egafd.com

Er no. Australia has the right idea. It has a strict immigration policy. It turns back migrant boats and it deports illegal immigrants. In short it looks after Australian citizens. Which correct me if I am wrong is what the Aussie electorate expect.

David Johnson wrote:

> "And as Libya was a major supplier to the IRA......what goes
> around...."
>
> And the people fleeing the chaos of post-Gaddafi Libya were
> responsible for that?

No and nor are we responsible for the slave trade ? didn't stop Blair and the odious Livingstone apologising for it (and Ken even shed tears!).


>
> Would you argue that you should not be helped in any way
> whatsoever if you fell on hard times because the UK illegally
> invaded Iraq? I don't think so. You would soon be sobbing and
> screaming for help.

Help from a system to which he has contributed...

I agree, when people get the thing they wanted it is often not as great as they had hoped. My understanding of our reasons for decolonising are: a, because of the huge death toll amongst the aristocracy in World War 1, the fuse was lit then, it took 50 years to happen but we ended up pulling out of our colonies. The class system altered so much as a result of that war that things were never the same again; and b, because we couldn't afford to be the worlds policeman anymore living with the austerity that we did after World War 2. Sending troops to Kenya to do with the Mau Mau issue proved we didn't have the money or resources anymore, so the 'Winds of change' formally began. Someone said on here not so long ago that another reason for us pulling out of the colonies was because America wanted us to following Suez.

we turn them back - no haven here not our problem and those left wing do gooders can go back with them if they don't like it....

what is it that we stand back and let em stay ? that's what creates the problem.

If they were sent back then the tide would stop as people would know that there was no possibility of it working

abide by the rules. look after our own and to hell with the others....

Well, I guess Blair's apology was on behalf of the British government just as Cameron's apology for Bloody Sunday was on behalf of the government rather than Essex Lad, Argie and DJ.

"Help from a system to which he has contributed..."

And if that system had been destroyed, say by Britain being bombed and the infrastructure destroyed, he would not be able to get that help.

Just as Libyans are not able to get help from the Libyan government and the infrastructure by which people earned a living, because it no longer exists in a meaningful way and has been replaced by tribal warfare and insurgent uprisings. In both Argie's case and that of the Libyans they would end up looking for support from elsewhere.

Spoken like a true SNP supporter!!!!!

David Johnson wrote:

> Well, I guess Blair's apology was on behalf of the British
> government just as Cameron's apology for Bloody Sunday was on
> behalf of the government rather than Essex Lad, Argie and DJ.

I do wish politicians and clergymen would stop apologising for things that were nothing to do with them.

>
> "Help from a system to which he has contributed..."
>
> And if that system had been destroyed, say by Britain being
> bombed and the infrastructure destroyed, he would not be able
> to get that help.
>
> Just as Libyans are not able to get help from the Libyan
> government and the infrastructure by which people earned a
> living, because it no longer exists in a meaningful way and
> has been replaced by tribal warfare and insurgent uprisings.
> In both Argie's case and that of the Libyans they would end up
> looking for support from elsewhere.

I actually agree with both of you.

However, I'm not sure that Libya was that great a place to live when Gadaffi was alive. I do think that our governments made a huge mistake in toppling Gadaffi and Saddam.

"However, I'm not sure that Libya was that great a place to live when Gadaffi was alive. "

Agreed, but at least it was a functioning state, not a war-ridden basket case.

max_tranmere wrote:

> I agree, when people get the thing they wanted it is often not
> as great as they had hoped. My understanding of our reasons for
> decolonising are: a, because of the huge death toll amongst the
> aristocracy in World War 1

Was the aristocracy hit more than other classes?

, the fuse was lit then, it took 50
> years to happen but we ended up pulling out of our colonies.
> The class system altered so much as a result of that war that
> things were never the same again; and b, because we couldn't
> afford to be the worlds policeman anymore living with the
> austerity that we did after World War 2.

I think giving colonies their liberty was more to do with cost than a dismantling of the class system.


Sending troops to
> Kenya to do with the Mau Mau issue proved we didn't have the
> money or resources anymore, so the 'Winds of change' formally
> began. Someone said on here not so long ago that another reason
> for us pulling out of the colonies was because America wanted
> us to following Suez.

The Americans stitched us up over Suez.

[quote]Er no. Australia has the right idea. It has a strict immigration policy.[/quote]

Never mind, Arg!