World, Writing, Wealth discussion

19 views
World & Current Events > US-Australia refugee deal: Trump in 'worst call' with Turnbull

Comments Showing 1-36 of 36 (36 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Alex (last edited Feb 02, 2017 01:25PM) (new)

Alex (asato) To put this article in the correct context, how many refuges does Australia take compared to other countries?
"Australia refuses to accept refugees who arrive by boat, under a tough deterrent policy. It has already struck resettlement deals with Cambodia and PNG, but only a handful of refugees have been resettled. Critics say the two nations are completely ill-equipped to resettle refugees.
So the US deal was a boon to the Australian government from a close political and military ally.
Australia has faced fierce international criticism for its offshore detention policy and wants to close the Manus Island camp. Conditions in the offshore camps have been roundly condemned by rights groups, who say the policy is punitive and inflicts harm on refugees. "(US-Australia refugee deal: Trump in 'worst call' with Turnbull
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-austr...)



message 2: by Mehreen (last edited Feb 02, 2017 02:37PM) (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments It is quite disgraceful that Trump has yelled at Turnbull calling it a "bad deal". I don't think he'll ratify the deal while refugees languish in Nauru and Christmas Island. It is appalling how leaders treat people. Australia also has a tough vetting process but should take more than what they do.


message 3: by Michael (new)

Michael Fattorosi | 477 comments Call Trudeau - he says Canada will take them. And Australia use to be tied to the UK... win-win.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/t...

They accept about 14,000.


message 4: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) It's only a win-win if you consider Syrian refugees to be a liability. The entire reason for this terrible arrangement is Trump's highly racist immigration ban, which has left Australia, a country with racist immigration laws, in the lurch.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...


message 5: by Michael (new)

Michael Fattorosi | 477 comments Matthew wrote: "It's only a win-win if you consider Syrian refugees to be a liability. "

No its a win-win because the refugees want homes and Trudeau and Canada want to provide them with homes. Not really sure how that's not a win-win.

With the population density of Canada, especially in the territories, Canada should be able to accept hundreds of thousands if not millions.

Perhaps what Canada should do is what the United States did in 1860s under the Homestead Act. The US gaveaway 270 million acres of land (10% of the entire country) to 1.6 million refugees.

Canada can take almost every single Syrian refugee.

If the US could do in 1860, Canada should do it now.


message 6: by Matthew (last edited Feb 02, 2017 06:58PM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Michael wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It's only a win-win if you consider Syrian refugees to be a liability. "

No its a win-win because the refugees want homes and Trudeau and Canada want to provide them with homes. No..."


Except that those people are only coming to Canada because both Australia and the US are turning them away, and for entirely the wrong reasons to boot. Is that what you really meant by win-win, or were you referring to the fact that the US won't be taking them in?

Also, not sure what you know about the territories, but they are not exactly conducive to large-scale population centers. Much of it is tundra, winter last a long time, utilities are very expensive, and the costs of sending food and fuel there isn't cheap. In short, the population density is the way it is for a reason.

If I didn't know better, I would say you are eager to see the refugees all be sent to Canada.


message 7: by Mehreen (last edited Feb 02, 2017 08:15PM) (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Justine Trudeau has promised to take refugees banned by the USA.


message 8: by Michel (new)

Michel Poulin Yes, he did, but that should not be used as an excuse by other countries to stop accepting refugees themselves. Trudeau is acting out of humanity. Those who would pass on to Canada the refugees wishing to go to their country would be acting out of selfish opportunism.


message 9: by Mehreen (last edited Feb 02, 2017 09:19PM) (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Michel wrote: "Yes, he did, but that should not be used as an excuse by other countries to stop accepting refugees themselves. Trudeau is acting out of humanity. Those who would pass on to Canada the refugees wis..."

Refugees are everyone's responsibility. I congratulate the Canadian PM for acting in good faith.


message 10: by Michael (new)

Michael Fattorosi | 477 comments Matthew wrote:"Is that what you really meant by win-win, or were you referring to the fact that the US won't be taking them in?"

No then I would have said thats a win-win-win.

Matthew wrote: "Also, not sure what you know about the territories, but they are not exactly conducive to large-scale population centers. Much of it is tundra, winter last a long time, utilities are very expensive, and the costs of sending food and fuel there isn't cheap. In short, the population density is the way it is for a reason. "

Im sorry but what part of the US had utilities in 1860 or an intercontinental road system? The land given to the immigrants in the US was very much like the land now available in Canada, inhospitable and dangerous. Thats why it was free. But if you arent looking for assistance and just want to make a new life for yourself - away from ISIS, bombs, missiles, drone strikes, famine, murder, death and despair - its a pretty good new start. There might even be gold or oil on the land.

C'mon even the Russians are doing it -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian...


message 11: by Matthew (last edited Feb 02, 2017 09:45PM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Michael wrote: "Matthew wrote:"Is that what you really meant by win-win, or were you referring to the fact that the US won't be taking them in?"

No then I would have said thats a win-win-win.

Matthew wrote: "Al..."


Yeah, if you don't mind the fact that it's cold, barren tundra and laden with permafrost. The land given away in the US (you mean in 1862?) was arable, fertile and suitable for farming, and it wasn't exactly free (i.e. taken from First Nations). And utilities are kind of necessary in today's world if you don't want people dying of exposure and disease. Heating is also necessary in the tundra.

As for the Russian Homestead Act, that hardly seems like something worth emulating. It's Russia looking for a place to put Ukrainian refugees they don't want settling anywhere else, and they are putting them in Siberia for goddsakes. That where Russian exiles used to be sent, now you're suggesting we follow that example by sending refugees there?

It would seem to me that demanding that Trump's ban be overturned makes far more sense than asking that the Canadian government give away thousands of acres of perennially frozen land to refugees who most likely have no desire to live there.


message 12: by Matthew (last edited Feb 02, 2017 09:44PM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Mehreen wrote: "Michel wrote: "Yes, he did, but that should not be used as an excuse by other countries to stop accepting refugees themselves. Trudeau is acting out of humanity. Those who would pass on to Canada t..."

As do I. The idea that people would want to exploit this by making a point to turn even more away is quite sad.


message 13: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 12919 comments As long as one doesn't forcibly relocates people, the way Stalin approached habitation of inhabitable areas, I guess it's fine to offer incentives...

The solution to refugees, in my opinion, lies within Syria first of all.
Providing an asylum is humane, important and mandatory under international law, but it's dealing with the symptoms ...


message 14: by Mehreen (last edited Feb 03, 2017 05:42AM) (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Nik wrote: "As long as one doesn't forcibly relocates people, the way Stalin approached habitation of inhabitable areas, I guess it's fine to offer incentives...

The solution to refugees, in my opinion, lies ..."


Stop bombing them and the refugees will go away. No one wants travel treacherous passes the way they do.


message 15: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 12919 comments Mehreen wrote: "Stop bombing them and the refugees will go away. No one wants travel treacherous passes the way the do. ..."

Sure, the fighting in general needs to be stopped...


message 16: by Mehreen (last edited Feb 03, 2017 05:44AM) (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments But war is profitable. It will never go away. And neither would refugees, except that they are spoils of such wars.


message 17: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 12919 comments Mehreen wrote: "But war is profitable.

Then, we need to levy heavy taxes and make it not -:)
Luckily, wars stop


message 18: by Mehreen (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Nik wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "But war is profitable.

Then, we need to levy heavy taxes and make it not -:)
Luckily, wars stop"


In my dreams.


message 19: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 12919 comments Mehreen wrote: "Luckily, wars stop"

In my dreams."


So far, each war stopped, but they do seem to erupt again. Don't think we are doomed though..


message 20: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Well, there is also ISIS conducting their ethnic cleansing across Syria and northern Iraq. This too is responsible for the massive waves of refugees leaving the region. But of course, this is just calamity caused by the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and decades of bombs, embargoes and periodic invasions.


message 21: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9033 comments In my view, the question is, why is there such a large number of refugees? If it is because of bombing, interventions, etc, then the country doing the bombing and the intervening should be responsible for cleaning up its actions. So the US should be taking them, or resettling them, or doing something. Everybody else should not be asked to be responsible for GWB's mess.


message 22: by Michael (new)

Michael Fattorosi | 477 comments Ian wrote: "So the US should be taking them, or resettling them, or doing something. Everybody else should not be asked to be responsible for GWB's mess. "

So here's the list of all of the countries involved in the Iraqi War, including New Zealand. They should all take the refugees then ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-N...


message 23: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9033 comments Sorry, Michael, but New Zealand refused to take part in the Iraq war. After GWB declared "success", (the war was officially over in May, 2003) New Zealand did send 61 troops there in September 2003 to help in reconstruction, but thanks to the legacy of the likes of Paul Bremer, after a year they were withdrawn without achieving anything of consequence.


message 24: by Mehreen (last edited Feb 03, 2017 06:18PM) (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Ian wrote: "Sorry, Michael, but New Zealand refused to take part in the Iraq war. After GWB declared "success", (the war was officially over in May, 2003) New Zealand did send 61 troops there in September 2003..."

That's correct NZ and Canada did not take part in the Iraq war.

To get back to the issue of intake, Turkey has already taken hundreds and thousand of Syrian refugees. Even Bangladesh has taken quite a few Rohingyan refugees fleeing Myanmar.

But Matthew is also right. ISIS and other kinds of ethnic cleansing, sectarian violence too are responsible for this crisis. It is a complex situation.


message 25: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) And yet, we're both taking in refugees, despite the fact that it was one neo-cons bright idea to invade the nation and oust Saddam. And now, another neo-con is hanging a "No Refugees!" sign on the door with the fine print that reads "if you're Muslim".


message 26: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Mehreen wrote: "Ian wrote: "Sorry, Michael, but New Zealand refused to take part in the Iraq war. After GWB declared "success", (the war was officially over in May, 2003) New Zealand did send 61 troops there in Se..."

It sure is. And now it seems we've jumped the shark on this US-Australia thing and gotten into ISIS. New thread anyone? Or is there an existing one?


message 27: by Mehreen (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Matthew wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Ian wrote: "Sorry, Michael, but New Zealand refused to take part in the Iraq war. After GWB declared "success", (the war was officially over in May, 2003) New Zealand did send 61 tr..."

Start one. Interesting thread.


message 28: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) I'm all over it! :)


message 29: by Michael (new)

Michael Fattorosi | 477 comments Ian wrote: "Sorry, Michael, but New Zealand refused to take part in the Iraq war. After GWB declared "success", (the war was officially over in May, 2003) New Zealand did send 61 troops there in September 2003..."

You mean take part in the fighting. You still took part in the war. Mop up is still part of the war.

And Canada did take part...

"Clandestine deployment of Canadian forces

According to the U.S. State Department, a total of 15 countries participated covertly.[114] According to classified U.S. documents released by Wikileaks, despite the Canadian government's official position that they would not participate in the invasion, Canadian officials allegedly promised to clandestinely support it.[115] In addition to naval vessels and personnel already in the region,[115] Canadian officers served in senior command positions[116] and Canadian pilots flew Boeing C-17s into Iraq to "season" the flight crews.[117] In 2003, Prime Minister Chrétien admitted that some Canadian troops could be serving alongside American and British troops in Iraq. "It's possible," he said, "but they are not in combat roles." Canadian Defense Minister John McCallum refused to give Parliament details about the locations of Canadian soldiers in Iraq.[118]


message 30: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9033 comments If they are not in combat roles, then arguably they did not take part in the war, but I suppose I should have said NZ was not a combatant, nor was Canada.

As an aside, at the time the neocons in Washington were busy twisting Helen Clark's arm and making all sort of threats re trade. I think 61 non-combatants is not a huge warlike stance.

Of course now NZ has soldiers in Iraq training the Iraqi army to fight ISIS. So i suppose in that sense they are now fighting GWB's war.


message 31: by Matthew (last edited Feb 03, 2017 08:53PM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Michael wrote: "Ian wrote: "Sorry, Michael, but New Zealand refused to take part in the Iraq war. After GWB declared "success", (the war was officially over in May, 2003) New Zealand did send 61 troops there in Se..."

If by "take part", you mean leaving naval forces in the strait of Ormuz to offer logistical support, then fine. But that did not constitute military support, and neither did the 100 exchange soldiers who never saw combat. The same is true of New Zealand and every other US ally that opposed the war and offered only to keep their ships or ground units around in order to assist with supplies and wounded.

But seems like a split hair to me.


message 32: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 12919 comments Don't think everything should be blamed on Bush. This can also be a perspective: Saddam, a cruel and aggressive dictator, invaded Kuwait, didn't heed any warnings and paid the price. Arguably, Obama was eager to leave as soon as possible. Maybe the retreat was too hasty?
It's Muslims killing Muslims now in Iraq and Syria, instead of rebuilding the country and doing something nice.
After Vietnam war, we don't see Vietnamese killing each other or rise of any radical group there..
ISIS a radical merciless militant group bound to superimpose their rules and ideology..
Refugees deserve help, but don't see why ultimately the coalition should be blamed for ISIS radicals and their atrocities.


message 33: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9033 comments Actually, to say Saddam did not heed warnings is wrong. The evidence is he tried to check with the US , and the response was such that he thought he had a "nod nod wink wink" approval. Diplomacy at its worst - but that was under GHB.
GWB was much worse. He wanted to sort out Saddam, and the intelligence was either grossly incompetent or deliberately wrong to give him the opportunity. Just to be clear, Saddam was one of the very few who al Qaeda kept well away from. If you wanted an al Qaeda free zone, Saddam was your man. Saddam imposed a secular government. Of course he was cruel, but why is what Saddam did worse conceptually than killing various innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place when a drone strike is authorised. Just the other day in Yemen, a bunch of Seals went in to arbitrarily impose US justice, a wheel fell off, so in the extraction, a bunch of innocent Yemenis were killed by drone/bombing as the US plastered the area away from the Seals. Why is that morally superior to what Saddam did? What happens is that now all the relatives of those innocents hate the US with a really deep feeling. The relatives of Saddam's victims at least knew that the victims were guilty of something. That Yemeni bombing merely creates more recruits.
Then there is the logic. The US imposes restrictions on 7 countries. Saudi Arabia is left alone, yet it is the base of Wahabbiism, and the source of funding for ISIS. Someone explain to me the sense behind that?
Of course ISIS needs to be eliminated. Stopping the supply of military equipment from the Gulf states would also be a start.


message 34: by Michael (new)

Michael Fattorosi | 477 comments In college I worked as an intern for the former head of the US State Department Anti-Terrorism Task Force. He was responsible for the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles.

One of the more interesting documents he was working on was his report on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait which touched off Operation Desert Storm. He was hired by the Kuwaiti government to show them how and when Saddam would invade and what if anything they could do to stop it. The US knew it was coming, the Kuwaitis knew it was coming. And yes, the US allowed it to happen as an excuse to invade.

Reagan/GHB put Saddam in place to have a "friend" there in opposition to Iran. We really didnt care what else he did until it helped America reclaim influence in the region. His invasion of Kuwait set all of this situation into motion.

Al Qaeda, ISIS, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria. 20 years of destabilization.


message 35: by Matthew (last edited Feb 04, 2017 10:02AM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Nik wrote: "Don't think everything should be blamed on Bush. This can also be a perspective: Saddam, a cruel and aggressive dictator, invaded Kuwait, didn't heed any warnings and paid the price. Arguably, Obam..."

Actually, after the Vietnam war, there was plenty of killing. The south, now occupied by the North, was forced to undergo collectivization, which led to all kinds of hardship. And 300,000 people were forced into "reeducation" where they were tortured, starved, and forced into hard labor. This was the North forcing their particular brand of Stalinism on the South.

As for Iraq, Saddam may have been a terrible man, but his ouster created a vacuum of power that was exploited by Al-Qaeda in Iraq to create a civil war. And not for nothing, but his crimes had never been a problem for US admins so long as they were done to his own people or neighboring Iran. In fact, one of the main reasons Saddam invaded Kuwait was because he thought he had tacit US permission to do so. But that's another topic...

In Iraq, initially, there had been a lull after the invasion was complete. But the Bush admin had NO PLANS for the aftermath and how to deal with the chaos. And after Fallujah, where US troops opened fire on a civilian crowd, the insurgency was on. Initially, there was cooperation between Sunni and Shias who wanted to end the occupation of their country. But thanks to men like Zarqawi, who slipped across the open border with Syria and attacked Shia sites, sectarian violence began. After this, the Sunnis began embracing the militant Islamic groups because they feared extermination otherwise.

ISIS had already existed in Iraq before the civil war in Syria began. But with Assad's brutal, Alawite regime in peril, they saw an opportunity to exploit it for their own gain. They took up fighting in Syria alongside the Al Nusra front (Al-Qaeda's group in Syria) and began recruiting people to their extreme ways by making it a Sunni vs. Shia thing.

Yes, Obama's sudden withdrawal also created a vacuum which allowed for some of this to happen. But had it not been for the invasion in 2003, none of it would have been able to take place. Al-Qaeda would not have been able to get across the unsecured border and establish itself in Iraq, there would have been no sectarian war, and there would have been no base for Sunni extremists to begin pouring into neighboring Syria. They also wouldn't have had access to US military vehicles and weapons that were left behind by Coalition forces.

It's one thing to say this can't all be laid at the feet of the Coalition, but it sounds like your blaming the Iraqis. They were overwhelmingly the victims of the sectarian violence, and have suffered considerably under ISIS attacks.


message 36: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 12919 comments I think our common denominator though, with or without beating about the Bush, is that nothing justifies what these guys do -:)


back to top