There is something rotten in Australia

[Beskar]

What about the father who takes his wife and young child and flees certain death?

The argument is, if they stayed and united with others, to protect their wife and young child, opposed to running away, they can stop the certain death by fighting those who do that not only to their wife and child, but the wife of child of many others.

Think of it this way. There is a room full of people, a couple of people have guns. If they united together, they can easily overcome the people with guns, thus solves the problem. A few people will die, but the problem is solved.

On the otherhand, if they all fleed to another room, what about all those people in there? They would have to share their food, drinks, etc. What about if the people in that room have guns as well and oppressing? Do you keep running away, room to room? to you find a cramped corner some where, while those people with guns in the other rooms are there feasting away on all those resources, since people were too chicken to confront them?

[naut]

Wow. No oversimplification of the issues there.

[miotas]

Of course that works if you look at numbers on a page, but what does the father see when he looks at his family, a statistic or a fearful wife and scared, confused child?

[CountArach]

By that argument we should lock them out of Australia so that they will return to (as a common example) Indonesia... a country that they have just fled and in which they are now considered criminals... thus meaning that upon their return (assuming they can actually make it back to Indonesia, which is always far from certain on the crafts they use) they are locked up for life or worse. This doesn't lead to revolution any more than them coming here. Fear would continue to keep people in place. Revolutions are naturally occurring events that are dependent upon the conditions in a particular place at a particular time - they cannot be forced as there is no revolutionary infrastructure is in place.

[Tristuskhan]

The argument is, if they stayed and united with others, to protect their wife and young child, opposed to running away, they can stop the certain death by fighting those who do that not only to their wife and child, but the wife of child of many others.

Think of it this way. There is a room full of people, a couple of people have guns. If they united together, they can easily overcome the people with guns, thus solves the problem. A few people will die, but the problem is solved.

On the otherhand, if they all fleed to another room, what about all those people in there? They would have to share their food, drinks, etc. What about if the people in that room have guns as well and oppressing? Do you keep running away, room to room? to you find a cramped corner some where, while those people with guns in the other rooms are there feasting away on all those resources, since people were too chicken to confront them?

?!Really?

So let's say you're 30 years old, the war began in your country when you were born. You've seen many, many attemps to unite, all met with treason and more war. War that prevented you to go to school, by the way. You're a farmer, maybe a good one but even when you have good harvests, the sale of it won't allow you to pay for basic hygiene (since imported goods will always be cheaper on the marketplace) that would prevent wife and children to risk death in childbirth. Inch'Allah, your first son is healthy and you hope you won't blow on a landmine (your fields are still dangerous) and see him growing. Foreigners came and chased the mad mollahs that ruled the country some years ago to bring justice and democracy, but you've seen that the last elections were a joke, a cheatfeast, and war is still there. Anyway, everytime you took arms since you're old enough to carry one, the outcome was more lies, corruption, crookery.

Welcome in the real world, you're Afghan! Cheers!

Now despite this hostile life, you still have a brain (many of your neighbours don't). You've heard that european chicken are treated marginaly better than Afghan children, you're still young and retain all your limbs and, Inch'Allah, wife is not pregnant for the moment. You look at your fields knowing that they are mined and that one day or another, you or your relatives are likely to blow, Inch'Allah! And you look at the horizon and think maybe it's time to leave and forget this rotten country of yours. Maybe it's time for the chicken to migrate since he has waited for too long.

Were you ironic, Beskar? Fleeing some countries is not cowardice but common sense.

[Beskar]

Were you ironic, Beskar? Fleeing some countries is not cowardice but common sense.

I said "The argument is", I am not expressing my personal opinion, French-Beskar.

Though it could be argued that fleeing means any chance of that country getting anyway is falling down the cliff due to him and others not working together to make the country a better place. As you are talking about Afghanistan which is on the recieving end of major Western investment. Getting rid of the trouble-makers in your area would be a good start by informing Allied command, etc.

Once the trouble is gone, you can attempt to return to a good life, farming, selling, buying, eating, etc.

Presuming that you must at least symphasise with the Allies if you are considering fleeing to their country.

[HoreTore]

I said "The argument is", I am not expressing my personal opinion, French-Beskar.

Though it could be argued that fleeing means any chance of that country getting anyway is falling down the cliff due to him and others not working together to make the country a better place. As you are talking about Afghanistan which is on the recieving end of major Western investment. Getting rid of the trouble-makers in your area would be a good start by informing Allied command, etc.

Once the trouble is gone, you can attempt to return to a good life, farming, selling, buying, eating, etc.

Presuming that you must at least symphasise with the Allies if you are considering fleeing to their country.

When Norwegians fled our piss-poor country in the late 1800's, the country was better off because of it.

[Beskar]

When Norwegians fled our piss-poor country in the late 1800's, the country was better off because of it.

There is a difference in argument there. Unable to support the population due to conditions of the environment is not the same. That would simply be classed as immigratation.

Only real counter to my example are systematic fear by nations such as Communist China, Nazi Germany, etc, the reason that is, if you are Jewish in Nazi Germany, just get the hell out of there. That is a case where being a refugee is an obvious example. Communist China would be a similar one, you either follow the will of the party, or just get out of there, simply because the Communist Party in China is that popular.

The main differences here are obvious. If you are in a country where no one supports the government, there is plenty of scope for change. But if you are a vast minority to a popular government, then you simply have no chance.


but then again, History has shown that when a population fight for something, they can get it. Such an example are equal rights for whites and blacks in America. The blacks fought and changed the system, opposed to getting on a boat to elsewhere. Though the difference here, they were not getting genocided or massacred.

[HoreTore]

There is a difference in argument there. Unable to support the population due to conditions of the environment is not the same. That would simply be classed as immigratation.

Only real counter to my example are systematic fear by nations such as Communist China, Nazi Germany, etc, the reason that is, if you are Jewish in Nazi Germany, just get the hell out of there. That is a case where being a refugee is an obvious example. Communist China would be a similar one, you either follow the will of the party, or just get out of there, simply because the Communist Party in China is that popular.

The main differences here are obvious. If you are in a country where no one supports the government, there is plenty of scope for change. But if you are a vast minority to a popular government, then you simply have no chance.


but then again, History has shown that when a population fight for something, they can get it. Such an example are equal rights for whites and blacks in America. The blacks fought and changed the system, opposed to getting on a boat to elsewhere. Though the difference here, they were not getting genocided or massacred.

The Norwegians who left the country were part of a majority run by a highly unpopular foreign government....

[Fragony]

I think that if you want to understand the grievances of those flocking to the nastier sides of the right you should look for something much closer to home, namely multiculturalism. Most of these people aren't refugees they are colonists. They don't have any added benefit economically and that doesn't go unnoticed, and they make the life of many people miserable which is felt. Police can't enter certain neighborhoods while the elite still preaches how we should feel about that and destroys anything that doesn't get how great it all is. Can't keep doing this.