that Trump walked away from last week. You can’t blame the UN for trying.

Or, y’know, we could just be, like, “**** ‘em” and pretend it isn’t happening. Those holiday houses and second cars don’t pay for themselves, after all.

While we’re on the topic of refugees, where do other people stand on Jewish refugees during the Holocaust, a quandary that many countries faced and led to the international refugee agreements we have today? That is, what would you do if you were someone voting on, say, American policy back in the 1930s: take them, or send them straight back where they came from? I wouldn’t actually mind hearing a spirited defence of the former.

_________________
Past the pub that wrecks your body, and the church, all they want is your money; the Queen is dead, boys, and it's so lonely on a limb...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
HAL 

Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.


Joined: 17 Mar 2003


PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:23 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

That is a round number.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Oxford, England

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:58 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ it’s actually what people do in every country, not just this one. If we were designed by nature (or God) as one big organism, like an ant colony, it might be different, but we were not, and our pursuit of personal advancement via collaborative social groups is what underpins most human progress (ie real progress, not the someone-must-pay-for-my ideals stuff advocated by Leftists). People who take the homeless into their own home to the limits of their capacity write few poems and symphonies. Those who cannot accept and work with human nature, and fail to see how it is compatible with progress, are those who soon resort to the secret police, the gulags and the re-education camps. I sleep much better at night for not being part of them.

Fortunately, there are other ways to give succour to refugees. These are disliked by the globalists because they fail to dissolve nations and identities and they do not consign power to big governments and supranational institutions : which, by and large, officious globalists hope to inhabit.

As for the Jewish refugees of the late 1930s, of course they should have been admitted, as should legitimate and needy Syrians today. This is easier to say today, of course, than it was in 1936, but point is that our indiscriminate, come-one-come-all policy, sponsored by the UNHCR, makes it even less likely that the genuinely needy will be welcomed.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 10 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60  Next
Page 56 of 60   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group