I can't address all the flaming, so I've done all I could...
Quote:
Or they could be using Military because a) It Has the funding and equipment b) They dont have enough police.
I’m sure that you are right, the Bracks government is more concerned with what is politically expedient, rather than upholding the principles of responsible democratic government; principles which preclude the use of military forces in any domestic ‘law enforcement’ role.
Quote:
OMFG...Wow, just..wow. Thats like saying my car is more likely to get stolen if I lock it up and take the key with me and that I should leave it windows down with the keys in the ignition with a sign saying free car.
I’ll give you a related analogy, but one that I hope will better illustrate what I am attempting to say:
One day, your car is stolen. This upsets you, and being in a state of vigilant determination to protect your property, you decide to hire a ‘reformed’ car-thief, named John, to protect your new replacement car. To your knowledge, John is entirely reformed, a new man dedicated to upholding the law, and using the skills of his criminal past in a constructive way, as a security man. You begin to pay John a salary of "000 a month.
Several months down the line, your replacement car is stolen! Now, instead of reprimanding John for his poor job of defending your property, you double his salary, and you even give him other benefits, such as the ability to drive your car on weekends. You do this under the mistaken assumption that by increasing his pool of resources, he will be better able to protect your property.
One year later, you move into a wealthier neighborhood in Happyville. You feel that the neighborhood itself provides sufficient security from the threat of car theft, and so you decide to dismiss John, with a bonus to thank him for his loyal work, the next week.
Your employee, however, already foresees the inevitable. Justifying his actions in the name of his wife and young child, both of whom depend on the security of his salary to live, John steals your car, utilizing the knowledge acquired during his earlier career as a car thief.
You again, though angry at the third theft, decide to extend John’s employment.
This analogy describes a simple situation of supply and demand, or more appropriately, the effects of behavioral reinforcement and psychological incentives. These factors should be taken into account when considering the “War against Terrorism”, in which billions of dollars, and millions of jobs, are involved. You are talking about the creation of entirely new, vast government departments, entire markets for weapons, services, and technologies. There are massively powerful interests involved.
Think of The Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Kissinger Associates, CIA put options on American Airlines, etc.
Quote:
How in gods ****ing name does more security mean more attacks. That doesnt make logical sense from ANY perspective.
"Security" is the euphemism the government uses for "police state".
Quote:
I'd much rather get searched going into a sports venue during the games then be caught in the middle of a riot/terrorist attack/random attack thank you very much.
That’s cute that you don’t mind. However, we aren’t merely discussing your own opinion, we aren’t discussing a voluntary search, we’re discussing mandatory searches! I do not want to be searched, and neither do millions of other perfectly sensible people.
Quote:
There is enough random stabbings and attacks on people as it is.
Yes, last week in Melbourne there were 7 stabbings in 70 hours, and those were the well publicized ones. Why is it then that the government never properly punishes the criminals? Why do they instead punish the innocent, by escalating 'prevention' strategies, by searching people, by banning guns of those who would otherwise only use them in self-defence? Because the government has NO INTEREST in stopping crime, and reinforcing personal responsibility! Go read or watch "A Clockwork Orange".
Quote:
that simple act makes you a complete hypocrite. in what way does paying a woman for her body not objectify, commoditise and dehumanise her?
Does employment objectify, commoditise and dehumanize a person?
If these girls were living in extreme poverty, barely able to subsist on the market value of their labour, and thus ‘compelled’ (economically, not politically, mind you) to offer sex for cash, then I might agree.
However, Lucy Lee, earning ",600USD an hour from me, along with what she earns stripping and performing miracles of sexual grace in her porn videos, is doing rather well. She is hardly some ‘bang bang betty’ trying to escape from starving to death on the mean streets of the Phillipines. Lucy lives in the US, and could easily earn a decent living in more customary occupations of labour. Whether Lucy charges, or not, she is not being exploited if she enters into sexual relations with me, of her own free will.
Subjecting these girls to an involuntary molestation is the real crime, and that is what I am opposing.
Quote:
wtf seperation rule, i dont know what it is and i dont care i just know that when threats goto a higher level the military take over , becaus the military are better equipt and better trained, i know i was in the military.
I appeal to all here; do you want somebody like this enforcing domestic law?
If you do, you might feel more at home in China, or even the USSA. :p