Alright. I'll take a sec to make a comment on a subject that I don't often comment on, and that is New Zealand politics. The reasons I don't often do this are:
1) Kiwis are relatively private when it comes to discussing politics and religion (And these two subjects are things that have little influence or impact Kiwis in their daily decisions)
2) New Zealand politics are fairly banal, and generally low impact, particularly when it comes to foreign policy.
3) I've largely given up making any comments on any political subject because it feels like I'm pissing in the wind.
4) I generally don't have time.
...So my comment is this, and I'll start with a question. How many Kiwis are aware that the NZDF has decided to deploy LAVs in support of our SAS personnel serving in Afghanistan? This of course in addition to Army personnel deployed in reconstruction efforts.
I suspect the answer to this question is "Not many". I put this down to a failure on the part of the New Zealand media to give the matter any real coverage. Unfortunately the news in New Zealand is heading down hill. Detail in stories is getting smaller, we're getting more quick coverage across a spectrum of subjects (Good if you want your information to be broad. Not good if you want your information to be deep) and more puff pieces are flowing in. I refer primarily to the TV news here. New Zealand doesn't actually have a source for hard news really. You can watch stuff from overseas, but this fails to cover New Zealand issues like the ones above.
I actually (Politely) asked three Kiwi work mates their thoughts on this subject recently, and one of them stutteringly tried to answer the question, with a look of shock on his face that I asked the question, and the other two quietly shuffled their feet while looking at the ground, not even bothering to answer the question. Kiwis are good at burying their heads in the sand some times. Not when it comes to hard work, but certainly when it comes to hard questions.
So on the matter of the LAVs. Sure. The reason behind deploying them has some merit in that they will make our SAS personnel there more safe (grammar check suggests “safer”. I’d have received a wrap on the knuckles for that while I was at school) than they currently are. This doesn't belie the fact that our SAS should not be in Afghanistan in the first place. For arguments of "Helping the people of Afghanistan", "Spreading [sic] freedom and democracy" and "Rebuilding a failed state"*, the SAS are actually there to curry favour with the United States relative to a free trade agreement. So what this means is, New Zealand military personnel have potential to die in a country with which New Zealand is NOT at war, all to sell more butter in the United States. Keep enjoying your National lead government. I told you so. How's that tax cut your were lied^H^H^H^Hpromised?
So if you don't have a problem with the LAV deployment, do you have a problem with Hercs being sent as well? How about artillery? How about more support personnel? Where does it end? And what will you say when someone turns their attention on New Zealand and says "This is for your support of the imperial aggression on the part of the United States"? The US doesn't even know what it's doing there. What are we going to do when the conflict in Afghanistan spreads even further than the worst kept secret of (Illegal) CIA drone attacks in Pakistan? So why are we assisting in a conflict; the basic purpose of which those who are carrying it out is in question. But that is another thing I've ranted over before. The US is over. Seriously. I've given up, and I'm just watching the country spiral down the drain. I have no faith that a real positively transformative figure can be elected to president in the United States. The country will collapse through its own debt, which is a result of ignorance and greed. The parallels with the end of the Rome cannot be ignored. All empires end. It's China's turn now. The only question is, do we destroy our environment while we’re at it.
* For anyone who wants to use this argument in support of what's being done in Afghanistan, I hope you're not a hypocrite and have plans to invade other failed states to carry out the same efforts.
11 comments:
I would, firstly, like to comment on your first three points – I believe Kiwi’s tend to be pretty apathetic politically due to the long term detrimental effect of the socialist policies the left lead governments have introduced over many years. This has reduced the average New Zealander to the point that, until recent times, they have been prepared to allow the premise, that Nanny State knows best, be their guiding light and thereby abdicating many of their personal choices and freedoms. They falsely believe they are gaining “benefits” that will assist them getting ahead when in fact it is self indulgent, short sighted greed at best.
And I have to wonder regarding your fourth point that you generally don’t have time to make these sort of the comments – that this post was published during what is probably work hours on a work day – so has this rant been at the expense of your employer? Are you voluntarily making the time up or are you also sucking on the state tit so these rants can be at the expense of the taxpayer like myself.
In response to your claim that NZ is in Afghanistan to “curry favour with the USA relative to a free trade agreement” . Does that mean that all 39 other countries that are contributing to the ISAF (which our SAS is part of) are also currying favour with the USA for free trade agreements – I think not. And you would do well to remember that it was dear Aunty Helen that first committed NZ troops to Afghanistan – not National. You seem to conveniently forget that fact when ranting on that aspect. As this is a comment on your blog I don’t have space to address this issue further at present as I also want to discuss your “giving up on America”.
I don’t believe any one figure can be the transformation that America needs – for that is not what it needs. The USA, like most other countries, needs its transformation to start at the beginning – with the individual, the person on the street. One man, one woman at a time. Change the mind set, the values, the premises and that in turn will change the actions and the products. Look at your own words, abounding with negativity – rants, don’t have time, given up, down the drain, no faith. Start with yourself for change and it can’t help but spread from there.
A quick note for you MikeE, I am replying to your comment. I've just run out of time today and I'm only about half done.
Do truths need a reply?
Yes Mike, your drivel does need a reply. It would actually require a reply in person since this is such a poor medium for carrying out a response. What I've written so far is three pages, and that's only in response to half of your message. We'll see when I get a chance to finish the response.
Ultimately much of the answer comes down to selfish greed. That's it. You're a zealot, as most libertarians are. And I would wager a hypocritical one at that. Obviously the majority of your comments would be "Don' take my freedoms", but I'm sure I could find a plethora of examples to catch you out when they're your little pet things that you want.
Libertarians = Everyone else is wrong. What I want is right.
Everyone else = We're all wrong some times and we're all right some times.
You're on the fringe Mike, and you always will be. A group of white males, wanting to protect your existing wealth and power with no compassion or caring beyond your own wallet. It's rather sad to watch. And what's sadder is, you're not ever really aware of what other people think of you as a result. We all have to interact and get along. We have a responsibility to work together, but as soon as someone talks about spending a dollar on something you're like "Don't take away my freedom!.
Actually Mike, let's try this. Complete this sentence for me:
"Trevor Loudon is a..."
Some clarification is needed here.
My name is not Mike, I never said it was so I have no idea where you got that from.
My name is not Trevor Loudon. I do know Trevor Loudon, given the fact that the libertarian sector in New Zealand is reasonably small. Obviously, being a libertarian, I have some views that are similar to his but I am certainly not him. Also, from what I know of him, in his comments on other blogs he certainly does not go by pseudonym’s but clearly states that the views posted are his so I doubt he would digress from that modus of operandi on this blog.
And, actually, I do agree with you on one point - this is a restricting medium to have a robust ideological discussion and as you say it really requires to meet in person – I am up for that - any mutual time and place.
Until such time I am willing to enter into a robust, respectful discussion. I have a sense that, for whatever reason, this has the potential to degenerate into a personal slanging match which achieves little and wastes our mutually precious time.
So let me start addressing some of your responses:
I am a zealot. You say that as if it is a bad thing. Certainly looking at the dictionary definition it is a label I am reasonably comfortable with:
Zeal -noun
fervor for a person, cause, or object; eager desire or endeavor; enthusiastic diligence; ardor.
Synonyms: intensity, passion.
How can it be wrong to have a passion, fervor and ardor for ones beliefs? Is that not the label I could ascribe to yourself with your views? Are you not passionate about your political beliefs? Your responses right now would certainly indicate that to me. And does it make it wrong that a group of people holding similar passionate views are “zealots”. A group of Green party members dancing around a Maypole at their national conference – is that not zealot like? I would tend to think more dork like as well (especially when seen on national television) but they are passionate and have a eager desire about their beliefs – how are they not zealots? Or is that label exclusively reserved for people you disagree with?
I am on the fringe, and proudly so. I have never been mainstream for most of my life, the concept and practical application of believing and living my life as a responsible, very unique and thinking individual holds much appeal. More so than alternative. The majority of people I believe live as part of a great herd – essentially too lazy or perhaps too unaware to question and think deeply what is around and inside them. And frequently their understanding of things is so glib that it is often a misunderstanding they have – something I have witnessed many times in my workplace when having a political discussion. I am not placing you in that category for the very fact that you have placed a post that tends to reflect inner thinking and questioning (even if I don’t agree with it) and it means that to my mind you also tend not to be one of the herd – in some ways the individualism of libertarianism may fit as a label for you. (I can hear the screams of horror and denial from here)
However, I am mystified at your definition of a libertarian. The widely accepted definition both academically and politically is that of:
lib•er•tar•i•an (lĭb'ər-târ'ē-ən)
n.
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.
How on earth is that definition above selfish greed or protecting my wealth and power without compassion for others as you define it? It is treating everybody as an individual – what could be better than that? It is not lumping people together, labeling them, pigeon holing them. There is a role for government, but I believe the role should be limited to essentially that of justice, law and order. I believe in compassion for those less fortunate than myself, I try to practice compassion, understanding and tolerance on a daily basis. I have not lived a gilded life, nor do I have great power or material wealth. I have wealth in the values I live by, the beliefs I hold. But they are never so precious, so sacred that they cannot be held up for inspection by myself and others.
For me, libertarianism offers the ultimate freedom of choice for the individual to live their life as they see fit without any harm or initiation of force of another person or their property. BUT with choice comes great responsibility. That is not the traits of a greedy, self serving person as you describe. I think you have a misunderstanding of what living a libertarian value based life really means.
Drones in Pakistan
I have been thinking about this issue, and actually, was not aware of it so I have done some research before I write my thoughts. The resulting conclusions are interesting because it has raised more questions than answers for me. Questions that I have not considered deeply before (perhaps that revelation might allow you to change your generalization that all libertarians are narrow minded, fixed opinionated selfish zealots).
A country’s sovereign rights are extremely important to me and something that should be defended, if required, physically. (Part of the role of a libertarian limited government) In World War 2 Japan attacked the US , the act that finally drew the US officially into the war, and the US rightly counterattacked Japan. I assume here you have no issue with the use of force in defending yourself and counterattacking when provoked such as this case. The lines of battle and sovereignty were quite cleanly drawn – an invasion/attack on one country by one country and the counterattack.
But the such issues today are more clouded when the attack comes from not necessarily one country but a group such as Al Queda which is based not based in one country but roams over several. How do you retaliate, counterattack without violating the sovereignty of the countries in which Al Queda resides? Do you treat those countries as the enemy as well? On reading about the drones that would appear to be the stance the US has taken with Pakistan but they are not at war per se with Pakistan so how can the use of the drones be condoned? But the answer I don’t have is how do you fight a group like this rather than a country? Pakistan isn’t at war with America directly but it does provide sage harbor to these terrorist’s so are they the enemy by association? Should America just sit and wait to be attacked again and then wring its hands at the invasion of its own sovereignty? How would you suggest America deals with Al Queda because in today’s times it is like the rules of engagement have very much changed from in the 40’s?
No response to my comments?
Huh!
Either my superior IQ scares you or you know what I say has truth to it.
Or, you are ashamed of your previous response!
Either way - interesting!
I dare you to reply
Just wondering if you would disagree with the USA violating Pakistain airspace to get bin laden.
Post a Comment