Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It doesn't have any bearing on the justice of the cause but it does have a bearing on what one finds accpetable being done in the name of that cause.
It's a slight non sequiter, but it's a response to the view that not condeming State and Police action as terrorism implies a disregard for Maori grievances.
-
You can come at these issues from lots of angles but I predict that most people would find they have large areas of agreement with the Maori in that film.
I agree most people would but agreeing with the need to make redress for colonisation does not mean being unable to question the motivation and judgement of some of the more strident advocates of Maori rights.
Look what happened when Hone Harawira's family took over a Maori mental health unit at Carrington hospital. He jumps up and down about alleged Sate terrorism but had no problem when his family were beating up Maori who had a mental illness - all in the name of some spurious Maori tradition/spirituality.
Iti is most likely not nasty in that way (the people I know who know him say he’s a gentle, if dramatic at times, guy) but he does appear to have a rather inflated sense of his own importance and sense of mission. And some of the people he has attracted look plan crazy and dangerous.
-
Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara from the kiwiblog thread
Mark said: “Does the Treaty apply to Tuhoe? If not, that would be an interesting constitutional argument.”
It shouldn’t since Tuhoe never signed it, however the assumed complete sovereignty of parliament extends there irregardless due to the government owning a big army and police force to enforce its self beliefs.
When it comes to issues of sovereignty, talk is cheap, constitutional debates are rhetoric, around the world and throughout history, sovereignties have only ever changed hands or reinforced, at the edge of the sword, bayonet or bombs [shrugs].
I suppose it could be argued that he's just trying to state some sort of historical fact. But combine that sort of statement with buying guns and I can see why some people might get worried, talk being cheap and the electoral process mere rhetoric.
-
...where was the anti-terror hysteria two years ago? I mean the National Front have been committing acts of violence and intimidation, stockpiling explosives and openly boasting of forming a militia and training in the bush.
yes, I don't recall left wing activists getting quite so out of sorts when those NF folk were arrested, prosecuted and jailed.
-
Still, it comes with the territory, and I would like to think (perhaps wishfully) that part of the training includes the ability to deal with confrontational protest situations without resorting to bullying tactics.
And when did the Police resort to "bullying tactics" over the weekend?
The only bullying tactics on display were from leftists.
I'm pretty much over the whole self-pitying anti-Police leftist thing.
-
ecohumour -
(I don't think I've got the embedding bit right)
-
Good for the goose, but not for Turkey?
By ignoring 90% of the facts you can make any situation look like any other. Which is what Dyer is doing here and what he usually does.
Israel vs. Hezbollah is quite obliviously a different conflict to Turkey vs. the PKK. But there are obvious similarities such as both conflicts are indeed conflicts and they involve humans.
Beyond that there are a myriad of significant differences. Such as, most obviously, the different roles Hezbollah and the PKK play in Lebanon and Iraq. By ignoring those it's pretty easy to fabricate some sort of case of hypocrisy etc.
Also, the PKK are pretty justified.
Much like the IRA, the PKK might have had some justification for armed struggle early on but they wound up turning into a bunch of thugs.
-
It would be informative if you could expand on this.
I found The Nation article I was thinking of - Persian Ghosts
I disagree with some aspects of its analysis but it has a good and I think reliable account of the history of tensions in Iraq.
-
It would be informative if you could expand on this.
Fair point Alex.
I've done some reading on Iraq history which indicates a long standing, complex and antagonistic relationship between the Sunni and Shiites of Iraq. Most of that is not really the "fault" of anyone. One of the reasons the Sunnis had such a hold on the military (and hence why Saddam came to power) can be traced to the collapse of river trade in the 1930s. That trade was dominated by Sunnis. And when that went into decline many young Sunni men joined the (British organised) military.
Hence one explanation of Sunni dominance.
But off hand I can't give references, I'd have to spend some time digging them out.
However, the Mother Jones special on how the US could/should get out of Iraq does provide some opinion that backs this up.
From Juan Cole -
But the Shiites and the Kurds are petrified that the Democrats will get America out of Iraq and will leave them behind to be massacred.
And from Peter Galbraith
I think it is important to avoid confusing a moral obligation with an achievable mission. I mean, arguably we have a moral obligation to stop this civil war that is going on and which is taking thousands of lives, a civil war that was perhaps inevitable in some form when Saddam's regime collapsed, whether we were the agent of it or not. What was inherent in Iraq was untenable—that is, Sunni rule over a Shiite majority, which could only exist with great brutality. Once it went, there were going to be changes that were likely to lead to violence. I don't blame the civil war on the U.S., but our incompetence and our utter negligence in failing to plan seriously for the post war…beginning with not having any plan to provide security in Baghdad and stop the looting, has made this situation much worse, and you can argue that we have a moral obligation. But I would also argue that we don't have the ability to stop the civil war. We're not stopping it now.
Galbraith was Clinton's ambassador to Croatia (so he's most likely sensible and has some knowledge about civil wars) and is currently an adviser to the Kurdish govt in northern Iraq.
-
The most telling thing against the occupation is the sheer number of Americans who predicted that it could cause Iraq to implode.
The US invasion was only partly responsible for that implosion. 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.
But at present the issue is what would make things better. The Mother Jones series linked to up thread has whole range of opinions, most of them reasonable and plausible.