http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 14.


(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

People seeking asylum from persecution have committed no crime by crossing the borders of another country. However, the country whose borders they cross has no obligation to give them asylum. This is a question difficult to resolve. The United Nations has created a right without a corresponding obligation.

There are at least an estimated 50 million people in the world seeking asylum. In many of the Latin American countries they are fearful of their lives because of the presence of murderous drug gangs. They have a legitimate reason to seek asylum in the United States or in other countries.

However, although they have a right to seek asylum, the United States and other countries have no obligation to grant them asylum.
The market for drugs is chiefly in the United States. If there was not a lucrative market there would be little incentive for the drug gangs. If the United States would legalize drugs the market would no longer be lucrative. That would help.

Malcolm Turnbull has said he would like to make Australia one of the top ten arms exporters. In a world awash with arms, that could have the effect of creating more refugees. That would hurt. Maybe he could sell the arms to American gun nuts.

Malcolm Turnbull has said he would like to make Australia one of the top ten arms exporters.
davidf,
I haven't heard that before & if true it is incredibly disappointing considering the gun laws in place here.
Does he intend to make money from selling australian weapons to our potential enemies whist at the same time keep disarming us?

The 'right’ to seek asylum in Australia exists ONLY because extreme Leftist and suspected Russian spy, 'Doc’ Evatt, signed up to the convention when asylum seekers were genuine and not the economic and political (in the case of Muslims) users they are now.

Australia could opt out of the convention at any time; as it would if we weren't in the hands of a bunch of cowards and lickspittles to the UN.

Illegals are NOT at liberty, even under the convention, to country-shop, passing through other countries where they could obtain asylum on their way to the 'chosen’ country - which is why Australia will not accept people not chosen by us by and passed by the UNHRC.

And, what the hell has that got to do with drugs, arms and the fact that Malcolm Turnbull has a good idea for once and wants us to make money from the arms industry!

Hi there TTBN...

Again you've managed to hit the nail precisely on the head. Most asylum seekers do Country Shop, seeking out Nations with the greatest handouts, and those who're the most gullible. As evidenced by Labour's policy of allowing unfettered access without carefully vetting and scrutinising each asylum seeker to our Country.

Mr Malcolm FRASER (dec) proved how adroit he was on immigration - it was he that opened Australia's borders to the Lebanese, post their Civil War with only the most minor vetting being undertaken. Thus allowing in hoards of Lebanese criminals. Moreover he had the loudest voice in the C'Wealth, supporting Rhodesia's independence, thus removing one of the sharpest minds on the African Continent Mr Ian SMITH, and replacing him with Mr Robert MUGABE Despot and murderer.

What Australia needs is a more pragmatic leader who can see the reality of an imprudent refugee policy, and have a thorough understanding, of this notion of; 'Country Shopping'. Anyone who denies this strategy and/or tactic, must be obtuse in the extreme.

I chose not to engage in the drivel about Doc Evat but highlight a far different world then to now,great numbers of us are the result of that much needed rise in migration,FEAR of loss of national identity, the death of integration, its replacement with the murky term multi culture, is behind both true concerns held by decent people, and the ratbag right,s out right racism I get the feeling behind the scenes in some unknown place the world leaders sit, a plan to make us one humanity has been put in place, in 200 years it may have worked, but much pain could be avoided if we aimed for an integration that had two way respect for both sides,if we could stop faith, every single one of them, being used to divide humanity it could be a painless transition.

O sung wu,

Thanks. Fraser was also the one responsible for multiculturalism, another failed and dangerous policy. I agree with your comments on Rhodesia and Ian Smith. Rhodesia was the food bowl of Africa and an exporter of primary produce. Now Zimbabweans are lucky to feed themselves.

Belly,

Drivel certainly goes with Evatt. As for your own drivel, 74% of Australians are opposed to the current mass immigration, up 14% from the last survey. I suggest that you know sweet FA about what most Australians think. You've been too long in the Left corner. Still using the hackneyed old word 'racism', the one you Lefties bring out when you are losing, I see. LOL about the 'feeling' you get; it must be in some place other than between your ears. As for 'aiming for integration', every time someones suggest that, they are howled down by your mob. Immigrants, especially Muslims, are not going to integrate when they can stick to their own enclaves and never learn a word of English, and still get the dole.

I think the average American/Australian is fair minded about immigration and refugess. Personally I think if we are selective (millions to select from) we should be generous. Those with opposing ideology to Western civilisation should be kept out as harsh as that sounds. Many more good refugees who could add and not detract from this country. A good start would be Sth African farmers although they are the wrong colour for the marxist. They seem to hate hard working people who contribute to society above those wanting to suck on the welfare system.

Dear David F.,

Australia does have a refuge program. Refugees do have
rights. We have signed the UN Refugee Convention. We
were one of the first countries to sign up in 1954
apparently.

We can withdraw from it of course, provided we give 12
months notice. However in the meantime the Conventions
provisions do apply to us and they have been enshrined in
Australian law. They oblige us to offer protection to
refugees who have left their country and arrive here.
The Convention leaves it up to us to establish whether the
refugees meet the definition of a refugee - that is,
whether the refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution on
the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion.

If we remove our membership of the Convention, we would be the
1st of the 145 member countries to withdraw and we would be
turning our backs on genuine refugees who have no alternative
but to flee their country, including as a result of wars in
which we have participated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However it would end the hypocrisy of Australia pretending to
be a splendid international citizen through membership of the
Refugee Convention while turning ourselves inside out to avoid
its obligations.

As for selling weapons overseas?

What an extra-ordinary path for our government to pursue.
They've withdrawn their support for the car industry and
they're not a big supporter of renewal energy technology.
So instead, when looking for new manufacturing and
export opportunities the best they can come up with is -
weapons?

Millions are running from violence and our government's
answer is to produce weapons and sell them?

Have you Right wing bots got your own “Politically Correct Rants for the Right” manual? All you clones sound the same.

If you cognitive bludgers engaged your brain, you'd know that drugs and guns are everything to do with the current USA border crisis. Yet since the countries most affected are all Christian and democratic, it's quick, quick move the topic somewhere else. So off to Africa you go. Whereupon you start bragging about the smarts of a really dumb white bloke. If he had had half a brain it's probable that Mugabe would have got nowhere near power. Then again, your failure to engage your own brains may well elevate Smith to genius level given your standards.

"If you cognitive bludgers engaged your brain, you'd know that drugs and guns are everything to do with the current USA border crisis."

What have guns got to do with it?

"What have guns got to do with it?"

Seriously?

Guns enable the crims to carry out their illegal activities. One of the more lucrative activities is gun-running.

*...The market for drugs is chiefly in the United States. If there was not a lucrative market there would be little incentive for the drug gangs. If the United States would legalize drugs the market would no longer be lucrative. That would help....*

More profound messages from the orbiting blue phone box...FMD!

Warning Doctor...warning Doctor!

Meanwhile, over at the five star Sydney Mater Hospital, Pregnant non-resident Chines women, line up at twenty five grand a pop, to give birth to a new Australian citizen.
Of course that little known fact won't make the headlines.
More evidence of Chinese purchasing of Australian citizenship...!

And on board today, one of our austere posters decrys the Lebanese immigrants, as ALL criminals! ...that probably resembles the reality of somebody who crawled out of a Vietnamese jungle in nineteen seventy, straight into a police station, working half his life on stress leave, at tax payers expense. I'm guessing here OSW. But if you are the average copper from the period, that's how it works!

Room exists in this thread for out right war, feeling run hot on both sides, votes CAN be won or lost on this issue,there is the very reason we have offshore detention! it is cruel ugly and damaging to us as well as our VICTIMS, Tony Abbott, little man with little regard for such as me, is my evidence as I table a truth, he now agrees with me! the Malaysian solution by now, would have stopped every boat, some years back, yes increased our refugee intake, for a while, but all around our near north refugees would have stopped coming, benefiting all country's, no offshore detention no brutality no brutal costs,Abbott said he wishes he could look at it, fewer Australians would be threatened by picked refugees than boat arrival, in the hardest tasks know a middle solution may be the best you can get

Dive..dive..dive......the self-righteous are on the march.

Connect the dots.... illicit drugs...extortion....kidnapping....guns.

Which one of them is the only legal trade that organized crime is involved in?

"Guns enable the crims to carry out their illegal activities. One of the more lucrative activities is gun-running."

Seriously?

In which direction are the guns being run?

"In which direction are the guns being run?"

It will take you 2 seconds to check out the basics. You're obviously going somewhere, so cut to the chase and make your point.

unravel,

"In which direction are the guns being run?"

Well, you brought up the topic, so I really think that you should answer the question.

As far as I can see there are no guns involved with refugees, apart from those legally carried by law enforcement officers and personnel.

What do you think these people are seeking refuge from Is Mise?

Here's a very brief snapshot for you.

If the kids don't join a gang they are shot. If farmers don't grow drugs, they are shot. If people don't become mules they are shot. The vast majority of the handguns that these criminals use, are purchased legally in the States. As I've said elsewhere it needs a regional solution to the problem. Without a regional policy to disarm the gangs and other organised criminals the problem is not going to go away. If the US makes it easy for these gangs to get guns, it makes it easier for these gangs to terrorise their own people. It's virtually a closed loop. Proceeds from drugs buys guns. Guns enable drug production. Not getting a bullet in the head is a far greater incentive than the US dollars offered to grow other crops instead. Consequently, if these people run foul of the gangs, their only hope is to flee and hopefully make it to the US.

So if you don't see how guns are involved with these refugees, either your eyes are wide shut or you wear glasses with a very distinctive political tint.

Here's the LOL of the day, think on this one!
The Liberal Party hold a branch meeting in Arncliffe..(are you reading this hasbeen)?, stack it with Christians, and wonder why the local Muslim population throw them out of town.
Next we hear, Turnbull wants to be a big time gun-runner, and invite all Australians on-board! Is there any hope for this place?

We thankfully know how the arms trade works from evidence of the contra affair and the Iranian arms for hostages fiascos of the “Old Sleepy” Reagan years.

If you want the sordid details, go find out for yourself! But blaming Israel for the illegal supply of arms to terrorists, was a key part of the US strategy, when it all unravelled around the instigator, George W.

Nobody gives a rats A* if a few South American peasants stop a bullet. That's what guns are made for. Especially the American copies with no serial numbers, made in Russia. (Trump and his Russian connections; anybody suspicious)?

Diver Dan yes, read the story and it has been on the boil for two decades at least, the party throwing mud at Labor for its factions, is at war! its right/tea party is stacking branches and forcing true Liberals out, Trump like it has ability to harm this country, imagine, a front bench full of Tony Abbotts!

unravel,

Thank you for that, now a reference or three would round it out.

Hasbeen.

I'd like you to sketch some more detail to my above post Re; branch staking with Christains at a liberal party meeting in your favourite suburb, Arncliffe.

I've wondered about your sons involvement with this issue, and whether it was a good reason the local Muslims were particularly unhappy with him?

Arncliffe is not a tourist attraction by any means. What was he doing there to warrant a confrontation with local Muslims. Normally they are a peace loving lot unless that is, they are intimidated in some way.

"Thank you for that, now a reference or three would round it out."

If I have to “nanny” you through this whole process than you are going to have to do some work too.

What type of reference do you want? Documentary, NGO investigation, peer-reviewed journal, investigative journalism.

What background provider do you want? Lived experience, academic, public broadcaster, journalist.

Is there any specific source, be it reference or provider, you will not accept?

This way I know I'm not wasting my time with Right-wing bots too bone idle to engage their brains and think for themselves. Libelling all media as fake and all academics as Marxists is nothing more than a pathetic attempt by the bots to excuse their cognitive bludging. This way prevents people dismissing the source as unreliable and using out of context data mining. Finally we get to see if you are serious about taking the trouble to read, watch or listen to whatever material is referenced.

diver dan,

"Especially the American copies with no serial numbers, made in Russia. (Trump and his Russian connections; anybody suspicious)?"

That's interesting, can you give me a link to the Russian made guns?

unravel,

"Finally we get to see if you are serious about taking the trouble to read, watch or listen to whatever material is referenced."

Only after you give some reference; you made the statement, therefore, it is up to you to provide a reference; it's really just a matter of good manners.

OK if you are too impolite to respond to a perfectly reasonable request to narrow down the reference or background types that are amenable to you, I am going to have to assume that you know absolutely nothing.

I am going to break it right down and progress step by step to ensure that you fully understand the topic and accept that the sources I reference have the necessary expert credibility. To begin with I'll introduce you to Kyleanne Hunter, one of the co-founders of Vets For Gun Reform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhfHWY9pCl4

This tedx is just a background.

http://www.kyleannehunter.com/home.html

Her website details her accomplishments.

If you have no problems with her weapons knowledge and her understanding of gun legislation in the USA, then we'll move on.

David F said- "If there was not a lucrative market there would be little incentive for the drug gangs. If the United States would legalize drugs the market would no longer be lucrative. That would help."

Answer- Generally drug legalization (or decriminalization) is an interesting solution as it addresses the demand and supply side issues of the business of drugs. But it seems to conflict with the Hippocratic Oath "Neither will I administer a poison nor will I suggest such a course."- basically "Do no harm". It shows that even a principle as basic as "Do no harm" if applied in the wrong context and at the wrong scale can potentially be misguided in certain situations. Doctors apply this principle at the individual level but the solution needs perhaps to be applied at the national level- which often involves and "balancing of evils".

However due to the relatively weak policing in south american countries shutting down the drug business would just move business into other types of organised crime- such as money laundering. There have been interesting uses of the military in confronting organised crime in south america.

Foxy said- "If we remove our membership of the (Refugee) Convention"

Answer- Some regional and international conventions are probably not sustainable- such as the European Union in its current form. The Refugee Convention was drafted in a time of restricted travel. My understanding is the numbers (and proportions) of refugees and immigrants are now much higher than at other times in history.

Foxy said- "What an extra-ordinary path for our government to pursue.
They've withdrawn their support for the car industry and
they're not a big supporter of renewal energy technology.
So instead, when looking for new manufacturing and
export opportunities the best they can come up with is -
weapons?"

The car industry is at a bit of a dead end it has been unable to reinvent its product in line with other developments. Renewable energy is fairly risky due to storage technology (governments have a conservative risk profile- doesn't mean it can't sponsor research- I'm sure it has been). There has been development of manufacturing such as nanotech and carbon fibre in Australia. Many economic models seem to believe that quanternary (meta-information) industries (rather than secondary) add greater value. I'm not sure what Prime Minister Turnbull have in mind with the arms industry- presumably he's seeking to arm law enforcement (small arms- but others have better capacity here) and possibly leverage submarine expertise in India or other potentials. India would probably buy one submarine and then copy it- so not a good long term business.

unravel,

See, it's not hard to give a reference,
pity that it's not relevant to your statement that, "Guns enable the crims to carry out their illegal activities. One of the more lucrative activities is gun-running."

So, a reference, please.

Kyleanne Hunter may or may not have said something on the subject but I'm not going to wade through her articles to find it.
I can read all that I want on women's issues elsewhere.

Let me repeat myself

“If I am going to “nanny” you through this whole process than you are going to have to do some work too.”

“OK if you are too impolite to respond to reference or background types, I am going to have to assume that you know absolutely nothing. So I am going to break it right down and progress step by step to ensure that you fully understand the topic and accept that the sources I reference have the necessary expert credibility.”

So why are you bitching because I'm nannying you through it, Is Mise? You did not want to give me any information as to what type of reference or source material you required. As I said, I have to assume you know absolutely nothing and baby-step you through it. You don't have to do anything except watch, listen or read the specific references. I'm not expecting you to have to use the references as pointers to other information.

I don't do two sentence tweets, nor do I re-post two sentence Alt-right bots. I'm going to give you plenty of references, one or a few at a time, so that you can understand the complexity of the situation. If there is something you don't get or reject, it can be sorted as you encounter it. All you need to take away from that tedx is the damage that an AR15 can inflict.

Next up, more of Kyleanne Hunter

https://speakerfortheliving.com/gun-trafficking/

Unravel- If you quote a source it's good manners, and in some contexts a requirement, to give a link.

Criminal migrants/refugees? are we sure all or even most of them fit that description? isolate just one group, not in America but here in say Melbourne, that apex gang is not a failure of our migration /refugee problem, it is a failure of our PC infested justice system,they, like thousands of WASP crims have the keys to their prison cells in their pockets in fact they never see a cell

unravel,

You said, "... One of the more lucrative activities is gun-running."
Just give a reference, please.

Wrong Belly,
It is the failure of both the immigration and the Justice systems.

Immigration, firstly because the moment we find a group do not integrate or respect our laws we should deny further entry of that group. i.e. Those that continue with FGM and under age marriage, for example.

The Justice system, must be made accountable by adequate sentencing for crimes committed and there must be more jails constructed to cater for our expanded population. The politicians are responsible for both.

Politicians, state and Federal, continue to ignore community requirements.

Looking at the TV coverage of the asylum seekers/illegal immigrants entering the US one is struck by their emaciated appearance, one hopes that the improved diet in the US camps will soon fill them out.

Hi there CANEM MALUM...

I like the style of your contributions I must say. Apropos entering the manufacturing of arms that PM TURNBULL envisages. It's not so much small arms I believe, though we have the capacity to produce some of the very best military small arms in the world, at the SAF, Lithgow in NSW.

We have other military arms applications, like the medium distance, guided weapon systems, anti-tank long range guided systems, and quite a number of other similar systems, of which I've not been appraised. Of course he may well have meant small arms, but that market place is very well protected by other more competitive markets, from the US, Europe, and Great Britain.

Our only real impediment to having considerable success in this area, is of that of a moral imperative. There are many folk who find the supplying of arms to Nations with a poor human rights record, as utterly abhorrent, and will resist those endeavours in every way possible. We shall see I expect, in the fullness of time?

Banjo,

"... and there must be more jails constructed to cater for our expanded population."

Fully agree, but only if they are constructed in the desert country and with no road access and a water supply by pipeline that can be turned off by remote control.

O Sung Wu- Thanks for your feedback and the information on the small arms and missiles. I had a look at the website. It's great that Australia is self sufficient in the Army's personal weapons.

Canem Malum, Is Mise

If I directly quote from a source or paraphrase two or three I will reference them. If I'm drawing from a range of knowledgeable sources over the years and making self-explanatory statements, then I see no need for references. But for Is Mise I'll make an exception.

There are two main reasons why.

First reason.

I use the phrase “cognitive bludger”. People are not born stupid but some stop exercising their brain. For me it explains the gobsmacking stupidity of so many statements we read today. People just parrot what they read or see without checking the accuracy and/or taking the time to grasp a better understanding of the background to see if it is contextually correct. So technically, one could reason that Is Mise is exercising his brain to learn more about the US border situation.

Second reason.

I say technically because of what Is Mise asked me to reference.

"In which direction are the guns being run?" "Guns enable the crims to carry out their illegal activities. One of the more lucrative activities is gun-running."

This is a thread on “asylum seekers, drugs and weapons”. People who have only the most basic grasp of the situation on the US border, are aware that cartel and gang violence is the most common reason people use for seeking asylum. "In which direction are the guns being run?" Guns are run in every direction, but in relation to this issue, excuse me if I think the more pertinent direction is gob-smackingly obvious. "Guns enable the crims to carry out their illegal activities.” Again, excuse me if I think that statement is gob-smackingly obvious. You'll notice that Is Mise has dropped the request for a reference on those two and we are just left with the lucrative nature of gun-running. To me it is gob-smackingly obvious that gun-running is a criminal activity. It is also to me, gob-smackingly obvious that it is highly profitable.

........................CONTINUE

.........CONTINUATION

So if these basics are beyond the grasp of Is Mise and he wants to learn about the US border situation, then I will give him reference after reference that will build up the background to the gun violence and the gun running. That way he will be more informed about the situation in Central America. Is Mise will learn that lax USA firearms regulations facilitate the gun running; that USA legislation actual impedes the work of those seeking to curb the gun running; of the proliferation of illegal weapons in Central America and how the bulk of them came from the USA; how these weapons enable the criminals to carry out their legal activities; how these criminal networks undermine democracy. Finally Is Mise will learn what guns fetch on the black market. As Is Mise will already have the figures as to the numbers of illegal weapons in circulation, Is Mise will be able to calculate just how lucrative gun-running is. After all, we don't want Is Mise to be a cognitive bludger throughout the whole process.

So if you want to insinuate that I am making things up, then I think it is only polite that you allow me to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I stated is correct.

The latest installment of references -

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2018/02/02/445659/beyond-our-borders/

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/wdbd9y/the-atfs-nonsensical-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392

unravel,

You might find it helpful to remove the 's' from 'https' as the link will then go auto without the necessity to paste it.; it's an OLO thing.

So the guns are being run South, that's all I was wondering about.

Doesn't South America make any weapons?

They certainly do make machetes.

Unravel- Thanks for providing the links.

I didn't really want to get deeply involved with this discussion but here we are.

On the US side- It's well known that the US has issues with gun control due to the "right to bear arms" clause of the constitution which is based on their history. Their perspective is that an armed population is necessary for a free people and as a check on government power. They consider it a necessary evil.

On the export of arms out of the US- From the articles it appears that the government are not allowing the selling of small arms to south american countries citizens. US citizens are buying arms from the US and on-selling them to other parties.

Generally all countries are more concerned with the items people are bringing into the country than out of the country- so some would argue that this is the destination countries responsibility.

So what are the destination countries doing to address the import of small arms into their countries? I can imagine there are a number of strategies to prevent the importation of arms. Well regulated air traffic, surface vessel tracking, and land border surveillance are necessary parts of border control. Perhaps the ATF can consult with destination countries to improve their borders.

There are always issues with criminals that cross borders to avoid law enforcement.

I was initially unsure about whether the linked articles had supported their claims but found further on that there appears to be some foundation. I felt that the linked articles provided were fairly one sided treatments of these complex issues. Of course given the partisan nature of the authors this could be expected.

I didn't really want to get deeply involved with this discussion but here we are.......

As you will see you haven't even got a toe in the water.

.....On the US side- It's well known that the US has issues with gun control due to the "right to bear arms" clause of the constitution which is based on their history. Their perspective is that an armed population is necessary for a free people and as a check on government power. They consider it a necessary evil....

Go back, watch and listen to Kyleanne Hunter. It deals with the dirty great big lies about gun control. All they want is basic regulations to make it harder for criminals to own weapons and a ban on combat weapons designed for war zones. The same sort of basic regulations that they have around car ownership. If you mitigate against bad drivers and unsafe vehicles, is it unreasonable to expect something similar against bad gun-owners and unsafe weapons.

......On the export of arms out of the US- From the articles it appears that the government are not allowing the selling of small arms to south american countries citizens. US citizens are buying arms from the US and on-selling them to other parties.

Generally all countries are more concerned with the items people are bringing into the country than out of the country- so some would argue that this is the destination countries responsibility.......

Such a predictable answer. First response – cocaine was not an issue in the South American countries, coca plants have been growing there for hundreds of years and they have long been part of the rural industry. Then drugs became a problem in the US and the US then began sponsoring international laws to force the South Americans to deal with a US problem. If the US expects the Central and South Americans to deal with the problems drugs cause in the US, why is it unreasonable for the Central and South American countries to expect the US to deal with the problems guns cause in their countries.

.....So what are the destination countries doing to address the import of small arms into their countries? I can imagine there are a number of strategies to prevent the importation of arms. Well regulated air traffic, surface vessel tracking, and land border surveillance are necessary parts of border control. Perhaps the ATF can consult with destination countries to improve their borders....

Second response – that's what they call a patronising answer from someone who hasn't even got his feet wet. Been there done that, for decades. Read the Wall Street Journal article for a snapshot of the billion dollar drug industry. You have absolutely no idea of the history of these countries. Then look at the BBC documentaries. Ignore the reporter just listen and observe the Hondurans. Then you can tell us what the strategy should be to deal with someone who has a dirty great big wad of cash and as many guns for hire as he needs.

http://www.wsj.com/ad/cocainenomics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT4AxQ2YbtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoEe59hDVfs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3n00dKYEh0

.....There are always issues with criminals that cross borders to avoid law enforcement.

I was initially unsure about whether the linked articles had supported their claims but found further on that there appears to be some foundation. I felt that the linked articles provided were fairly one sided treatments of these complex issues. Of course given the partisan nature of the authors this could be expected.....

I have said before the issue is complex. Feel free to provide a reference for the other side that shows what a great job the US is doing tracking weapons and making it difficult for criminals to access them . You can explain to everybody why the Tiahrt and Dickey amendments are such great pieces of legislation. Excuse me if I state that simply building a wall and blaming everyone south of the border isn't just one-sided, it's plain stupid. Even if we ignore the latest drone technology, people have been tunnelling under, flying over and sailing around that southern border for decades.

I haven't even scratched the surface. All the references you have had so far, are superficial outlines. People have been fighting these wars for decades and dealing with all their social consequences. If the US see the solution as building a wall, then let them totally butt out of the region. Let them deal with the drug problem on their territory. Look on the bright side for the paranoid Right, if the whole of Central and South America becomes a Cartel haven, at least it will be free of Lefties and Islamists!

Unravelled said "that's what they call a patronising answer from someone who hasn't even got his feet wet. Been there done that, for decades. Read the Wall Street Journal article for a snapshot of the billion dollar drug industry. You have absolutely no idea of the history of these countries. Then look at the BBC documentaries. Ignore the reporter just listen and observe the Hondurans. Then you can tell us what the strategy should be to deal with someone who has a dirty great big wad of cash and as many guns for hire as he needs."

Answer- I think most people have some understanding of the power of the drug industry from the history of the golden triangle

Give it away Mad Dog, your initial patronising answer evidently translates your some into minuscule. Then barking up the wrong tree by trying to equate two vastly different drug regions merely emphasises just how minuscule.

Hi there UNRAVEL...

It seems to me the basic tenor of your argument is; where there is an 'industry scale', drug running operation is concerned, so accompanies it with illicit F/A's - Almost as if they're in lockstep as it were. Have I got it right?

You appear to assert the US are the main culprits for supplying illicit weapons south of the Rio Grande. The do contribute no doubt. There's also a burgeoning market available for South America arms manufacturing, and they tend to make quite decent weapons as well. Far removed from your 'Saturday Night Special', handguns that've hitherto emerged from the Republic of the Philippines, ('Squires Bingham' and similar).

Among them is the 'Bersa'; an Argentinian Company, & the 'Taurus'; a Brazilian outfit. Both of whom are tooled up to produce military grade weapons.

UNRAVEL what precisely do you mean by; '...getting your feet wet...' and '...been there done that...'? Are you making admissions you've engaged in the illicit trafficking of F/A and Drugs; or you've been involved in law-enforcement, thus the interdiction process of the same illicit commodities? You'll need to explain it to me simply, because I'm not very smart.

Lastly to employ such a deprecatory remark ('Mad Dog') toward another contributor, is in very poor taste in my opinion. And if repeated face to face, might well involve you own 'unravelling', UNRAVEL?

Is this what you call tag-teaming o sung wu?

Your analysis of my posts is the same as your analysis of Ian Smith. That is, woeful.

Let's start with your last.

“...Lastly to employ such a deprecatory remark ('Mad Dog') toward another contributor, is in very poor taste in my opinion.....”

I'm just responding in kind, “...................Unravelled said "that's.....”

If Bad Dog wants to play games changing Unravel to Unravelled, I'll play too, changing Bad Dog to Mad Dog. So feel free to show off your biased opinion. It just affirms what we already know.

“And if repeated face to face, might well involve you own 'unravelling'.....”,

Is that a threat o sung wu?

“....Almost as if they're in lockstep as it were. Have I got it right?”

Politically you are dead Right, which is why your analysis of what I've posted to date is dead wrong.

“'...getting your feet wet...' and '...been there done that...' ......................... You'll need to explain it to me simply, because I'm not very smart.”

I don't need to explain anything to you. If you choose not to follow the logical flow of what I responded to, that's you making that choice not your intellectual capacity. Take responsibility for your personal choices o sung wu, don't blame your genes, your education or any other factor for that self-loathing of your own intellect. It's dead easy being a cognitive bludger, you've got a brain like everybody else, you just have to take personal responsibility for the reasons you choose not to engage it.

Hi there UNRAVEL...

Wow, have you got my measure I know now I should've stayed in bed! You mentioned threats? I can't possibly make a threat to anyone, especially when I'm unable to carry-out such an act.

If I may be permitted to make an observation concerning you UNRAVEL; without disturbing your delicate sensibilities. You appear (prima facie) to be a very angry and troubled young man, attacking anyone or anything, for the slightest denunciation of you personally, or your many flawed opinions. I think all that's rather sad.

Therefore to compensate, you suddenly arise out of your little box 'swinging 'n blathering' at anybody who's unfortunate enough to be in your vicinity! Interestingly you speak of others who lack the good grace to admit when they're wrong? Yet, you yourself churlishly disabuse others, when they highlight your erroneous assertions. Why is that please?

However, I believe under all that 'theatre' you're somewhat of a lonely agitated figure, harbouring this misanthropic predilection towards the community per se. Therefore time; together with some measure of goodwill, emanating entirely from you of course - You might be able to engage in some intrinsic; Behaviour Modification Activity?

A programme used extensively in Long Bay Gaol, with quite some measure of success. As you can imagine with 1,500 odd inmates, incarcerated mostly in Maximum Security, there exists much venom, anger, and reprisal. And for the record, most 'threats' are carried out! I've had the regrettable task of investigating quite a number of serious crimes, occasioned against the personage's of inmates, at that particular gaol.

And back to the programme; with some honest dedication and personal application, you may manage to assuage much of that repressed anger and irritability you now possess, that we've all witnessed bubbling happily away, just below the surface. I do hope this is of some assistance to you UNRAVEL?

Unravel?

Uncouth?

o sung wu- Thanks for your feedback. Argumentum ad hominem ;)

You are very welcome CANEM MALUM...

I suspect we all get a little heated and aggrieved if we feel we're losing a debate, hell I always get 'nailed' as it were, on most issues. After all The Forum & OLO is a facility that Graham YOUNG has kindly developed, that allows many of us who hitherto, were without a voice. At least it permits us ordinary folk, a suitable venue in which we may articulate our views, without too much censure by the 'thought police'.

Moreover, Graham YOUNG rarely modifies anyone's argument, unless we're silly enough to employ language calculated to seriously offend, or designed to incite violence, or to commit a crime against any one of the Statutes that have received royal assent from the Realm. I reckon we're pretty lucky with this arrangement.

Why is it not surprising that you are a bunch of sooks!

Unlike you lot, I don't try to hide behind a facade of pretentious civility. I've got this thing about keeping it real. There is nothing civil about disparaging refugees as country shoppers, ethnic communities as criminal ridden, the majority of your own nation as either sheep and or / Lefties and an Abrahammic faith followed by billions around the world. That is an attack on their morality, their cultural heritage, their capacity to think for themselves and their faith. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Please feel free to become the self-appointed head warders of the civility commissars, you just make yourself look even sillier given your boasts about supporting freedom of speech and loathing political correctness. Nobody restricts themselves to such narrow political thought as the Right-bots and woe betide anyone who steps out of their political line.

Please keep accusing me of being deprecatory for an in-kind response to another poster. Nothing better than having you lot parading your bias and hypocrisy for all to see

Please keep the observations going, it reminds us that you lot cannot see anything but your own prejudices.

Take '...getting your feet wet...' and '...been there done that...' o sung wu. Just engaging your brain and paying a modicum of attention to just that one post, would have stopped you from getting it so wrong.

“..toe in the water...” “....hasn't got his feet wet...” Note the similarity of the expressions.

Where's the first one? Immediately following Bad Dog's assertion that he is deeply involved in this discussion. The inference from my response, no he is not. Opposite of deep is shallow, no toe in the water = not in deep.

“...been there done that.....” is included in my “Second response.....”. Here he's responding to a problem that has been ongoing for decades. The obvious strategies suggested have long been used, as in “been there done that”. They have failed in similar ways that the US, with all of its resources, has failed to protect its borders from drug runners. Add to that the references I provided. They show too that not only have these strategies been tried and are ongoing but also some reasons why they failed. Merely regurgitating failed strategies is not an indicator of being deeply involved, hence the inclusion here of “....hasn't got his feet wet...”.

You looked o sung wu and saw nothing but your alt-Right prejudices staring right back at you.

Hey there UNRAVEL...

Please settle down, you'll do yourself an injury if you allow such a light hearted venue like 'The Forum', to unnerve you. After all the Forum & OLO are supposed to be positive, and relatively beneficial outlets for us all, providing us with some fun and good humour. To do otherwise is counterproductive to the real intent, of establishing such avenues and means of personal expression.

You tell us '...you don't like to hide behind this pretentious civility. I've got this thing of keeping it real...' or similar language. In other words you're trying to tell us all you're a pragmatists? Well there nothing wrong with that. You further state inter alia, '...nothing better than having you lot parading your bias and hypocrisy for all to see...'? I must be very candid with you young fella I haven't got the foggiest notion of what you're talking about? What bias & what hypocrisy, are you inferring?

Another puzzling statement from you UNRAVEL? You say '...Please feel free to become the self -appointed head warder of the civility commissars...'? OK my friend, you're beginning to lose me now, I have no idea what it is that's germane to you specific complaint(s)? Best we leave it here, thus allowing you the time to perhaps, have a breather, and consolidate your thoughts and arguments; and having done so, relaunch your position a little later when you're feeling more refreshed and alert to what's going on around you, OK. Take care UNRAVEL.

O Sung Wu-

I find that those that go to university tend to be able to separate the "ideas" from the "owner of the idea" because that's what university rightly or wrongly train them to do. Jungian theory would classify this archetype as "Sagely Non-attachment" I guess. Though that doesn't mean that everyone on OLO is a one dimensional Steinbeck caricature.

Strength of character does not consist solely in having powerful feelings, but in maintaining one’s balance in spite of them. Even with the violence of emotion, judgment and principle must still function like a ship’s compass, which records the slightest variations however rough the sea. Carl von Clausewitz

I found the following ...

http://student.unsw.edu.au/discussion-skills

How do we argue at university?

The everyday meaning of the term argument suggests a fight: an aggressive conflict or confrontation between adversaries, where one tries to dominate the other in order to 'win'. At university this kind of arguing is not appropriate. The aim of academic argument is to explore a question, a proposition or an area of knowledge and achieve reasoned mutual understanding. It is not important who 'wins'—what matters most is the quality of the argument itself. When you engage in academic argument in your tutorial discussions, you are developing your ideas, advancing and clarifying your knowledge and learning to think critically.

Jayb on other thread recently mentioned Kierkegaard the father of existentialism. This lead me to read on the nature of reality for those of existentialist (be true to your nature- truth is subjective), rationalist (truth is axiomatic), and empiricist (truth is empirical) persuasions. It's interesting when commenters talk about truth- especially in complex circumstances. But Identity politics have reframed much of the debate in the public sphere and now seem to claim authority over social pedagogy.

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

…..what matters most is the quality of the argument itself. When you engage in academic argument in your tutorial discussions, you are developing your ideas, advancing and clarifying your knowledge and learning to think critically.....

And what quality you displayed Bad Dog – you brought nothing of relevance to the table. You retarded the discussion with your simplistic one-eyed US perspective of what had already been stated to be a complex problem. You completely failed to appreciate the obvious similarities between the drugs moving north and the guns moving south. You dismissed references as biased yet provided zero references to either justify or advance your claims. You dragged in the Golden Triangle, a different drug network in a different region that generated different impacts, for an insipid statement on the power of the drug industry. All this clarified was how little you know and that you have a long way to go to think critically.

Simply repeating the same old mistakes will achieve nothing in this region. If you'd paid attention to the references and thought critically, you would understand that Trump is repeating the same old mistakes. If you had understood that instead of being blinded by your prejudices, then further references would have informed you of different approaches to address the situation.

Still, given the research you are doing on education skills and understanding your psyche, I'm sure you can improve. But then again what would I know, I'm just an uneducated pleb.

Dear Canem Malum,

Thank you for your last two posts. I have learned from them.

G'day there CANEM MALUM...

Actually my friend, I left school in 1955 after attaining my NSW Intermediate Certificate. While it's true I've undertaken several specialised Criminal Law Courses at Uni, especially designed for police, they no more confer a Degree than working at McDonalds. Moreover their breadth of study is very narrow, dealing specifically with the criminal law.

Another specialised course I attended, again structured and designed for police, was a Investigator's Course for detectives; centred around crimes involving cross border fraud. Believe it or not, taught by civilian tutors, rather than coppers - to say they knew and understood their material, would be an understatement, they were totally across their subject altogether.

So you see C M I've not undertaken any academic degree courses at UNI, so I'm not really qualified to pass comment on the virtues or otherwise of higher academic study similar to that undertaken at University. Thank you CANEM MALUM for your interesting contribution. I do appreciate it.

Thanks David F and O Sung Wu for your feedback you both seem to have significant knowledge about things. Not that I would agree with you both on all things but your backgrounds and the form of your contributions mean I would value your contributions. David F's methodist politics (probably law background) and O Sung Wu's criminal law cover a wide swath of the subject matter inherent in the North/ South America issues.

Myself generally more of an empiricist but found that the existentialist position (truth is subjective) related well with the US democratic principle- government of the people. To advocate that some authority knows better than the people and therefore should have primogeniture over that of the people sounds like tyranny. Over a period of many years organisations such as ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union- was mentioned previously in this thread), ADL (Anti Defamation League), SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) have established themselves as authorities on Social Policy and as a "Social Good". Perhaps their position as a "social good" needs to be analyzed in more detail. Though some care may be required to avoid a defamation case by these organisations that are very active in bringing opposition to court. In much debate it appears to influence politics (and apparently as court "impartial" advise) much is done to demonize opposing views. An NGO can present an argument but claims of impartiality are questionable- in the end the democratic mandate should decide.

Evey Hammond: Artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up.

The contemporary policy battleground of debates appear to be localists verses globalists.

On a somewhat related topic- demonizing opposing views- There are a few terms that are used in public debate- Racism, Fascism. These pejoratives of course are designed to demonize certain perspectives. George Orwell commented on the misuse of the term Fascism. There was an interesting episode of Q&A recently when an eminent panelist mentioned that everyone is "ethno-centric"- I think it was lost on many. There was one young woman that insisted on labeling ex-Prime Minister- Tony Abbot as Racist. Racialism, and Ethno-centricity are often conflated with Racism. Anyway there are some controversial terms that probably shouldn't be used in a mature discussion as it shuts down the inquiry and makes us less wise as a community. Edison had to try hundreds of designs to come up with the light bulb- it's usually necessary to view a situation from many perspectives to create a baseline to use to find a solution.

* Sometimes those that are educated or experienced can come across as pedants but this doesn't necessarily invalidate their views. I'm often amazed at the interesting contributions of the 4th age quartile of the community.