Australian Politics Forum - Why not stop the boats, Tony?

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony? Reply #195 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 11:47am MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 11:36am: Run what gauntlet. Where are we going to tow them back to. Or are you suggesting we sink a few. It is going to have to be an indonesian co-opertation. Co-operative from the beginning or a forced co-operation via incentives/disincentives or whatever it will take.
Back to top	IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26068
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #196 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 3:15pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:30am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:28am:

That's ridiculous, armchair, of course they are going to know. By your own logic Nauru isn't going to work anyway.

Really? Why would Nauru not work?

Nauru worked because of the tow backs. Indonesia is no longer prepared to accept tow backs.

Using your own flawed logic the current rate of arrivals would also very quickly swamp Nauru's capacity.

Shows how little you know. Nauru worked because of a combination of factors, the most substantial being TPV's. Temporary Protection Visa's are a huge disincentive to people smugglers and their human cargo alike. To say that Nauru worked only because of turning back boats or mainly because of it just shows what a weak grasp on the facts you have.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony? Reply #197 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:01pm That's not a fact, armchair, that's an opinion. Could you tell us what the findings were from the inquiry into the effectiveness of TPVs?
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:30pm by MOTR » Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

Gist Gold Member Offline I am not a sock, I am a human being! Posts: 5476	Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony? Reply #198 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:04pm Nauru post 2005 was failing as a deterrent. That's a fact.
Back to top	"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration) IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #199 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:09pm

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

Nauru post 2005 was failing as a deterrent. That's a fact.

Not even close. It was a raging success right up to when labor diched it and then we get an explosion in boat numbers and an explosion in people per boat. 7 boats tops with 29 per boat average pacific solution. After being ditched, we got 134 boats and 46 people per boat average. FACT.

Raging success.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg Gold Member Offline WE ARE BORG Posts: 26512 Australia	Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony? Reply #200 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:12pm They just pointed out on the TV that the boats were still leaving indonesia under howards "solution" they just werent getting here. Plenty were still going down and sinking too. SOB
Back to top	Whaaaaaah! I'm a Moron! - edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #201 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:14pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

They just pointed out on the TV that the boats were still leaving indonesia under howards "solution" they just werent getting here. Plenty were still going down and sinking too.

SOB

there is almost nothing you say that isnt worth mocking or pointingthe finger at and laughing. So the gist of this current stupid statement is that the pacific solution caused boats to sink and somehow rudd changing it caused the boats to float and sink less often?

honestly, are you ever sober?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #202 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:52pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:09pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

Nauru post 2005 was failing as a deterrent. That's a fact.

Not even close. It was a raging success right up to when labor diched it and then we get an explosion in boat numbers and an explosion in people per boat. 7 boats tops with 29 per boat average pacific solution. After being ditched, we got 134 boats and 46 people per boat average. FACT.

Raging success.

Yeah right. And one of those boats had 24,132 people on it. But it only counts as 1 in lollyworld. Tongue

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #203 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:53pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

They just pointed out on the TV that the boats were still leaving indonesia under howards "solution" they just werent getting here. Plenty were still going down and sinking too.

SOB

Yes, I do remember pointing out to lolly the drone that there was no count of the number of boats that DIDN'T make it here. But ... well... drone...

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #204 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:59pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:09pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

Nauru post 2005 was failing as a deterrent. That's a fact.

Not even close. It was a raging success right up to when labor diched it and then we get an explosion in boat numbers and an explosion in people per boat. 7 boats tops with 29 per boat average pacific solution. After being ditched, we got 134 boats and 46 people per boat average. FACT.

Raging success.

The FACT is - and it's obviously one that's too big for your one tiny neuron to cope with - is that the growth started smack in the middle of the Pacific Solution. Which is what I said - Nauru failed as a deterrent.

But you go ahead and give us further prominent displays of stupid, I realise you relish them.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #205 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 7:12pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 3:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:30am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:28am:

That's ridiculous, armchair, of course they are going to know. By your own logic Nauru isn't going to work anyway.

Really? Why would Nauru not work?

Nauru worked because of the tow backs. Indonesia is no longer prepared to accept tow backs.

Using your own flawed logic the current rate of arrivals would also very quickly swamp Nauru's capacity.

Shows how little you know. Nauru worked because of a combination of factors, the most substantial being TPV's. Temporary Protection Visa's are a huge disincentive to people smugglers and their human cargo alike. To say that Nauru worked only because of turning back boats or mainly because of it just shows what a weak grasp on the facts you have.

Here is a fact, following the implementation of TPVs under the Howard Government, well over 9000 asylum seekers arrived by boat, that included an increase in the percentage of women and children were forced to make the dangerous trip because they were excluded from the family reunion program.

This to me suggests the threat of tow back was the most effective deterrent.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 4^th, 2012 at 7:40pm by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #206 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 7:13pm

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:59pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:09pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

Nauru post 2005 was failing as a deterrent. That's a fact.

Not even close. It was a raging success right up to when labor diched it and then we get an explosion in boat numbers and an explosion in people per boat. 7 boats tops with 29 per boat average pacific solution. After being ditched, we got 134 boats and 46 people per boat average. FACT.

Raging success.

The FACT is - and it's obviously one that's too big for your one tiny neuron to cope with - is that the growth started smack in the middle of the Pacific Solution. Which is what I said - Nauru failed as a deterrent.

But you go ahead and give us further prominent displays of stupid, I realise you relish them.

7 boats tops pacific solution per year. Straight after being ditched by labor, 64 then 134 boats per year in the first 2 years of pacific solution being ditched.

FACT is you got no clue.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #207 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 7:32pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 7:13pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:59pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:09pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

Nauru post 2005 was failing as a deterrent. That's a fact.

Not even close. It was a raging success right up to when labor diched it and then we get an explosion in boat numbers and an explosion in people per boat. 7 boats tops with 29 per boat average pacific solution. After being ditched, we got 134 boats and 46 people per boat average. FACT.

Raging success.

The FACT is - and it's obviously one that's too big for your one tiny neuron to cope with - is that the growth started smack in the middle of the Pacific Solution. Which is what I said - Nauru failed as a deterrent.

But you go ahead and give us further prominent displays of stupid, I realise you relish them.

7 boats tops pacific solution per year. Straight after being ditched by labor, 64 then 134 boats per year in the first 2 years of pacific solution being ditched.

FACT is you got no clue.

See? Revel in them you do! Amazing.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony? Reply #208 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:01pm Gist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 6:59pm: the growth started smack in the middle of the Pacific Solution. Which is what I said - Nauru failed as a deterrent. Arrant nonsense. Your being able to utter something is not proof or evidence of anything, except that you can utter. Not enough.
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why not stop the boats, Tony?
Reply #209 - Jul 4^th, 2012 at 8:02pm

I cant beleive some of you dimwits are disputing the results of the pacific solution. It really calls into question your intellgence. you can query the reasons, you can question to morality, but you dont get to question the results. Do the ends justofy the means? always a complex question but even in that you dont get to IMAGINE the 'ends'.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Why has Abbott voted against stopping the boats.
Concern for asylum seekers 2 (8.3%) Political advantage 18 (75.0%) Other 4 (16.7%) Total votes: 24 « Created by: MOTR on: Jun 29^th, 2012 at 3:23am »