Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's a ludicrous thing to say. Being familiar with the ilk what would have voted him in, I'm not surprised.
-
FWIW, we rather conspicuously refused to join the Alliance of the Willing, or whatever the hell Bush liked to call it (I'm honestly surprised he didn't just go with "The Good Guys".) Afghanistan is another kettle of fish, though, and I wouldn't expect a pullout there any time soon.
Not meaning to repeat anything Simon said.
Conspicuously within New Zealand certainly, Globally I'd say it's debateable Lucy, nothing to the extent of pulling military support from Afghanistan in protest. But it's merely a conspicuousness of absence-once.
In the grand scheme of things I think we tend to underestimate the visibility of this use for our country, blinded by Glorifying headlines about Our Stance (which was undermined by Air New Zealand's involvement in Australian troop transportation).
Certainly after all the allegations of torture and massacres and illegal invasions, we have done nowhere near enough to distance ourselves from that global perception that New Zealand is just another the US war machine's regular Yes Men.
-
It worked in Vietnam
A sentence you don't often see; ) Interesting post.
-
For the record, I don't think any of those works (King's video, or the movies Chris mentioned) should be banned.
There do seem to be issues with how seriously a special effects of this nature are taken. I often wonder if NZ's geographical distance from 'the action' somehow blurs the line between reality and on screen material.
he might not have given the 100% politically correct answer. But, really, please don't compare it to a video featuring the consequence-free slaughter and dismemberment of women.
This has been troubling me a little. Firstly to clarify, I was comparing the video with Scribe's answer, I was comparing the video to some of these hiphop guys real world activities. I won't bring it up again. but I think these some of these 'old schooler's actions have spoken louder than their words at times.
But coming back to the main thing that troubles me about this discussion; The reaction to the video is obviously largely a question of taste. And I have no qualms about it not being hosted here, or that people find it offensive, I've still not seen it. but people are making claims about misogyny, and I have no doubts that it conveys misogyny, but is the misogyny considerably worse than that shown in some of those alcohol ads where we see a woman, drinking, drunk, raped. Without repercussions.
Certainly the violence may be more graphic (more fake blood and pig's intestines), but is the misogyny any worse?
Countless ads, which while not so graphically violent, illustrate the same kinds of attitudes toward people.
One can maintain the alcohol ads are done for a better cause than promoting music, that's noble. But after a significant exposure to this violence and misogyny has their been any significant success in attitudes to drinking?
Mr McKenzie says that while the number of vehicles stopped during the operation was somewhat lower than those previously tested, the ratio of drivers over the legal limit had increased.
An 18-year-old who drove with a breath alcohol level nearly seven times over the limit for a person her age, then crashed head on into another car, was fined when she appeared in the Gore District Court yesterday.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/court/3502222/Driver-was-seven-times-over-limit
some mayor...
etc etcIf not, to what extent could videos of that nature contribute to the notion that this misogyny and violence is acceptable viewing?
I'm not excusing anyone or being apologist. I just feel in context of what the Government presents as public service advertising in New Zealand, that you're left with a very thin hair to split.
-
A vote for anything but MMP seems too much of a risk given the uncertainty you've outlined regarding possible outcomes, if change is voted for.
-
um...
-
A couple of things;
random randomizing? Is it to make some kind of a statement as to what a lottery it is, holding a vote for change at a general election Ted?
Ted: Yes Dougal, we don't want the poor people getting confused by the order of all those acronyms.
3. You may vote in Part A and Part B or in Part A only if you wish.
If many vote change in part A and no one votes in Part B.....? Obviously unlikely but....it would seem logical that if a vote for change were cast then a change to what exactly, should be required.
Father Jack: Change!
-
Davison was my first. Like horse I'd have to rate Tom Baker as the definitive, but I think my favorite series would be Jon Pertwee's mainly in that he had a friend with a gun, in BrigadierLethbridge-Stewart. Sure it's cool being a pacificist, carrying nothing but a magic screwdriver, but being in Who's position, having a friend with a nifty little gun always seemed wise. Maybe the Brigadier also featured in early Tom Baker episodes too, I can't recall.
Seems from WIkipedia, that he appeared at some stage with all doctors except the 6th.
-
You're right, that's not really relevant Graeme. I didn't categorize the current occupation of Iraq as requested by the Government to be Illegal or not.
But it does seem a tad optimistic to expect the lads to just follow the rules in what is otherwise an illegal war.
March 20 2003-present.
You are correct that midway through the war crossed the threshold of legality, but I'd contend in that light, it seems even more optimistic for the lads to be expected to just follow the rules, given the rules could be construed as being arbitrary and malleable.
This video and surrounding events as an example.
-
Not at all.
In the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, charges of murder resulted in findings of not guilty precisely because of the distinction between lawful wars (which the Japanese attack on Perl Harbor was not) with the lawful conduct of war (which many of the actions were - you kill people in war, etc.).
The subtlety of the distinction may not be priority consideration for a 20 year old with a weapon.
I meant in the sense that following the illegal attack on Pearl Harbour, they then went on to engage in further atrocities. regardless of the findings of the courts, a moral precedent had been set, by the leader (supported by dozens of world leaders).
Also, although the invasion may have been unlawful, such a complaint cannot be leveled at the continued presence of US and other forces in 2007, which by then was at the invitation of the Iraqi Government.
I can't realistically see Saddam having offered the same invitation had he been in office in 2007, unless of course the country had been ravaged by some other invader.