Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
A foundation of the argument against the removal of the Section 59 defence is that every parent knows the difference between a simple smack and an assault
My problem with Bradford is that that is exactly the distinction she deliberately refuses to make. She makes out that there is only assault and that opponents of her bill support assault.
-
I find that volcanic time bomb Auckland is sitting on terrifying.
Actually a new volcano could be just the centre piece Auckland needs now we won't get a waterfront stadium. If an eruption occurred in the Gulf and didn't interfere too much with shipping lanes then we could all sit in a Mission Bay cafe quaffing our Chardonnays appreciating the spectacle in complete safety. Guy Fawkes all year round.
It's Taupo where I'd never buy a house.
-
I was impressed with anjum's account of the interfaith forum. If there's any possibility of talking reason (or should that be "faith") into groups such as the EBs then it will most likely come from fellow believers.
-
it sounds like my niece
about the size of it, a bit on the spoilt side, and at least she doesn't have the raging narcissim of Jolie and Madonna. But if she hangs around with Paris much longer then who knows.
Mind you look, look at what a mess Lennon made of his life in his thirties - lost weekends and all that.
-
Regarding geothermal energy, NZ has been a major pioneer in this field, developing the technology necessary to utilise steam+water sources. This was followed up with the UN supported Geothermal Institute at The University of Auckland which not only advanced NZ's geothermal expertise but offered the opportunity for budding geothermal scientists from developing countries to develop skills. Great for them, great for alternative energy and great for NZ diplomacy.
So I wonder why the Government pulled the plug on it a couple of years ago.
-
The US is clearly pissed about Iranian weapons being used to kill their troops but it seems to me to be a bit of a side issue. The main reason the US is in a confrontation with Iran over Iraq is because of Iran's support for Shiite militias.
No doubt those militias would be carrying out ethnic cleansing even if the Iranians weren't involved but getting them to stop will be a lot harder if Iran really does want to see an ongoing Shia/Sunni war. That seems to be the real heart of the issue and at present no one appears to know what the Iranian game plan is. With Ahmadinejad just talking in riddles it's unlikely we'll know anytime soon.
But I think the US is right to put Iran on the spot over this.
-
Possibly, but the antiwar guy reports that no such claim was made - I presume that includes verbally. But then he doen't say if he attended the briefing. So again a bit frustrating.
-
Finding out details about what actually got said at the Bagdad briefing turns out to be not so easy.
Much as I loath the extreme right wing site antiwar.com, it's the only place where there is any indication of a first-hand account and their claim is that the briefing specifically denied that there was concrete evidence of high level involvement:
US Briefing on Iran Discredits the Official Line
This is back-up by the briefing's power point presentation as posted at TPMMuckraker - evidence of Quds Force invlovement but not of high level Iranian govt. It appears so far that in fact no one claimed evidence of high level Iranian invlovement.
So finding out if there really is a difference between the views of Bush, Pace and the Bagdad briefers is surprisingly difficult.
-
Simon, I stand corrected over Pace, with Ahmadinejad I've yet to see a direct quote of his denial.
Trying to work out what has gone on is actually a bit confusing. Apparently on Sunday three US military folk in Bagdad claimed evidence of high level Iranian govt involvement. From Simon's articles it seems Pace reviewed what they were going to say but it did not include the "high level" bit. Bush is saying that they have no evidence of high level Iranian involvement rather that it’s the Quds Force and they suspect some government involvement at some level.
So it’s the military briefing in Bagdad that's at odds with both Pace and the Bush admin. I'd like to see what that briefing actually said.
-
RB, I agree that the trustworthiness of the Bush admin is severely tarnished and that any intelligence about Iranian activities should be treated with some skepticism. Also that the US is now faced with trying to square the circle in Iraq.
But that does not mean that the problems with Iran are just the figments of Bush's warmongering imagination. It's worth considering what Iran is up to in its own right.
Here's Obama back in 2004 -
Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
I tend to agree with his position - a military strike could be a necessary last resort, the problem then being how to work out when every other option has been well and truly exhausted. That's difficult to do when dealing with governments like that of Iran - it appears fractured, is less than democratic and lacks transparency.
But for what it's worth I doubt that it will come to that and if it did then I would prefer it to happen in about 2 years time.