Australian Refugee problem

[red oct 2]

which is probley why germany doesnt except hardly any forieners to become citizens, smart people

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (168GRN HPBT @ Jan. 31 2002,00:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">....but they don’t land on the cape (the pointy bit) they mostly land on the west coast of the landmass (Western Australia) they have also been known to arrive along the coats of the Northern Territory......<span id='postcolor'>

I know ppl from up along the north queensland coastline(eg. i have relies there) & i heard of stories of ppl smugglers hiring/renting houses for top dollar off ppl in the townsvile area. But then it really is up to the weather(wind blowing ships around) & the smugglers.

[foxer 0]

America takes in EVERYONE(well almost)

South florida is called cuba.south west of america brings in lots of mexicans.east coast lots europeans(bosnias,maybe some others),west coast brings chinese(or anyother asian country),russians on both coast.middle-east mostly northeast of america,I don't really care ,because i know how i got here.I only got one problem,You know the people that come to our country don't have to pay taxes ,most of the time gets welfare checks,and other free stuff,So people like me that can't pay for something(college or something like that),they will get it free.Plus they get like 20,000 bucks to start their life out here in america.

I think america let's in like 11 million people in a year,and 5 million comes in illegally.I gotta tell those other countries that don't wanna take people in ,TOUGH.

About crime they do,you know when cuba let thousands and thousands of people go on ships to america ? You know in south florida the murder rate shot up ?

Everyone has those problems,why make up a story to just put them in jail.

[christophercles 0]

The afgani president has ask us to send the refugees back to help rebuild thier country! thats good since the ones who started the trouble were from afganistan!

[Priest 0]

Comrades

I live in New Zealand (or Neeewww Zeeeelaaannnnd for you Aussies out there - pay attention, I will say what I have to say slow enough so you can understand it ) and our illustrious government thinks it's kinda liberating to take all of Australia's refuse (not Australians but the refugees they have).

Maybe our female Prime Minister is looking for a nobel peace prize or maybe it's because she is a commie pinko lefty who believes that it is our social responsibility to take these people in. Whatever. She is outraged at the Tampa "incident" and now Woomera (or however the hell it is spelt) and wants to take these unfortunates in (I have no doubt that where they have come from was a complete sh!t hole).

As has been illustrated, these "refugees" are not true refugees in a persecuted "going to get killed if I stay here" type or "the desert / ocean / (insert natural disaster of choice) has destroyed everything and I have no chance of living" types, but people who are simply looking for a better lifestyle - ie they are potential immigrants.

Each nation has a process to take in immigrants. Some nations are harder to enter than others. Nations like Switzerland, for instance, make people pay a huge sum of money before you can become a citizen - after all you are benefiting from their established infastructure and social services and why should someone not pay for the privilledge of citizenship, each by their own means. After all, we all pay the price of citizenship in our nations through our taxes.

The ironic part of it is, most of these "refugees" were the middle class citizens of the countries they came from. They had enough money to get out. The truely needy still remain in their countries unable to get out because they lack the funds to do so.

The fact remains that these processes are in place for a reason and for EVERYONE.  What right does an individual or group have to expect, or even demand, to be treated differently or as a special case just because you paid some @sshole huge sums of money to take them to the promised land? That, my friends, is your problem, not ours.

Does their supposed "refugee" status mean that they can then break the law of the nation they want to live in, or to do as they please? What kind of citizens or society will they help make or contribute to?  Educating your kids that if you don't get your way, break the law. We did it and we got citizenship!

A society without laws, or where laws are ignored, is a society in chaos. I do not want to live in a society like that, and I am lucky enough to be able to make that choice.

I have nothing against people who are trying to better themselves or their childrens lives. It is only natural. These people have been dealt a crap hand and were born in a hovel in a jungle, a desert or an god-forsaken part of the Earth. I know in the same situation I would behave no different.

The sad fact is that all governments, corporations and the United Nations all contribute to the global refugee / migration problem. How? By conciously chosing not to do anything about the issues these people are escaping, until they are directly affected.  USA - Sept 11. is a classic example where the US went from not caring about Afghanistan to toppling the Taliban to pouring massive aid in to return prosperity & stability. It proves that a difference can be made, where there is willpower and of course, the fickle wind of "public support".

Australia & NZ do not have the economic, political or corporate influence to change the behaviours of those who do. Until then, both nations will suffer from the follow-on effects of illegal immigration, to the detriment of our societies as a whole.

Maybe one day the US military will have to come to NZ and eliminate it's "terrorist government" then and pour billions in aid to rebuild our broken country. And to think it could have cured the illness years before it required hospitalisation.

Something to chew over...

Long live the revolution.

Its coming, man, its coming.

Listen, you can hear it...

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Priest @ Jan. 31 2002,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Comrades

I live in New Zealand (or Neeewww Zeeeelaaannnnd for you Aussies out there - pay attention, I will say what I have to say slow enough so you can understand it ) and our illustrious government thinks it's kinda liberating to take all of Australia's refuse (not Australians but the refugees they have).

Maybe our female Prime Minister is looking for a nobel peace prize or maybe it's because she is a commie pinko lefty who believes that it is our social responsibility to take these people in. Whatever. She is outraged at the Tampa "incident" and now Woomera (or however the hell it is spelt) and wants to take these unfortunates in (I have no doubt that where they have come from was a complete sh!t hole).

As has been illustrated, these "refugees" are not true refugees in a persecuted "going to get killed if I stay here" type or "the desert / ocean / (insert natural disaster of choice) has destroyed everything and I have no chance of living" types, but people who are simply looking for a better lifestyle - ie they are potential immigrants.

Each nation has a process to take in immigrants. Some nations are harder to enter than others. Nations like Switzerland, for instance, make people pay a huge sum of money before you can become a citizen - after all you are benefiting from their established infastructure and social services and why should someone not pay for the privilledge of citizenship, each by their own means. After all, we all pay the price of citizenship in our nations through our taxes.

The ironic part of it is, most of these "refugees" were the middle class citizens of the countries they came from. They had enough money to get out. The truely needy still remain in their countries unable to get out because they lack the funds to do so.

The fact remains that these processes are in place for a reason and for EVERYONE.  What right does an individual or group have to expect, or even demand, to be treated differently or as a special case just because you paid some @sshole huge sums of money to take them to the promised land? That, my friends, is your problem, not ours.

Does their supposed "refugee" status mean that they can then break the law of the nation they want to live in, or to do as they please? What kind of citizens or society will they help make or contribute to?  Educating your kids that if you don't get your way, break the law. We did it and we got citizenship!

A society without laws, or where laws are ignored, is a society in chaos. I do not want to live in a society like that, and I am lucky enough to be able to make that choice.

I have nothing against people who are trying to better themselves or their childrens lives. It is only natural. These people have been dealt a crap hand and were born in a hovel in a jungle, a desert or an god-forsaken part of the Earth. I know in the same situation I would behave no different.

The sad fact is that all governments, corporations and the United Nations all contribute to the global refugee / migration problem. How? By conciously chosing not to do anything about the issues these people are escaping, until they are directly affected.  USA - Sept 11. is a classic example where the US went from not caring about Afghanistan to toppling the Taliban to pouring massive aid in to return prosperity & stability. It proves that a difference can be made, where there is willpower and of course, the fickle wind of "public support".

Australia & NZ do not have the economic, political or corporate influence to change the behaviours of those who do. Until then, both nations will suffer from the follow-on effects of illegal immigration, to the detriment of our societies as a whole.

Maybe one day the US military will have to come to NZ and eliminate it's "terrorist government" then and pour billions in aid to rebuild our broken country. And to think it could have cured the illness years before it required hospitalisation.

Something to chew over...

Long live the revolution.

Its coming, man, its coming.

Listen, you can hear it...<span id='postcolor'>

USA,can't fight every war in the world,because europeans(world) will get on herre and tell us how evil america is and can see why 9/11 happen.<--truth.If everyone took care of their backyard we wouldn't have problems.Look at north america,Canada,peace.Mexico,well kinda peace,Just very poor,But they don't fight other countries.

Cuba is really the only problem ,but not really a problem,just the cubans living in america right now is upset at fidel.

[168GRN HPBT 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know ppl from up along the north queensland coastline(eg. i have relies there) & i heard of stories of ppl smugglers hiring/renting houses for top dollar off ppl in the townsvile area. But then it really is up to the weather(wind blowing ships around) & the smugglers. <span id='postcolor'>

i diden't say it don't happen but after talking with an uncle that owns at large station up there , he said that it dose happen but just not that much if ever

[Priest 0]

Comrades

I don't recollect asking the good-ol boys from the US to fight every battle around the world (although the current US administration have taken up a crusade to become the world police). Nor the Eurpoeans, Brazillians, Cubans, Japanese, Chinese, or any other knees owned by any race, creed, religion or cult.

Isn't it time that all first world nations took stock of the global situation and decided that there was enough poverty, sickness, plagues, famine, death, destruction etc. By eliminating these issues, there would be no refugees - apart from those who are displaced due to natural disasters beyond the control of any human.

As a species we have collective humanitarian responsibilities and this is something our societies have forgotten. By helping them to help themselves, this sh!tty old world would become a better place. The give a man a fish or teach the man to fish scenario.

Do you think that Abdul the camel jockey in outer Kreblekistan really cares that 100 people in the UK are killed in a train accident, or 3,000 people in the US are killed in acts of terrorism, when 500,000 of his friends and countrymen have died as the result of famine, disease and poverty? He probably doesn't even know or care where the US is anyway. His focus is on day-to-day survival.

Get rid of the problems Abdul and hundreds of millions like him face every day, and the migration of populations will cease.  If we don't do something about it now, the problem will only contine to get worse. The long term outlook is very bleak for everyone, especially us living in the privilleged minority - the first world (yeah, you and me, pal).

Don't tell me it can't be done because it can. All it takes is willpower and determination (look at the US in Afghanistan). And a little humanity and compassion (no religious crap here).

Long live the revolution.

Its coming, man, its coming.

Listen, you can hear it...

[Longinius 1]

"I only got one problem,You know the people that come to our country don't have to pay taxes ,most of the time gets welfare checks,and other free stuff,So people like me that can't pay for something(college or something like that),they will get it free.Plus they get like 20,000 bucks to start their life out here in america."

Other free stuff? Would you rather have they lived on the street and had to commit crimes to get money? I doubt most immigrants have it very easy when getting legal jobs when they first arrive...

"I think america let's in like 11 million people in a year,and 5 million comes in illegally.I gotta tell those other countries that don't wanna take people in ,TOUGH."

Statistics, US population...

Current Population as of October 1, 1998: 271,000,000

Total number of immigrants into this country: 1,190,900

Legal immigrants: 915,900

Illegal immigrants: 275,000

Now, I know these figures are from 1998, but I very much doubt that the number of immigrants are ten times larger now than then. If they were, it would result in America having a, what, around 8% growth rate / year? Doutbtful.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Priest @ Feb. 01 2002,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As a species we have collective humanitarian responsibilities and this is something our societies have forgotten.<span id='postcolor'>

Just a short biology lesson here. It doesn't work like this with animals, plants or microbes. Species is a group of individuals that can reproduce with each other, that's all. Survival however, is purely a every individual for themselves thing or maybe every flock for themselves (flock is a comprehensible group of individuals, not 5 billion people). So actually it is very natural to screw thy neigbour over in order to further your OWN agenda. When you talk about collective humanitarian responsibilities, it is not something we have forgotten, because it has never been there. Now the question whether we should ADOPT collective humanitarian responsibilities for the first time in history is a question I don't care about.

[christophercles 0]

Indeed, very good points nz priest dude. Im sorry to hear about your airforce

[Priest 0]

Comrade Oligo

You humanitarian streak is at least a mile wide.

Humanitariansim does not have a lot to do with biology. We are not animals in the raw sense. We are different to primitive animals because we can control our concious behavior, we have imagination as well as very complex emotional and social behaviours. We have also evolved as a "civilisation" out of the prehistoric mentality of I'll screw you before you screw me (although thanks to the Corporate world and lack of ethics, this mentality returning to poison many minds).

If we lived like dogs or lions, I would agree that it is survival of the fittest. But we (should) have compassion. A dog does not have compassion, but people do.

Its attitudes similar to what you expressed that have lead our world to become what it is. I think you can take pride in the fact you are one of the millions of people who perpetuate the refugee problem because they don't give a rats ass (unless they happen to be living next to you or in your town).

Once they get to your country or your town, its too late. You need to give refugees a reason to stay where they are, unless it is impossible.

One day the whole third world problem will blow up in the western world's face and it will hurt, and many, many people will cry.

The revolution is coming.

You can see it in their eyes.

[christophercles 0]

Even though we dont know it, because of the complexity of our lives, we still lives like animals, its just alot more comlicated. All our needs are still based on mating, staying alive, or entertaining ourselves. The latter is what i belive is the biggest reason for the complexity of life today, because that we need to keep ourselves psycologically sound, and that is a need that has become more complex over time, since the human species has evolves to become smarter, the consiousness needs more to stay intact, so its led to a more subdued and not noticed, but still immensly present basing of our lives on the basic needs of humans. Im sure a lion doesnt think that its basing all its actions on its own needs either, but it is.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Priest @ Feb. 01 2002,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Comrades

I don't recollect asking the good-ol boys from the US to fight every battle around the world (although the current US administration have taken up a crusade to become the world police). Nor the Eurpoeans, Brazillians, Cubans, Japanese, Chinese, or any other knees owned by any race, creed, religion or cult.

Isn't it time that all first world nations took stock of the global situation and decided that there was enough poverty, sickness, plagues, famine, death, destruction etc. By eliminating these issues, there would be no refugees - apart from those who are displaced due to natural disasters beyond the control of any human.

As a species we have collective humanitarian responsibilities and this is something our societies have forgotten. By helping them to help themselves, this sh!tty old world would become a better place. The give a man a fish or teach the man to fish scenario.

Do you think that Abdul the camel jockey in outer Kreblekistan really cares that 100 people in the UK are killed in a train accident, or 3,000 people in the US are killed in acts of terrorism, when 500,000 of his friends and countrymen have died as the result of famine, disease and poverty? He probably doesn't even know or care where the US is anyway. His focus is on day-to-day survival.

Get rid of the problems Abdul and hundreds of millions like him face every day, and the migration of populations will cease.  If we don't do something about it now, the problem will only contine to get worse. The long term outlook is very bleak for everyone, especially us living in the privilleged minority - the first world (yeah, you and me, pal).

Don't tell me it can't be done because it can. All it takes is willpower and determination (look at the US in Afghanistan). And a little humanity and compassion (no religious crap here).

Long live the revolution.

Its coming, man, its coming.

Listen, you can hear it...<span id='postcolor'>

Somalia-They went their to stop all that famine(plus other stuff),then the warlords was killing UN soldiers.After that gun fight ,every un country pulled out,because it's too dangerous.

You can help a country all you want,but someone there is not going like you because they will lose power and try to kill your people.Then they kill the bread man,The bread people leave.

Longinius

Other free stuff? Would you rather have they lived on the street and had to commit crimes to get money? I doubt most immigrants have it very easy when getting legal jobs when they first arrive...

Why should they have more rights then me ?

Current Population as of October 1, 1998: 271,000,000

Total number of immigrants into this country: 1,190,900

Legal immigrants: 915,900

Illegal immigrants: 275,000

Now, I know these figures are from 1998, but I very much doubt that the number of immigrants are ten times larger now than then. If they were, it would result in America having a, what, around 8% growth rate / year? Doutbtful.

I think i messed up the numbers,Maybe it's 11 million lives in america illegally.Do you know,if you can't find a american to do your job you can bring in someone from another country? Other then raise the pay ,or train americans how to do the job ,they go outside the country and find someone that can do it cheaper.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Somalia-They went their to stop all that famine(plus other stuff),<span id='postcolor'>

No, they went in as mercenaries for the oil companies: the famine nonsense was merely a pretext to convince the gullible that they had some excuse to be there. Now, of course, the oil companies want them to go back, with 'terrorism' as the pretext this time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you know,if you can't find a american to do your job you can bring in someone from another country? Other then raise the pay ,or train americans how to do the job ,they go outside the country and find someone that can do it cheaper.<span id='postcolor'>

Better to import workers to America, where they'll pay taxes and buy American goods, than to export the money to them in their home country. Either way, if your job is so low-skilled that a foreigner can do it for less money then you're in big trouble whatever happens.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 01 2002,07:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Other free stuff? Would you rather have they lived on the street and had to commit crimes to get money? I doubt most immigrants have it very easy when getting legal jobs when they first arrive...<span id='postcolor'>

If they can't get jobs, why are you letting them in!?!?!!? Most immigrants are either productive workers who'll make a better living for themselves in your country through their own hard work, or skivers who merely want to get all that "free stuff" from other people's hard work that you're so eager to give out.

End the "free stuff" (none of which is free, all of it is stolen from people who work for a living) and the skivers will find another country to go to: as long as people can make a better life skiving off the hard-working taxpayers in developed nations than staying where they are in developing nations, you'll have this problem. Paying them to stay away is no better a solution than paying them to sit in tax-funded accomodation in your country watching TV all day and eating tax-funded chips and drinking tax-funded beer.

[el Gringo Loco 1]

After sifting through most of the replies on this topic I don't understand why everyone is accusing me of narrow-mindedness.

Almost every reply I've read is probably just as narrow-minded as my opinion. I've read replies which are on the brink of just pure racist thoughts. Tell me, why does everybody think that the refugees in their own country are always economical refugees? Are there no more wars in the world?  Since when do afghans, iraqis classify as economical refugees, because your government tells you so or is what you like to think? How many people in your country are really jobless because of the refugee problem....do you actually got a clue.

It's also nice to see that on the first pages of this thread everyone is arguing that the refugees in australia are economical refugees. When I come to page 4 of this thread everyone is acknowledging the fact that the refugees are afghans. (you know from afghanistan, that little peaceful country besides pakistan where no war has raged for thousands of years)

Here are some of your broad-minded opinions on refugees:

"personally i dont really like refugees alot of the time they just live of benefits and this comes from a person that live in the same area as they did."

"if they have nothing to offer your country why should you let them live there and pay for them"

"WTC-attack wouldn't have happened if we wouldn't have let arabs come to western countries."

For all you guys that are arguing that I would sing another tune when those refugees were standing on my doorstep:

I live in the Netherlands.

Fact1:  The dutch percentually take in the most refugees per inhabitant of all countries in the world. While we enjoy almost the largest population density of all countries in the world.

Fact2: The Netherlands is widely acknowledged in the whole world as being the country with the best functioning welfare system.

Fact3: The unemployment figure in the Netherlands is the lowest in the whole of europe.

Fact4: The dutch economy is one of the most stable ones in the world. (as acknowledged by lot of foreign politicians)

What does this mean:  Taking in of refugees didn't wreck my country's welfare system, economy and didn't leave me and the 99% of the dutch labour force jobless. This means that a lot of the replies made on my initial thread are just as narrow-minded and biased as mine. And it actually says that most of you also don't have a clue on this situation and are just uttering some stupid political prejudices.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (L24A @ Feb. 01 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When I come to page 4 of this thread everyone is acknowledging the fact that the refugees are afghans. (you know from afghanistan, that little peaceful country besides pakistan where no war has raged for thousands of years)<span id='postcolor'>

So? I can see some justification for America taking in refugees as compensation for trashing their country multiple times in the last twenty years (supporting the war against Russia, then the Taliban, now the, well, whatever they're called today), but why is it any concern for the rest of us?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Taking in of refugees didn't wreck my country's welfare system, economy and didn't leave me and the 99% of the dutch labour force jobless.<span id='postcolor'>

So, uh, if Holland is such a great place for refugees, why do so many prefer to illegally enter the UK rather than legally go to Holland for all those great "free" welfare benefits you're handing out?

[el Gringo Loco 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Feb. 01 2002,18:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When I come to page 4 of this thread everyone is acknowledging the fact that the refugees are afghans. (you know from afghanistan, that little peaceful country besides pakistan where no war has raged for thousands of years)<span id='postcolor'>

So? I can see some justification for America taking in refugees as compensation for trashing their country multiple times in the last twenty years (supporting the war against Russia, then the Taliban, now the, well, whatever they're called today), but why is it any concern for the rest of us?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Taking in of refugees didn't wreck my country's welfare system, economy and didn't leave me and the 99% of the dutch labour force jobless.<span id='postcolor'>

So, uh, if Holland is such a great place for refugees, why do so many prefer to illegally enter the UK rather than legally go to Holland for all those great "free" welfare benefits you're handing out?<span id='postcolor'>

Because you probably live in england you think that the refugees trying to cross the channel from france to the uk probably make up the bulk of all refugees in europe. Maybe that's what the british media is telling. Believe me every west-europe country gets it fair share. Stating that almost every refugee want's to go to the UK is shortsighted. And based on the fact that you probably see some 100s of refugees trying to cross the channel every night on the british news.

Why shouldn't your or my country take in any war refugees. Because it is their problem not ours.....?

[loopy 0]

Thought you may wish to read this taken from news page on ninenetwork msn

At least 3,000 Afghan asylum seekers would be happy to take the federal government's promised cash incentive to return home, Afghan honorary consul in Australia Mahmoud Saikal said.

The federal government has promised up to 4,000 Afghans - including 1,100 in detention centres in Australia, Papua New Guinea and Nauru - a cash payment to go home, although the amount has yet to be announced.

Mr Saikal said details were still sketchy, but he was sure many would take up the offer, if only to get out of detention.

"Already I'm aware of probably about 3,000 detainees who wanted to go to Afghanistan, not for any other reason but out of desperation because they were in appalling situation in these detention centres," Mr Saikal told ABC Radio.

"But for them who are prepared to go back, the offer might be something that will give them a moral boost.

"They will go back to Afghanistan with something in their hands to rebuild their life and to rebuild their future."

But he wanted certain assurances for people choosing to return.

"I would like to see a list of them, I would like to know where they will be heading to and I would like to make sure that where they are going to is a safe place before any decision is made," Mr Saikal said.

He said some parts of Afghanistan still lacked security and stability.

But he dismissed concerns by Woomera Afghan detainees' representative Hassan Varasi that the ousting of the Taliban had not changed the situation of the minority Hazaris.

Mr Varasi said they were persecuted long before the Taliban regime and would continue to face trouble.

Mr Saikal acknowledged some Afghans were worried about returning.

"What we are talking about is a group of Afghan nationals who belong to the Hazara ethnic group," he said.

Mr Saikal said the Taliban brutalised Hazaris throughout the country, including Hazarajat from where they originated in central Afghanistan, but the situation was now much better.

"Hazarajat may have some problems but to say that no change is taking place is not right, that there is a change and things are panning together, hopefully, to leave the problems of the past behind us," he said.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (L24A @ Feb. 01 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I've read replies which are on the brink of just pure racist thoughts.

.........And it actually says that most of you also don't have a clue on this situation and are just uttering some stupid political prejudices.

<span id='postcolor'>

Sad, but true!

[Wobble 1]

No, they went in as mercenaries for the oil companies: the famine nonsense was merely a pretext to convince the gullible that they had some excuse to be there.

It went because Somalia was declared by the UN and several air orginazations to be in an "extreme state of national starvation" and the US had the biggest humanitarian force (food trucks, planes and food) that could be deployed within the time the UN said it was needed by, it also had the needed number troops that the UN determined would be necessary to insure the the foods got to the right people..

It started out as an aid and protection of aid mission, but when the warlord's little sheisters started attacking them it all went to hell.. and of course progressed into a conflict..

I know thats not as exciting as making the US out to be a bunch of evil "mercenaries".. but.. well... go watch a movie or something

[Priest 0]

Comrades

I do not think many people believe Americans are all "mercenaries" or bad people.

The vast majority of Americans, Canadians, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Vietnamese, Chinese, Russians, Equadorians, Somalis and even Australians, are basically good people (they do not seek to harm or impose their beliefs/dogma on others for personal gain).

In all cultures you have a minority of people who seek power for their own ends, often by utilising illigetimate means (not within their cultures agreed rules and regulations - e.g. Western Democracies have the judicial and executive branches to affect change) to achieve change for their personal benefit (terrorism, crime, bribery, threats, extortion, undue political influence and so on).

Highly unstable nations or cultures like the Balkans, Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan, the Sudan, Chad and even Columbia,  have terrible consequences on the majority of people who are innocent by-standers.  These regions are under the rule of the gun - those who have the most guns make the rules.

I do not believe Abdul the Camel jockey in Somalia enjoys it when the local warlord decides to rape his family and destroy his crops. But what can he do - he has no guns, no military training and no money to bribe them with. He does what he has to do - either stay and put up with it, or take a chance and head off to the 'promised' land (the West) and make a better life for him and his family.

Does anyone believe the warlords of Somalia are or have ever been stronger than the entire United States industrial-military might?  Of course they aren't!  Not in 1993 nor in 2002.

If America and Europe REALLY wanted to (ie - had the political will), they could use a fraction of its real power and crush the warlords in Somalia, Rwanda, the Balkans, and anywhere else they sprouted up like pimples.  Combine rebuilding the basic infastructure of a country, promoting political and economic stability and providing HOPE to people, refugees would become a thing of the past.

The United States & Europe pre-Sept 2001 did not have the political willpower to remove the warlords in Somalia, stop the slaughter in the Balkans and Rwanda, crush the terrorist/drug cartels in Columbia or tackle any of the other butchery and injustices around the world.

Since then, the west has come under direct attack, and their bubble of comfort has been poped. Now they are lashing out at all threats real and imagined.  You have to ask "WHY DID 9/11 HAPPEN?". One answer is because up until then, the average western response to third world problems was "we don't give a rats ass". Ignorance is bliss.

'Islamic Terrorism', the threats of terrorism (non specific) and the refugee problems are all interlinked.  One creates the other which perpetuates the other and the cycle goes on and on and on.

Help the third world to help themselves.  Not by throwing money, or weapons, or the United Nations (the biggest political joke on the planet - even surpassing the Tongan government) at them. The West needs to get actively involved in these nations to make a difference.

If they don't, they will reap what they have sown - 250 years of imperialism and exploitation. And I don't think there will be enough rats asses to go around all by that stage.

BTW, I dig seeing my message copied and pasted into someone elses reply. Thanks, mate. Its kinda groovy.

The revolution - its getting closer.

You can see it in their eyes and smell it in the air.

Its coming, comrades, its coming...

[loopy 0]

this was a cutting from 9 network home page

The federal opposition has backed the government's proposal to pay a resettlement package for Afghan asylum seekers willing to return home, but critics say the plan is doomed to failure.

The government yesterday promised up to 4,000 Afghan asylum seekers a cash payment if they returned home.

While refusing to call the money a bribe, Prime Minister John Howard said the payment would be offered to 1,100 Afghans waiting to have their refugee status finalised in camps in Australia, Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

But Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock said up to 4,000 Afghanis currently in Australia, Papua New Guinea or Nauru could qualify when those freed on temporary protection visas were included.

Mr Howard said the scheme was sensible and would be similar to the resettlement sum paid to Kosovar refugees when they returned home in 1999.

Kosovar Albanians were offered $3,000 per adult and $500 for each child to help them resettle at home at the end of Operation Safe Haven.

The payment for Afghans, which would not be available to those already assessed as genuine refugees, could cost taxpayers up to $12 million on top of the $40 million already earmarked to help Afghanistan's reconstruction.

Opposition Leader Simon Crean supported the offer, but called on Mr Howard to reveal its full cost.

But a former Afghan detainee at Woomera, Ahmad Entizami, said he believed the payment was unlikely to attract many of his countrymen, who had better employment opportunities, education and security in Australia.

Mr Howard made the announcement after a meeting in New York with Afghanistan's interim leader Hamid Karzai.

Mr Howard offered Mr Karzai assistance from Treasury and the Reserve Bank to help his country rebuild, while an Afghan government delegation would visit Australia, and possibly Nauru and PNG, to discuss asylum seekers.

[ACE_FOFA 0]

The problem is being handled by competant people. The media is just selling its trade again

Tampa was indonesia's problem that they palmed off to Australia in that they wouldnt allow the Ship to follow

international 'LAW' and go to the nearest 'port' - this being in Indonesia. The captain didnt want to get shot at so he sailed to Christmas Island which doesnt have a facilities for that size of ship and isnt classified a 'port'.

Australia said stop, our laws are currently not designed to accept these people, follow international law and go to Indonesia. The captain did a poooh and hence it was handled accordingly. With no mistreatment to anyone anywhere.

Current situation with assylum seekers (not refugees) is that they pay smugglers money or fly, sail, drive on commercial transport to get to Malaysia and Thailand, where they zip across the Mallaca straits into Indonesia unnoticed by authorities. Their they meet up with smugglers (criminals in both Indonesian and Australian law) who move them through Indonesia to Eastern Indonesia. Here the smugglers take the rest of their money and pack them into sinking boats and sail them to the nearest Australian coast.

Real refugees are fleeing something, and would cease fleeing it in one of several countries BEFORE reaching Indonesia or Australia.

The people in Detention Centers here are the ones who deliberatly bypassed peaceful nations, spending cash to criminals to bypass Australian Law, Law designed to benefit real refugees.

Feeling sorry for the assylum seekers who have TV, Air Con, Internet, Playground, plenty of food and water all free of charge while they are processed/checked out by government......... is merely being a dope fo the media.

The reason they are desperate is that some of them may now have no money because they gave it to the criminals. Circumstances like this cause delays in processing by the government.

If these people didnt break the law, the system would work properly.

The real problem in solving this dilemma is surely obvious and anyone who continues the media, bleeding heart approach is an idiot.

PS: Many of them are pigs who attack, spit and bite the workers whose job it is to look after them. They destroy TV's and equipment given for use and cause harm to themselves and their fellow assylum seekers. Also they risked their families lives getting here only because they want to get into a wealthy propserous country, not because they had nowhere else to go..... they did indeed travel through many poorer countries than Australia on route to getting here that they could have settled in peacefully. These particular people are bording on lunatics and are also becoming repeat criminal offenders. That is why 80% of Australians dont welcome them here.

PSS: Real Refugees are welcome though. Considering the distance from their homelands real refugees from Middle East dont turn up on our doorstep. Unlike the SE Asian refugees who sailed from their homelands direct after the Vietnam war era.