Asylum immigrants - Green Light

[luutzu]

And plenty of radical Muslims snuke in with the illegals.

Know how we're told we're there all over the Middle East to liberate and free people who need and deserve our help? 'cause there are, by implication, good Muslims being oppressed by dictators and despots and terrorists.

hmmm... since we haven't won and peace is not yet at hand. Logic would tell you that there are at least some who are genuine refugees. Seeing how their house are literally blown to bits.

 

[noco]

Know how we're told we're there all over the Middle East to liberate and free people who need and deserve our help? 'cause there are, by implication, good Muslims being oppressed by dictators and despots and terrorists.

hmmm... since we haven't won and peace is not yet at hand. Logic would tell you that there are at least some who are genuine refugees. Seeing how their house are literally blown to bits.

So why don't the so called good Muslims rise up against the radicals and the stupid ancient Sharia law....Surely the good Muslims must outnumber the bad Muslims.

 

[luutzu]

So why don't the so called good Muslims rise up against the radicals and the stupid ancient Sharia law....Surely the good Muslims must outnumber the bad Muslims.

Aren't the Alliance of the Willing backing the good Muslims? So there are good Muslims there fighting the bad ones.

There's this funny joke from Jimmy Dore about Trump's speech before launching them 70 tomahawk: When terrorists kill people, it's really really bad. It kill God's beautiful babies. When "we" drop bombs on them, they're good Christian bombs that dodges babies.

Another one from retired US Colonel Mike Wilkerson (Chief of Staff to Colin Powell): All deaths are horrible. Whether it's by a knife or a gas attack or a drone strike - it all end horribly for the victims.


In short, maybe we should stop buying into these nonsense about one method of killing by certain group of people being "better" than another method of war and savagery. Maybe the wars could end with that kind of thinking.

 

[drsmith]

You sure about the zero arrival being due to tough thinking by the Liberals?

Due to their policy mix and, most importantly, turning boats back after being elected in 2013.

Happy no boats.

 

[noco]

Aren't the Alliance of the Willing backing the good Muslims? So there are good Muslims there fighting the bad ones.

There's this funny joke from Jimmy Dore about Trump's speech before launching them 70 tomahawk: When terrorists kill people, it's really really bad. It kill God's beautiful babies. When "we" drop bombs on them, they're good Christian bombs that dodges babies.

Another one from retired US Colonel Mike Wilkerson (Chief of Staff to Colin Powell): All deaths are horrible. Whether it's by a knife or a gas attack or a drone strike - it all end horribly for the victims.


In short, maybe we should stop buying into these nonsense about one method of killing by certain group of people being "better" than another method of war and savagery. Maybe the wars could end with that kind of thinking.

So how do you propose to go about it and which authority will implement and such action?

The UN are the ones who should be doing something about it but they are a toothless tiger and so corrupt so don't expect anything from them in fact they are probably condoning Islamic terrorism just as the SHY from the Greens has demonstrated.

 

[luutzu]

Due to their policy mix and, most importantly, turning boats back after being elected in 2013.

Happy no boats.

So they succeed not because their tough stance scared away the people smugglers and economic refugees, but work because they drag any "asylum seekers" away?

 

[luutzu]

So how do you propose to go about it and which authority will implement and such action?

The UN are the ones who should be doing something about it but they are a toothless tiger and so corrupt so don't expect anything from them in fact they are probably condoning Islamic terrorism just as the SHY from the Greens has demonstrated.

Go about doing what? Get the good Muslims to fight the bad ones?

My guess is they'd do what any military power have always done: you pick one group of Muslims who will work with you to fight against those who are up against you. The ones that are with you are the good guys, obviously. The ones who's against you are terrorists.

So when Bin Laden and the Afghan Taliban was on the CIA payroll, fighting the Soviets, they are friends of John Rambo and Reagan invites them over to the White House for tea and a tour of Texas. When they turn against the CIA and US... you know.

Same thing in Iraq past few years. ISIS in Iraq is obviously bad. Its affiliates in Syria that work with US are alright kind of moderates; the hardcore ISIS are obviously bad and Assad is of course a monster unlike the Saudis.

 

[noco]

Go about doing what? Get the good Muslims to fight the bad ones?

My guess is they'd do what any military power have always done: you pick one group of Muslims who will work with you to fight against those who are up against you. The ones that are with you are the good guys, obviously. The ones who's against you are terrorists.

So when Bin Laden and the Afghan Taliban was on the CIA payroll, fighting the Soviets, they are friends of John Rambo and Reagan invites them over to the White House for tea and a tour of Texas. When they turn against the CIA and US... you know.

Same thing in Iraq past few years. ISIS in Iraq is obviously bad. Its affiliates in Syria that work with US are alright kind of moderates; the hardcore ISIS are obviously bad and Assad is of course a monster unlike the Saudis.

That does not answer my question......As per usual you beat around the bush.

There has to be some kind of higher authority to take control like the UN who sit on their hands and do nothing.......It is useless trying to negotiate with Muslims as they have their set agenda.

 

[luutzu]

That does not answer my question......As per usual you beat around the bush.

There has to be some kind of higher authority to take control like the UN who sit on their hands and do nothing.......It is useless trying to negotiate with Muslims as they have their set agenda.

That higher authority is the US isn't it? Well, to be fair, it's the US and any country with a proper military they can send abroad and a few hundred nukes kept in the shed at home. So that's the US and Western allies, China, Russia, probably India and maybe Brazil if they get their act together.

Looks funny, I'd definitely watch it:

 

[noco]

That higher authority is the US isn't it? Well, to be fair, it's the US and any country with a proper military they can send abroad and a few hundred nukes kept in the shed at home. So that's the US and Western allies, China, Russia, probably India and maybe Brazil if they get their act together.

Looks funny, I'd definitely watch it:

I thought the United Nations was formed after WW11 to take care of rouge nations...To prevent any more wars and conflicts around the world.......Isn't that why the USA pay some 22% of their funding......Isn't that now the reason why the USA are considering terminating their involvement with the UN in the next 2 years?

 

[luutzu]

I thought the United Nations was formed after WW11 to take care of rouge nations...To prevent any more wars and conflicts around the world.......Isn't that why the USA pay some 22% of their funding......Isn't that now the reason why the USA are considering terminating their involvement with the UN in the next 2 years?

I heard somewhere that since WWII, the US has been involved in 200 (two hundred) foreign "intervention". Another fun fact, since its Independence from Britain, the US have only had some 25 years where it wasn't involved in any war.

Now, why would the US, or any other big and small powers, would ever want to fund any club that doesn't do what it wants them to do?

So why did the US, being the only remaining superpower at the end of WWII, having literally half the world's wealth... why did they want to organise and be part of the UN?

A cynical person would say that that's because such institution permit the US and its allies a cover of legitimacy in whatever it chooses to do. Be that bashing the Soviets for its aggression or taking out nationalist movement leaders (aka, terrorists or communists).

Since then, more and more former colonies became independent and join the club. The US loses its supreme position and so can't get that rubber stamp all of the time. Hence the trashing of the UN and threats to defund it.

But that's just a threat anyway. The UN does serve some purpose now and then... such as using its International law on freedom of navigation and law of the sea, or whatever it's called. Use that to make China look bad, which it should look and feel bad for, but then China just shrugged and military bases they build.

 

[noco]

I heard somewhere that since WWII, the US has been involved in 200 (two hundred) foreign "intervention". Another fun fact, since its Independence from Britain, the US have only had some 25 years where it wasn't involved in any war.

Now, why would the US, or any other big and small powers, would ever want to fund any club that doesn't do what it wants them to do?

So why did the US, being the only remaining superpower at the end of WWII, having literally half the world's wealth... why did they want to organise and be part of the UN?

A cynical person would say that that's because such institution permit the US and its allies a cover of legitimacy in whatever it chooses to do. Be that bashing the Soviets for its aggression or taking out nationalist movement leaders (aka, terrorists or communists).

Since then, more and more former colonies became independent and join the club. The US loses its supreme position and so can't get that rubber stamp all of the time. Hence the trashing of the UN and threats to defund it.

But that's just a threat anyway. The UN does serve some purpose now and then... such as using its International law on freedom of navigation and law of the sea, or whatever it's called. Use that to make China look bad, which it should look and feel bad for, but then China just shrugged and military bases they build.

It is called the United Nations involving many countries whom are supposed to play their part in any conflict around the world......The USA being one of the more financial nations most likely get the most involvement but on the other side of the coin the UN are such a weak and corrupt organization, the USA has to take some things into their own hands.

https://factly.in/united-nations-budget-contributions-by-member-countries/

 

[luutzu]

It is called the United Nations involving many countries whom are supposed to play their part in any conflict around the world......The USA being one of the more financial nations most likely get the most involvement but on the other side of the coin the UN are such a weak and corrupt organization, the USA has to take some things into their own hands.

https://factly.in/united-nations-budget-contributions-by-member-countries/

Maybe it's one of those user-pay system.

The UN, like any organisation that does not fund itself, operates at the wish of its donors. So it will be strong if its donors put in the muscle behind it; weak if those donors don't give two dimes.

Countries, US included, don't put money into the UN and just let a democratic vote or whatever happen. They put in the cash so they can push their weight around.

For example, when a UN sub-committee (or whatever the proper name is), released a report finding Israel to be an apartheid state illegally colonising what was left of Palestine... the report was made public without authorisation from the UN Sec. General.

Why? Because US and Israel would not permit its publication.

When it was published, the UN blah blah then we see the committee's chief resigning because she would not retract and apologise for hurting Israel's feelings with facts and international laws.

Anyway, the UN have to pick their battles. Maybe let injustices and starvation in Palestine go on as it has but get to have some money to feed kids in Somalia and elsewhere where the small terrorists are doing the dirty work.

 

[noco]

Maybe it's one of those user-pay system.

The UN, like any organisation that does not fund itself, operates at the wish of its donors. So it will be strong if its donors put in the muscle behind it; weak if those donors don't give two dimes.

Countries, US included, don't put money into the UN and just let a democratic vote or whatever happen. They put in the cash so they can push their weight around.

For example, when a UN sub-committee (or whatever the proper name is), released a report finding Israel to be an apartheid state illegally colonising what was left of Palestine... the report was made public without authorisation from the UN Sec. General.

Why? Because US and Israel would not permit its publication.

When it was published, the UN blah blah then we see the committee's chief resigning because she would not retract and apologise for hurting Israel's feelings with facts and international laws.

Anyway, the UN have to pick their battles. Maybe let injustices and starvation in Palestine go on as it has but get to have some money to feed kids in Somalia and elsewhere where the small terrorists are doing the dirty work.

The UN has changed to what it was 70 off years ago......It is now being corruptly run by the Greens left of politics.......More money goes into administration they is distributed to help poor countries.

So what do you think will happen to the UN when the USA pullout within 2 years as they intend to withdrawing their 22% financial support ?

 

[luutzu]

The UN has changed to what it was 70 off years ago......It is now being corruptly run by the Greens left of politics.......More money goes into administration they is distributed to help poor countries.

So what do you think will happen to the UN when the USA pullout within 2 years as they intend to withdrawing their 22% financial support ?

If the US pulls out, China and Russia will step in. Then you we will see how whatever China and Russia wants to do is called the "global consensus", its taking of other people's seas and countries are "peacekeeping" and advancing... socialism?

But don't worry though, the Muslims and African terrorists and dictators will still be bad. Just maybe they're now our kind of bastards and not their kind.

 

[Ves]

I thought the United Nations was formed after WW11 to take care of rouge nations...To prevent any more wars and conflicts around the world.......Isn't that why the USA pay some 22% of their funding......Isn't that now the reason why the USA are considering terminating their involvement with the UN in the next 2 years?

The best part of the "USA is pulling out of the UN" story is that it's not even a new one. Certain interests have been trying to pass legislation to make it happen for decades now.

I doubt it will actually happen. But it's a nice fairy tale.

 

[SirRumpole]

I doubt it will actually happen. But it's a nice fairy tale.

Trouble is that there are too many bad guys and not enough good guys in the UN. If Russia can forever veto intervention in places like Syria and support his gassing mate then no progress will ever be made.

Plus you have the Muslim countries who never liked the West and would turn us into caliphates if they could.

I think we are heading for a breakup of the UN into separate camps, Western democracies vs the Rest. It may or may not happen in Trump's time but I think people in Western countries are getting sick of their money getting flushed down the loo, giving aid to countries led by despots who give the aid to their soldiers instead of to the starving.

Something has to break eventually.

 

[Ves]

I think we are heading for a breakup of the UN into separate camps, Western democracies vs the Rest. It may or may not happen in Trump's time but I think people in Western countries are getting sick of their money getting flushed down the loo, giving aid to countries led by despots who give the aid to their soldiers instead of to the starving.

I honestly don't think that this will happen either.

I'm not sure how much you think Western countries (or any member nation) pay into the United Nations budget but in the scheme of things it's a drop in the ocean. The annual budget isn't any more than $10 billion. For some reason I don't think money is an issue.

In fact, if you look into the matter closely the USA has a history of being in debt to the UN because it's congress fails to authorise the payment of its dues time and time again. It's not like they're a golden child by any stretch of the imagination, despite people boasting they (eventually) pay 22% of the budget contributions.

The indirect benefits enjoyed by the larger member states of being in the UN far outweigh any financial contributions that are made to it IMO. Actually by merely having a UN office in New York the USA pretty much recoup their annual contributions.

Perhaps the UN is reconfigured one day as you predict, but it ain't happening because a senator from Alabama is trying to pass a bill in Congress and it certainly ain't happening because of financial reasons.

 

[SirRumpole]

and it certainly ain't happening because of financial reasons.

There are not only financial reasons. There are a lot of tinpot little African countries (apologies to Yes Minister) run by despots and Muslim countries who don't like the West and side with Russia and China and out vote the West on security issues. China buys the votes of little Pacific nations with aid and there goes more votes from the West. That's the reason you see no more than lip service paid to despots when the UN should really be the world's police force breaking up civil wars like Syria and cracking down on human rights abuses in China and Muslim countries instead of just sitting on their backsides.

The UN is rapidly departing from what we would consider Western values of human rights and democracy and into irrelevance in world affairs at best and subversiveness at worst.

If this goes on them democracies will start asking if the UN has any role at all in maintaining world peace. It's been pretty moribund as far as I can see.

 

[Ves]

There are not only financial reasons. There are a lot of tinpot little African countries (apologies to Yes Minister) run by despots and Muslim countries who don't like the West and side with Russia and China and out vote the West on security issues. China buys the votes of little Pacific nations with aid and there goes more votes from the West. That's the reason you see no more than lip service paid to despots when the UN should really be the world's police force breaking up civil wars like Syria and cracking down on human rights abuses in China and Muslim countries instead of just sitting on their backsides.

The UN is rapidly departing from what we would consider Western values of human rights and democracy and into irrelevance in world affairs at best and subversiveness at worst.

There are a few things here that I don't think you're considering:

*The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, USA and the UK) have veto power. This enables them to prevent the adoption of a draft Security Council resolution, regardless of its level of international support. Your point above re vote buying sounds pretty mute to me. In fact, I would argue the opposite is true, the bigger countries dominate the UN. Have a look at the veto powers that have been used on certain issues.

*The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are all nuclear super powers. Everyone else is a temporary member. In fact, they all meet privately before presenting their resolutions to the full council. There are criticisms that are the reverse of what you've stated, traditionally the UN has been seen as a hereditary club controlled by the three big Western powers. The big boys with their nasty toys dominate the agenda and prevent anyone else from reaching the same level of influence.

*That the super powers who dominate the UN actually don't care to interfere on a human rights level with some of the Muslim countries because there is nothing in it for them? The UN security council arguably has always focused on conflicts in strategic areas to the Western super powers. Whilst the UNHRC does do some good work in the background, it's pretty hard to do much without the support of the Security Council in most cases.