Posts by Andrew Smith
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"But given that this is effectively a remix of the conservative Christian lobby that played a significant behind-the-scenes role in the last election campaign..."
I just hope you are not lumping all 'Christian Conservatives' into the 'Exclusive Brethren' club. As a christian conservative myself, I would not want to be associated with what many would class as a 'cult'. In saying that though, I think the lobbying the Brethren did at the last election was OK, except they that they tried to be non-transparent which is devious and (dare I say it ) unchristian. Also, I do believe that Family First are quite open about who they are. Not that I am a member in any way.
-
What I wonder is at what point do the law-enforcement authorities do the shift from doing the arrests etc through the normal legal processes to calling this a 'war on terrorism' and sending in the SAS or the like and not ask questions. Would it take an actual terrorist-like action to make this shift?
-
RB, I haven't read all the blog today, and I know it's mainly about scuffling etc but this article on ADSL speeds perked me up when I read it. Do you have a comment? Looks promising.
-
Ben, well written and debated. Thanks for taking the time. By the way Russell, no doubt you are aware of yet another slant on Iraq. This time hailing the positive news on deaths since August. Too early to tell yet, perhaps, but again it depends on what you read and how you come at it. Anyone for a trip to Iraq to find out for ourselves?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2797526.ece
-
Ben, I believe strongly in rational debate. But we all bring our tainted views into any 'rational' debate which makes it less rational than it should be. But to state that we just start wars or murder entire populations just because we can't try rational debate, is a bit extreme and irrational don't you think?
-
Stephen. I think there are reasonable and well written views here. But Iraq is a case in point where views are so incredibly mired in philosphy, whether they be religious or political.
Anyway...I'm of for an early dinner
-
"I think there's a limit to how long it's possible to go on denying the research"
I think this is the point I was trying to make at the beginning (and not too well I can tell). If you are for the war, you'll jump on good peer-research and if you are against the war, you will also jump on good peer-research. It is really a case of blinding oneself to the point of view you don't like, as the alternative will unsettle us too much. Kind of like our point of view is sacred almost. Live's lost under Saddam or the US Army or the whatever. It's very, very sad.
-
Russell, I wouldn't mind 'what it says' if it could be relied on. The Lancet study really seems way off the mark. It's methodology is dodgy. But if it was near the 'truth', then fine. But 12,000 people a month dead because of the war since March 2003? Hmm. I certainly wouldn't like that.
I don't think you can slap the 'peer review' big boy on it either. There have been many studies with 'peer reviews' that have turned out to be less than credible.
-
Russell, I'm not sure pulling out surveys helps in the 'truth' process. There have been other figures eg from the Iraqi Hospital records which put deaths at a much less figure.
-
Of course there is positive news in Iraq, but that's not the point. The Left, generally, have always been hell-bent on proving the neo-cons incorrect in invading Iraq. That's just the way it is. Look at the positives from the ousting of Saddam's regime and you get 'squirrel's watersking' type lame jokes or attacks. History is still unfolding in Iraq. I still reserve my judgement on whether the intervention there was good.