Australia Flagship Example

[Каие]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/7338317.stm

Australia a beaming example of how to reward and truly do good to those who helped you, ashame on you Britain on the Ghurkas and shame on you USA on the interpreters.

Australia announced it will give the Iraqis who helped them homes and residence in recognition of their danger and help. Gordon take a hint.

[s.rwitt]

Outstanding. The US should learn from this.

Immediately.

----------------------------
Edit:

What the hell is this nonsense?

Some human rights campaigners have criticised the plan to grant visas to Iraqi translators and other administrative staff.

[danzig]

Yeah definitely class (and warrented) move. The redtape US military has to go thru to try and get anything for Iraqis aiding them is pretty stupid. People who risk their lives deserve this at the very least its just a shame that they are even in danger over such stupid things as being a translator.

[Yorkshireman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/7338317.stm

Australia a beaming example of how to reward and truly do good to those who helped you, ashame on you Britain on the Ghurkas and shame on you USA on the interpreters.

That should be,shame on you British government. Every right minded person in the UK supports the Gurkha's claims.

[removeduser_487563287433]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/7338317.stm

Australia a beaming example of how to reward and truly do good to those who helped you, ashame on you Britain on the Ghurkas and shame on you USA on the interpreters.

Australia announced it will give the Iraqis who helped them homes and residence in recognition of their danger and help. Gordon take a hint.

Um. Britain has offered Iraqi interpreters and their families the opportunity to settle in the UK.

[Каие]

Um. Britain has offered Iraqi interpreters and their families the opportunity to settle in the UK.

Ironic isn;t it, they offer Interpreters (sorry i didn;t know) while rejecting the Ghurkas?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Ironic isn;t it, they offer Interpreters (sorry i didn;t know) while rejecting the Ghurkas?

I think you'll find that the UK has offered Ghurkas full pensions and the right to settle in the UK since 1999, if memory serves. The issue is that those who retired from the Gurkhas before this date are not eligible because they were based abroad before that time. I disagree with it personally, but let's not be too simplistic, eh?

[Yorkshireman]

I think you'll find that the UK has offered Ghurkas full pensions and the right to settle in the UK since 1999, if memory serves. The issue is that those who retired from the Gurkhas before this date are not eligible because they were based abroad before that time. I disagree with it personally, but let's not be too simplistic, eh?

That's the gist of it. Up until then their home station was Hong Kong, Gurkha's never actually set foot in the UK. Obviously since we handed HK back they're now based here.

[Каие]

I think you'll find that the UK has offered Ghurkas full pensions and the right to settle in the UK since 1999, if memory serves. The issue is that those who retired from the Gurkhas before this date are not eligible because they were based abroad before that time. I disagree with it personally, but let's not be too simplistic, eh?

Where they were based is irrelevant as, just like the interpreters who are also not based in England, never been here etc. they served Britain as soldiers and were more than ready to lay down their lives and because of a minor technicality they are not even preferred for citizenship.

I also disagree with it personally, but the point here is why the government disagrees.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Where they were based is irrelevant as, just like the interpreters who are also not based in England, never been here etc. they served Britain as soldiers and were more than ready to lay down their lives and because of a minor technicality they are not even preferred for citizenship.

I also disagree with it personally, but the point here is why the government disagrees.

No, it is not irrelevent. It makes a massive legal difference. Disagree with it personally, as I do, fine. But there is a legal basis.

[s.rwitt]

Um. Britain has offered Iraqi interpreters and their families the opportunity to settle in the UK.

Apparently there are still some problems with this, I'm not too informed on the issue but I did find these articles.

Of the 200 interpreters who took up an offer to resettle in Britain, 125 have been turned away, statistics unearthed by the Times reveal.

Unlike the American government, which has announced plans to resettle 7,000 particularly vulnerable Iraqi refugees, the British government has made no such commitment.

http://www.channel4.com/news/article...lators/1174347

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...09/2000661.htm
Of course the US has only "announced plans" to let the 7,000 in and I personally am suspicious about how well we will follow through. Not to mention the fact that 7,000 has to be a very small number if one considers all translators and their families.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Mmm, The Times came down hard on the government launching a campaign for the interpreters to settle, and were ultimately successful.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3701648.ece

[s.rwitt]

Mmm, The Times came down hard on the government launching a campaign for the interpreters to settle, and were ultimately successful.

Well that's good to hear. Hopefully both the US and UK will be able to vastly step up the effort to get those people and their families out of there.

[Pontifex Maximus]

This sounds like a good (expensive) idea.

This could also attract Iraqis to help the coalition forces to root out insurgents.

[Daovonnaex]

After the Vietnam War the US offered asylum to hundreds of thousands of Hmong Laotians who fought with US special forces during the war. This was a mistake, as they have proven to be crappy immigrants. I certainly hope Iraqis who fight with US forces are NOT offered immigration visas, the last thing we need are more arabs here. These Iraqis are paid salaries, know the risks, and have not been told that they will be allowed to live here.

[removeduser_487563287433]

After the Vietnam War the US offered asylum to hundreds of thousands of Hmong Laotians who fought with US special forces during the war. This was a mistake, as they have proven to be crappy immigrants. I certainly hope Iraqis who fight with US forces are NOT offered immigration visas, the last thing we need are more arabs here. These Iraqis are paid salaries, know the risks, and have not been told that they will be allowed to live here.

Selfishness aside the Hmong of Cambodia are almost extinct after been consistantly hunted by the military for decades. Depends whether you prefer ethics to your assertion that they are "crappy immigrants."

[Daovonnaex]

This is a false dichotomy. One can carry on an internationalist, humanist foreign policy (not something I'm advocating, but for argument's sake) without taking in various dingy refugees. It's quite obvious that your typical rin-tin third world country can be cowed into ceasing a genocide through the carrot of economic assistance and the stick of military force.

Furthermore, the Hmong who were settled in the United States were of Laotian origin and additionally came primarily from refugee camps in Thailand. The country who did the most to help the Hmong of Cambodia was in fact Vietnam--by invading Cambodia.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I think it's obvious that I prefer the expedience of our own national interest. If we wanted to save the Hmong, direct military threats (possibly combined with the carrot of economic ties or something) would've been more effective.

Yes of course because the American people were going to get involved in South East Asia in the decades following the Vietnam War for the sake of a people the overwhelming majority of will be unable to spell. Right.

[Daovonnaex]

Yes of course because the American people were going to get involved in South East Asia in the decades following the Vietnam War for the sake of a people the overwhelming majority of will be unable to spell. Right.

I think you overestimate both the American people and the amount of "carrot and stick" necessary. By the way, I revised my previous post which you may wish to review.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Fine. If it is so simple an operation to cease such genocide why does the genocide of the Hmong continue to this day and why were well known war criminals like Pol Pot allowed to murder so many?