11–20 of 50 posts
Full take, my a... Put those chaps in prison. There is simply no other place on earth for them.
The ye old argument of a defensive force. Why should we spend all this money on a army that just sit at home and wait for others to attack?
This is of course different from when you have a defined target which threatens the country in a specific way. At that point, a defensive force and intelligence service should be deployed as it is appropriate to address that target.
Full take, my a... Put those chaps in prison. There is simply no other place on earth for them.
To all the downvoters, I censored the a - if you have other reasons to not agree, please elaborate in a reply. Thank you.
Your comment is useless and contributes nothing towards a discussion, so there's that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To all the downvoters, I censored the a - if you have other reasons to not agree, please elaborate in a reply. Thank you.
>please elabore in a reply Your comment is useless and contributes nothing towards a discussion, so there's that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>please elabore in a reply Your comment is useless and contributes nothing towards a discussion, so there's that.
That's your opinion. My comment was to express my outrage - if that can't be part of a discussion, then...?
The 'correct' dialog is to discuss how it's natural for our systems of governance to want to spy on everyone, and the 'correct' actions fall between accepting this or petitioning our masters to roll back 'some' of these advances.
Your individual outrage is of no value to the collective.
So is it mostly about French territories ? I don't think that the Vanuatu or the Fiji are a huge threat on the global scale.
NZ Prime Minister John Key in August, 2013: "I'll resign if GCSB conducts mass surveillance". Well, now'd be a good time. Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...
I guess one could argue this isn't Mass" surveillance since it was targeting specific nations. I don't agree, just that words can be twisted in hindsight to alter meaning.
I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that excuse would sound ridiculous. You can always say "I didn't do A because from now on I'm defining A so narrow that it doesn't include what I did", but that's not how language works.