Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

I think Australia's a bit of both. They're more libertarian than Europe (wide open spaces, frontier/pioneer mentality and all that) but they're still a bit more tied to their Euro roots than the US is (the notion of "social welfare" isn't some weird commie plot like it is here).

Both sides have their morals police and both probably had a hand in banning Rockstar (and really...other than the GTA series, most of Rockstar's games are crap anyway).

They aren't more libertarian then Europe, come live in Europe and let's see, also Europe is a conditent not a country, there are 30+ countries here.

Fine, strike "Europe" and insert "Great Britain".  And I first read that as "Europe is a condiment". Mmmm...spreadable Europe. Bet it tastes like Nutella.

[Heron TSG]

Europe is a continent not a country, there are 30+ countries here.

I'm pretty sure he knew that it was a continent. Europe is also a region, and the countries there are governed in much the same way as each other. Thus, instead of listing all 50 countries, he named the continent.

[Kogan Loloklam]

I think "sane" is going to depend on your point of view. Based on the above comment, I think we would have differing definitions of "sane" policy.

So, does your definition of "Sane" consider banning video games positive, or presidential authorization of assassination positive? I tend to think both as very negative, and definitions of policies that are on the "insane" category. For some strange reason I thought I was in the majority with those views. Silly me.

I think Australia has moved both left and down, in the terms of the Hans Slomp political spectrum. Now we need only to find where they were before this point. The Hans Slomp Spectrum:

Which means MORE likely to ban games? Okay, thanks!

[Cheeetar]

I think Australia has moved both left and down, in the terms of the Hans Slomp political spectrum. Now we need only to find where they were before this point. The Hans Slomp Spectrum:

Which means MORE likely to ban games? Okay, thanks!

Again, we've only had the new government for a few days. It's rather hard to draw anything concrete about where it stands on various issues.

[RedKing]

I think "sane" is going to depend on your point of view. Based on the above comment, I think we would have differing definitions of "sane" policy.

So, does your definition of "Sane" consider banning video games positive, or presidential authorization of assassination positive? I tend to think both as very negative, and definitions of policies that are on the "insane" category. For some strange reason I thought I was in the majority with those views. Silly me.

This is rapidly getting off-topic, but let me put it this way: which would you prefer: a decade-long war that costs $1 trillion dollars and tens of thousands of lives, or a sniper with one bullet and excellent aim? If getting rid of Saddam was the goal, we could have done it a LOT smoother with an assassination. If done right, no one would have even known who did it. People would probably blame Mossad or the Kurds.

Obama can't win with you guys. If he eschews covert ops, he's "soft on our enemies". If he uses all the tools at his disposal (and don't think for a second that previous Presidents haven't used the CIA to do dirty work), then he's "disgraceful".

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The President never being able to win is the point. It keeps people judgemental of their government.

[RedKing]

The President never being able to win is the point. It keeps people judgemental of their government.

True. And if there's one freedom that Americans treasure above all others, it's the freedom to bitch and moan.

[Kogan Loloklam]

This is rapidly getting off-topic, but let me put it this way: which would you prefer: a decade-long war that costs $1 trillion dollars and tens of thousands of lives, or a sniper with one bullet and excellent aim? If getting rid of Saddam was the goal, we could have done it a LOT smoother with an assassination. If done right, no one would have even known who did it. People would probably blame Mossad or the Kurds.

A Decades-long war. I prefer 100 guilty men to go free rather than kill a single innocent. You can't bring someone back from the dead. If you are going to make people dead, you should at least do it legitimately, out in the open. We aren't sending in "Capture Squads". We aren't attacking foreign governments for harboring individuals who are causing damage to us. Instead, we are sending in stealthed groups to murder.
Assassination is wrong. If an assassination order MUST be issued, let's give them a public trial with the right to defend themselves first.

Obama can't win with you guys. If he eschews covert ops, he's "soft on our enemies". If he uses all the tools at his disposal (and don't think for a second that previous Presidents haven't used the CIA to do dirty work), then he's "disgraceful".

No, it is very easy to win. I firmly and completely support Obama in his troop surges. It is the refusal to allow the legal system be used against the terrorists that pisses me off. The CIA is the group responsible for most of the terrorism that exists on this planet currently. I could understand if he what he is doing if he was afraid our legal system was unjust or biased, but his concern is they'd be too soft on them!
A friend of mine is facing 1-3 years for pulling a knife on a guy WHO WAS BASHING HER HEAD INTO A FUCKING WALL! This system is too soft to deal with the terrorists? I'd be concerned that when our system inevitably executes everyone that the rest of the nations will realize how unjust we really are here in the land of "freedom and justice for all". Instead we'd rather 'bump it up a notch' and prove that our respect for human dignity is just lip service.

It's like:
"Hey, this gas isn't putting out this gas fire!"
"Well, pour more gas on it!"

A fapping disgrace to our nation.

True. And if there's one freedom that Americans treasure above all others, it's the freedom to bitch and moan.

Actually, I value my freedom to -not- be shot by my president a great deal more than my freedom to bitch and moan. Too bad that has gone away on the basis that one of those individuals is probably a terrorist.

[Makrond]

Funfact, with Kevin Rudd and his cronies gone and Julia Gillard and her cronies in his place, the Great Firewall of Australia will finally be getting the final green light. 


I'm surprised Julia Gillard opposes the mining supertax though, she's all about taking money from big corporations and giving it back to 'the working-class Australian'. In fact in 2007 her close ties to unionists had her badmouthed by pretty much everyone who paid even a little attention to politics.


Now everyone loves her because she's PM. What a world huh.

[Muz]

This is rapidly getting off-topic, but let me put it this way: which would you prefer: a decade-long war that costs $1 trillion dollars and tens of thousands of lives, or a sniper with one bullet and excellent aim? If getting rid of Saddam was the goal, we could have done it a LOT smoother with an assassination. If done right, no one would have even known who did it. People would probably blame Mossad or the Kurds.

A Decades-long war. I prefer 100 guilty men to go free rather than kill a single innocent. You can't bring someone back from the dead. If you are going to make people dead, you should at least do it legitimately, out in the open. We aren't sending in "Capture Squads". We aren't attacking foreign governments for harboring individuals who are causing damage to us. Instead, we are sending in stealthed groups to murder.
Assassination is wrong. If an assassination order MUST be issued, let's give them a public trial with the right to defend themselves first.

That statement confuses me a little. There are plenty of innocents dead in the Iraq war, all labeled "collateral damage". In such a comparison, you'd rather have a million guilty people go free. Saddam's trial was most likely rigged anyway. If the court wants a man to die, and the jury wants him dead, it doesn't take much evidence to accuse him of crimes.

It's so hypocritical. They overthrew an elected leader in the name of democracy and installed a puppet leader. They "liberated" a country, but left their troops there to "maintain control". They kill tens of thousands to 'legally' kill one person, not that the casus belli was valid in the first place.

[vagel7]

This is rapidly getting off-topic, but let me put it this way: which would you prefer: a decade-long war that costs $1 trillion dollars and tens of thousands of lives, or a sniper with one bullet and excellent aim? If getting rid of Saddam was the goal, we could have done it a LOT smoother with an assassination. If done right, no one would have even known who did it. People would probably blame Mossad or the Kurds.

A Decades-long war. I prefer 100 guilty men to go free rather than kill a single innocent. You can't bring someone back from the dead. If you are going to make people dead, you should at least do it legitimately, out in the open. We aren't sending in "Capture Squads". We aren't attacking foreign governments for harboring individuals who are causing damage to us. Instead, we are sending in stealthed groups to murder.
Assassination is wrong. If an assassination order MUST be issued, let's give them a public trial with the right to defend themselves first.

That statement confuses me a little. There are plenty of innocents dead in the Iraq war, all labeled "collateral damage". In such a comparison, you'd rather have a million guilty people go free. Saddam's trial was most likely rigged anyway. If the court wants a man to die, and the jury wants him dead, it doesn't take much evidence to accuse him of crimes.

It's so hypocritical. They overthrew an elected leader in the name of democracy and installed a puppet leader. They "liberated" a country, but left their troops there to "maintain control". They kill tens of thousands to 'legally' kill one person, not that the casus belli was valid in the first place.

This guy is speaking the truth. Also why is the Australian government so defensive about anything digital, they first heavily censor games and don't let some of them through and now the censor the internet.

[Muz]

For a country founded by convicts, Australia is surprisingly conservative. I don't think they're really doing it to "control the populace" or anything, they're actually worried about corrupt children. But it's just not going to work. Generalizing a little, I think Australians are culturally used to facing harsh reality and dealing with it, and things like censorship are rather pointless.

What I find really funny is seeing all these student protests about the Internet censorship situation in China (which is like, far away), but very few protests in their own country, where they can make a difference.

[RedKing]

This is rapidly getting off-topic, but let me put it this way: which would you prefer: a decade-long war that costs $1 trillion dollars and tens of thousands of lives, or a sniper with one bullet and excellent aim? If getting rid of Saddam was the goal, we could have done it a LOT smoother with an assassination. If done right, no one would have even known who did it. People would probably blame Mossad or the Kurds.

A Decades-long war. I prefer 100 guilty men to go free rather than kill a single innocent. You can't bring someone back from the dead. If you are going to make people dead, you should at least do it legitimately, out in the open. We aren't sending in "Capture Squads". We aren't attacking foreign governments for harboring individuals who are causing damage to us. Instead, we are sending in stealthed groups to murder.
Assassination is wrong. If an assassination order MUST be issued, let's give them a public trial with the right to defend themselves first.

As Muz pointed out, a LOT of innocent people died as a result of the Iraq war. I appreciate the idealistic purity of your position, but those sort of decisions bear real-world consequences.

Obama can't win with you guys. If he eschews covert ops, he's "soft on our enemies". If he uses all the tools at his disposal (and don't think for a second that previous Presidents haven't used the CIA to do dirty work), then he's "disgraceful".

No, it is very easy to win. I firmly and completely support Obama in his troop surges. It is the refusal to allow the legal system be used against the terrorists that pisses me off. The CIA is the group responsible for most of the terrorism that exists on this planet currently. I could understand if he what he is doing if he was afraid our legal system was unjust or biased, but his concern is they'd be too soft on them!
A friend of mine is facing 1-3 years for pulling a knife on a guy WHO WAS BASHING HER HEAD INTO A FUCKING WALL! This system is too soft to deal with the terrorists? I'd be concerned that when our system inevitably executes everyone that the rest of the nations will realize how unjust we really are here in the land of "freedom and justice for all". Instead we'd rather 'bump it up a notch' and prove that our respect for human dignity is just lip service.

It's like:
"Hey, this gas isn't putting out this gas fire!"
"Well, pour more gas on it!"

A fapping disgrace to our nation.

Y'know, it's funny. I went into international relations with a very similar attitude. The CIA did some incredibly underhanded things during the Cold War. But once I began to deconstruct the scenarios at the time, and to take stock of the full range of totally evil f**ks out there, I gained a new appreciation for why the CIA exists and how it should be properly used. For instance, if I had my way there'd be a systematic extermination campaign against the LRA in Uganda. But because it's not a geopolitically important region, it gets put on the back-burner.

True. And if there's one freedom that Americans treasure above all others, it's the freedom to bitch and moan.

Actually, I value my freedom to -not- be shot by my president a great deal more than my freedom to bitch and moan. Too bad that has gone away on the basis that one of those individuals is probably a terrorist.

Umm...
1. I don't think the President is personally going to shoot anyone. (Although I could be wrong and Obama might be a stone-cold professional ninja. That'd actually be kind of cool.)
2. Any concerns about being labeled a terrorist by the government and then subsequently targeted by your own government? Don't start with this administration. Go back a few years.
3. Find me an example of a US citizen who has been assassinated/killed/murdered/whatever on *suspicion* of being a terrorist. This isn't the wild and wooly days of COINTELPRO or MKULTRA.

[Jackrabbit]

I am aware that this is an amazing thing that just happened but the first 20 pages of my paper should not be devoted to it and subjects even slightly connected to it.

You still read the paper?

huh...

Mostly so I can engage in cathartic fist shaking with the more than occasion retarded editorials.

[Kogan Loloklam]

As Muz pointed out, a LOT of innocent people died as a result of the Iraq war. I appreciate the idealistic purity of your position, but those sort of decisions bear real-world consequences.

You are right, a lot of people die in war. It is not pleasant. The important thing is to remove the shadows off of the entire situation. If you have mysterious death after mysterious death, you don't have stability or something that is just. You have a mess that breeds insecurity and similar actions. The people aren't governing themselves, they are being attacked. No matter how "evil" their ruler was, it was THEIR ruler.
This is why Saddam's sham trial was still beneficial. The people there got the feeling of removing their own bad ruler. They could have pardoned him if they wanted and the US shouldn't have done a thing about it. Stability will follow eventually in Iraq as long as they can feel that the organization is theirs. A just war pacifies the active fighters and allows everyone to talk things out and come to a working order. There is no "secret hatred", because people know exactly what happened. It isn't hidden. We take instant responsibility for our actions, and people know we are serious about saying we want order there.

Y'know, it's funny. I went into international relations with a very similar attitude. The CIA did some incredibly underhanded things during the Cold War. But once I began to deconstruct the scenarios at the time, and to take stock of the full range of totally evil f**ks out there, I gained a new appreciation for why the CIA exists and how it should be properly used. For instance, if I had my way there'd be a systematic extermination campaign against the LRA in Uganda. But because it's not a geopolitically important region, it gets put on the back-burner.

I'm glad you can deconstruct some scenarios and find a use for force in that degree. The thing is, you are meddling with another group's business. When left alone, eventually these "horrible places" self-correct. It is the constant outside force that is applied that prevents them from settling. The best thing for Uganda is to stay the hell out of it, let the people kill each other until they have a stable government. If we are asked by someone to come in and protect them, we go in in force and stop all killing. Make people settle things with words rather than bullets. Two wrongs do not make a right, and taking the life of anyone is wrong. A war's goal is not to take life, that is just the consequence. An assassination's goal is to take a life.

Umm...
1. I don't think the President is personally going to shoot anyone. (Although I could be wrong and Obama might be a stone-cold professional ninja. That'd actually be kind of cool.)
2. Any concerns about being labeled a terrorist by the government and then subsequently targeted by your own government? Don't start with this administration. Go back a few years.
3. Find me an example of a US citizen who has been assassinated/killed/murdered/whatever on *suspicion* of being a terrorist. This isn't the wild and wooly days of COINTELPRO or MKULTRA.

Ordering or approving the death of someone does not take the blood off your hands.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010012700394
Anwar al-Awlaki may not be innocent, but what about the rest of the list?
US citizens are given certain rights. One of those core ones is the right to not be shot by your president (coming from several constitutional amendments, like rights to trials and such)
Should John Walker Lindh have been assassinated? That is what we are talking about. His parents state that he was motivated by stories of atrocities in the conflict there. He went to fight what he thought was the good fight. There are Americans who have done that in Somalia. They are fighting for Islamic causes, but what are we doing in Somalia that gives them the right to label them as terrorists? To my knowledge, there isn't any Anti-American activities coming out of Somalia (Countries we have defended against our traditional bear enemy even fairly recently, such as Georgia, however, do have such activities.)