The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Does more law mean more order? > Comments

Does more law mean more order? : Comments

By Ellen Goodman, published 21/9/2007

Politicians use the 'law and order' agenda drawing on a mythological past where all was secure and serene.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Yes, Boaz, Augustine did know plenty, but he never got the message about balancing faith with reason.

Which Thomas Aquinas did, which later helped to bring along the Age of Reason followed by the Age of Enlightenment, all part of the progress to our present democracy. That is why Aquinas is called a Doctor of the Church, because he is also regarded as a philosopher.

I am afraid you would not get far in a university lecture on the subject, Boaz, even though could say you do not lack intelligence.

And please get the message about the increasing abuse of ethics in our governments, Boaz, otherwise through making their own laws we will have certain Liberals getting round with looks in their eyes like Nazi storm-troopers
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 7:29:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

Do you know what is the definition of a nuclear power? It is a country that has a nuclear device that can be made operational within twenty-four hours. Australia is not defined as a nuclear power, because we do not have any devices that can be made operational within 24 hours. As to 48 hours, 96 hours, etc., I will leave to your imagination.

You ask me if I would be happy for North Korea and Iran to become nuclear states. I have always felt that North Korea was never a threat, and was always just out for the maximum aid they could extract from the west. I understand that the US is now installing a light water reactor there to provide them with power, and if you understand anything about nuclear physics you would know that these reactors cannot be used to make bombs.

Iran is another matter. Their claim that they only want peaceful power can be refuted by the fact that as in the case of North Korea, such reactors can be built, but they don't want to do that. Iran is facing demographic catastrophe over the next decade, and is determined to exterminate Israel, and has been rightly judged as a danger to world peace by the Security Council. We could well see their enrichment facilities destroyed by nuclear bunker-buster bombs in the next few months.

You seem to have no solution except to surrender to the third world. I don't know that the Australian people would agree with this.
Posted by plerdsus, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 8:04:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think this is as far as I want to go here, plerdsus. Your arguments are making increasingly less sense.

>>Australia is not defined as a nuclear power, because we do not have any devices that can be made operational within 24 hours. As to 48 hours, 96 hours, etc., I will leave to your imagination<<

If you are suggesting that we have an operational capability at all, you are delusional.

>>You ask me if I would be happy for North Korea and Iran to become nuclear states<<

Only in a sense. I really wanted to know whether you felt that other countries would be within their rights to unilaterally declare their intention to deploy nuclear weaponry. The secondary question, that I assumed would be obvious, is whether you thought this would contribute to, or detract from, global political stability.

A tertiary question would be, if we got that far, could Australia defend itself effectively, in a situation where everyone from South Africa to Indonesia has nuclear weapons. But it is unlikley that you would have thought that far ahead.

>>You seem to have no solution except to surrender to the third world. I don't know that the Australian people would agree with this.<<

It is simply ridiculous to suggest that being disinclined to deploy nuclear weapons constitutes surrender. Especially since that is the status quo - are you suggesting that we have already surrendered?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 9:13:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ginx
Love your Kay Sera Sera attitude, but things don’t always happen slowly (not even in evolution). Harking back to the example cited by plerdsus “Hagia Sohia” please tell me what were the gradual, democratic processes which willed it to be converted to a mosque?

Pericles
There seems to be an implication in your earlier post that the rising powers in Asia i.e. China & India would find the anti-immigration views expressed by pliesdsus
<< unpalatable>>.

The reality is, neither of these countries, nor any other country in SE Asia is anywhere near as accommodating towards uninvited guest as Aust- never have been. It seems the only ones who don’t << get down & dirty>> when it comes to defending their turf is Aust. But then we’re true believers in the higher god of ‘human rights’ (even over & above common sense).

<< It is actually difficulty to imagine an action more likely to destabilise the world’s power than Australia declaring it a nuclear armed nation>>
‘ROFLMAO’ over that one.
<<what would China do?>>
Probably the same thing China did when India & Pakistan or Iran (all much closer to China’s borders & one with a history of antagonism towards China took the decision) –make a few rhetorical noises then keep quiet. The Leadership in China has shown itself to be very pragmatic-economics before ideological considerations (as long as the price is right) and they would be more likely to react adversely to our Tibet policy or our Tiananmen Square massacre stance, than any nuclear policy.

And as for << pre-emptive invasion>>!
Now you’re telling us another of your <<Finnish school>> jokes right?
If they didn’t invade Indonesia when they massacred ethnic Chinese in the street –not just once, but numerous times (ditto Malaysia & Kampuchea) they’re not likely to invade Aust over nuclear programs.

And while we may not have << surrendered>> yet, there are a goodly number of influential opinion leaders who are doing their best to push us onto the slippery slope.
Posted by Horus, Friday, 28 September 2007 6:01:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And I thought the Finnish gag had gone unnoticed - thanks Horus.

>>There seems to be an implication in your earlier post that the rising powers in Asia i.e. China & India would find the anti-immigration views expressed by pliesdsus "unpalatable"<<

I was more concerned with their response to his proposed actions, rather than his opinions. After all, they are very likely to recognize his views as reflecting their own, as you point out. Nor, for that reason, are they likely to object to a few dissidents "disappearing" on the journey from their country to ours.

What concerns me more is this attitude that "being right" is enough. It seems to assume that so long as we are under the protection of the United States, we can say and do anything we like, and no-one is going to object. Like the little guy hiding behind the big guy in a fight, his continued protection lies in it being in the interests of the big guy, not his own.

You scoff at the idea that there might be a reaction to Australia arming itself with nuclear weapons. Think for a moment the sequence of events that needs to occur before that could come to pass. At the very least, it would be the clearest possible sign that we had lost faith in the ability of others to come to our aid in the event of a real threat. The big guy has decided he has other battles of his own to fight, perhaps.

But let's assume we do.

China, particularly, is far more economically sound than it has been in the past. And you said it yourself, they are "very pragmatic - economic before ideological considerations". They - demonstrably - couldn't give a hoot about our attitude towards Tianamen or Tibet. But they do like - need - our coal. And other sundry raw materials that we have lying around.

I don't envisage an ideological takeover of Australia, simply an economic one. Whether or not this involves force largely depends on our own attitude towards belligerence, rather than theirs.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 28 September 2007 9:24:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

To try and widen the debate a little, I would love to know what you see as the future of the world over the next decade or two, so that posters can interpret your opinions accordingly. Do you see a world of sweetness and light, where the lion lies down with the lamb, etc.? Or do you see, as I do, a Hobbesian world where wars are fought to secure diminishing resources, when billions die as a result, and where we are very fortunate to be out of the way, in our own little region, and most of all, favoured by having a sea boundary. In addition, our defence posture is favoured by having 3000 km of desert between Broome and Sydney, making attack very difficult. There is often a country that is a little ahead of the pack, and can be used as an example of what the world in general will be like in a decade or so. Do you agree that Iraq is the example for the future? The popular resistance to ANY immigration, let alone immigration by illegals is there waiting to be exploited by politicians, as more and more people find their quality of life reduced by the levels of immigration being forced on us by both major parties. If Pauline wins in the Senate in Queensland you could say it is already being exploited.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 28 September 2007 12:12:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy