Divergence

"The Green Revolution is another case in point. People are still poor and hungry now because many countries, although not all, translated the gains into more people rather than into better living conditions."

You seem to be blaming the people from the third world for their own poverty. You're saying that we in the West gave them the knowhow in green technology or whatever but that they blew it. The logical extension to this argument is that we've tried to help them but it hasn't worked because of their own failings so why should we continue to bother.

The majority of the world's poverty and its war ravaged state is a direct result of the West's exploitation of resources. You only have to look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Venezuela and the way these countries have suffered over access to oil; African countries being trashed by mining conglomerates; southeast Asian countries seeing their forests devastated for timber, and the list goes on.

I know you've agreed that we need to resettle the most needy refugees in countries like our own, but I still don't like your argument that third world countries have only themselves to blame. It's an argument that gets used by others far less reasonable than yourself to justify both our piffling aid levels and our cruel and discriminatory immigration practices.

Welllll HALELUJAH SISTAH... Bronwyn finally gets it :)

>> if we don't contribute to global efforts to stem the generation of refugees, we will most certainly work against our own self interest.<<

Bronny...... just out of curiosity.. how would you "stem" it ?

What do you define as 'Global Efforts' ?

Here is where your favorite word 'rationality' must, repeate MUST come into play.

Lets do the business thing and carry out a SWOT analysis ?

But just focus on the W and the T bits.. "Weaknesses" and "THREATS"

1/ Refugees are caused by ? (fill in the blanks)

2/ Stop the cause by? (lets to multiple choice)

a) Remove the cause.. regime.. dictator... political/military/terrorist hunting them down ?

b) Recognize that some people have whacky unpalatable ideas which cause them to be hated by legitimate authority.(PKK might be one, MAOISTS of Nepal might be another or Shining Path in South America yet another) and then ask 'Do we want those whacky ideas to take root in Australia ?

c) Accept all and any who come to our shores irrespetive of their backgrounds or ideological history ?

CONCLUSION. Now..in the above, I'm sure even a reasonably smart person can see 'threat' and 'weakness' depending on which option you choose. The responsibility for us is to focus on our Strengths and Opportunities, and they include CAREFULLY ASSESSING any would be 'refugee'!

"Pacific Solution" ? Not a solution, just fodder for leftoid journalists, costly, embarrassing, preventing tin pot kings from moving toward China/Taiwan......

SOLUTION.
1/ Withdraw from the UN conventions.
2/ Chart our own course.
3/ Solid robust and responsible policy which puts Australia's interests first.

Nope..Bronny has not 'got it'..as I thought she did.

Here are your words mate.

>>The majority of the world's poverty and its war ravaged state is a direct result of the West's exploitation of resources....southeast Asian countries seeing their forests devastated for timber, and the list goes on. <<

Implied here is:

1/ Only 'The West' has exploited the resources of '3rd world' countries. (Have you by any chance read the history of Korea under Japanese colonial rule ? Ask "How many trees were left in Korea after the Japs had finished?")

2/ That '3rd world countries' do not, have not, and would not 'exploit' the resources of their 3rd world neighbours or even 'the West' if given the slightest opportunity. errr.. Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone ? read up and weep.

(and this of course is a denial of human nature but never mind.. press on)

SOUTH EAST ASIAN FORESTS? Bronwyn.. truly you neeeed to get out more.
When was the last time you lived in one of those areas and had a real handle on 'who' is exploiting who...and why ? and what is the destination of much of this timber ?
a) Wealthy Malay Sultans.. regularly employ Chinese contractors to harvest their forests for some 'ready cash'.

b) Illegal logging is not done by 'western' governments but by Asian criminals supported by or allowed by corrupt Asian governments.

c) How much of this timber goes into Japanese chop sticks ?

TOPIC.. "integration" is a ONE way street.. if I goto China.. I learn Chinese, follow their customs as far as I can with conscience.
Thats why I speak Malay.. Indonesian and a tribal language of Sarawak.
I 'integrated'. I hardly expect the Indos, Malays, and Tribal people to integrate to my white western ways....that would be sheer arrogance.

Bronwyn,

I think you have some confusion about what the Green Revolution means. It was the effort to produce vastly more productive grain varieties that took place after World War II. The effort was spearheaded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations along with participation by a number of governments.

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

With the help of the improved varieties, which were more responsive to water and fertiliser, grain yields more than doubled between the 1960s and the 1990s. It wasn't entirely done for unselfish reasons. The Western elites had just had their noses rubbed in what can happen when poor, desperate people turn to fascism or communism.

First World elites have certainly been doing some naughty things in poor countries, although local elites have to share some responsibility, as DB has shown. However, the elites are not responsible for the fact that Rwanda's population tripled between 1950 and 1990 or that it would take 3 Earths to give everyone a Western European standard of living. It can be argued that the elites should have done more to give people control of their fertility, but bush methods can work if people are sufficiently motivated (see Virginia Abernethy's book "Population Politics").

So yes, we tried to help them and they blew it. People often do stupid things, whether they are rich or poor. Progress only becomes possible if we unflinching look at the truth, whether it is politically correct or not.