Any chance of making threads in pairs ? One for academic responses & one for pragmatists.
I have had enough of this to-ing & fro-ing. The real issue is why do people leave in the first place ? Those who are against invading these countries are also pro refugee. I for one would like to see no refugees & rather see coalition forces once & for all grab these idiot dictators & religious mutts & put where they belong, On a big islands (no, not Australia) with each other.
natural selection will do the rest.
This would stop people having to leave either due to persecution or more than likely, agenda driven i.e. silent invasion.

Belly,

To your statement "The Shadow Minister, not our gentleman, spoke of sending boat people to Iran!"

If you did not mean me then I apologize whole heartedly. If you meant Scott Morrison, then I still find it extremely difficult to believe you. I would like to see the Hansard excerpt where Morrison spoke of sending refugees to Iran.

I think that the knives are out for lying woman, and the reason she won't talk to Abbott is that she will have to take responsibility for the outcome and is too scared to face the greens and Labor left. But without Juliar and Abbott at the table there is no outcome possible.

According to LNP strategists "boats equal votes" and they were thrilled to have as many arrive before the last election as possible.

Now that their forced early election plan seems to have gone awry they will need to do more than make the empty claim that the boats will stop simply by voting for them next time, otherwise it will be seen in the same way as their other claim that "interest rates will always be lower" under them.

Time to put up.

Sadly it seems a dead refugee is worth more to them electorally than a live one.

SM says "You have continually failed to address this point as it renders your argument useless."

Wrong again, SM, however although I can barely bring myself to waste another keystroke in your game of pea-and-thimble, I will re-explain per your request, why it is clear that Nauru is no deterrent and why naval force is.

I have previously offered this link, which draws from the senate inquiry into the SIEV X incident and others

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/07/the-consequences-of-turning-boats-back-siev-towback-cases/

Consider the dozen or so SIEV (Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel) encounters with the Australian Navy where asylum-seekers went to extraordinary lengths to be detained rather than be forcibly turned away. The prospect of offshore detention clearly did not deter asylum-seekers. They knew about the prospect of Nauru but just wanted terra-firma under Australian care, Christmas Island, Nauru, it clearly didn’t matter to them. Read about it in the link

The opposition insists that processing on Nauru will deter boats despite this string of SIEV episodes that prove the opposite. Asylum seekers fought to be allowed to be detained anywhere under Australian care, to the extreme of putting their own children’s lives at risk through desperate acts. Read about it in the link.

Mr Abbott vows to re-employ naval force, because he knows the above to be true. No force, no deterrent. it's clear.

The use of force clearly had the strongest deterrent effect, judging by the huge drop in boat arrivals following the SIEV episodes. Many boats were unsafe so turn-arounds led to deaths at sea, adding further to the deterrent effect. That deterrent has been residual and effective up until the present Gov't closed Nauru, which signalled the end of its employment of naval force to people-smugglers (still don't like this term). This has been tested by them with first a trickle and now a growing flood of boats, and mishaps.

If naval force was re-employed today the boats would dwindle again to a tiny trickle. Everybody knows this to be true but you, SM. Even Mr Abbott is not a denier. Don't you wish he never publicly stated he would again use force it and just left the matter with a nod and a wink, kno wo' I mean? I'm sure he does now too.

As an addendum, SM, you continue to assert that the asylum-seekers transferred to Malaysia face beatings, rape, torture, despite Malaysian assurance under the agreement. You are so concerned that Malaysia is a non-signatory to the UN convention on refugees that, using naval force, you would return unsafe boats to ocean danger and back to Indonesia which is also a non-signatory.

You will now, no doubt, throw something else at me I've already answered ad nauseum, but sorry, that's me done.

I'm with Lexi, it's a beautiful day outside.

Merry Christmas to all

Luciferase I admire your in put, it looks much like me here not all that long ago.
I and others, left this place a few times, after head butting SM.
Stay, you can not penetrate his NEGATIVITY, he may be Abbott's mentor
Look however, at the watered down, weak, unmanly withdrawal of his claim I lied .
This subject, like climate change, is war on the Tower of Babble.
Every one wants to be heard, some do not bother to read others thoughts.
And, sadly but true, some know nothing in fact, about the subject.
We here, and Australia as a whole let ourselves be hood winked and side tracked conned.
While we squabble, if an election was near both sides would be fixing this problem on Christmas day in both houses of Parliament.
I want those who have the ability and openness to do so, to watch the similarity's with Americas Republicans.
And NEGATIVE MANS shell of the once proud Australian Liberal party.
And just in case some care,consider why America has developed a bird flu that can kill two thirds of the world.
And is barring reports of it.
United voters can ask questions like that,but with both sides giving a victory here to greens?
LIBERALS? LABOR both door mats to greens?
Poor fella our country!