Posts by Alex Coleman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Kevin,
Bob not being anti-science is a proposition I'd hold any bets on.His position on the cervical cancer vaccine certainly hints that he is not prepared to let thinking about it get in the way of his moral finger waving.
NB The Catholic church most definitely disagrees with Bob about this case. Perhaps he should speak with his Bishop.
-
The Blackwater investigation is another shambles
Highlights:
Top Democratic lawmakers sent letters to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanding answers over reports that Blackwater, which protects US diplomats in Baghdad, had been offered protection from prosecution when the State Department investigated the September 16 shooting....
...The New York Times said officials in the State Department's investigative unit, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, made the immunity offer though they lacked authority to do so.
Most of the guards involved in the shooting were promised they would not be prosecuted for anything they said in interviews as long as their statements were truthful, the Times reported.
I'm guessing any half decent lawyer will be able to get them off after that.
-
It is still a very damning phrase, euphemism or not. It also avoids any comparison with the holocaust, which can be raised as a distraction, and it includes forced migration which genocide does not.
That said, I take your point and do not use the phrase as a way of downplaying any horrors that are taking place. I actually think it is an uglier phrase, in that it highlights the intent behind the deed.
-
Neil,
Iraq has its own history which provides enough reason for the current sectarian violence. Placing the emphasis too strongly on US actions runs the risk of not recognizing the dynamics of Iraqi politics.
It would be informative if you could expand on this. Otherwise it's just dressing up an opinion to make it look like a fact.
I'm no Iraq expert so I would appreciate your knowledge. From many accounts that I have read, prior to the invasion there was not a lot of sectarian division in Iraq, high rates of inter marriage, many mixed communities etc. I'm not suggesting that it was a Jeffersonian paradise, but Saddam did not rule as a sectarian Sunni. For most of his time in power he was a secularist, giving Shia and Christians powerful positions, depending on their personal loyalty to him. Many Iraqi bloggers and politicians have noted over the last few years that caring about whether or not someone is Sunni or whatever is a new trend.
Part of they blame for this, they say, is that the Americans handed out the ministries (including control of the army, police and secret police) in a sectarian manner. This had consequences.
Given the state of Iraq now, with the ethnic cleansing of many areas now complete and millions of Sunni's fleeing the borders, perhaps you can tell me when exactly in Iraqs history has it been like this, on this scale? It would be meaningful if it was in the last 100 years or so.
Thanks.
-
The worrying thing is that Cheney listens to Podhoretz.
So does Giuliani.
Maybe Hersh's sources are people that disagree with Cheney and are pushing back against his plans. The SecDef is no fan, by some accounts at least, and many in the military (particularly the army) are rather strongly opposed to action against Iran at this point.
As for what should be done about Iran perhaps negotiations based around their 2003 offers could be considered. But of course it will mean actually talking to the Mullahs. Kind of like when St. Ronny the Gipper sat down with the heads of an evil empire that actually was a threat at the time.
Of course many of the same people that now consider negotiations with Iran to be "emboldening the enemy" or "appeasement" or "futile and dangerous" thought exactly the same thing about talking to the USSR. They were wrong then as well.
The most troubling aspects of the bombing option are not the issues about oil prices (which will skyrocket as Iran attempts to close the Gulf), or the possibility that Iran will retaliate with missile strikes on Israels nuclear facilities, or the fact that they will take the leash off Hizzbollah.
These are all very bad to be sure, and by themselves make the possible gains of "pushing Irans nuke programme back a few years" not worth having.
The real problem for the US in doing this is the fact that their military in Iraq is supplied along a 500 mile land route through southern Iraq. Which is not only shiite, but the stronghold of the Iranian founded and supported SCIRI party and the BADR militia. The Brits have abandoned this area to "Iraqi" control. Add to this the fact that sadr is likely to feel the need to stir up trouble in Bahgdad and that Maliki will be unreliable to say the least and the US in Iraq could very quickly find themselves in a world of pain.
Iran will be playing a role in Iraq for a long time, there is nothing the Americans can do about that. The best hope is to isolate the real crazies in Iran in favour of the less crazies, negotiations and dialogue are how you do this, not dropping bombs. Their current president is not popular at the moment and would likely be gone next year if the US doesn't help him out by turning him into a hero/martyr. Shiites are quite big on martydom. as the last guy that decided to start a war with Iran found out at the cost of an estimated million odd lives.
-
Way to ruin my day...
Oh come on, it'll be a laugh.
I'm actually kind of looking looking forward to the Nats being in power. The policy will be crap of course, but MMP means they won't be able to get away with much if they want to finish the term, let alone have a second one.
At the very least it might stop them all being so bloody bitter all the time. Even the formerly affable Bill English spends most of his time these days sounding like he's got a P fuelled wasp under his tongue.
And who knows, maybe it'll even shut the uppedness out of the more feverish members of the rightoshere on these here internets for 6 months or so. That can't be bad.
What the Nats are going to have is a PM with no experience in government, let alone cabinet. He is optimistic and sunny though so good luck to him. His cabinet will support him, no doubt, lots of great minds and experience there. Locky Smith, Simon Power, and the aforementioned Mr's English and McCully.
What's not to like, it's going to be hillarious.
-
Stephen Franks seems to have the idea that Stephen Franks is very intelligent, politically astute, and that NZ is a state somewhere near Montana.
I voted for ACT once, sometime before 2005, when they were only slightly mad and acted more like a "keep the bastards honest" party. At some point they decided to run on a very American style of individualism with overt God, Guns and Gays rhetoric. Which is madness in NZ, and ridiculous when everyone knows you are not sincere about the God part. The people that aren't offended, are instead insulted by the obvious pandering
Frankie baby sent me a pamphlet during the last campaign that said ACT believed in freedom of religion, by which he clearly meant "freedom to not have to acknowledge that other people don't share your beliefs" or something similar. Anyway he was assuring me that the ACT party wouldn't oppress me by letting gay people do things that offended my religious sensibilities.
Which is a bit like his current babbling about the oppression of Coddington, who appears to have had her "freedom not to have your viewpoint contradicted or criticised, especially when it's wrong and/or dishonest" blatantly ignored.
Oh well, to look on the bright side, at least are taking full advantage of their freedom to make utter arses of themselves.
-
US evangelical lobbying. Jesus isn't going to come back on his own, you know
You said a mouthful there. One thing I worry about is what happens after they hold an apocalyptic war and Jesus doesn't come back. Whose fault will _ _that_ _ be do we think?
All that Christ killer literature is still in the back room and at various times in the last few years the chatrooms at the rapture loving sites have been quite disturbing, in a "spaceship behind hale bopp" kind of way. Except these guys are not planning on it being them that's gonna die.
It's not just Chompsky either. It's Hollywood and New York. And they don't even need code when talking about George Soros. Lordy.
And no I am not saying that all endtimers are anti semites in disguise. I am just saying that the rhetoric is almost there, and that the actual belief was there not that long ago. It wont take much to leap into life again. If some demogogue feels that Israel betrays them (and they do seem to feel quite proprietorial about Israel in a creepy kind of way, many are more pro Israel than most Israelis) then it all could turn nasty very quickly.
-
err N. Ireland
Goddamn phonetics. -
Re: Blair and credit for N. Island outbreaks of peace.
I've just finished reading this book by Ed Maloney a journo and former Northern Editor of the The Irish 'Sunday Tribune' .
The book is basically the story of Gerry Adams role and he is pretty convincing in making the case that if there was no Gerry there would be no peace. Adams was offering a deal (that looks pretty damn close to the one that has been achieved) back in the 80's. At this point Adams was on the Provo IRA army council and went behind their backs to communicate with Thatchers govt about what a ceasefire agreement would look like. Everyone involved took huge risks. The Brits took a political risk at a time when the provos were on a rampage and Adams life was literally reliant on these communications remaining secret.
It's an interesting book for those interested in how these negotiations actually happen between people who are actively killing each others supporters during negotiations. No-one comes out looking like a saint but there's plenty of times when I was dumbfounded at the bravery of steps taken and faith shown in secrets kept.