Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I like Lance Armstrong, always will.
-
Why would you pay for a political opinion to be written if you were then prevented from sharing that political opinion with others?
We follow a media entity due to the set of values we share with the authors and those are values we want to promote to others. The writers are mostly presenting our shared ideas more eloquently.
The idea of subscription to a public channel is worthwhile as it affords us the opportunity to spread our favourable opinions far and wide. Restricting access for political opinion to behind a pay copyright wall is contrary to purpose and therefore silly.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Of course. the Democrats will be using that and other associated rape jokes in political attack ads for the next couple of weeks. Should be fun.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Kyhwana,
Re Principle #10. That sounds like I can get any anti-equal marriage blogs/posts/websites taken down because they cause me emotional harm and spread falsehoods about gay people.
Unless the pro-religious sites got in first and accused you of hating on a religion or culture.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Basically, the Law Commission is proposing establishing a heckler's veto here. And that's just not a good idea.
Unless you are a lawyer. It looks likely such legislation will afford many lawyers the opportunity to make a lot of money.
It is vague, it is reliant upon the subjectivity of "hurt feelings", it requires action against nebulous entities, has problems of jurisdiction. Each and every case will drag on for years and provide endless opportunity for lawyers to fleece the system.
-
Hard News: The question of Afghanistan…, in reply to Islander,
If we’re going to have a military, can we not just fund them enough to do their jobs properly with decent gear?
The NZ Humvee and LAV vehicles are death traps to mines, with flat bottoms and stuff all armour underneath. But they cost shitloads, it is unfair to criticise politicians for being stingy with the funds. For example one Canadian made LAV costs the same 10 Australian made Bushmasters.
The responsibility for all uneccessary deaths lies with the Ministry of Defence and the then Army commander.
-
We have had plenty of referendums, they don't do anything. The politicians ignore the results.
-
Hard News: The question of Afghanistan…, in reply to Russell Brown,
So you know who really did it, then? Do tell.
9/11 short summary - 15 Saudi Arabians (+ 4 other Arabs) from an organisation headed by a Saudi Arabian, that was financed by Gulf State (Saudi) Arabs and dedicated to impostion of a Wahhabist religious cause crashed 4 planes in America.
It is a complete mystery who did what and who was involved. Must have been Afghanistan. Or Iraq.
-
Hard News: The question of Afghanistan…, in reply to tussock,
Syria is an insurgency, Afghanistan is not.
When the government is shelling cities with tanks and artillery - not an insurgency.
-
Hard News: The question of Afghanistan…, in reply to Steve Barnes,
Richard & Steve,
That is an American-centric book and American-centric review, when America is not central to the political culture of the region. The Western conceit is that it and it alone bestrides the world causing things to happen - playing to that sells books. But America merely got involved and then went away, came back and will go away again. West wasn't relevent between the end of the Cold War and 2001. And after it leaves it will cease to be relevent.
American funds against the Soviets were matched dollar for dollar by Saudi Arabia. When the Mujahideen had won the Americans stopped, but the Sauds continued funding the ISI. The Sauds continued funding Pakistan right on through when sanctions were imposed for Pakistan developing nuclear weapons. They continued up until 9/11, after which the Americans (and us) became involved again. The Sauds still continue funding today, albeit with more constraints on the severity of the religious teachings they favour. And they will continue to fund the region after we leave.
Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist religious society. It chooses to impose its cultural imprint on Pakistan/Afghanistan region. Pakistan/Afghanistan has become increasingly religious. Simple.
Tussock is right, we fund and support a corrupt government that is known to conduct extra-judicial killings against its own people. Hell, the Americans even cut out the middle man and conduct extra-judicial assasinations with drones. We are facilitating the killing of farmers to support a corrupt autocracy.
Russell is right, the Taliban (or whatever we wish to call the religious zealots) who will take over should we leave will be corrupt and carry out killings*. The Taliban kill innocent locals in pursuit of driving us out.
Either we leave and accept that religious zealots will take over. Or we stay as long as neccessary - estimates say Saudi Arabia might run out of oil in 2070. Or we try somethingelse.
* these killings will be sanctioned by religious law, not extra-judcial.