Mediterranean migrant deaths and CMD.

[RexCathedra]

There were thousands dying annually trying to cross the Med, and thousands penned up on Pantelleria and Lampedusa, long before Gaddafi fell.

 

[beorhthelm]

Apart from destroying his military capability against the rebels we encouraged to uprise, and the final bombing of his final escape convoy it had nothing to do with us

maybe a point... the main point is the people did the uprising first. should we have intervened for Gaddafi? or done absolutly nothing. i actually would go with the latter, but there are plenty that wanted "something" to be done and the obvious and only realisitic option was to assist the uprising or see it put done.

no doubt there is a happy clappy mid point we could have done involving "talks" that would have lasted a generation while a war of attrition between the antagonists continued. and in that state of lawlessness, there would be an increase in immigrants using Libya as a base to head for Europe... its been going on for years btw, just increased. do anyone think Gaddafi policed the shores and coast to the aid of EU or something?

 

[BadFish]

. Not according to the latest figures compared to Germany/ France and and the combines Scandinavian countries

The UK do take a fair number but lets not forget that their are millions of people displaced around the world in refugee camps (12 million according to this).

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Don't the Aussies now just turn them round?

 

[BadFish]

Don't the Aussies now just turn them round?

Yeah e all it the **** off and die somewhere else policy

.........and if they manage to get here we lock em in concentration camps for an undisclosed period of time where they get beaten and raped. We have bipartisan agreements that we should be absolute *****. Our current government has decided to ignore our responsibilities to both refugees and the environment.

Australia will look back on this period with shame.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The UK do take a fair number but lets not forget that their are millions of people displaced around the world in refugee camps (12 million according to this).

View attachment 64733

That graph would be more meaningful if it showed the number of successful applications. I suspect France's number is distorted due to being the ex-colonial power for large parts of Africa.

 

[BadFish]

maybe a point... the main point is the people did the uprising first. should we have intervened for Gaddafi? or done absolutly nothing. i actually would go with the latter, but there are plenty that wanted "something" to be done and the obvious and only realisitic option was to assist the uprising or see it put done.

no doubt there is a happy clappy mid point we could have done involving "talks" that would have lasted a generation while a war of attrition between the antagonists continued. and in that state of lawlessness, there would be an increase in immigrants using Libya as a base to head for Europe... its been going on for years btw, just increased. do anyone think Gaddafi policed the shores and coast to the aid of EU or something?

The west were very happy with Gadaffi and Hussein for a long period of time. Both were backed by the US until recently. You have to ask the question "What Changed?"

The US would have known the chaos that would be unleashed by these two being removed from power (you didn't need hindsight for that) yet they supported their removal (obviously in Saddam's case they found a weak excuse to do it themselves). So the question here is why did the US wish to destabilise the middle east?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

WHEN THEY ARRIVE PUT THEM ON A SAFE SHIP AND SEND THEM BACK
regards
DR

 

[RexCathedra]

So the question here is why did the US wish to destabilise the middle east?

The US didn't, not in North Africa. It backed Mubarak to the hilt, and went to great pains to get Gadaffi onside after actual armed clashes throughout the 80's.

 

[Hastings gull]

Hastings,good points however using the word Hindsight is a wrong choice.after the 'removal' of Saddam the warning signs were all there to see,surely ?

Thanks. I see what you are saying, but at the time I suspect no one really made that connection. What I am trying to say is simply that the West at the time genuinely hoped for the best. It has turned out to be a disaster, admittedly, but no one could perhaps have foreseen the level of disaster!

 

[Hastings gull]

The west were very happy with Gadaffi and Hussein for a long period of time. Both were backed by the US until recently. You have to ask the question "What Changed?"

The US would have known the chaos that would be unleashed by these two being removed from power (you didn't need hindsight for that) yet they supported their removal (obviously in Saddam's case they found a weak excuse to do it themselves). So the question here is why did the US wish to destabilise the middle east?

Perhaps what changed was simply that folk in arab countries got fed up with injusticies practiced by dictatorship and wanted to overthrow the dictator! I can recall the millions in that huge square in Cairo clamouring for this.

 

[BadFish]

The US didn't, not in North Africa. It backed Mubarak to the hilt, and went to great pains to get Gadaffi onside after actual armed clashes throughout the 80's.

Why did it continue to back murbarak and turn against the others? I wonder what they did.

 

[RexCathedra]

Perhaps what changed was simply that folk in Arab countries got fed up with injustices practiced by dictatorship and wanted to overthrow the dictator! I can recall the millions in that huge square in Cairo clamouring for this.

No! No! Those people don't have any agency. They cannot do -- they only be done to.

Anything that happens over there has to be the result of outside forces, like the US, CIA, NATO, the EU, the ECB, Israel, big oil...
The shadowier the better.

 

[Hastings gull]

No, none of us do (especially Australia). There are millions of them.

So what is our share? If millions want to move, do we automatically have to accept that we must accommodate them? Is it migrants right? Do we not have the right to say no? The situation is desperately tragic, granted,but that alone does not mean that we have to take even more. Would it really be wrong to send them home?

 

[BadFish]

Perhaps what changed was simply that folk in arab countries got fed up with injusticies practiced by dictatorship and wanted to overthrow the dictator! I can recall the millions in that huge square in Cairo clamouring for this.

Maybe so. Maybe they were assisted in some way by outside forces. One thing is for sure, the Wests influence and involvement in the area is massive.

 

[Hastings gull]

No! No! Those people don't have any agency. They cannot do -- they only be done to.

Anything that happens over there has to be the result of outside forces, like the US, CIA, NATO, the EU, the ECB, Israel, big oil...
The shadowier the better.

Just trying to work this out! I think you are taking the mickey?

 

[Hastings gull]

Maybe so. Maybe they were assisted in some way by outside forces. One thing is for sure, the Wests influence and involvement in the area is massive.

The West's influence in places such as Libya is massive? I would not have thought so in the slightest.

 

[beorhthelm]

The west were very happy with Gadaffi and Hussein for a long period of time.

yeah, best friends.

Iraq is one thing (well covered) and i'll give you that. but you'll have to explain what the gain is or could be for destablising Libya. and Tunisia, Egypt (remember those). and of course Syria. the grand plan worked out so well for the west hasnt it?

 

[RexCathedra]

Just trying to work this out! I think you are taking the mickey?

The old 'White Man's Burden' keeps coming back, in stranger, more modern forms.
Used to be, Those People were incapable of governing themselves -- now they're incapable of mounting their own revolutions.
Either way, they're clearly not up to the task.

 

[BadFish]

So what is our share? If millions want to move, do we automatically have to accept that we must accommodate them? Is it migrants right? Do we not have the right to say no? The situation is desperately tragic, granted,but that alone does not mean that we have to take even more. Would it really be wrong to send them home?

Of course we have the right to say no. That is why we do say no, we have limits and quotas on our intakes. But you can't exercise your right to say no and then claim that you are taking your fair share, (unless of course your quota represents a fair share).