Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Things aren't that much better in Aotearoa. I recently witnessed a tatooed, drunk white retard racially abuse and physically intimidate a local shopkeeper - no flags involved. Suffice to say it was infuriating and intensely embarassing, and I'm sure most Australians would feel the same way about their lunatic fringe. Australia is, on the whole, a great place and its Summerdayze lineup almost warranted another visit.
-
Perhaps, to put it simply, it is that some of us on the left oppose many of the fundamentalist aspects of religions, but don't feel that the best way to do that is to bag the entire religion and its followers wholus bolus? The bagging seems to me to often have racist connotations...
Radical Islam should be opposed because it is unjust, violent, anti-modern and lends itself to authoritarian political structures. However, I tend to think this is obvious and and should be readily conceded as the real argument lies elsewhere.
The left's desire to protect and cultivate moderate Islam is, IMO, a pluralistic and principled effort to promote cooperation between different faiths and cultures. There is also the hope that moderation, if carefully nurtured, will come to dominate the field. I think this is a worthwhile approach and is the only realistic way of preventing reactionary elements within our own society from concluding that Islam generally is a threat.
The question worth arguing IMO about are how we should conduct a just yet robust foreign policy viz a viz moderate Islam and its wholly unacceptable radicalised cousin (and, of course, the rest of the developing world).
-
More generally, I find Mark's unfounded assertions equally offensive. Like span, I'm equally opposed to fundamentalism of all kinds.
I respect your scepticism about religion, and my purpose here is not to defend the religious right. However, I think this (and Span's position) are species of false equivalence.
Ba'hai, Brian Tamakism and radical Islam are different; each involves different beliefs and implies different political consequences. However, IMO the consequences of radical Islam are particularly malignant and should be more strongly opposed than the others on moral grounds. It is a failure of both logic and empathy to believe that your local baptist pastor deserves the same contempt as the perpetrators of the Bali bombing.
Terrorism is bad and killing innocent people is wrong. You may not believe this, but its even worse than Ba'hai.
-
The radical Islamic conception of how our world should be organised can (and should) be unequivocally rejected.
I would readily concede that Western power has caused significant injustice, even I though I believe Western power (and the US in particular) to be an positive influence in world affairs. The liberal democratic and mixed economy ideology of the USA is demonstrably superior to the other major ideologies of the 20th century. (No Chomsky or Pilger refutations please.)
I cannot accept that radical Islam is a legitimate response to the considerable injustice that exists in our world; nor can I really understand any attempts to apologise for it. The attempt to directly compare the murderous hate and violence of Al Qaeda to evangelical Christianity is logically fatuous and morally offensive.
-
I have tended to compare Stephen Fleming with Mark Richardson, a man with half the talent and twice the record, whose sheer determination brought him tremendous success. But now I tend to think Flem has had to carry a heavy burden as captain, and have resolved to give him the benefit of the doubt.
It's often noted that NZ needs two quality openers, but in the meantime the task (at least in ODIs) should fall to Fleming and Astle. With Taylor, Fulton, Styris, Oram and McCullum our middle order looks okay; Gillespie looks the goods, and Bond is one of the world's best, but we're still going to mostly lose to Australia.
I'm confident Bracewell's tenure will be reconsidered by NZ Cricket at the appropriate time, but I'm glad the selectors finally saw fit to give Gillespie and Taylor their shot.
Boo to Sheikh Hilaly - I bet he hasn't even heard of cricket. This would go some way towards explaining his profound ignorance and terrible manners.
-
How about that Shane Bond - when he is not going for 22 in a 9 ball over (which is, like, almost never) he is a champion. Despite the result, I thought Gillespie, Taylor and Fulton acquited themselves really well.
The look on Symonds' face when Taylor thumped him into the stands for the second time was just priceless. It almost made you wish McCullum was batting at 7. Can't wait for Styris and Oram to get back.
-
I apologise for making so many posts here, but I feel obliged to rebalance what I said earlier. This is not as straightforward as I suggested.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101572.html
A jointly set date [for US withdrawal] would facilitate an effort to engage all of Iraq's neighbors in a serious discussion about regional security and stability. The U.S. refusal to explore the possibility of talks with Iran and Syria is a policy of self-ostracism that fits well into the administration's diplomatic style of relying on sloganeering as a substitute for strategizing.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101576.html
Then these shrewd words: "We discovered that we were not fighting a military campaign, but a political campaign -- not too different from what a small town mayor might do to win reelection back in the U.S. . . . Fighting terrorists was only something we did when needed, because it interfered with our political objectives. If we could ignore the terrorists, we were winning. If we had to stop our economic and political activities in order to fight terrorists, they were winning."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101104.html
Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples said Iraqi security forces have been thoroughly infiltrated by Shiite militias and "are presently unable to stand alone against Sunni insurgents, al-Qaeda in Iraq" or the militias themselves. Negroponte, who was ambassador to Iraq in 2004-05, said sectarian violence had become the greatest problem inside the country.
"The struggle among and within Iraqi communities over national identity and the distribution of power has eclipsed attacks by Iraqis against the coalition forces as the greatest impediment to Iraq's future as a peaceful, democratic and unified state," he said.
-
Brief expert comment here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1988741,00.html
Max Boot, senior fellow for national security studies at the US Council on Foreign Relations
"**Will the troop surge work? Beats me. But does anyone have a better idea?** Pulling out now could turn Iraq into a Rwanda-style genocidal civil war. My sense is that most Americans recognise this and still want to salvage an acceptable outcome if possible. Given that our current strategy clearly is not working, there are only two realistic alternatives: decrease or increase the size of US forces.
-
Bush's mistakes cannot be undone, they can now only be mitigated.
From what little I understand from media reports, there are two options: withdraw and leave Iraq's civilian population to its fate, or try to establish a functioning Iraqi government, army and police force.Is there a better way?
-
A couple of days ago I chanced upon Vietnam: A House Divided at Real Groovy. The music from that era is sublime. It seems to me that many of our ideas (including our scepticism) about American power have their genesis in the Cold War and the counterculture that it created.
Kennedy once said that it is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war. Despite its excesses, and despite the Bush Administration, I believe that "pax Americana" has been, on balance, a positive thing.
It can't be true that because Vietnam was a failure that involved an increased deployment of US troops, every increased deployment of US troops will be a failure. Isn't the standard critique of the occupation that it involved too few troops? Alternatively, some of Bush own generals seem to oppose the surge on the grounds that, among other things, the Iraqi government and its security forces must provide the solution. Time will tell I guess.