Australian Politics Forum - Indonesian Q&A

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38791
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #90 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:21pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:05pm:

Quote:

only after Indonesia refused to accept them.

alziemers kicking in is it?

"I have seen most of what there is to see in this profession, but what I experienced on this trip is the worst. When we asked for food and medicine for the refugees, the Australians sent commando troops on board. This created a very high tension among the refugees. After an hour of checking the refugees, the troops agreed to give medical assistance to some of them… The soldiers obviously didn't like their mission."

Indonesia did not refuse to accept them. The asylum seekers forced Tampa to head to Christmas Island.

Hayseed sent troops on Board. Most of the asylum seekers ended up on Nauru and or New Zealand.

The Australian government tried to persuade Indonesia to accept the asylum seekers; Indonesia refused. Norway also refused to accept the asylum seekers and reported Australia to the United Nations, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Maritime Organisation for alleged failure to obey its duties under international law, though it did not ask for the assistance of these organisations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair

True, Mr Smith, but at almost all times, Tampa's heroic Skipper was not heading to Indonesia. The asylum seekers forced his hand to go to Christmas Island, even though he did make one thwarted (by the asylum seekers) attempt to head to Indonesia.

Indonesia's denial was not challenged by the Skipper who chose, under the circumstances he was presented with, to take Hayseed on. Being the girlie little bugger he was, he tried to re-write the Law to justify his order that our Navy board a Norwegian vessel, and he was blocked by The Senate.

Still, in the end, the little Methodist bigotted bugger had a win using the slogan "We will decide who comes to Australia and how they get here."

Australia nailed him for it in 2007.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38791 Gender:	Re: Indonesian Q&A Reply #91 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:22pm flip
Back to top	IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74740
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #92 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:24pm

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:05pm:

Quote:

only after Indonesia refused to accept them.

alziemers kicking in is it?

"I have seen most of what there is to see in this profession, but what I experienced on this trip is the worst. When we asked for food and medicine for the refugees, the Australians sent commando troops on board. This created a very high tension among the refugees. After an hour of checking the refugees, the troops agreed to give medical assistance to some of them… The soldiers obviously didn't like their mission."

Indonesia did not refuse to accept them. The asylum seekers forced Tampa to head to Christmas Island.

Hayseed sent troops on Board. Most of the asylum seekers ended up on Nauru and or New Zealand.

The Australian government tried to persuade Indonesia to accept the asylum seekers; Indonesia refused. Norway also refused to accept the asylum seekers and reported Australia to the United Nations, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Maritime Organisation for alleged failure to obey its duties under international law, though it did not ask for the assistance of these organisations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair

True, Mr Smith, but at almost all times, Tampa's heroic Skipper was not heading to Indonesia. The asylum seekers forced his hand to go to Christmas Island, even though he did make one thwarted (by the asylum seekers) attempt to head to Indonesia.

Indonesia's denial was not challenged by the Skipper who chose, under the circumstances he was presented with, to take Hayseed on. Being the girlie little bugger he was, he tried to re-write the Law to justify his order that our Navy board a Norwegian vessel, and he was blocked by The Senate.

Still, in the end, the little Methodist bigotted bugger had a win using the slogan "We will decide who comes to Australia and how they get here."

Australia nailed him for it in 2007.

Tampa still managed to win Howard an unwinnable election ....... he was a lucky little sucker that Howard was.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96025
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #93 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:25pm

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

Quote:

What's the incentive for Indonesia?

They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees.
They don't want dead people in the ocean.
They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich.
In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia. they need it fixed before then.

From Indonesia's point of view, this is not their problem. I'm only repeating what Indonesians themselves said on Q&A. We're talking about a few thousand refugees amongst a population of 240 million.

The US, with a comparable population, estimated its number of illegal immigrants to be 11 million in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

Do you really think that the Indonesian government has the ability to plan 50 years into the future? Here in Australia, governments can't even plan beyond the next election.

Think about the question: what's the incentive for Indonesia to stop a few thousand refugees transiting to Australia?

High-minded moral arguments aren't going to do a thing.

The 11m figure puts this whole issue into context.

The Australian problem is small beans, magnified by the two major parties for their own dirty political advantage.

And the rightard sheep, having their buttons pushed go: "Baaa, baaa, baaa."

True. This issue is more a headache for Australia. Immigration officials and staff at detention centres get to go home.

But it’s a real problem for the hundreds or possibly thousands who die at sea each year trying to get here.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #94 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:28pm

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

Quote:

What's the incentive for Indonesia?

They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees.
They don't want dead people in the ocean.
They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich.
In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia. they need it fixed before then.

From Indonesia's point of view, this is not their problem. I'm only repeating what Indonesians themselves said on Q&A. We're talking about a few thousand refugees amongst a population of 240 million.

The US, with a comparable population, estimated its number of illegal immigrants to be 11 million in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

Do you really think that the Indonesian government has the ability to plan 50 years into the future? Here in Australia, governments can't even plan beyond the next election.

Think about the question: what's the incentive for Indonesia to stop a few thousand refugees transiting to Australia?

High-minded moral arguments aren't going to do a thing.

i agree there is no incentive for Indonesia to do anything about the problem of the boat people coming to Australia. however I disagree they cant do anything. It appears that the majority of these people are coming into Indonesia on visas issued in Malaysia by the Indonesion embassy and by plane through a controlled border. Indonesia has every ability to deny them access and disallow thier visas.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #95 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:30pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia. This was done in International Waters.

Isn't that an act of piracy?

Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there.

If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely.

Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal. And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance?

according to whom? its been done before and Indonesia didnt even complain.

Tampa ring a bell?

not even close to the same thing. The Tampa was trying to dump them HERE not return them to indonesia.

try and keep up.

only after Indonesia refused to accept them.

alziemers kicking in is it?

the tampa was a norwegian vessel - not indonesian. the smugglers boats however ARE Indonesian and their only alternative is to sink them,

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

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38791 Gender:	Re: Indonesian Q&A Reply #96 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:31pm Quote: Tampa still managed to win Howard an unwinnable election ....... he was a lucky little phucker that Hayseed was. Fixed.
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #97 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:32pm

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

Quote:

What's the incentive for Indonesia?

They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees.
They don't want dead people in the ocean.
They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich.
In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia. they need it fixed before then.

From Indonesia's point of view, this is not their problem. I'm only repeating what Indonesians themselves said on Q&A. We're talking about a few thousand refugees amongst a population of 240 million.

The US, with a comparable population, estimated its number of illegal immigrants to be 11 million in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

Do you really think that the Indonesian government has the ability to plan 50 years into the future? Here in Australia, governments can't even plan beyond the next election.

Think about the question: what's the incentive for Indonesia to stop a few thousand refugees transiting to Australia?

High-minded moral arguments aren't going to do a thing.

The 11m figure puts this whole issue into context.

The Australian problem is small beans, magnified by the two major parties for their own dirty political advantage.

And the rightard sheep, having their buttons pushed go: "Baaa, baaa, baaa."

they also have 50,000 killed a year by guns. do we ay we dont have a problem with gun deaths until we get to 2000pa (up from 120)? The worst argument in the world is 'but mum... billy is worse!!!'

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #98 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:33pm

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:28pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:31pm:

Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face.

The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here. For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz. But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home.

It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution.

Now tell me how this could fail!!

Well, what do you know?

You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell.

I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember?

Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.

the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000. how was that even similar??? and this plan is unlimited. the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats.

Of course it wasn’t. But how are you going to get Indonesia to take all those refugees unless Australia pays to accommodate them?

And how can Mr Abbott impliment Mr Downer’s marvellous policy when he refuses to send refugees to non-signatory countries?

Please explain.

do you even read the post???? we SWAP boat people for refugees they already have in Indonesia! its a win-win for everyone except boat people and it costs nothing fro Indonesia to comply.

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #99 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:35pm

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:05pm:

Quote:

only after Indonesia refused to accept them.

alziemers kicking in is it?

"I have seen most of what there is to see in this profession, but what I experienced on this trip is the worst. When we asked for food and medicine for the refugees, the Australians sent commando troops on board. This created a very high tension among the refugees. After an hour of checking the refugees, the troops agreed to give medical assistance to some of them… The soldiers obviously didn't like their mission."

Indonesia did not refuse to accept them. The asylum seekers forced Tampa to head to Christmas Island.

Hayseed sent troops on Board. Most of the asylum seekers ended up on Nauru and or New Zealand.

The Australian government tried to persuade Indonesia to accept the asylum seekers; Indonesia refused. Norway also refused to accept the asylum seekers and reported Australia to the United Nations, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Maritime Organisation for alleged failure to obey its duties under international law, though it did not ask for the assistance of these organisations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair

True, Mr Smith, but at almost all times, Tampa's heroic Skipper was not heading to Indonesia. The asylum seekers forced his hand to go to Christmas Island, even though he did make one thwarted (by the asylum seekers) attempt to head to Indonesia.

Indonesia's denial was not challenged by the Skipper who chose, under the circumstances he was presented with, to take Hayseed on. Being the girlie little bugger he was, he tried to re-write the Law to justify his order that our Navy board a Norwegian vessel, and he was blocked by The Senate.

Still, in the end, the little Methodist bigotted bugger had a win using the slogan "We will decide who comes to Australia and how they get here."

Australia nailed him for it in 2007.

6 years later after re-electing him twice??? and in 2001, it wa the Tampa that actually got him RE-ELECTED.

try again.

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

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 58674 Here Gender:	Re: Indonesian Q&A Reply #100 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:35pm John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:24pm: Tampa still managed to win Howard an unwinnable election ....... he was a lucky little sucker that Howard was. Howard turned Tampa into an incident specifically for the election.
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96025
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #101 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:37pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:56am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:46am:

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:19am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:10am:

Perhaps this is how some boats have been lost at sea with all hands never to be seen again.
Silly way to run a business as this wouldn't be a good advertisement for the people smuggling trade.

These boats that they use are just old fishing boats, they are leaking old tubs that thye dont even use for fishing anymore because even the fishermen think they are unsafe. Thats why they sink. and if you thin k it isnt a good advertisment then why do these economic migrants keep wanting to come here at great risk in increasing numbers?

It's called the 'Labor Suck factor' which draws them here.
Once Abbott 'takes the sugar off the table', the boat arrivals dry up.
I'm also sure the criminals don't go out of their way to inform people if boats fail to arrive in Australian waters.

How is Abbott going to take the "sugar off the table"? We're still a signatory to the UN treaty on refugees. Any refugee who gets here will still have their claims of asylum assessed.

Abbott won't - and can't - change that.

How is Abbott going to do it?
Easy.
Re-introduce TPV's..

TPVs were time-limited exhemptions to the Immigration Act.They applied to specific countries during civil wars - Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Afghans were sent back after the Taliban was ousted.

Sri Lanka’s civil war is over.

Australia can’t give temporary protection under the Refugee Convention when a permanent threat exists. All asylum seekers would need to do is appeal a TPV if they can prove this. Or apply for permanent settlement to the UNHCR.

Anyway, many temporary refugees w were sent back and hunted down by the Taliban Four Corners did an expose on this, and I haven’t heard Mr Abbott mention TPVs.

Have you?

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58674
Here
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #102 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:38pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia. This was done in International Waters.

Isn't that an act of piracy?

Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there.

If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely.

Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal. And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance?

according to whom? its been done before and Indonesia didnt even complain.

Tampa ring a bell?

not even close to the same thing. The Tampa was trying to dump them HERE not return them to indonesia.

try and keep up.

The Tampa was not going to Indonesia. Their responsibility was to take them to the next port of call - Australia.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96025
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #103 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:41pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:28pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:31pm:

Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face.

The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here. For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz. But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home.

It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution.

Now tell me how this could fail!!

Well, what do you know?

You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell.

I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember?

Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.

the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000. how was that even similar??? and this plan is unlimited. the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats.

Of course it wasn’t. But how are you going to get Indonesia to take all those refugees unless Australia pays to accommodate them?

And how can Mr Abbott impliment Mr Downer’s marvellous policy when he refuses to send refugees to non-signatory countries?

Please explain.

do you even read the post???? we SWAP boat people for refugees they already have in Indonesia! its a win-win for everyone except boat people and it costs nothing fro Indonesia to comply.

Actually, you’re right. That could work.

But what about Mr Abbott’s guilty conscience about sending boat people to non signatory countries?

He already said this WOULD NOT BE DONE UNDER A GOVERNMENT MR ABBOTT LEADS.

Thoughts?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96025 Gender:	Re: Indonesian Q&A Reply #104 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:43pm STOP THE BOATS.
Back to top	IP Logged