Thread: Asylum seeker solution

Originally Posted by aussiefree2ride

If the boats are stopped, they`ll stop going to Indonesia.

Eventually, perhaps, and then they'll have thousands of would be asylum seekers stuck in Indonesia, and we're back to where we started.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Eventually, perhaps, and then they'll have thousands of would be asylum seekers stuck in Indonesia, and we're back to where we started.

If we keep going the way we are, there`ll be hundreds of thousands. Is that what you want?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

I'm quite serious.


How does this link highlight just how irrelevant the UN is? You want the UN to stop all civil wars? bahaha!


Why do you say that? Since when was the UN designed, let alone made for, ending all civil wars?

I agree the UN was never designed to solve civil wars, however it does beg the question....what is the UN designed for ? Also, does the UN still have the same purpose it was designed for originally, or has it changed to suit a new political agenda ?

Originally Posted by slipperyfish

I agree the UN was never designed to solve civil wars, however it does beg the question....what is the UN designed for ?

It was originally designed to mitigate conflict amongst states and spread particular ideals, eg human rights, with resources, aid groups, monitors, investigators etc etc. In many of these areas it has done more good than bad, in my opinion. It has provided, however limited, a forum for states to converse and to collectively act in accordance with agreed legal parameters. But, more than any legal system, it requires compliance of its members to be effective.

Originally Posted by slipperyfish

Also, does the UN still have the same purpose it was designed for originally, or has it changed to suit a new political agenda ?

I think it was originally intended, by its biggest supporter, as an institution of control in which to form world order most favorable to its interests. However history has ensured this endeavor by the US has become increasingly hard even a failure at this point. So yes, it has changed overtime, but its basic institutions and designs have been retained and they generally pose a positive effect in world politics. People like to say the UN is crap simply because its something to whine about. They usually do this, as seen above, by pointing to absurd examples of "failure". If these people had any sense, or sincerity, they would recognize the fact the UN is an institution of a myriad of elements with varied results, which overall have a positive output.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

It was originally designed to mitigate conflict amongst states and spread particular ideals, eg human rights, with resources, aid groups, monitors, investigators etc etc. In many of these areas it has done more good than bad, in my opinion. It has provided, however limited, a forum for states to converse and to collectively act in accordance with agreed legal parameters. But, more than any legal system, it requires compliance of its members to be effective.


I think it was originally intended, by its biggest supporter, as an institution of control in which to form world order most favourable to its interests. However history has ensured this endeavour by the US has become increasingly hard even a failure at this point. So yes, it has changed overtime, but its basic institutions and designs have been retained and they generally pose a positive effect in world politics. People like to say the UN is crap simply because its something to whine about. They usually do this, as seen above, by pointing to absurd examples of "failure". If these people had any sense, or sincerity, they would recognise the fact the UN is an institution of a myriad of elements with varied results, which overall have a positive output.

Good post their Megadeath, I only have one problem with it, the original intent, to keep world order in the interests of it's major supporters. This may have been how it appears, but it was originally intended to keep the world from going to war. The ideal at the time was to have a neutral party to arbitrate between states, and to have the power to keep it's own recommendations. Over the years, Many problems occurred with this, as in attempts not to intrude on religious, traditional, moral and ethical grounds, which have only shown to dilute the original intent of the UN.

The way the UN has handled many incursions over the years as peace keeping forces has indicated to the public of the world that they are hesitant to flex it's musicals, in fear that the UN will be simply shown to be another US tool (as their biggest provider of military might), into pushing the world into a US driven empire. There i said it (pun between me and megadeath). However, this attitude by the UN, not the US, has actually caused the UN to loose much faith in these endeavours from many around the world. BUT the biggest lose of UN ability was the Afghan war, where the US went against UN recommendations, forcing the UN to either capitulate (which they seemed to have done) or actually oppose their major support of military might. Further to this the Iraq war, directly opposed by the UN, at the time has shown, that the UN will not hold nations to account for breaching their own recommendations, virtually making them a toothless tiger.

All this is considered that the US really does control the UN, if not directly, but by being the major supporter of the institution. perhaps the only reason for existence of the original intent of the UN is to give countries the ability to put their case to the world OR probably the US, in hope for an outcome in their favour.

I tend to think that when Parliament resumes, Labor will have their asylum seeker policy passed by default, as the Greens, if they have any brains will realise with all the kerfuffel about being preferenced
last at the next election, that they better co-operate with Labor and pass a few policies, otherwise the
Greens will lose all their seats at the next election, due to preferencing....

In the meantime, we will continue to pander to Indonesia....god help us if we upset them....Im staggered
that our Navy respond to distress calls from the asylum seekers when they are only 50 miles from the
Indonesian shoreline....if this is not cowtowing to Indonesia, then what is......maybe the solution is just to
continue towing the boats back to Indonesia and leaving the asylum seekers there....after all, they have
found asylum,haven't they...they are not in any danger, let them make Indonesia their new homes...

oohh no, we cant have that....Bang Bang will get upset.....

Dont respond megabrain...I refuse to communicate with know it alls.....