The Power of Hypocrisy - an anti BCCI rant

[Ikki]

TBF, Sambit Bal's article does have perspective...his own. How can he argue that Australia (or more like Ango-saxons) should have sensitivity when the BCCI have practically done what would certainly cause outrage? His listed reasons for Howard's divisiveness are still no good. It's not like the guy clubbed seals and burned Aboriginal homes. If the position is so meaningless, why the strong opposition? If it has no power, then let him rule with no power...what's the fear?

Even more ridiculous are some of the comments from members here trying to defend this opposition. Even going as far as saying "so you guys were unfair, now we're gonna be unfair" as if that is some saving grace or mitigates the action.

 

[honestbharani]

TBF, Sambit Bal's article does have perspective...his own. How can he argue that Australia (or more like Ango-saxons) should have sensitivity when the BCCI have practically done what would certainly cause outrage? His listed reasons for Howard's divisiveness are still no good. It's not like the guy clubbed seals and burned Aboriginal homes. If the position is so meaningless, why the strong opposition? If it has no power, then let him rule with no power...what's the fear?

Even more ridiculous are some of the comments from members here trying to defend this opposition. Even going as far as saying "so you guys were unfair, now we're gonna be unfair" as if that is some saving grace or mitigates the action.

No one is saying it is right because of that... But Howard is not the angel the Aussie media is portraying him to be either.. And THAT is the perspective that Sambit Bal offers... And when 7 of the 10 people on the board don't like the candidate, he gets rejected. That is how it goes in most places. Deal.

 

[Ikki]

I don't think anyone portrayed him as an Angel. You just have to go through comments by members on this board to see that even though he was a grating leader, he was effective. There really is little logic behind not appointing him IMO - in terms of his ability to do the job.

The reason so many went against Howard was probably because of BCCI and even Sambit touched on the influence this board has. He also touched on some soundbites and made points that go both ways. Pretending as if Manan, or anyone who thinks this is a mockery, is simply heated for the sake of being heated misses the entire point of discussion.

 

[Matt79]

We, the public in the US, were told the Iraq war was about WMDs and Saddam's support to Al Qaeda. The evidence on either was pretty flimsy or just plain non-existent even before the war, and per CIA sources too.

CNN.com - Ex-CIA official: WMD evidence ignored - Apr 23, 2006
Clarke's Take On Terror - 60 Minutes - CBS News
Op-Ed Contributor - What I Didn and #146 - t Find in Africa - NYTimes.com

Missed the part where the reasons why Howard as the Australian PM decided to support Bush in invading Iraq had anything to do with what "we the American public" were told. I think most students of Australian foreign policy would argue that supporting the US's play was a bigger consideration than Iraqs weapons, or lack thereof.

But the merits or otherwise of the causes given by Bush and Howard for the invasion wasn't really what I was objecting to. It was the "was part of the corrupt decision/profiteering that's occurred" argument. I'm not aware of any suggestion that Howard has personally benefitted from the Iraq war, nor that the opportunity to do so played any role in his decision. I'm not saying that corruption hasn't occurred in the aftermath of the invasion, rather that I've not heard anything linking Howard to that, particularly ahead of the decision.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't think anyone portrayed him as an Angel. You just have to go through comments by members on this board to see that even though he was a grating leader, he was effective. There really is little logic behind not appointing him IMO - in terms of his ability to do the job.

The reason so many went against Howard was probably because of BCCI and even Sambit touched on the influence this board has. He also touched on some soundbites and made points that go both ways. Pretending as if Manan, or anyone who thinks this is a mockery, is simply heated for the sake of being heated misses the entire point of discussion.

The BCCI was the last board to get onto the anti Howard wagon. They had no leadership role to play in this matter. People are just picking on the BCCI here because their other faults make them a convenient target to blame for this fiasco.

 

[honestbharani]

Missed the part where the reasons why Howard as the Australian PM decided to support Bush in invading Iraq had anything to do with what "we the American public" were told. I think most students of Australian foreign policy would argue that supporting the US's play was a bigger consideration than Iraqs weapons, or lack thereof.

But the merits or otherwise of the causes given by Bush and Howard for the invasion wasn't really what I was objecting to. It was the "was part of the corrupt decision/profiteering that's occurred" argument. I'm not aware of any suggestion that Howard has personally benefitted from the Iraq war, nor that the opportunity to do so played any role in his decision. I'm not saying that corruption hasn't occurred in the aftermath of the invasion, rather that I've not heard anything linking Howard to that, particularly ahead of the decision.

Define effective.. When you are not acceptable to 7 out of 10 boards, that would seem rather ineffective to me.

 

[Ikki]

The BCCI was the last board to get onto the anti Howard wagon. They had no leadership role to play in this matter. People are just picking on the BCCI here because their other faults make them a convenient target to blame for this fiasco.

TBF, I'm not naive enough to believe that.

 

[pasag]

All evidence points to the BCCI having not much to do with this. From cultivating a good working relationship with Aus over the past couple of years (Champions League, more ODIs, more Tests in India) to Pawar's initial support. However much the media want to make this an Aus vs BCCI thing, it's not.

 

[Dasa]

I suspect it's not just the media, some fans feed on the India vs Aus thing.

 

[Shri]

Yup, Howard shouldn't be the President of ICC because Iraw didn't have WMDs.

That is hilarious.

Forget this insignificant discussion man, serious question here. The most serious question anyone in this board has ever asked.



How do YOU pronounce Iraq? Eye-raq Or is it E-raq?

 

[jeevan]

I suspect it's not just the media, some fans feed on the India vs Aus thing.

And Howard himself did that too with his "no country should be dominant" statement.

It's easier to make your case if there is a bogeyman, than to actually win friends and influence people. And if there isn't a bogeyman, make one up.

 

[GotSpin]

Missed the part where the reasons why Howard as the Australian PM decided to support Bush in invading Iraq had anything to do with what "we the American public" were told. I think most students of Australian foreign policy would argue that supporting the US's play was a bigger consideration than Iraqs weapons, or lack thereof.

.

Yeah thought this was pretty obvious

 

[G.I.Joe]

TBF, I'm not naive enough to believe that.

Well then, what's the motive?

 

[jeevan]

Missed the part where the reasons why Howard as the Australian PM decided to support Bush in invading Iraq had anything to do with what "we the American public" were told. I think most students of Australian foreign policy would argue that supporting the US's play was a bigger consideration than Iraqs weapons, or lack thereof.

But the merits or otherwise of the causes given by Bush and Howard for the invasion wasn't really what I was objecting to. It was the "was part of the corrupt decision/profiteering that's occurred" argument. I'm not aware of any suggestion that Howard has personally benefitted from the Iraq war, nor that the opportunity to do so played any role in his decision. I'm not saying that corruption hasn't occurred in the aftermath of the invasion, rather that I've not heard anything linking Howard to that, particularly ahead of the decision.

Supporting George Bush, not really the US, isn't a reason that plays well internationally when it comes to starting a war that basically throws a country into near complete anarchy. What bag of goods Howard sold the Australian public isn't important here - he's not running for PM of Australia, that was decided some time ago. Howard's being sold to us as an international statesman, and so let us evaluate him in that light.

As to Howard profiting directly or indirectly from Iraq: he either did or he didnt. Business associates of others in the Bush camp certainly made out like bandits.

If he didn't, there is a certain naive nobility to that, I suppose. But really, he is dumber than he looks, in that case to pay such a huge political price for nothing in return - either for his country or to his own self.

If he did: Those are precisely the lessons he can teach to Pawar & co on how to do this in a refined manner. Those guys are such amateurish hacks at this skimming stuff, that even the Indian press, police and BCCI caught them with their pants down. See: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2260609-post57.html

 

[jeevan]

TBF, Sambit Bal's article does have perspective...his own. How can he argue that Australia (or more like Ango-saxons) should have sensitivity when the BCCI have practically done what would certainly cause outrage? His listed reasons for Howard's divisiveness are still no good. It's not like the guy clubbed seals and burned Aboriginal homes. If the position is so meaningless, why the strong opposition? If it has no power, then let him rule with no power...what's the fear?

Even more ridiculous are some of the comments from members here trying to defend this opposition. Even going as far as saying "so you guys were unfair, now we're gonna be unfair" as if that is some saving grace or mitigates the action.

That is an emotional argument that ought not to be made. In this or on other important topics. Although we're all human and prone to emotion. If that was the only thing to hold against Howard, then I agree with you - it's a mighty weak one.

 

[Ikki]

Well then, what's the motive?

You tell me, but I definitely don't believe the horse**** excuses we've been given for denying the guy.

 

[G.I.Joe]

You tell me, but I definitely don't believe the horse**** excuses we've been given for denying the guy.

The other boards decided to veto Howard, and the BCCI followed the pack. You're evading the question. What's the motive for the BCCI to lead a snubbing of CA's nomination?

 

[Ikki]

The other boards decided to veto Howard, and the BCCI followed the pack. You're evading the question. What's the motive for the BCCI to lead a snubbing of CA's nomination?

I don't know, that is the whole point of this discussion. Why did they veto the decision? Their reply was crap. The same reason they'd have against it is the same reason they'd lead for it. Because that is the essential question: what motive would they have to oppose it at all? When I know their agenda I'll come here and share. Until then, thinking that the most powerful body, by far, is following the likes of Zimbabwe just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[silentstriker]

• Could be paying back of Zimbabwe for giving the BCCI a reliable vote for a decade.
• Could be a move to embarass Pawar, who come out in support of Howard, due to the whole Modi thing.
• Could be that they disliked his hypocricy on SA/Zimbabwe issue and saw him unfit to be the president of an organization that has both of those as members.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't know, that is the whole point of this discussion. Why did they veto the decision? Their reply was crap. The same reason they'd have against it is the same reason they'd lead for it. When I know their agenda I'll come here and share. Until then, thinking that the most powerful body, by far, is following the likes of Zimbabwe just doesn't make sense to me.

I disagree, Ikki. IMO there's a distinction to be drawn between them leading the veto, and simply following the flock. Howard needed 7 votes, and the BCCI figured that their vote didn't really matter since it was apparent to them that only 3 boards were in support of his nomination. So hey, lets simply follow the majority, and claim brownie points when it comes to gathering their support the next time they needed it. This is a completely different scenario to leading an anti-Howard brigade, because then you'd need to take off the tin foil hat and provide some plausible explanation for them being actively willing to antagonize their relationship with CA. I can't see how anyone could justify why they think the latter is more likely than the former without resorting to irrelevancies and gross generalisations, and indeed there are indications that the former is what actually happened. And you can't go around vilifying the BCCI for an outcome they absolutely no role in arriving at.