Posts by stephen walker
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Weston,
Don't you think this is an exaggeration?
No. Slightly immoderate language maybe, but exaggeration? No.
Frankly, even if I grant you this, so what if the Taliban and radical Islam are an unintended consequence of the Cold War?
That's a funny one--radical Islam an unintended consequence of the Cold War!!! You're joking, right?
No. In fact radical Islam was not unintended at all. It was a key tactic adopted by the US as a means of attacking and destabilizing the USSR. The mujahadeen were nurtured by the CIA and Pakistan's ISI becuase they were radical Islamists. Not coincidence. Not unintended.
Your characterisation of the US as power hungry, greedy and imperialistic is one-dimensional IMO, and even where it is true, isn't it trite to point out that nation states aggressively pursue their strategic interests?
Whose strategic interests? Not the interests of 98% of the US population. But quite likely the interests of the corrupt congress, lobbyists, security apparatus, aerospace and weapons manufacturers, their "private equity" investors, neocon "think tanks", Halliburton and an assortment of other contractors and large corporations, the Bush crime family, et al.
Look, the US has shown countless times that it is more than happy to nurture, train, arm, finance, assist and harbour terrorists when it suits someone's strategic interests inside the military-industrial-congressional complex. Anti-Castro Cuban exile terrorists? No prob. Kosovo Liberation Army (Muslim, even)? No worries. Unita in Angola, Renamo in Mozambique, Contras in Nicuragua, and the list goes on and on. But that was the Cold War, you say, so it was justified, because the Eastern Europeans were counting on us to fight the Russians in every corner of the globe.
Or, how about the real reason: because the Cold War meant money. Lots and lots of money for the military-industrial complex and its congressional/executive lackeys.
And when the Cold War was "won", they of course needed a new bogeyman to replace "communism". Needed something to scare the Western populace into supporting even more massive military, internal security and intelligence expenditures. And voila! We have "radical Islamic terrorism" right on cue. How...convenient.
I'm curious to know: which horse were you backing? Or am I being unfair?
None of the above.
Straw-man rhetorical flourishes are pretty tiresome and pointless, so please don't bother wasting your time, thanks. -
but bin Ladeb considers East Timor and Kosovo as part of the caliphate
why would he consider East Timor, a predominantly Roman Catholic country, to be part of the caliphate?
I didn't come up with any direct quotes from bin Ladeb railing against liberal values but his support for the anti-liberal Taliban is good enough evidence for me.
life is so simple, eh? all black and white, isn't it? please allow me to paraphrase:
bin Laden = bad
liberal West = good
with us = good
with the terrorists = badbut the rather large fly in this logical ointment is this: bin Laden and his cohorts received most of their funding, weapons and training for many years from:
1. the CIA
2. the US-backed Pakistani security servicesAll sorts of high-tech weaponry and training was provided to attack the Soviets supporting the Afghan govt. fom 1979 to 1989, by Carter, Reagan and Bush Sen. Hey, don't you remember Reagan's "freedom fighter" mujahadeen? good ol' boys just trying to kick some commie ass!
In 1994, a new organization, the Taliban, emerged. Its members had been trained in the religious schools set up by the Pakistani government--with U.S. support--along the border.
Anyone who believes that this "war on terror" bullshit has got anything to do with religion or defending liberal values is either stupid or wilfully ignorant.
how about the real reasons:
1. geopolitical power
2. money, esp. from weapons manufacture and security infrastructure
3. economic imperialism
4. resource control -
BTW,
this press release masquerading as a news article in the Herald makes me wonder if the Herald editors are stupid or just morons. So, when did "the world" get reduced to just six countries--all English-speaking, of course. I must have missed that news.
The survey found Australians had the world's most pervasive housing affordability crisis
Canadians have the world's most affordable houses
The survey found many people living in North America were much better off than New Zealanders. Their housing markets are the world's more affordable.
-
Tom Beard,
Thanks for the post at the top. Couldn't agree more. People didn't seem to like petrol creeping towards $2.00/litre last year. I wonder how are they going to deal with $6.00/litre petrol within five years?
It's a pity that NZ doesn't have much of a tradition of urban (as opposed to suburban) living.
I don't think that is actually true if you look back to before the "car is king" era. The older areas of central Auckland didn't have large sections. They had modest front and back gardens and the houses were close together. In Ponsonby there are still lots of pre-villa era two-story cottages.
Until 1959, Auckland had an excellent tram network. Then they scrapped it, built the harbour bridge and started the cult of the motorway. Imagine if all that land in Grafton and Newton gullies had been used for medium-density housing, parks and light rail corridors? Instead, we have an eysore, permanent gridlock and enough pollution to put us up there with the worst cities in the world. Clean, green AKL. Yeah, right.
I highly recommend this report:
Backtracking Auckland: Bureaucratic rationality and public preferences in transport planning
Paul Mees and Jago Dodson
April 2006New Zealand's largest city is also one of the world's most car-dependent; conversely, public transport usage rates are among the lowest in the world. These trends were reflected in, and we argue caused by, one of the most extreme automobile oriented transport policies pursued by any major city between the 1950s and 1980s...
-
For Windows Vista Security, Microsoft Called in Pros
When Microsoft introduces its long-awaited Windows Vista operating system this month, it will have an unlikely partner to thank for making its flagship product safe and secure for millions of computer users across the world: the National Security Agency.
For the first time, the giant software maker is acknowledging the help of the secretive agency, better known for eavesdropping on foreign officials and, more recently, U.S. citizens as part of the Bush administration's effort to combat terrorism. The agency said it has helped in the development of the security of Microsoft's new operating system -- the brains of a computer -- to protect it from worms, Trojan horses and other insidious computer attackers.
"Our intention is to help everyone with security," Tony W. Sager, the NSA's chief of vulnerability analysis and operations group, said yesterday.
-
It was Always About Oil
-
have you called 111 yet to report all new zealanders invading your farm and ripping your wealth out of your hands? if you have, when the police arrived, did you help them out by providing the evidence you have of a white-collar crime conspiracy?
4 million people arriving to grab your loot must have caused a bloody nasty traffic jam. or were they environmentally concsious thieves that walked or cycled to your place instead?
-
hey, check out the byline for the online version of today's sideswipe:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/column/story.cfm?c_id=702&objectid=10416771
(i only clicked on it because the PA words of the year were in there)hehe, is this an ironic boxing-day jibe by the herald online staff, or has dc found a new summer job?
-
Which brings back fuzzy memories of that huge dance party you put on in 88 or 89, Russell...that was a hell of a night....
railway station?
-
Peter Jenner, one of the wisest men in the music industry for decades, is absolutely right in this.
For those who haven't seen it, TheReg has an extended interview with the old man...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/03/peter_jenner/