clairelaw123 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I can sympathize with that sentiment to a degree. I would like to see the US withdraw somewhat in it's role as the world's policeman which is costing too much money and which is sorely needed for domestic programs. I dont see giving asylum to refugees benefits a nation very much. These people would be better off staying in their own countries and making the sacrifices and efforts necessary to correct the injustices in their societies Yes it would be a lot better for many of them to stay in their own countries and get slaughtered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yes it would be a lot better for many of them to stay in their own countries and get slaughtered. But if all the good people leave then there will only be bad people left and things just get worse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Zimbabwe being one of the most infamous in comparison, Zimbabwe has much less blood spilled than other countries. it seems that the further up you get the more blood. sub Saharan Africa has, probably, despots so skilled they stamp out any 'opposition' by surgical assassinations and political bribery. the stuff back in the 80s, though, i think should have at least been investigated by the UN. as do many other atrocities on the continent Andy's idea is a good one, though. a "points system" would work, i think. needs to come from the UN otherwise it could lack legitimacy, but it's a good one. would need to look into the sanctions etc and how they would be done... Britain should not dissociate itself from foreign affairs(if that's what the OP meant) as it has experiences that could help other countries, and itself in the long run, but i think it needs to be more with the UN or NATO etc rather than just us and the state Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Personally i'd like genuine assylum cases to be a trigger of a UN process that starts with investigation and if proven suspension from the UN then processes in place to resolve the cause of the need for asylum, which may ultimately involve UN forces being introduced to which Britain should clearly contribute their share. For too long abusive regimes have been allowed to vote in the UNGA and at times on the UNSC and bizarrely even on the Human Rights Council. A trigger process where genuine assylum seekers are being caused need to be but in place and action taken, and i'd fully support Britain taking an active role in such a process. As for unilateral wars, if Britain or British overseas areas are attacked such as the falklands clearly we need to respond or where there is an inadequate UN capability in place in a troublespot then if we can resolve the problem quickly then it's probably the right thing to do. One recent example being Sierra Leone where British forces ended a civil war that had been dragging on for years in about a fortnight saving countless lives which would otherwise have been lost in the process. I agree very strongly with most of that. I accept the argument mad by some UN member countries that they do't have a lot ofmoeny, butthey do have people who could be trained and equipped and used as UN peacekeepers. Some countries seem to be quite happy to take out of the pot, but markedly unwilling to contribute. Africa had the OAU - Which seemed to be unable to provide much security for African Nations. There is no shortage of armed people in Africa, but for some reason they seem to be unwilling to help each other. Somebody else should do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clairelaw123 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 But if all the good people leave then there will only be bad people left and things just get worse! If they leave because they'll otherwise be killed it doesn't really make things better if they stay and get slaughtered does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yes it would be a lot better for many of them to stay in their own countries and get slaughtered. Civil Wars are an unfortunate (and usually horrible) fact of life. Where there are two or more rival factions in a country and where that rivalry spills over into violence, you can expect a Civil War. I can't think of one occasion where a Civil War was ended and the underlying problems were resolved by outside intervention. It seems that lasting solutions to internal problems must be agreed by the parties themsleves. If half of one side leave, how will an equitable solution be obtained? Tito put the lid on the Balkan pressure cooker and held it there until he died. When he died and the lid came off the resentment and hate which had been contained for so many years came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 in comparison, Zimbabwe has much less blood spilled than other countries. it seems that the further up you get the more blood. sub Saharan Africa has, probably, despots so skilled they stamp out any 'opposition' by surgical assassinations and political bribery. the stuff back in the 80s, though, i think should have at least been investigated by the UN. as do many other atrocities on the continent Andy's idea is a good one, though. a "points system" would work, i think. needs to come from the UN otherwise it could lack legitimacy, but it's a good one. would need to look into the sanctions etc and how they would be done... Britain should not dissociate itself from foreign affairs(if that's what the OP meant) as it has experiences that could help other countries, and itself in the long run, but i think it needs to be more with the UN or NATO etc rather than just us and the state Yeah maybe not so much blood, even though I did see some machetes in heads and limb extremities lopped off, but what about all those forced to starve whilst Mugabe and his lot lived it large? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 If they leave because they'll otherwise be killed it doesn't really make things better if they stay and get slaughtered does it. Not all incidents involve mass deaths... It's more likely to happen though if all those who stand against it run away! EDIT: When I say run away, i'm not judging them as scared, seriously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yes it would be a lot better for many of them to stay in their own countries and get slaughtered. Well the French stayed and changed things so did the Russians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clairelaw123 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Not all incidents involve mass deaths... It's more likely to happen though if all those who stand against it run away! EDIT: When I say run away, i'm not judging them as scared, seriously! Not all refugees arrive in mass? When the OP mentioned giving asylum to refugees was there a specific incident they had in mind that I'm missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.