Latham rails against factions (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

please engage in the debate with me, if i am so obviously wrong i'd like it to be shown to me.
What is wrong with pre-emption in the case of another nation visibly mobilising their armies, navies, and air forces preparing for attack?
A Pre-emptive war is a war initiated in the belief that military conflict is inevitable, and that to delay would involve great risk.. It's the idea of "One day there will be a war with your nation, it is inevitable, however right now i am bigger than you so i will attack now".
This was the sort of logic japan had when they attacked pearl harbour, they however probably waited for too long.. didn't launch their pre-emptive war quick enough.

 

[leetom]

france, britain, usa together could have easily put a quick end to the war thru pre-emption...
In fact if france had thought sooner they probably could of kept germany at bay for much longer but they were all stuck along the margionot line and germany bi-passed this...

The Maginot Line was the pride and glory of France at the time. It was a marvellous technological achievement, a massive, impenetrable line bristling with guns and frenchmen. Bloody worked too, the germans had to go around it.

Would you really want France, England or the US meddling with your country's internal politics? At what point in the leadup to the outbreak of war, NTB, do you think an assault should have been launched?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

They should of attacked when germany was mobilizing their armies poising for an attack...

 

[leetom]

Germany was mobilised. germany had been mobilised for a long time. France didn't have the capability to amass the required amount of fighting men, save for service on the Maginot. Any attempt to bring in US or British soldiers would have been known. Think of the logistics involved in planning an attack into Germany.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Perhaps they should have attacked them before they managed to mobilise themselves so much as to pose a threat? ie, france take out some of their tank factories..

 

[LadyBec]

sorry to butt into your little debate here, but wasn't this thread about Latham/Labor?
Anyways, I believe in Latham, I think he has the support of the majority of the party, and that those who DON'T support him (within the party) should shut the fuck up. You can dissagree, you can debate withing the party itself, but anyone who goes outside the party to the media to complain about the leadership should be kicked out, if you have a problem keep it within the party, no ones gonna elect us if we're so splinted it's like having 5 parties in one.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes exactly, while i disagree with most of the labor parties platform i think they should get together and start mounting a strong opposition, if this means getting rid of latham then just do it to shut the other people up.

Ben Chiffley was a gun.

 

[thorrnydevil]

France or Britain could not have hoped to put a quick end to a war with Germany by pre-empting them. Pre-emption is stupid and a waste of human resources.

In english today I received fresh new copies of Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Thankyou Mr Premier for making sure my school received the money to purchase these books.

Thankyou Mr Premier for making sure that brutal behaviour, such as rape, receive lengthy sentences.

And thank you for running down the Transport system and the Health system...keep it up Mr. Carr!

 

[thorrnydevil]

Dont throw stones in glass houses perhaps. If you have a issue with something back it up. If you are going to cry about something back it up. Neo may disagree with me but at least he backs it up. Rorix may disagree with me but he can back it up. Ohne can disagree with me but he can back it up. Not so Bright and Throny can't.

Dont just say The NSW justice system is shit... Where is your evidence? The daily telegrah and uncle joe who runs the prison?

FACTS

1. Crime rates are generally down

2. Pentalites are as heavy as they have ever been. Average sentences are up. (Not that that is good...the number of people in gaol in NSW has been steadility increasing...where the fuck do we put these people?)

3. NSW is as policed as it has ever been in history. There are now more offences that you can committ in NSW than in NSW history. The Carr government adds new offences pretty much daily... Have a look at the crimes Act it has around 400 sections...

In the 1980s there wasnt even a summary offences act.

4. Yes Youths camp up the coast get it too easy. Result = State government has closed the place down and put the kids in with the adults

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Throny ill point you in the right direction. Perhaps look at the NSW BOCSAR (NSW Bureau of Crime stats and research)

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/bocsar1.nsf/pages/media150404




Even more detail

www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/bocsar1.nsf/files/NSW_SD_SSD_2004Qrt1.pdf/$FILE/NSW_SD_SSD_2004Qrt1.pdf

Well, "Uncle Joe" is actually my Grandfather. He also served in the WW II while he was 16. He later recieved a Law Degree from Macquarie Uni and served in the Police as a Police Prosecutor. We then left to join the Department of Corrections. So I think "Uncle Joe" has a better opinion on the matter than a second year law student who thinks the sun shines out of his arse. Unlike you, he is a real man.

 

[thorrnydevil]

You see thorny I dont give a fuck who he is. I would not care less if he was grand poohbah of the union of lawyers or Police prosecutor at <insert suburb> local court.

The fact is you were wrong and your grandfather is also wrong. Have a look at the stats. Unless you were blind freddy you would realise that the CJS is going ok. If anything the criminal justice system is working fine and is heading in the right direction. If you really want more than 20% decreases in substantive offences then you are living in a fantacy world. This is not an opinion. THIS IS FACT. Have a read of the BOCSAR stats.

I wont get started on what the Royal comission of police corruption said about police prosecutors. But if you like facts you may like to one day find your way to the report which doesnt paint police prosecutors in a very nice light (in particular if your grandfather was one during the 70s and 80s)

did any of the stats register with you? Did you read any of it?




so Thorny did you read that? I mean i could cut and paste all stats but i trust you have adobe and can open it yourself.

---------------------------
As for the light shining out of my arse i could ask you the same thing Mister Opinionated since most of what you have to say is based on sensationalism rather than anything resembling fact. As for him being more of a man than me...I have no idea what masculinity has to do with what you know about the NSW Criminal justice system.

So, your accusing my grandfather of being corrupt, right? Dick head.

What about Russell "Mad-dog" Cox? Do you think he should be released from jail after only serving 29 of his 40 year sentence?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Asquithian i try to keep up with both parties websites for their various releases, i watch question time, read news papers and sometimes look for articles on the internet....