There is an apology to Fractelle in a post to the topic 'ALARMING TRENDS in the US' that in reality belongs here on the 'May they rot in hell' thread. This post, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2709#60818 , which was misposted to the 'ALARMING TRENDS in the US' thread, explains what happened.

The misposted post was addressed to Horus and Bugsy on this thread by way of explanation as to why Horus may have temporarily lost sight of a post.

As Bronwyn has responded to the content of the misposted post on the other thread, apologies to her for any confusion or misunderstanding created. Apologies to anyone else who has been confused by my screw-up.

For the record, here is the link that Fractelle had originally posted on this thread that I had precipitated the removal of, the link I stuffed up the reposting of: http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=3283

And, with the ending of those two phrases each with a preposition, I shall conclude this clarification.

Clear as mud Sir Humphrey.

Houellebecq is nowhere near as pretentious as examinator. Anyway I just like the guy. I like the spirit of the accusers too.

Forrest

As a result I posted a thank you on the "alarming Trends" thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2709&page=0#60839

Bronwyn

If you are waiting for a reasoned reply to your question: "What would be your idea of a 'cost effective and fair system'?"

You may be waiting a while, for the crustacean would require a complete rebuild of his entire world view, before applying thought to the plight of people fleeing from unimaginable conditions to be met with internment in camps set up to avoid laws that would normally be applicable if they were to set foot in Australia.

Howard's Pacific Solution, is only minus a couple of concentration camps and the insidious TRV; Australia's border policy remains one of the harshest in the world.

Leigh,

There is an element of truth when you say that the Afghans have to help themselves. But there's also an element of truth when I said that the ordinary Afghanis have so much stacked up against them that even if they wanted to help themselves, they couldn't.

The only solution to this problem is for the world to flatten itself out. That means getting rid of abject poverty AND the uber-rich like matter/anti-matter pairs and replacing them with more balanced lifestyles across the globe. I don't know how this could be done, but thinking about what constitutes a better world would be a start.

CJ sorry, I did not mean to ignore your question. I gather that
there is already a UNHCR processing centre in Indonesia, only
their criteria are a bit stricter then those in Aus, so alot lower
% of people are found to be genuine.

The Australian Govt is of course free to take those people over those
which exist in refugee camps. That would only encourage even more
people to travel to Indonesia, causing a problem for their Govt.

Bronwyn, 30'000 a year is not an unreasonable figure. You will
just need to convince the rest of the Australian people that your
suggested number is a fair one. Any political party could include
it in their platform.

I am pretty sure that earlier on I mentioned what I would do to
make things more cost effective and fair. Only accept
asylum seekers who are nationals of countries which are our
neighbours. All the rest are selected from refugee camps or
similar, in other parts of the world. Be that 13000 or 30000, is not an issue for me.

Forrest

"As Bronwyn has responded to the content of the misposted post on the other thread, apologies to her for any confusion or misunderstanding created. Apologies to anyone else who has been confused by my screw-up."

I realised after I'd made that post that you'd stuffed up, but I wasn't at all worried. It actually gave me a good opportunity to make a point on the other thread, so thank you! :)

Fractelle

"You may be waiting a while, for the crustacean would require a complete rebuild of his entire world view, before applying thought to the plight of people fleeing from unimaginable conditions .. "

LOL! And so spot on.

I learnt long ago that Yabby's heart is well and truly ruled by his head. And of course he thinks the reverse of the likes of you and me. I usually enjoy his posts though and find him a fair poster in most situations, so hopefully he can come up with a considered and comprehensive reply.

It might involve some tricky wriggling from within his cold, hard, crabby shell though, mightn't it? :)

RobP

"The only solution to this problem is for the world to flatten itself out. That means getting rid of abject poverty AND the uber-rich like matter/anti-matter pairs and replacing them with more balanced lifestyles across the globe. I don't know how this could be done, but thinking about what constitutes a better world would be a start."

Another one of your perceptive observations that deserves repeating I think!

Yes, the tricky part is how do we achieve it. Perhaps as you imply if we really start opening up our minds and evaluting the contrast in lifestyle between ours and that of the asylum seekers we're discussing here, we might just start to ask when is enough enough? And for how long can we continue to use our finite resources so extravagantly and so inequitably? And a whole lot of other difficult questions besides.

Putting up barriers is the easy option. But like all easy options, it creates far more problems than it solves.