Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 254

Thread: Black Caps generic thread

  1. #226
    State 12th Man sportychic33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Palmy North
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    Even though he's not performing that well?
    well he can't really be "performing that well", considering that he is just coming back from an injry and hasn't played a game since 9th Jan. Check your facts out

  2. #227
    Tim
    Tim is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    7,888
    It's no surprise that NZ are only getting involved now. Labour need some ammunition for the elections and many New Zealanders agree that Zimbabwe should be banned so this will be seen as a positive move if Labour block them from touring here.

  3. #228
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Time for consistency- (note: i am NOT pro-Mugabe) : If Zimbabwe is banned for attrocities against human rights, Australia and England should be banned too for attrocities against human rights and invasion of a sovereign nation illegally.

  4. #229
    International Regular shaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    auckland NZ
    Posts
    3,045
    Lets keep it focussed and not go on a tangent into politics that have nothing to do with cricket.


  5. #230
    International Regular shaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    auckland NZ
    Posts
    3,045
    www.blackcaps.co.nz has a fan poll which asks which player was the unluckiest not to be picked for the NZ cricket tour to Zimbabwe, options are Matthew Sinclair, Daryl Tuffey, Michael Papps or Jeff Wilson, what are your thoughts? I say Sinclair, maybe Jeffo for not being allowed to get more international experience.

  6. #231
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,301
    Quote Originally Posted by shaka
    Lets keep it focussed and not go on a tangent into politics that have nothing to do with cricket.
    C_C will go to any lengths to attack England and Australia I'm afraid, but that is about his worst attempt yet.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  7. #232
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    C_C will go to any lengths to attack England and Australia I'm afraid, but that is about his worst attempt yet
    Umm.... dont be an idiot.
    I am stating it as it is.
    Dont you find it inconsistent that some call for the exclusion of ZIM due to its human rights violation as a state policy but the very same sources do not call for the exclusions of Australia or England due to human rights violation as a state policy in Iraq and waging an illegal war ?

    And if you dont, you better explain why not.
    Leave yer nationalism at home when you talk to me- i am not nationalistic and i dont care much for nationalism.

  8. #233
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18,950
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Time for consistency- (note: i am NOT pro-Mugabe) : If Zimbabwe is banned for attrocities against human rights, Australia and England should be banned too for attrocities against human rights and invasion of a sovereign nation illegally.
    Do you have any understanding of human rights law at all, or what exactly warrants sanctions against a nation for violating human rights?

    Let me state absolutely categorically - there are almost NO nations AT ALL who have not violated human rights in some way or another in some fashion or another since the establishment of the various treaties by which we judge basic standards of human rights. Undoubtedly there would be some way to pull out a random example of a country that has never been accused of such, but we can safely say that virtually any country you could care to name has violations of human rights within its borders from time to time, or has state policies in other countries which could be construed to contravene international agreements. This includes, without question, each and every test cricket nation, all of whom in some way or another has violated human rights agreements.

    I did a research piece on Australian breaches of human rights agreements recently, and there are plenty which would seem incredibly insignificant on the global scale, but did happen. For example, there was an official challenge at the federal level on the grounds of a human rights agreement breach because in Tasmania sodomy was still illegal, which was seen (correctly, imo) to violate the implied right to privacy and freedom of reasonable behaviour enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for a gay man living in that state.

    Stepping away from your chosen targets for a moment, Pakistan recently had a parliamentary vote which rejected a change to the law to ban honour killings. Which do you think is a more direct and unquestionable violation of human rights agreements, invading Iraq and thereby going against international opinion and engaging in a war which may potentially be decided by an international court without power to be illegal, or refusing to ban honor killings, a practice SPECIFICALLY prohibited in MANY human rights agreements, including the big one - the UDoHR? Which nation, in your rational, reasonable, unnationalistic mind would be more deserving of a ban from test cricket?

    Now, having established that each and every test nation violates human rights and international treaties in some way or another on a semi-regular basis, why has Zimbabwe been singled out? In answering this question why not ask why the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and various other impartial, non anglo-australian biased groups of significance have also singled out Zimbabwe? Could it be that in Australia and England, people's homes are not being bulldozed without reason? That the elections are not rigged? Those who speak out against the government are not exiled from the country, threatened with violence or death or even kicked off the cricket team? Any of the OTHER things which these groups have pointed out? Why was it apartheid South Africa was banned from test cricket, while Australia where aboriginals were marginalised in society was not? Could it be a question of an absolutely monsterous difference in scale and severity, perhaps? The same as this, perhaps?

    I've been as critical as anyone over what issues of hypocrisy in dealing with Zimbabwe from Australia do exist (Howard inviting in white farmers who had been kicked off their land as refugees while rejecting Afganistani boat people displaced by allied bombing, for example), but to suggest that the ban of Zimbabwe would equate to a necessary ban for Australia and England from international cricket has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have EVER heard on this forum. It is just despicably arrogant and ignorant of the relevant facts, and does a great disservice and insult not only to the people of those countries you single out for criticism, but also those have suffered under Mugabe in Zimbabwe for you to so belittle their plight.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  9. #234
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Do you have any understanding of human rights law at all, or what exactly warrants sanctions against a nation for violating human rights?
    I have a decent understanding of this subject matter- decent i say, because i am not familiar with the exact legalese.

    Let me state absolutely categorically - there are almost NO nations AT ALL who have not violated human rights in some way or another in some fashion or another since the establishment of the various treaties by which we judge basic standards of human rights.
    Agreed. Which makes 'barring a nation' absurdly hypocritical unless you are talking on a far more efficient and damaging programs like apartheid.

    I did a research piece on Australian breaches of human rights agreements recently, and there are plenty which would seem incredibly insignificant on the global scale, but did happen. For example, there was an official challenge at the federal level on the grounds of a human rights agreement breach because in Tasmania sodomy was still illegal, which was seen (correctly, imo) to violate the implied right to privacy and freedom of reasonable behaviour enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for a gay man living in that state.
    This is under the assumption that human rights violations happen only in internal matters and not external.

    . Which do you think is a more direct and unquestionable violation of human rights agreements, invading Iraq and thereby going against international opinion and engaging in a war which may potentially be decided by an international court without power to be illegal, or refusing to ban honor killings, a practice SPECIFICALLY prohibited in MANY human rights agreements, including the big one - the UDoHR? Which nation, in your rational, reasonable, unnationalistic mind would be more deserving of a ban from test cricket?
    Both are pretty much guilty. Its 'to-MAY-toes/to-MAH-toes' to me.
    Irrespective of whether the international court of law have some actual power or not, the question of justice and fairplay must never be tied to the power equation. Hence judiciary(at least in theory) MUST be indepedent of the executive branch of the government.
    There are quiete a few human rights attrocities that have happened in Iraq...the catalouge is volumnous.
    Since many have died in a systematic, pre-planned template without any reasoning to fairness or in agreement of international LAW ( btw- the war in iraq is in violation to international LAW- not just a matter of difference in opinion between several nations), it is no different to honor-killings or systematic targetting of mugabe's regimen.
    People are people- its irrelevant whether you target your own citizens or go butcher people on the other corner of the globe.

    In answering this question why not ask why the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and various other impartial, non anglo-australian biased groups of significance have also singled out Zimbabwe? Could it be that in Australia and England, people's homes are not being bulldozed without reason? That the elections are not rigged? Those who speak out against the government are not exiled from the country, threatened with violence or death or even kicked off the cricket team? Any of the OTHER things which these groups have pointed out?
    The same Amnesty International, Human Rights Wtch and various other impartial 'non anglo-australian' groups highlight the human rights disaster in Iraq.
    They have certainly not singled out Zimbabwe while sitting mum on Iraq as you seem to imply.

    Why was it apartheid South Africa was banned from test cricket, while Australia where aboriginals were marginalised in society was not? Could it be a question of an absolutely monsterous difference in scale and severity, perhaps? The same as this, perhaps?
    Scale is different, severity, atleast until recently, was not.
    Why did Australia escape international sanctions ? because of several geo-political reasons and a much more descrete operatoin from the establishment.
    The end results ( apart from a difference in scale) were pretty much the same- but then again, scale is dependent on base population and the aborigines never numbered as many folks as colored folks in RSA.

    but to suggest that the ban of Zimbabwe would equate to a necessary ban for Australia and England from international cricket has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have EVER heard on this forum. It is just despicably arrogant and ignorant of the relevant facts, and does a great disservice and insult not only to the people of those countries you single out for criticism, but also those have suffered under Mugabe in Zimbabwe for you to so belittle their plight.
    ironically, the guy who works in the nearby safeway is a zimabwean refugee and he shares the EXACT SAME train of thought as i do- that it is hypocritical to single out Mugabe while not singling out the 'allied' nations in Iraq, who, if anything, have perpetrated human rights violations in the same scale (if not higher) than Mugabe has.
    Dont get me wrong- i am not advocating Mugabe to be set scot free.
    I would want the whip cracked hard on Mugabe- but so too on the 'allied nations' in Iraq.

    At the end of the day, what the bottomline is, is this: Mugabe is committing human rights disaster against his own people, while the allied nations are committing human rights disasters against the Iraqi people. As i said,to-MAY-toes, to-MAH-toes.
    Same shyte.

  10. #235
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18,950
    I'm happy to discuss this further, but I'm not going to hi-jack the black caps thread with another quotewar, so start a new thread if you're interested.

  11. #236
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    I'm happy to discuss this further, but I'm not going to hi-jack the black caps thread with another quotewar, so start a new thread if you're interested.
    i dont think this forum is the proper place for this discussion actually.
    Why dont you give me your msn email (if you have it) and i will add you to my msn messenger chat...

  12. #237
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18,950
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    i dont think this forum is the proper place for this discussion actually.
    Why dont you give me your msn email (if you have it) and i will add you to my msn messenger chat...
    Sure. mobyhater@hotmail.com

  13. #238
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,301
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Umm.... dont be an idiot.
    I am stating it as it is.
    No, you are not - you are massively over-reacting against the Australians and English - about par for the course though.

  14. #239
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    No, you are not - you are massively over-reacting against the Australians and English - about par for the course though.
    I have detailed my reasoning for what you are terming 'overreacting'.
    I would certainly like to see any logical reasoning as to why the zimbabwe situation is any different from the iraq situation, apart from the nominal fact that one involves the citizens of a nation brutalising their own folks while the other involves brutalising citizens of a foreign nation.
    As per being 'par for the course'- you are yet to show any sorta 'anti-aussie/anti-english' bias i have in a demonstrable fashion.
    In short, thou art too touchy and too short on countering my points.
    Therefore thou indulge in idiotic personal attacks than countering the point.

  15. #240
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    42,654
    Quote Originally Posted by superkingdave
    Just in case anyone is interested, a few NZer's are playing in my local leagues- here are their stats so far

    Lou Vincent - I 12 NO 2 HS 110 Runs 281 Ave 28.10
    O 114.1 Mds 20 Rns 393 Wks 26 Ave 15.12

    Paul Wiseman I 8 NO 2 HS 59 Runs 135 Ave 22.5
    O 102.5 Mds 17 Runs 345 W 25 Ave 13.8

    Neil Broome I 11 NO 1 HS 89 Runs 247 Ave 24.7
    O 58.0 Mds 4 Runs 290 W 4 Ave 72.5
    Lou Vincent effectively a bowling allrounder...
    ~ Cribbage

Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Black Thread
    By Neil Pickup in forum CW Development League
    Replies: 3235
    Last Post: 24-02-2010, 05:42 PM
  2. Will they make any changes to the Black caps?
    By Blakey in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 26-02-2005, 05:09 PM
  3. Jeff Wilson (Goldie) back in Black Caps
    By Turnmills in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 12-01-2005, 06:06 PM
  4. *Official* New Zealand in Sri Lanka Thread
    By Legglancer in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 08-05-2003, 10:50 AM
  5. Hats off to the Black Caps (you have been warned)
    By anzac in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2002, 08:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •