A question
Which two New Zealand politicians actually have sent more than 60 New Zealand military personnel into Iraq since the war began in 2003. Was it?
(a) Don Brash and Simon Power
(b) Helen Clark and Mark Burton
(c) John Key and Bill English
(d) The Exclusive Brethren and Investigate Magazine
Additional questions are:
- Did the NZ troops travel there by plane or did they walk?
- Was their original six month mission extended to 12 months by the same politicians?
- Were over 60 NZers lives put at risk by that deployment?
- Was the location they worked in dangerous with kidnappings and violence, forcing them to shelter in their base camp?
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:53 am
As long as they didn’t fly by Air NZ…
August 17th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Yes, there is no difference whatsoever between sending combat troops to a war zone and sending reconstruction engineers.
No difference, none at all, nothing to see here. Just our state owned airline sending troops to an internationally illegal war premised on lies, no big deal.
Wake up David.
[DPF: Such hysteria. If the war is illegal now, it was illegal when NZ sent troops in. In fact if you knew a single thing about the issue, troops in Iraq has been legal under international law since the UN recognised the change of govt. It is debatable as to the status of the troops there earlier. So to claim Air NZ sent troops to an illegal war is wrong
And insurgents don't only target combat troops. They target all troops and civilians. There is no doubt the NZ troops were at significant risk of attack. A dead enginner is just as dead as a dead combat soldier]
August 17th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Brash would have sent our whole army to Iraq to appease his masters in Washington.
Brash would have then tried to distance himself from the disaster in Iraq as the quagmire got worse and worse.
Just like those fools Bush, Bliar, and Howard.
[DPF: Oh wow our entire army. Yes I am sure Max is a mind reader. So we have Helen's actual deeds vs Max's fantasies of what Don would have done. Never mind Don wasn't even Leader at the time.]
August 17th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Additional question:
What IQ deficient politician drew the world’s attention to Air New Zealand’s commercial fulfilment of its major shareholder requirement to earn money, making us the target of Islam as is feared will be the consequence of any association with Australia, the UK or USA in Iraq?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Max, james cairney
Glad to see you have so little to occupy your minds that playing “what if” is the extent of your thinking. Try playing a bit of “what is” for a change and get a life
August 17th, 2007 at 10:09 am
John Key wanted to send our soldiers to the quagmire in Iraq too, but he flip flopped.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Sofia
that is a no-brainer
August 17th, 2007 at 10:13 am
James, pray tell how do you make a war illegal? Is there a world government I haven’t heard about? do we all get a vote??
August 17th, 2007 at 10:16 am
MNF troops in Iraq are UN approved. The jihadist dont give a shit either way but as Clark wanted at a shot at running the UN she put 60 kiwi lives at risk for her own personal gain.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Oh poor sweet naive James C…
The Navy are frequent visitors to the waters of Iraq, they dont tend to do a lot of rebuilding as its hard to swing a hammer when you have an armload of guns.
As for the SAS I hear they have been landscaping their way around the middle east for some time now, they were awarded for particularily attractive gazebo and water feature in Afghanistan.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:19 am
David. I am not ‘what if’ing’ as you put it.
I did not speculate as to whether or not Brash/Key etc would have sent combat troops.
All I am noting is that there is a massive difference in sending combat troops and engineers.
There is also a massive error in our ‘national carrier’ sending troops to an illegal war. That is, our govt profiting from an illegal invasion. It is a fucking embarrasment.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:19 am
The parties National and Act believed the lies told to them by the White House and would have been happy to send our young Kiwi’s into the Iraq Grinder.
It is better the the young american’s go into the grinder -its their illegal war, not ours.
What are the odds that Iraqnam lasts longer than the ten years of the Viet Nam disaster?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:20 am
porc, that would be international law chief.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Max – “Brash would have sent our whole army to Iraq.”
I’m not sure a Cessna has that range capability. Besides, nothing brings a country closer together than a jolly good war. It would put an end to all the shit going on in NZ and we could use the beneficiaries as sand bags and get some return on our investment.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:21 am
So James, the Thunderbirds ARE real?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Helen Elizabeth Clark has put more New Zealand troops into COMBAT since WWII than any other New Zealand politician.
East Timor – NOT reconstruction
Afghanistan – Ten Bronze Stars, three other valour decorations, a Presidential Unit Citation and a VC. Thats some hard-core “reconstruction”. Not to mention more COMBAT decorations over that period of time than any other since WWII.
Our Navy has hand every combat unit it owns deployed in a combat zone in an area which if I just flip to this diagram of a map looks like it aint all that far from Iraq!
The so called “reconstruction” deployment in Iraq seemed to involve a lot of those gun things that make Keith Locke all foamy at the mouth and hystical. Sure its hard to tell the difference with Keith but for a “defence expert” he really seems to wet his pants at the sight of soldiers. Can’t wait to see him accuse Willie our tourturing prisoners again. Most kiwis consider it bad manners to defame VC winners.
We have more troops on overseas posting wearing green hats than at any other time. We drained our RF so badly that territorials had to be mobilised to meet our commitments.
You can blind eye what our troops are doing till hell freezes over but this plastic outrage from Clark is just utter bullshit. Again. And we’ve already particpated in operations in Iraq so if you want to go spastic over our invlovment in Iraq, go to her. Not to an airline that managed to make some money. For a change.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:23 am
I note not a single person has actually answered the question. I suspect it is (d) but I am unsure. It can’t be (b) as she is in the news saying if troops had been sent to Iraq they would have come home in body bags. She obviously is unaware troops were there for a year, so obviously had no part in any decision to send them.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:25 am
“Helen Elizabeth Clark has put more New Zealand troops into COMBAT since WWII than any other New Zealand politician.”
WTF? You forgot about Vietnam?? Idiot!
August 17th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Another piece of genius analysis by your good self mister Farrar. Maybe your hopelessly partisan viewpoint could be a little more informed on the matter: the dreaded Winston’s interview on national radio last night, despite the dogmatic and often misguided interrogations of Mary Wilson, explained some of the complexities surrounding this issue. Porcupine, the United Nations was formed so that nations had a forum for discussion and diplomacy, so that they could vote on resolutions and international agreements to avoid the cockups of the first half of the century. Yet the US, Australia and the UK et al, despite between them being allied with almost the whole developed world, were not able to get agreement at this crucial international forum, but proceeded with their operations regardless. Following this, their actions have received widespread condemnation. There is no world government to give a categorical “guilty”, but from history we have learned nonetheless to attribute blame based on a plurality of condemnation.
[DPF: What are you on about? I have already stated that the actions of the parties in the original war were debatable under international law, but all troops present since around August 2003 have been clearly legal with an explicit UN Security Council resolution]
August 17th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Max – “WTF? You forgot about Vietnam?”
No Max, our troops weren’t there to fight. They were there handing out immigration pamphlets. At first the uptake was very slow but as you can see… success at last.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:29 am
We should have sent combat troops in the first place to support our traditional allies. As for people who whinge that its an illegal war, well the enemy always feels that way. Too bad. In this world peace comes through superior firepower and strength of will. Liberals want to see the world as they would like it to be rather than as it actually is.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:29 am
james cairney Says:
All I am noting is that there is a massive difference in sending combat troops and engineers.
I reply:
Well, it’s a distinction many people wouldn’t find relevant. I’d note the animals who kidnapped and murdered Margaret Hussan in 2004 didn’t give a damn that she was an aid worker affiliated to an NGO that had NO ties to the British, American or Australian governments, was married to an Iraqi and had lived in the damn country for over thirty years providing humanitarian aid to its most desperate and needy citizens.
And I guess its worth a little Geography 101, but Kuwait and the UAE are neither provences of Iraq or at war with anyone AFAIK.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:31 am
david no one is answering your questions because they are patsy rhetorical questions that do not invite response. Why don’t you just admit this is an embarrassing beat up led by Bill to try and deflect the voters from Key’s flip flops. Unfortunately for them, all this tactic is going to do is inflame the hardcore partisans against Labour, but for the centrist swing voters its going to keep the spot light of Iraq, and thus Nationals stated support for the Iraq war, and is thus more likely to put them off National.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Max and James… so blinded by hatred toward foreign ‘masters’ that they can’t see the domestic hypocrisy that is so visible to everyone else.
As has already been pointed out, Clark is sending kiwi’s into war zones because it helps her UN career aspirations. Isn’t that disgusting enough for a few of you hardened Labour-crack addicts to raise a trembling voice of distain?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Ranapia, I wish you would show the same kind of disgust towards the US military which fires napalm at little kids.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:32 am
To add to Murrays fine post
East Timor : 3 Gallantry Medals
Not normally handed out for repainting the long drop
and well played FedUp
August 17th, 2007 at 10:33 am
So can anyone answer the questions, as I have no idea and would like to know.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:34 am
David I was directing you to an explanation about the plane chartering incident. Winston is quite cogent. The rest is a response to Porcupine who takes umbrage at some peoples use of the word “illegal war.”
August 17th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Max, when was Napalm last used by the US Military in Combat?
Next you’ll be complaining about the British using rusty cannonballs at Trafalgar
August 17th, 2007 at 10:36 am
“All I am noting is that there is a massive difference in sending combat troops and engineers. ”
“Well, it’s a distinction many people wouldn’t find relevant”
Evidenced by the massive street protests on the engineers’ departure? Oh wait, were there even protests? Go figue, maybe that was because many people do find the distinction relevant.
Or, are you saying NZ would have been different from every other nation that did send troops and not have bothered protesting, had we actually joined the invaders?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Neil, FedUp, Murray, Labour are not mad raving pacifists, and have deployed frontline combat forces into a range of roles in a number of deployments about which there was international consensus. So your comments are pathetic.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Max
Care to take $10 on the comparative numbers? Money for old rope
August 17th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Oh sweet Neil, I forgot, they don’t call it Napalm any more, they call them Phosphorous Incendiaries. MY BAD!
August 17th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Pedro -”Labour are not mad raving pacifists”
I dunno, ever tried being an employer?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Max:
Oh, yeah, totally out of line of me to state some simple facts about Margaret Hussein – who wasn’t napalmed by the evil Amerikkkans but kidnapped and mrudered by those wonderful freedom fighters I hear so much about. And where the fuck do I get off being disgusted by the barbaric stupidity of a woman who’d spent over half her life delivering humanitarian aid to Iraq’s most desperate and needy being beheaded by morons who claim to be acting in their name?
I’d laugh at you, but it’s pretty hard to do so when you’re fighting a wave of nausea.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Max I suspect that the chemical composition is probably very different, but it is true that the US still use weapons whose effects resemble those of some of the revolting weapons that were supposedly phased out.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Who enforces “international law”? Pollies are the same the world over – passing unenforcable laws. How about some retrospective legislation and get America back for the crown – I’m sure the revolution was illegal.
So does the oxymoronic thing “legal war” exist? What a joke.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am
And I guess God help the wonderful, wonderful Kiwis who volunteer to help others abroad – often at consider risk to themselves – because people like Max don’t give a shit.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am
As usual the kiwiblog regulars keep their emotions soundly in check.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am
This is so like the party funding hysteria National (and Mr Farrar) whipped up last year. The consequence of that? Don Brash gone by lunchtime.
Yet it seems some people never learn, the skeleton in National’s closet is that they would have had NZ troops invading Iraq, with god knows how many dead. Their leader has even “been economical with the truth” about his own view in 2003 (I wonder who has a copy of that leaflet and when it will be released)?
However National and Mr Farrar keep trying to bring the Iraq war back into the centre of the debate, despite having a position on it that is electoral poison of the first order.
Are they trying to lose again?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am
FedUp “Pedro -”Labour are not mad raving pacifists”
I dunno, ever tried being an employer?”
What are you talking about? I have many gripes with Labour, but it doesn’t make sense that the bureaucracy which irks you in your small business has any relation to Labour’s foreign policy: indeed bureaucracy is often epitomised by some of the most prolific war mongering states
August 17th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Ranapia, so you are desperate and try to put out false words. No cigar for you mate! I did not say that Margaret Hussein got napalmed by Amerikkans, you fool.
As for the american humanitarians who bombed the hospital in Fallujah and snipered the ambulance drivers -why aren’t they on trial for war crimes?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Max, when were Phosphorous Incendiaries last used by the US Military in Combat? or more pertinantly against civilians deliberately.
Pedro, Pathetic? Where are our Navy currently by your rational they are operating in an illegal activity.
Yhey have also been there pretty much since dfay one. How does this serve your argument?
If the occupation is illegal then serving NZ military were breaking international law.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:46 am
“when were Phosphorous Incendiaries last used by the US Military in Combat”
Fallujah last year
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm
August 17th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Porcupine, as explained, illegal is a bad term to used because it is always likely that a war will offend some official process somewhere, and then be technically illegal: yes, legal war is an oxymoron. However we are able to state that there are certain conflicts over which there was a widespread plurality of condemnation.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Great, now Max is comparing Napalm to tracers and flares….
August 17th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Pedro -”but it is true that the US still use weapons whose effects resemble those of some of the revolting weapons that were supposedly phased out.”
War is usually ugly Pedro. However, nothing could be as revolting as the weapons used by the Europeans on the Maori’s. The long and agonisng death caused McDonald’s, KFC and Lion Red should make us all ashamed.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Hell Porc, you actually raise a good point. Maybe international law *is* just a myth, maybe Sir Ken Keith and Dame Silvia are actually holidaying at Disneyland, and international trade isn’t governed by any rules, neither is shipping, no no, no international maritime law, no international treaties, no international sales and finance, currency trading, these things are pure fictions too, right Porc?
Or, perhaps international law is real, and those who have a little clue about it are therefore free to call a spade a spade and pronounce the invasion illegal. And the jury is not out, that invasion was illegal.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Neil, our navy are involved is patrolling the northwestern region of the Indian ocean checking ships to see whether they are smuggling arms. This does not fall into my definition of illegal. There is an international mandate for such operations.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:50 am
It appears it was, thanks Sonic
I note the US govt have been having problems with there public servants also
(para 6 & 7)
Note quite the same as napalming little kids is it?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Thats right Bevan, they US only uses it for illuminating the battlefield, so they can use the nice bombs on the Iraqis. Because the pentagon told you so.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:52 am
The answer to the question is THE GOVERNMENT
Anything any of our troops do is by government directive, it is one of the fundamental cornerstones of our democracy. they can’t weazel out of it unless they courtmarshall the culprits. Since that hasn’t happened, they sent them, end of story.
Max you are an insolent troll who would excuse anything of a left wing/natiamerican regime. Who gives more in aid and charity per capita than anyone on the planet? Try looking up from you screen or getting out of your bedroom – there’s a wold out there and it aint one dimensional.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Pedro,
the NZ navy have been a lot closer than that.
And they are looking for blockade runners not wandering pirates in specific areas, and by specific I mean Iraqi waters
August 17th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Yes FedUp war is ugly, however it could be expected that we could eliminate weapons systems which offer little strategic advantage but serve rather than to instantly kill, to maim, disfigure and cause slow painful death by corrosion of ones body from the outside in.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Well shit Max, forgive me for not crying about insurgents being killed.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:56 am
northwestern Indian ocean region includes the Arabian gulf and other northwestern arms of it. I am not uncomfortable about these blockades and patrols, they are by definition reducing the violence in the middle east because they are designed to stymie the proliferation of weapons.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Pedro – I’m not sure paint balls could effectively liberate any nation.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Sorry Bevan, I forgot to put a YEAH RIGHT at the end of my last post.
Forgive me.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:59 am
OK point taken james. You call them laws, I call them agreements. You are probably right because of the international court. I was taking about war in particular. The lefts selective morality over what is legal and illegal smack of war criminals always coming from the losing side to me.
Its not a democracy though. Hell I’d rather have a vote than have a witch hunter like slivia speaking for me.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:06 am
bah FedUp thats a bit silly. Weapons will be used in war. They will blow people up, rip them in half, but the death will be reasonably instant. Why argue for the sake of arguing?
August 17th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Not always Pedro. There will be injuries to troops and civilians regardless of weapons. That’s war.
What are we arguing about again?
August 17th, 2007 at 11:29 am
james cairney said:
How do you tell the difference between combat troops & engineers when they both wear military uniforms & have machine guns. Perhaps you expect the insurgence to questionnaire the troops before blowing themselves up?
Helen’s been supportive of Bush’s war on terror; sending a frigate, sending 60 troops to Iraq, & cooperating on intelligence matters. And good on her! I suspect Dr Brash & John would’ve have done pretty much the same thing. After all sending one frigate is almost a third of our Navy – how much more could you do!
The difference is that Labour are essentially lying to the New Zealand public by pretending not to have anything to do with it & fools like James buy it.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:36 am
We wear the same as the grunts and carry the same guns . No one could tell the difference .
August 17th, 2007 at 11:42 am
FedUp, a poster made a comment about napalm: I said they didn’t use napalm, but used weapons which had similar torturous effects, you said that a war wont be won with a wet bus ticket, i agreed, but said there were types of incendiary weapons which offered little strategic advantage but which had unnecessarily torturous effects on the battlefield victim- ok blow them up, but don’t burn them from the outside in. NX- Labour has never lied or actively downplayed the engagement of NZ’s armed forces. Your gripe is that there should be no distinction between NZs frontline deployment in afghanistan, or the navy’s gulf patrols, or the NZ engineers in basra, and deployments such as Australia’s Iraq invasion contingent, when in fact there are clear chronological and geopolitical distinctions. Labour has always been clear in their support for the operations NZDF have been involved with in the middle east/afghanistan, and actively promoted those engagements. but they have also been able to successfully draw the distinctions between these engagements and the initial bush-led Iraq war invasion. So get over it, this is a rare issue about which Labour have successfully covered their asses.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Pedro , I am glad the incendiary device napalm is not around to much these days. I am glad the Yanks got Saddam in Iraq. He used white phosphorus as a means to quash rebellion .
August 17th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Since this Labour Government has come in to power, our military has been strecthed to cover the following. East Timor, Bosnia, Lebanon, Persian Gulf, Arghanistan, Iraq, Solomon Islands. We have had people involved in combat in many of these areas too. Private Simon Manning didn’t die of the flu!
We now have an Army with twice the amount of LAV’s that they actually need, and Air Force with no combat capability, and a navy with an effective combat force of two frigates. Don’t beleive the hype surrounding the seven new ships. Good platforms that they are, they are not warships!
So we have Armed Forces of diminshed capacity still being sent to do business throughout the world. It is a testament to our Armed Forces personnel that they are able to do it at all. There are manning shotrages across the defence force, ask anyone who is serving in them. Our military personnel are paid 60 to 75% of the rate that our Australian counterparts receive, and they receive significantly fewer benefits.
Additionally it is interesting to note that Phill Godff is on record as saying that no manning shortages currently exist in the NZ Defence Force, as no operations have had to be stopped or curtailed as a result. That’s because our Defence Force personnel work so hard to alleviate the manning shortages. Our navy currently has people at sea doing the jobs of people two or three rank levels below them, as those personnel are just not available. Other branches have people continually at sea as they cannot be spared.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
The Labour Government are war profiteers through the Government airline and they know it. And all this nonsence of Murdoch taking the fall is just a charade for Labour Ministers so they can continue to be war profiteers out of the Iraq conflict.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
ROWIWOR you introduce some interesting points but I think your conclusions are invalid. It is true NZ has no strike wing, which means its capability to singlehandedly engage in conflict is very limited. It is true that the new navy ships are not “warships” in the traditional sense of the word, but HMNZS Canterbury hugely increases NZ army’s projection power as part of a coalition force-they have been hyped perhaps, but not unreasonably- they will be very effective in protecting our fisheries. The NZDF units who have been sent around the world have not been, as you imply, poorly equipped for the job, and have been effective in their missions. It is of concern that these engagements have stretched the forces, but that does not mean that the soldiers were under any unjustifiable danger- any employer will tell you about the tight NZ job market!
One advantage I would suggest NZDF staff has is that unlike John Howard, NZ government did not have the folly to expose them to the dangers of frontline Iraq. Simon Manning bless him died protecting East Timorese citizens.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
TIM BARCLAY you are absolutely nuts. There would have been no reason for Labour to immediately condemn the actions of a state owned company such as Air New Zealand, as the condemnation of Air New Zealand would not have reflected badly on policy conflict. The government recently immediately condemned Solid Energy for some of their behavior, for example. While it is tempting for far right partisans like yourself to leap on the idea of a conspiracy by Labour, and draw comparisons for poorly handled disclosures in other cases, you know there is no motive for the behavior you alledge.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
should read “no reason for labour not to immediately condemn”
August 17th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
the answer is [b] farra got it wrong in his reply to hisself, and i dont care what the explanation is, its minus 2% for helengrand [ she being sent to sweden or greenland soon, no comebackie] but we need some tough clean talk from the new boss soon as,
August 17th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Another truth stretched by DPF.
Which leader of a party has lied about whether he supported the Iraq war and whether NZ should ‘follow its friends”
August 17th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Which NZ leader’s reason for being in power is to “smash white male powerbases”. Very rational form of government there.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Selmanella – It appears that “he” was Helen Clark.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I pick letter “B”.
However in the mean time David, what has been happenning here lately?? Certainly been rattling a few of those nasty red coats!! And it got me to thinking… we all know how the children act in the big house…. well it’s starting to happen here as well…. So if we were to send all the lefties to Iraq, New Zealand would be a far nicer place to live. Any Air NZ flights heading out shortly?? H1 could even go first class on a one way ticket and I don’t mind if we pick up the tab.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Just answer the question Selma. Which one sent 61 troops to Iraq for a year?
August 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Whatyamean Michael, a bit like a “naughty mat” and “time out” rolled into one do you think?
August 17th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Yes a little like that I guess…. Just it would be one friggen big jumbo or 10. Maybe we could even find one of those fools from Iraq to land the plane…. oh well not so carefully should we say….
August 17th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
DPF said “Just answer the question Selma. Which one sent 61 troops to Iraq for a year?”
David, Selma won’t answer the question, because she knows the answer, and she knows it’s not what the left want to hear. She’s a bit like Jill (the Fishwife) Pettis – the only questions she’ll ask are the ones that she’s been told to ask. Goodness, maybe Selma and Jill are one and the same!
August 17th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Here is another question
61 troops
Does John Key think that was
A) Too many
B) Not enough
C) Just right
D) Cannot remember
E) Ask Bill English
August 17th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
or
F) The number Helen Clark committed in the hope of securing a cosy UN role once she is thrown out by a pissed off NZ public
August 17th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
When the US bails out after the Dems win the next election and Iraq becomes a client state of a nuclear Iran, I’m sure all the peace loving vegetarian types will be eminently satisfied, it’ll be mushrooms for breakfast.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
It’s a dangerous situation kisekiman, imagine the horror if Iraq reverts to the control of Iraqis.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Do you mean like Lebanon after being liberated by Syria there sonic?
August 17th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Thread-jacking alert !!!!
August 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
woops…..
August 17th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
OK Bevan, step back from the thread and put your hands in the air…
August 17th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Nx said: “How do you tell the difference between combat troops & engineers when they both wear military uniforms & have machine guns. Perhaps you expect the insurgence [sic] to questionnaire [sic] the troops before blowing themselves up?”
What does the likely threat (that exists for both groups) have to do with the moral legitimacy of their respective missions?
I struggle to understand people like you with your persistent irrelevancies. It is as if you think you are referring to the same issue yet you have clearly missed it.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
all this concern about legtimacy of the conflict. As far as I am aware there is only one side setting off two tonnes of TNT in villages full of women and children with the express intent of killing as many as possible
surely anyone against this barbarism can claim legitimacy
August 17th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
The answer to the original question God dammit ! sadly is (b) ,it would have been (a&c) with (d) pushing it if we had our way .And of course instead of this pityful support role ! we would have sent all our troups to the slaughter with Bush and co . Of course many would have not come back and by now maybe only the young would have been left to send , but we Exclusive Brethren are not concerned about that ! see we are rightious and do not take up arms so it wouldnt have effected us.Although many of you guys our monetary brothers might have been effected by children lost and could be in future struggling with who to leave your hard earned dollars to after your death .But see we would then take the line of thinking that it was your own fault for being worldlie and that God has his way of speaking to those who follow the wrong ways , besides you could always donate it to us ! we have charitable trusts .
We need to get together next election brothers together we can defeat the foe , see by now we could have opened the door to more people from places like Tailand , Vietnam etc . These wonderful people work for $2 a day ! and have already learnt to bow down and dont ask for unions etc .Of course they might need to live on wood pidgeons , tui , etc and comb the sea bare of fish and shellfish ! but who cares right ?? .
Yes we have one thing in common brothers and we must feather each others nests , money is the way to God we really believe and hold to this light ! . Of course we must remind you that while you are worldlies you will not eat or drink at our tables ! and we must keep our sewers seperate . But it is our way of thinking that one day we will all be together ! you in the end seeing the light and needing to join us to survive .And in a way very slightly of course we feel saddend that some of you might even be feeling the pinch of our unfair advantage that we have over you and posess in our businesses . Yet you must see that it is by your own doing ! and if you were to join us this all could change ! God protects the rightious you must agree .But we have to warn you you will be expected to not have stereo`s and tv`s etc , and eating with dear old Grandma might be a no no ! if she will not relent and join the flow .
As to the last question most likely it would be ( d & e) but with alittle luck ! well actually a lot of luck!!!! , we might be able to turn this to our advantage in the elections .Heavenly lies its called !! and God just loves it !! , its all fine as long as it is working towards what is good and rightious and money !! … And in the end we see that it will come to pass that the buck stops with us !! . So we look forward to having holy communion with you our monetary brothers some day ! when you finally get to see there is no other way but God and God is with us .Until then we will secretly work together for a common cause .
August 17th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
David Farrar,
1. The invasion was illegal at international law. It is that simple.
2. The occupation that has followed the illegal invasion has received a spurious mandate, but even accepting the occupation as just (which I do not), it still in no way retrospectively justifies the illegal invasion.
3. I am not aware of how sending engineers to a war zone is illegal at international law. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
4. I was also not aware that we were profiting from our engineers being sent. Perhaps you could enlighten me about that as well?
5. The fact of sending personnel to the war zone is not wrong in and of itself. Yet there is plenty wrong with making a profit from an war that follows an *undisputed* illegal invasion. (some would even raise concerns about profiting from war per se, but we need not concern ourselves with that, as we are talking about a special type of war, the illegal type).
That is not hysteria. That is fact.
And then you said this:
“And insurgents don’t only target combat troops. They target all troops and civilians. There is no doubt the NZ troops were at significant risk of attack. A dead enginner is just as dead as a dead combat soldier”
No shit. But what on earth does that have to do with the moral legitimacy of their respective missions? Please, explain?
August 17th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Right of way is way of right Says:
“We now have an Army with twice the amount of LAV’s that they actually need, and Air Force with no combat capability, and a navy with an effective combat force of two frigates. Don’t beleive the hype surrounding the seven new ships. Good platforms that they are, they are not warships!”
The combat capability of the Air force was never utilised because there was not an employment environment in which they could operate. i.e. survive.
The Navy does have a combat capability, only not as many as they wanted. It is also highly unlikely that they will ever be put in real harms way. The goverment are unlikely to put so much of the national treasure in to a precarious situation.
That only leaves the Army who are always exposed to varying degrees of risk. It takes very little for one angry insurgent/freedom fighter/yobbo/milita man or any goon with a gun or grenade to cause a great deal of damage.
As for cost, the LAV were about $750M. ANZACS are about that much each. The helicopter project is more than the LAV, the acquisiton and reconfiguring of the Boeings, the upgrading of C130 and Orion is about twice as much as the LAV.
The true cost of the strike aircraft purchase would have accounted for most of that. (When all cost, not just the up front cost were taken into account).
What items arereally needed and in what quantity is always the question defence planner must answer.
Inter service rivalry is not helpful..
may I recommend a book called Lions, Donkeysd and Dinosaurs. Written by a Naval officer but with great sympathy for the infantryman.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
So there’s your answer stinkypete its the fault of the american imperialist aggressors – that justifies the bombing and gassing of woemn and children, even before they were there.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
“there is only one side setting off two tonnes of TNT in villages full of women and children with the express intent of killing as many as possible”
Quite, the US army prefers to drop the two tonnes of TNT from the air, far less risky (to them that is)
August 17th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
sonic
there a long distance between deliberately aiming for mass murder of women and children who happen not to share your religion and being inaccurate with force because youre fighting for your life against people who hide amongst civilians
August 17th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Max et al
So many Noam Chomsky and John Pilger inspired distortions it’s hard to know where to begin. What lies? Oh you mean the fact that all the world’s major intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMD. The fact that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and a host of other Democrat and Republican senators went on the public record stating they believed the same. The illegal war – oh not the Clinton bombing of the Bosnian Serbs that was done unilaterally without any UN sanction whatsoever is that the illegal war you were talking about? Oh – it couldn’t possibly be the 14 ignored UN resolutions regarding compliance with UN sanctions and weapons sanctions that Hussein constantly violated or the final UN SC UNANIMOUS resolution that ordered Saddam to account for missing chemicals and other major discrepancies found by Blix’s UN inspectors or face “serious consequences”. What serious consequences do you the all the SC members were thinking about – another meaningless communiqué? As David has pointed out, the current occupation has the full support of the UN in fact just this week they were talking about sending the envoys and staff back to Baghdad.
Now name me a 20th century war that did not involve the loss of civilian life often at the hands of nasty bombs. Did you support the Allies attempts to defeat Nazi Germany? So what about the indiscriminate bombing of German cities for 2 years plus by Bomber Command? What is your view on the Allies military tactics that defeated tyranny in Europe or were you happy to leave Hitler alone to invade England and have his 1000 year Reich?
Vietnam lasted longer than 10 years. Millions of civilians died in Vietnam in both South and North Vietnam – sadly it’s what happens in wars. The US lost 56,000 troops in Vietnam. The US military lose more men EACH YEAR due to traffic accidents and other non-combat deaths than the total number of US military casualties incurred in Iraq. The vast majority of Iraqi civilian casualties have been caused by the work of sectarian militias or al Qaeda in Iraq.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
DPF in answer to your question, no combat troops have gone to Iraq.
ARmy carpenters, plumbers, electricians did help in reconstruction, they were at all times guarded by British combat personell.
Until it was to dangerous to even stay in base camp, and they left.
Another stupid question!
What has four legs and touches your bum everyday.
A chair
August 17th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Stinkypete, the US deliberately targets civilians. The US military knows whenever they fire missiles and drop bombs there will be civilian casualties. The US uses its media machine to try and cover it all up by using terms such as “friendly fire” and “collateral damage”. We all know that is bullshit.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I don’t really disagree with much of what you have said KIA.
The US does not give a shit about international law and has not for almost 50 years, you are quite right.
Clinton was not much better than these current bastards. I agree there too.
I do not really agree with your ‘so what’ attitude to casualties, but hell, I guess that much is par for the course from your end of the political spectrum. Funny thing is, I totally understand the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (spell?). I realise that often the price of stability and security demands that tough decisions be made. But not here, not here. This war was not about security. It was not about ‘freedom’. It was not a choice between a few thousand lives now or several million later. It was an illegitimate invasion to rid Iraq of WMD’s that *did not even exist*.
That illegitimate invasion has cost anywhere between the conservative figure of 160000 and possibly as many as 800000 people their lives (take your pick, but any figure in that range is too many as far as I’m concerned). That is the cost of the lie. It is fucking sickening.
And no amount of finger pointing that “he was worse” retrospectively validates the illegality or immorality of a an invasion premised on lies.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
This is the same thing that I have been saying (along with millions of others like me) for FIVE years. Nothing has changed. This war was illegal then, and no amount of naval gazing has changed it.
I (with millions of others opposed to this invasion) were dead right. We were right then. And we are still right.
I have read and listened to you pricks flip flop defending the indensible for five years: “he’s got the bomb – we must attack”, which became “he’s wants the bomb, we’ve must attack”, to “whether or not he has the bomb, he gassed the Kurds!” which became, “he does not have the bomb, and does not plan to get it, but he’s evil, so we must attack!” through to “we will be welcomed in the streets of Basra with cheering crowds and flowers, we must attack to give them freedom!”.
The freedom the middle east desires most is freedom from the west. I do not expect you to EVER grasp that however. I have watched lie after lie from you lot blow up in your face over the middle east, and you are either too dumb, too arrogant, or perhaps both to ever see the big picture.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
james
what I in the west want is freedom from the fear that someone from the middle east is going to try and blow my children up when they are on a plane somewhere
can you get some sort of agreement in writing from them and we’ll call the yanks off
honest
August 17th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Selma,
I don’t know what your sources ae but they are not correct. The bulk of the engineers deployed were combat engineers and all engineers including tradesmen are combat engineer trained as a basic requirement.
Many of the jobs they deployed onm they were responsible for their own security. The security of the operating base was the responsibility of the UK.
Let me assure you that engineers are very capable combat soldiers.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
“To every neo-con prick on the planet who supported this illegal invasion, you were wrong, thousands and thousands are dead, and the blood is on all your hands, you should be fucking ashamed. Your world view is self-focussed, arrogant, and patently flawed. And you sad tossers learn exactly fuck all from your unfathomably plentiful screw-ups.”
-James Cairney
The danger the middle east poses to the west has been made greater by this invasion. This war will lead the area even further into religious fundamentalism. New Zealand has been opposed to the war, as it should be, and that is a far cry from offering the support and reconstruction efforts it has. It is a far cry from the support Key and his ilk would have offered when it began.
This war has been compared to WW2. A closer comparison would be WW1. It has been a political game, no good will come of it, it only sets the stage for more violence.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
james cairney and mrs davis( plus SELMA) should visit their local mosque, its kiss a muslims arse week where if our local muslims are angry with us they could run courses (based on experianced on making bombs based around (ieo)ie 155mm shells detonated by cell phones or that biggie box cutters and boing 737 and HIGH buildings
August 17th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
redneck
that’s what islamic fundamentalists want us to do. treat all moslems like their terrorists.If we do that then we win. blind islamophobia is no more helpful than blind pacifism
ask yourself what john wayne would do
August 17th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
“The US military lose more men EACH YEAR due to traffic accidents and other non-combat deaths than the total number of US military casualties incurred in Iraq”
Have you got a reference for that at all?
“The US lost 56,000 troops in Vietnam”
And lost the war, and guess what other war they are losing?
“what I in the west want is freedom from the fear that someone from the middle east is going to try and blow my children”
I’m sure many in Iraq tonight hope no-one from the west is going to blow up their children, and given the casualty figures they have far, far more to fear.
But still National party it’s not too late to put your money where your mouth is, the war is still giong on, why not commit to sending a few hudred NZ troops to Basra if you win the election?
August 17th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I knew Kiwi on america was just making that stat up
Department of Defense statistics (“Mortality Trends Among Active Duty Personnel, 1992-2001,” MSMR Volume 09, Number 01, January 2003) which cite a peacetime mortality rate of 57.38 soldiers per 100,000 per year, all services. Fifty-three percent of all deaths were “attributable to accidents,” while twenty percent were suicides, and eighteen percent disease deaths. None were combat-related.
So 150,00 troops over 4 years=280 accidental deaths (aprox) actual US military dead in Iraq, 3702.
Next time you decide to pull a right-wing talking point out of some insane blog it may be best to check it Kiwi in America, you know see if it at least within an order of magnitude?
August 17th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
jeez sonic impressive
you must be on a mackintosh, a big one
if only you were not drawn to the dark side you could use your powers for good
August 17th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Clark and Goff put those NZers lives at risk when they sent them to Iraq. It is speculation those lives would be MORE at risk under a deployment approved by a National Government. That is quite apart from the lives that Clark and her mInisters put at risk through underinvestment on our roads or the lives they put at risk because Clark and her Ministers think it MORE important to have Health bureaucrats than hercepton or other health procedures NOT funded.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Not to mention the NZers lives put at risk by Helen’s cavalcade speeding through the countryside at 180kph…
August 17th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Remember the reading comprehension sonic?
August 17th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Sorry P?
August 17th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
People who sit around donging on america from their little ivory towers owe their abiltiy to blog (about lesser known american political has beens) and their continued priveledged existence to the US.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
He was putting it in perspective with total US military deaths.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
P, KIA said
“The US military lose more men EACH YEAR due to traffic accidents and other non-combat deaths than the total number of US military casualties incurred in Iraq”
I think I have conclusivly shown that that statement is, what we in the statistical sciences like to call, made up nonsense.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Just to repeat that interesting little fact again: Helen Clark authorized the invasion of Afghanistan by NZ troops (probably more than 61) without a UN mandate- It came a month later-. Fancy HC a foreign adventurist. I think the underlying problem is the left wing brain re-invents History every 24 hours.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Pedro said:
Try telling that to an insurgent.
The simplest argument made by war proponents is that ‘if we’re not involved then we aren’t a target’. Well if that’s the litmus test then we’ve failed!! It doesn’t matter how you dress-up our commitments Pedro, James, Selma, Sonic we’re involved.
Of course that argument is ridiculous because by virtue of our culture we’re the emery no matter what we do (even converting to Islam doesn’t necessarily save you). So we may oppose the Iraq invasion but we’re always going to be on the side of the Americans.
Labour’s contribution of 60 troops for a year & one frigate was probably at the limits our armed forces could provide given our other global commitments. A National govt. commitment would likely be similar. So if the outcomes of supporting and not supporting the war are the same – then what the hell is Labour crowing about!? They are being hypocrites.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
sonic
Actually we are both wrong. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=41098 “Concern about accidental deaths followed a series of articles, entitled, “Casualties of Peace: Deaths in the Military,” published in the Boston Globe in June. The series focused on deaths due to aircraft accidents, private motor vehicle accidents and suicides, Bacon said.
In 1980, there were 117 noncombat deaths per 100,000 service members — about 2,390 deaths out of 2.05 million service members. In 1996, there were 68 noncombat deaths per 100,000 servicemembers — 1,020 noncombat deaths out of 1.5 million servicemembers. Of those, 228 service members died in privately owned vehicle accidents and 190 service members committed suicide.”
If you take the non military deaths per 100,000 over the entire active military for the entire Iraq war, the numbers are about the same as the casualties in the war. I mistakenly lumped three years total non-combat deaths into one year’s traffic deaths. The point remains the same – putting the casualty count in Iraq into some context. US Marines lost 7000 men in the Iwo Jima campaign alone in WW2 and 10,000 in the first few days of D-Day? Were those lives wasted?
James Cairney
There is no ‘so what’ attitude to casualties. War is terrible because it involves death – of soldiers and civilians. So tell us about “your side of the political spectrum” James:
Your view on WW2 – were the Allies justified in incurring and causing so many casualties?
Should the US and Allies have expended lives and treasure preventing the Nth Koreans and Chinese from invading South Korea?
Was putting an end the murderous Soviet gulags where millions lost their lives ostensibly due to Communist ideology by fighting the Cold War worth it?
Was Clinton justified in bombing innocent Serbian civilians to bring down Milosovic’s murderous regime?
You say there was no security threat from Saddam Hussein. You clearly didn’t read David Kay’s Iraq Survey Group’s report to the Senate Armed Service Committee on what his group found out about the regime in Iraq. Read it some time
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi_key-findings.htm
“Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.” or this
“ By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.”
Sounds very safe to me.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
“The US lost 56,000 troops in Vietnam”
And lost the war, and guess what other war they are losing?
Sonic, Do you want the US to loose in Iraq? Do you cheer everytime you hear US soldiers being killed in the news?
August 17th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
^^ that should read ‘war opponents’.
Damned spam code doesn’t help when you get it wrong. When you click back your post is gone ;(.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
“If you take the non military deaths per 100,000 over the entire active military for the entire Iraq war, the numbers are about the same as the casualties in the war”
Sorry KWI, those figures show nothing of the kind. “in 1996, there were 68 noncombat deaths per 100,000 servicemembers”
So given 150,000 troops in Iraq that’s around 102 a year, while in Iraq you lose 1000 odd a year on top on the non-miltary deaths.
“. US Marines lost 7000 men in the Iwo Jima campaign alone in WW2 and 10,000″
True in all out conventional warfare you lose more troops, but you can win. The war in Iraq has now been going on longer than WW2 with no end in sight. What is victory in Iraq, where is the exit strategy. As in Vietnam the US has got itself into a situation where there is no way to win. As Robert Fisk (boo hiss) argues, the US cannot leave Iraq and cannot stay. Imagine what is happening to the morale of an army that cannot win. Would you want to be the last man to die for a mistake?
” Do you cheer everytime you hear US soldiers being killed in the news?”
What a disgusting idea, those soldiers are as much the victims of this insane war as Iraqi civilians.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Sonic
I am talking about non-combat deaths in the entire US active duty military not the non-combat deaths of the military serving in Iraq. There are about 1.5 million troops serving across the 4 branches of the military and another 300,000 National Guardsmen (state by state) any of whom can and are called up for active duty. I was not and was never intending to compare the combat deaths in Iraq to non-combat deaths from amongst the 150,000 troops on active duty in the Gulf.
Conventional victory is easy define in a conventional war (such as WW2 etc). The Iraq war is an urban guerilla war. How long did it take for there to be peace in Northern Ireland – decades? The Philippines and Columbia are still fighting guerilla insurgencies after 10 years. Rumsfeld’s light footprint strategy relied on Iraqi forces quickly stepping up and resuming all defence capabilities. It had mixed success at best and in the end was ineffective. Petraeus’ strategy involves a fundamental shift in how the war is waged from more aggressive engagement of the enemy (away from PC – “wait until shot” rules that previously prevailed), proper search, clear and hold tactics involving the deployment of small US units embedded and living in Baghdad suburbs. Added to this has been the so-called surge of combat troops of 30,000 and the results are now noticeable. Even the war’s most implaccable political opponents in the US are starting to get nervous that Petraeus may be succeeding. Its early days yet but this strategy I personally believe will result in long term noticeable military progress to the extent that the US can start to draw back troops in 08. Political progress on several key fronts has been faltering but will advance on the backs of clear signs that tribal leaders are fed up with militia infighting and vicious al Qaeda attacks. As people see US troops clearing neighbourhoods and then staying, the levels of actionable intelligence against militias (eg Sadrs Shi’ite army) and al Qaeda in Iraq has dramatically increased.
Is victory in such a war difficult to define – absolutely. Can Iraq become a proper self-governing democracy whose own military can deal to insurgent groups – I believe yes. Oh and I dont know who whinged about morale but many reports from Iraq from even non-conservative reporters mention troop morale being very high. The main demoralising factor they face is the ‘cut and run’ policies of the Democrats.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
True in all out conventional warfare you lose more troops, but you can win.” So remind me who won in the Malayan emergency of 1948-1960? That lasted almost twice the length of WWII. Who won the Philippine-American war?
“What is victory in Iraq, where is the exit strategy.” Victory in iraq will be when the US army manages to kill all the terrorists in Iraq, or force them to disarm and surrender, and transforms iraq into a peacefull democracy like NZ is at the moment (except that given the electoral finance Bill NZ might not be democratic too much longer). Sadly victory in iraq is still a long way off, but remember that there were times in WWII (such as after the fall of france) when Victory for the allies looked a long way of.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Thanks for the thoughtful reply KIA.
” I personally believe will result in long term noticeable military progress to the extent that the US can start to draw back troops in 08.”
I would I’m afraid have to call that the “declare victory and get out” strategy (i’m in the middle of a book about Nixon and Vietnam, the parallels are astounding)
How that differs from “cut and run” I don’t see. The US establishment has clearly decided to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, as the Baker Report shows.
As for morale, this article from the islamofascist, traitorous communist symps at the Observer (which actually supports the war) is worth a read.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2147052,00.html
August 17th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Sonic
Yes – wars are messy and tricky to end. US troops stayed in Western Europe for – well actually they are still there (a few at least). Germany wasn’t ready to hold elections until 1951 – Iraq held them 2 years after the invasion so not a bad effort on that front. Substantial US troop withdrawals were always the goal after WW2, Korea etc and when conditions on the ground were stable enough that’s what happened. I dont see the strategy in Iraq any differently. The Democrat leaders in Congress and the 3 Presidential front runners on their side however want out and out now regardless of the conditions – that is dangerous naivity.
The Observer article fits the category of “the cup is half empty” reporting that is common from the MSM about Iraq. You could write a “our soldiers are exhausted” story about any war quite frankly.
August 17th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
KIA said: “You say there was no security threat from Saddam Hussein. You clearly didn’t read David Kay’s Iraq Survey Group’s report to the Senate Armed Service Committee on what his group found out about the regime in Iraq.”
Aside from the *tiny problem* of David Kay being an employee of the US government at that time (a trustworthy little group they call the CIA), AND aside from the *tiny problem* of using information gained -after the invasion- to attempt to justify a war that could not be justified before it. Aside from those *ahem* problems, I’ll not even bother with them, instead, I’ll let the Texan CIA employee (who KIA cites) answer the claim instead.
” … When it came to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, David Kay used to be a true believer. “Iraq stands in clear violation of international orders to rid itself of these weapons,” Kay told U.S. News in September 2002, expressing particular fear over Saddam’s biological arsenal. [that is, before the war] … But by the time Kay testified to Congress last week, he had clearly changed his mind. “It turns out we were all wrong,” he said in the kind of mea culpa rarely heard in Washington. During his seven months as the CIA’s chief weapons sleuth, his team failed to turn up any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. “I think there were no large stockpiles of WMD,” he added.”" (US NEWS 1/2/04)
I like the last bit “It turns out we were all wrong”.
*Ahem* No shit.
And KIA, Kay’s ‘we’ includes you. It does not include me.
August 17th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
We were not all wrong Mr Kay. Just you and your lot.
And Mr Kay, does it suprise you as much as it does me that people still use you as some sort of “justification after the fact”. Hell, ain’t that the strangest thing?
August 17th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
As someone who as actually served in the military, and who still maintains close ties with the service, let me challenge a few assertions made here.
We have been actively involved in Iraq for some time. Engineers may have a different job description than an infantry soldier but I can guarantee there are assault rifles in the tool chest and engineers are trained in their use. If they were attacked, they would have defended themselves.
The assertions made in this blog about there being a difference when engineers are deployed fail to understand that a military presence is a military presence. It does not always follow that the military is a bad thing. It carries out a great deal of humanitarian work in places where it would be too dangerous for equivalent civilian organisations.
Our Navy has on a number of occasions deployed to the persian gulf. The would operate at a high level of readiness and defend themselves if attacked.
Our troops have been involved in ACTIVE COMBAT in east timor. I know of territorial units that have engaged enemy fighters there.
A navy rugby team had to take cover in the solomons when a machine gun opened fire.
Our SAS involvement is well known in Afghanistan.
This has all taken place during the tenure of the current Labour Government. They hail themselves as loving peaceniks while criticising those who would have acted in a similar fashion if a different government was in power. The facts are not so clear cut as some would have you believe.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
James Cairney said : That is, our govt profiting from an illegal invasion.
James, are you a dumbfuck? So, you don’t think that bombing of Serbia was illegal, since it has good outcome (stability in the Balkans), but going into Irag is now illegal since the outcome is instability? All dumfuckers like you are anti-US. In your world, you can have a war as long as it has a good outcome irrespective whether it is legal or illegal, but you can’t have one if the outcome is not good. Fuckers like you are only saying that Iraq war is illegal, because of the current instability. Had the occupation of Iraq, was done right from the beginning, then there would be no fuckers in the world could call the war illegal, because the outcome is done right.
Unless, you call the bombing of Serbia illegal, just shut the fuck-up and go wank yourself in your own toilet.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Yes Serbia is a good example to use about the two facedness of the knee jerk anti-americans. Because Nato went in at a time of high atrocity to the lefts favoured ethnics (muslims in particular), despite equal atrocitiers on both sides, we are all expected to swallow it was somehow more noble than when the yanks go in and try to do the pufter UN’s job for them.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Pedro said : Yet the US, Australia and the UK et al, despite between them being allied with almost the whole developed world, were not able to get agreement at this crucial international forum, but proceeded with their operations regardless.
Pedro, you are also a dumbfuck. Fuck the UN. Most of the problem today is caused by the indecision of this fucking world body that you love. Remember the bombing of Serbia in 1998? Or are you just a fucker with short memory? Did the UN approve the bombing ? Hell, no. The Russian would not have voted for an authorisation to use force against Belgrade, since they have a close relationship with Milosevic and also historical ties with Serbia. How about you go and do the same thing as has been instructed to James Cairney (see in my previous message) in your own toilet.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Meanwhile the UN spends all its time debating the definition of atricity and changing the name of genocide to “ethnic clensing” so they wont have to do anything.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
And of course the last thing you want to be is black because they are at the bottom of the limp dick UNs food chain.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
The US is all alone in Baghdad – there isn’t anybody else helping. No Arab forces want to help a US occupation of Iraq. The US has taken down Saddam Hussein’s government but what is going to work in its place? Iraq’s a very volatile part of the world, and once you take down its central government, you easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: The Syrians want the west. Iran wants the East. The Kurds want the North and to join with Kurds in Turkey (which threatens the territorial integrity of Turkey). Iraq is a quagmire. Americans don’t really want to sacrifice US soldiers for Iraq or Saddam. It’s just not worth a lot of American lives.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Slightlyrighty.
It has been a while since I shouldered an SLR ,
but you seem to be suggesting the Engineers
are armed and trained to Infantry standards.
When did the Engineers get a support company ?
They are using LAVs ?
August 17th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
DFF, if some in the National party would like to see NZ send an infantry batallion to Iraq, why
do they not push for it ?.
After all did Power not say where the USA sends it’s military, we should follow ?.
How do some in the Nats see Americans, ah yes, as their brothers.
It would be good to see National supporters
rushing to join the infantry.
Could be a place for you.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
LETS GO BACK TO THE QUESTION !!
It is a very important question.
As one has seen in the public service so many times in the last 7 odd years.
Do as I say and not as I do.
Classic Socialism which we have been indoctrinated to believe is good for us but the Labour Partys actions have left us disillusioned .
How can the PM and the Foreign Minister pay a special diplomatic visit to a country {USA}that is at war with another nation – WHEN OUR COUNTRY DECLARES THAT THE WAR IS UNLAWFUL AND WE DO NOT SUPPORT IT .
Then condemn a lawful profitable business operation.
HYPOCRISY !!
August 17th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
*Stinkypete, the US deliberately targets civilians. The US military knows whenever they fire missiles and drop bombs there will be civilian casualties. The US uses its media machine to try and cover it all up by using terms such as “friendly fire” and “collateral damage”. We all know that is bullshit*
Who is the “we” you refer too.
In fact in discussions of the morality of warfare its common to distinguish between targeting non-combatants and targeting combatants in a manner that forseeably results in civilian causalities and not to equate the two as you do.
This goes back the Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, and was developed via the doctrine of double effect in post reformation causitry. The distinction is also made by classic writers on the morality of war and is still maintained by modern writers. Elizabeth Anscombe in here critique of World War II for example drew the distinction as did Paul Ramsey. So does Michael Walzer who has written one the most comprehensive discussions on the morality of warfare. Similarly, Alan Donagan while rejecting the principle of double effect distinguishes between deliberately targeting civilians and dropping a bomb on a military target when it’s likely to result in civilian deaths.
So whats “bullshit” is the suggestion that this distinction is just US media spin. It was in fact formulated and defended centuries before the US existed. It’s also “bullshit” to say everyone “knows” it be false. In fact it has been defended by some of the most important and sophisticated war ethicist throughout history right up to the modern day. These people may be wrong, but simply stating they are does not show this.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
“So, you don’t think that bombing of Serbia was illegal, since it has good outcome”
Where on earth did I mention Serbia? Please, show me that comment. In fact, where on earth did even attempt any moral equivalence? Why don’t you take a deep breath and try to re-attach yourself with reality there son. Hysterics like you are indeed a strange lot.
This thread is not about the illegality of Serbia. What is more, any illegality of any other military stike does not in any way retrospectively validate the one in point, that is, the Iraq invasion. Do you think you have the ability to grasp that not so subtle but absolutely crucial nuance?
And as for this ‘Jim’: “Fuckers like you are only saying that Iraq war is illegal, because of the current instability”
I have said no such thing. You show your utter ignorance of me and everything I have *consistently* stood for. And I have stood for it longer than I imagine you have changing your own underwear, given you only seem to have now become aware of opposition to the Iraq conflict. Well kiddo, there are a few of us (probably 50+ million or so) that have been saying this war is illegitimate since, well, we were actually saying this ‘proposed invasion’ will breach international law. I am on record from 2002.
As for the current instability. I can say “I told you so”, but it fucks me off that I have to. Why, because people like you turn up as if today is chapter one of the story of our planet. The writing was on the wall, we all saw it (many did not), and this war should never have happened.
We learn one thing from history. And that is that people like you learn nothing from history.
“Had the occupation of Iraq, was [?] done right from the beginning, then there would be no fuckers in the world [who?] could call the war illegal, because the outcome is done right [?].”
“no fuckers”? what about us who called the invasion illegal from the outset? The ends do not justify the means, Jim.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Dave,
This is disingenous of you. Of course only the PM and the Defence minister with Parliament’s behest have authority over whether they send troops anywhere.
These were non combat troops and were helping out with reconstruction. I do not think this is a big issue.
I would ask whether you and many of your colleagues in the National party supported sending in many more
August 18th, 2007 at 12:37 am
“Max, when was Napalm last used by the US Military in Combat?
Next you’ll be complaining about the British using rusty cannonballs at Trafalgar”
It was reportedly used at the start of the Iraq war.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:35 am
James Cairney said : Where on earth did I mention Serbia?
My comment was not about you mentioning anything about Serbia, dumbfuck. Your fixation with illegal war as in Iraq. Why would you call Iraq invasion illegal and never say that Serbia was illegal too? Why don’t you say that? Why don’t you waste your fucking air protesting against the illegal bombing of Serbia? That is my fucking whole point, you daft. I have no problem with debating with people who were against US invasion of Iraq on the basis that it would kill innocent civilians in cross-fire, however I can’t stand fuckers like you arguing against the invasion of Iraq on the basis of its legality. Fuck you and fuck your incompetent UN and fuck international law. Where is the fucking international law right now in Dafur, heh? Why are civilians are being killed while your international law just give warning after warning after warning, from UN Security Council. The UN can only function by unilateral intervention from the US, UK and likeminded countries. Who were going to send any soldier to Somalia in the early 1990s to help secure the distribution of food in that chaotic environment during the civil war over there? The UN? Fuck , no. It was the US.
I am challenging you to stop being a hypocrite. Calling Iraq illegal while not saying the same thing towards the bombing of Serbia in the late 1990s. BTW, did the British government intervene in Sierra Leone a few years ago, to stabilize that country? Did the UN give permission? Fuck No.
Fuck you and your international law.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Jim Cairney said : As for the current instability. I can say “I told you so”.
You’re correct. Did you oppose the bombing of Serbia for the same reason? You can’t fuck and use pre-cautionary principle just in case there will be instability or there will be civilian deaths. Military planners are not God either, there will always be mistakes, since we are humans. See, I can say the same thing to you & your Greeny pacifist mates that I told you so , that taking military action in Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia was a good thing.
Your problem is that you generally adopt pre-cautionary principle. Don’t do anything unless there is an international consensus to do something.
August 18th, 2007 at 7:51 am
60+ days till D4J returns from his banning ,plenty of time to die of bordem caused by the looney left posts , ,but wait its kiss a muslims butt week, kindly sponsered by mrs davis ,i could learn why the sunni hate the shites , bought to you curtisy of the left,,bring back D4J ,ban the looney left (sonic and selma and the rest of the loose left) ,bring back free speech,on DF blogg bring back that pillar of free speech D4J
August 18th, 2007 at 7:55 am
NZ was put on a list of preferred contractors after we sent out stabilisation force to Iraq. I wonder if NZ companies were successful with these contracts including any state owned enterprises.
August 18th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Hell there’s some sad puppies on here. So blinded by their simplistic hatred of anything American they completely fail to even comprehend the real world – yes that means you Cairney. To respond to some of your stupider points
1. The invasion was illegal at international law. It is that simple.
Says who? What is international law? who agreed to be bound by it? who elected a world government that could arbitrate on such matters? I don’t recall voting for it.
If you mean the UN, then probably you recall the 12 binding Security Council resolutions that were defied by Hussein – do they have any standing in your “international law”. So sorry, you fail the first test. You can shout about how much you didnt agree with the reasons for war, but there is no “international law” test that ANY sovereign nation actually subscribes to.
2. The occupation that has followed the illegal invasion has received a spurious mandate, but even accepting the occupation as just (which I do not), it still in no way retrospectively justifies the illegal invasion.
Firstly the “illegality” of invasion is tendentious. But even given that, how can a mandate given by your own test of international jurisprudence be “spurious” simply because you personally don’t like the war. Which test are you applying here. If you believe in international law, then a legitimate international mandate must be respected?
Also since what is past is past, and cannot be undone, surely a well meaning human being has a responsibility to take a clear eyed look at the future and try and make the best of the situation?
3. I am not aware of how sending engineers to a war zone is illegal at international law. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
The NZ military are soldiers first second and third. Their soldiering trade is engineering. Sorry you are flat wrong here. Hint, the DPMs and weapons tend to indicate their job.
NZ sent troops to support the coalition forces in Iraq. END OF STORY. spin it how you like, it is the simple truth. So we are parties to your illegal war. suck it up.
4. I was also not aware that we were profiting from our engineers being sent. Perhaps you could enlighten me about that as well?
Well think about why they were sent – oh yes, the Prime Minister of New Zealand made some really stupid not ready for prime time comments insulting the Americans when we were begging for a free trade agreement. She also had a known interest in the big cahuna UN job, which requires a lot of support.
So by way of grovelling apology, she deliberately sent 60+ NZers into Iraq, and the SAS into Afghanistan. Deliberately put NZers into harms way because she couldnt resist her reflexive anti-American propaganda.
Responsible leadership? your call, after all, you support her, but you hate the war. The dissonances must be making your head spin?
5. The fact of sending personnel to the war zone is not wrong in and of itself. Yet there is plenty wrong with making a profit from an war that follows an *undisputed* illegal invasion. (some would even raise concerns about profiting from war per se, but we need not concern ourselves with that, as we are talking about a special type of war, the illegal type).
Ah yes, the disputed illegality of the invasion again. For the sake of argument, i will accept your proposition. WHat does that mean? Oh yes – SO we deliberately sent troops into a war zone, wearing uniform and armed with weapons in support of an “illegal” war, and for the most craven of political and economic reasons, but somehow none of this matters anymore. Circular argument anyone? Nope, no profit here, no risking NZ lives because of a political cheap shot, and needing to buy back some influence. No nothing to see, move along.
Pah. You are a sad and pathetic little man.
August 18th, 2007 at 8:17 am
James Cairney
I’m trying to decide if you are generically anti-American or mostly anti-Bush. You did the expected sneering put-down of the Iraq Survey Report but clearly you’ve not read it choosing to selectively quote news agency quotes of the hated agent of the evil US government. When it comes to WMD capability, the actual weapons themselves are only one of four component parts needed for a viable programme. Kay confirmed that they found no WMD – that came as no surprise. Hussein had many months to destroy or remove to friendly soil (eg Syria) any incriminating evidence knowing what store was being put on finding such evidence prior to the invasion. The four components are:
1.The technology
2.The personnel to run the programmes
3.The weapons themselves or their components (eg chemicals)
4.The will and desire to use WND.
The irrefutable fact is that Hussein had previously had and used WMD (chemical weapons attacks on the Kurds in the north, Salt March Arabs in the south and against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war). He previously tried to acquire a nuclear weapons capability until destroyed by the Israeli Airforce. He clearly had the personnel as the few who were interviewed were clearly too scared to talk due to threats by Baathist secret police to do damage to their families. Hans Blix’s UN inspectors found a large quantity of chemicals that could be used in a chemical weapons programme to be unaccounted for. This, and other discrepancies, formed the basis for the UN SC dismay and subsequent resolutions against the regime to co-operate or “face serious consequences”. Regardless of your ideological sleights against Kay’s team, they clearly unearthed a systematic attempt to undermine the sanctions regime (eg the rorting of the Oil for Food to bribe key French and Russian officials) done ostensibly to recreate the WMD programme.
If you attack the ISG Report and stick with the meme of the anti-American left (Bush lied) then you must also attack not only the CIA but many high profile US Senators of both parties, Britain’s MI6 and other officials in the Foreign Office, the DGSE of France (its external security agency), the Russian replacement for the KGB and the Israeli Mossad. This group comprises the world’s top intelligence agencies that all formed the same independent assessment concerning the presence of WMDs in Iraq. Bush, Blair, Howard and others made their decisions to go to war on a set of assumptions about the conditions in Iraq where there was, at the time, a reasonable degree of unanimity in the world’s intelligence community.
The illegal war assertion has been well covered. I note your silence on the issue of Clinton’s unilateral decision to commit NATO forces to the Serbian bombing campaign WITHOUT ANY UN resolution or sanction. I’m interested to know your views on the legality of that campaign especially considering the considerable civilian casualties that ensued. Was the decision to topple a heinous dictator like Milosovic sufficient to override the rule of international law in your book? If so then why do we not hear your outrage concerning Clinton’s action.
A final enduring meme of the anti-war left is the quagmire/Vietnam analogy. If your reading about the war is the NZ or US mainstream media or the lefty blogs like Daily Kos or Huffington Post then you will get nothing but a steady diet of bad news about Iraq as all these groups opposed the war and have no vested interest in any glimmer of hope or success there. I would suggest you link to embedded non-partisan journalists such as Michael Yon http://www.michaelyon-online.com who has spent more time on the ground in the battlefields of Iraq than any other US journalist. He is not holed up in the Green Zone receiving on-the-ground ‘information’ on the war from local Iraqi stringers who know exactly what their journalistic masters are seeking for domestic US consumption and duly deliver a biased and skewered view on Iraq.
War is complicated and messy and rarely involves continuous victories. The Allies eventual victory over Japan and Germany was littered with many lost battles and disastrous failures (the Battle of the Bulge, the early campaigns in North Africa, Crete, many of the early battles in the Pacific War). Both the US and Britain and allies adjusted their tactics as they learned more about the enemy and how to prevail. Non-performing generals were moved aside in favour of more successful generals (eg McArthur and Patton). The Iraq war is no different. WW2 was over in 5 years because the US and Britain were devoting 25 and 50% respectively of their entire GDP to the war effort with all of the rationing and restrictions that went with that and with conscription. The US is fighting in the Middle East theatre spending just over 4% of its GDP and waging the war with an all-volunteer force against a vicious urban guerilla insurgency who think nothing of hiding in homes, mosques, schools, who care not a fig for the normal rules of war and who will willingly execute innocent civilians to foment sectarian tension. Have mistakes been made in waging this war – as the Americans say “you bet” but name a war without mistakes.
August 18th, 2007 at 9:09 am
So the Labour Government sent 61 Armed Forces in to Iraq. This much we know. To then point the finger at John Key for saying he would have sent troops in to Iraq is rank hypocracy! Tha fact is we already have people in there on the ground, Armed!!
ANd to all the people here who claim that the American forces deliberately target civilians, I am trying to remember the last time an American strapped explosives to himself and blew up a market, or a kurdish villiage!
ANyone who thinks that the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein did not deserve to be taken out, google HALABJA.
August 18th, 2007 at 9:09 am
God bless America
August 18th, 2007 at 9:34 am
I see from this morning’s DOMINON POST it was Americans who introduced didymo to our rivers too
August 18th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Yeah and the yanks done my grankids in too !!
August 18th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Duck- “The US has taken down Saddam Hussein’s government but what is going to work in its place?”
Democracy. As long as you terrorist propagandists give it a chance. That said, I realize democracy is not a concept the left have ever felt strongly about. All your poster boys Duck are totalitarians. ..and every day, you and your Stalinist colleagues beaver away to restrict freedom and choice in New Zealand.
A major reason that murdering terrorists are continuing their attacks in Iraq is because they have been supported all the way by unprincipled scum like you, and leftwing scum like you in the mainstream media, and left wing scum like you who are propagandising with utter indefensible bullshit on this very thread.
Those power obsessed hate driven leftists who have faithfully propagandised for the terrorist cause, and who are happy to see pro freedom Iraqis die, and lose their chance at democracy, merely because they are so desperate for a political victory over George Bush.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Hmmmm the Halabja massacre was as much the USA’s doing as Saddam’s evil deed.
The USA supplied the means and know-how for those chemical bombs.
When the media got news of the attack the USA blamed Iran for it.
It sounds oh so familiar.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:18 am
So what’s your favourite country Marcus?
August 18th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I’ve just watched a program on the history channel; The history of punishment, Saddam and modern day Islamisists were/are whooses compared to the Europeans of the middle ages.
People today have know idea how widespread and grusome the punishment and torture that our forefathers conducted on each other was.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I read the article at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2147052,00.html actual interviews with US soldiers over in Iraq, tired and fatigued and wondering what they are fighting for. The words from the soldiers themselves, not a Pentagon propaganda article or US media spin.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Marcus
Good non biased pick there Marcus with the Guardian/Observer – can always be counted on for any negative slant that might show America up. You could’ve written an article like that about any war.
Even reporters who are not known to be friendly to the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq talk about the high morale. But you know in 150,000 troops sure you’ll find a few willing to oblige the left wing British press which of course is gleefully reported by people like you.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Firstly, Jim W: Why you think you know my opinion on Serbia totally escapes me. And that is aside from the fact that the opinion -that you assume- i hold, is incorrect. You might want to take a leaf from Nigel 6888 and Kiwi in America above, they disagree with me fervently, but both stay on point and keep personal name calling to a minimum. You are not within a whisker of either of those two.
Nigel 6888:
1. “What is international law? who agreed to be bound by it? who elected a world government that could arbitrate on such matters?”
International law concerns the rights and duties of states towards each other. Your elected leaders sign and then normally ratify on your behalf. If that pisses you off, I do not care, it does not make it a fiction. And every leader in the world gives a shit about it, which is why Mr Bush seldom ratifies, as he knows ratifying could expose his employees to a jurisdiction that is in fact real, despite people like your assertions!
The Security Council did not authorise the war. Resolution 1441 (November 2002), did not authorise the use of force. Hans Blix’s report, and subsequent failure to discover WMD’s made any claim of self-defence utterly untenable.
What Saddam did or did not do, in breach of any resolutions, does not change the lack of legal illegitimacy of the invasion. This whole pointing and “he was worse” shouting (from Bush to Clinton, from Clark to Key, even strangely Serbia?) does not *in any way* change the facts of the issue in point. they could be all bad, all illegal, it changes nothing.
So in reply to this Nigel: “the “illegality” of invasion is tendentious”. can you please back that up. Can you please point me/link me towards actual justification? and not merely emotive rhetoric.
And Nigel, you may or may not have a point about our engineers in Iraq. But it changes nothing. I do not give a rats arse about Clark’s government. I know for a fact that the difference between engineers and combat troops is a distinction that kept NZ relatively protest free. So teh distinction is certainly valid. The moral legitimacy of their missions is not perceived as the same by our electorate, even if the distinction between what they do in practice is vague.
Hi KIA. No, I am not anti-American, not in any way. I am not even ‘anti-Bush’. I do not even see myself as anti-war per se. And funny thing is, I do even identify as ‘left’ in the strict sense either. What I am is anti unjustified global aggression, which in my honestly held opinion the GOP has displayed in spades over the last five years.
On the Kay report: I honestly laughed when you cited that, hell KIA, you seem a smart guy. Kay himself admitted -to congress- that he was completly wrong!
It is way past the hour that certain members of the pro-war camp should start apologising and stop being so blindingly arrogant.
You state”Bush, Blair, Howard and others made their decisions to go to war on a set of assumptions about the conditions in Iraq where there was, at the time, a reasonable degree of unanimity in the world’s intelligence community”
Quite right, the ‘intelligence’ did say one thing, the UN and Blix said quite another(and the ‘intelligence’ was sexed up in the case of Blair – as we later found out). As it turned out Blix was closer to the truth, which intelligence officials now accept. The point is that Bush, Blair et al knew that they did not have authority nor mandate given the info as accepted by the UN. They opted for aggression. They information they relied on was wrong. Hundreds of thousands are dead. Iraq is a fucking disaster. It says so much about aggression.
It is sick to believe the default position is aggression. There is a time for aggression, and this was not it.
It will not happen because of arrogance but I would love to hear “we were wrong” from a political figure and not just from the CIA, as the CIA was saying very different things from the weapons inspectors, and it was Blix et al that the majority of countries(rightly) listened to. Blair etc were wrong. The rest as they say is history. And KIA, I am not trading in conspiracy theories, I have not mentioned religion, or oil, or the ‘targeting of innocents’.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:55 am
But did you get the part of the article where recruitment levels are way down, and they have to lower the recruitment standards just to get more soldiers? And the bit where they are short of 3000 officers? That says it all.
When the USA goes to Iran to spread the war, they will have to bring back the draft! (after the election that is)
I await the tormoil throughout the USA after they implement the draft. Interesting times they are a coming.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Are you suggesting a compulsory draft of soldiers ? I hope not .
August 18th, 2007 at 11:05 am
I’m just pointing out that the USA has got a broken army and if they want to fight a war with Iran then the war mongers need to bring the draft back.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:09 am
It seems the bone of contention here is: What constitutes a legal war?
No doubt there is always one side in a War that that believes it is illegal.
Since the disastrous consequences of appeasement practiced in Europe in the 1930s the Western democracies have traditionally been united against tyranny. It was the failure of Europe to join in the removal of Saddam that broke this consensus.
Saddam had to be removed. Only one nation was able to do this alone. The “willing joined in as best they could, and only good old Air New Zealand saved us from the shame of cowardice.
All war is awful. However sometimes the consequences of not going to war are more awful, and we don’t have the luxury of knowing how things would have turned out if the US hadn’t stood up to Saddam. We only know what did happen when we didn’t stand up to Hitler.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:09 am
When you invade a country without mandate, based on intelligence -not from a neutral source- but from your own agency, and your own agency’s info is contrary to info being accepted by UN, and in the face of furious argument that you were making a mistake, and after the fact -your own agency- admits it was wrong, yet you have already created an absolute bloody disatster with no signs of improving. A disaster that by all accounts has seen the deaths of well over 100,000 people by conservative estimates. In spite of the opinions of millions who told you exactly what was going to happen if you proceeded. Then, at least then if not before, you hang your head in fucking shame, and you forgo your right to ever make a decision of such magnitude EVER again.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Heard of Godwin’s Reg? Didn’t think so.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:15 am
We have the soviet union to thank for defeating Hitler.
The USA only entered the war after Germany’s army was nearly finished off.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:18 am
So marcus Omaha Beach was just a delusion ?
August 18th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Reg you are mistaken. The war in Iraq was not fought for any noble reasons such as; helping Iraqis, getting rid of Saddam, or for democracy. It was initiated to rob the Iraqi people of their natural resources. It has been an awful failure and many young americans have sacrificed themselves for nothing. Thats not mentioning the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been slaughtered.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Norman, if you compare the conflicts between the Nazis and the Soviets within Russia, to the rest of the battles of WW2 such as Omaha were definitely a delusion.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:42 am
marcus
what would you have the americans do now?
leave?
they can’t and there’s the rub
August 18th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Given a choice between the fire and the fire-brigade the Labour Party backs the fire. And chosing between the terrorist and the US the Labour Party backs the terrorist.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Good Post Reg,
The Academics as so often, prattle on about theorys and self invented ideals.
They quote writers as if they have authority to prononce on Countrys and States and war and peace etc.
Saddam was a murderer and tyrannical dictator – a modern day Hitler. No human being should have to put up with the atrocities that Saddam and Hitler promoted.
It is still going on in China and Zimbabwe today.
These same types that decry the US probably dont like Mugabe but oh no we must not intervene, let him keep on with his wholesale destroying of a nation and a people.
PEACE IS WON not dreamed or theorised about.
Thank goodness there is still a nation that espouses freedom of speech because every one of those nations like Germany, USSR, PRC, Iraq, North Korea and Zimbabwe that have caused so much bloodshed have suppressed freedom of speech knowing that you can not get away with tyranny unless your opposers are silenced. Ahem, ahem the Electoral [Mugabe] Finance bill comes immediately to mind !
August 18th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Saddam was a murderer and tyrannical dictator – a modern day Hitler.
Thats why he was the american’s best friend. Thats why the american’s gave him WMD’s!
August 18th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Marcus: Was the deliberate chemical poisoning of thousands of Kurdish people a figment of some one’s imagination?
August 18th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Frank: Saddam may have pulled the trigger, it was the US who handed him the gun -and then blamed the massacre on the Iranians.
August 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Marcus
So what?
You criticize the US for supporting a dictator and now you criticize them for removing him.
In my book, if the US did support Saddam and were complicit in his enslavement of Iraqi’s then that’s good reasons why they should remove him. If I steal from you I have a duty to pay you back and if I help enslave you then I have a duty to liberate you. If the US helped enslave Iraqis then they should liberate them, not sit back and watch.
I really do not understand the argument that because the US wrongly supported Saddam him in the past it is right to tolerate him now.
Matthew Flannagan
August 18th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
jim cairney: Yes I know Goodwin well, he is our old milkman.
Marcus: Do you hate the US or what? There was no oil in Bosnia and America sacrificed it’s young men to save a Muslim population from genocide!
Castafiore: Thanks for the support ma’m you are a little extreme at times but your heart is in the RIGHT place!
August 18th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
“non-partisan journalists such as Michael Yon”
Thanks for the laugh KIA.
August 18th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Recently one of my American cousins returned from a 1 year deployment as a military intelligence officer in Iraq. His personal observations have been most instructive. Almost to a man (and woman) the military serving in Iraq find most of the US media coverage so hostile and negative as to barely give any sense of the mission and what has been accomplished. He said life in Iraq is cheap and was very much so under Hussein. It is hard for him to convey the thorough and complete way that his regime brutalised the Iraqi people and how grateful all Iraqis he came in contact with were for the liberation.
He was astounded at the extent to which military personnel are involved in so much in the reconstruction efforts assisting with the restoration of water, sewerage, schools and hospitals. Their is palpable relief at the benefits of the surge and the restoration of normal life in an increasing number of Baghdad’s suburbs that were previously virtual no-mans-lands between warring militias.
I note with interest that yet another anti-war Democrat has returned from Iraq and changed their support for immediate withdrawal to supporting General Petraeus’ strategy http://www.theolympian.com/news/story/192500.html “But we’re on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work. “Baird, a five-term Democrat, voted against President Bush ordering the Iraq invasion — at a time when he was in a minority in Congress and at risk of alienating voters. He returned late Tuesday from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, where he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that U.S. troops must stay longer”. So much of the anti-war left has a vested interest in defeat in Iraq so as to embarrass the Bush administration-it is now interesting to witness the increasing silence from previously highly vocal critics of the war and to witness the muttering as more commentators who have never been friends of the administration or the war start to report positive news on the surge. A good example was a recent op-ed piece in the left leaning anti-Bush New York Times from Brookings Institute’s (a centre-left think tank) Michael O’Hanlen and Kenneth Pollock who reported on their recent trip to Iraq thus: “Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”
My cousin was profoundly changed by his stint in Iraq. He said it is still a chaotic and at times dangerous place and the democratic process seems so fragile but he was deeply moved by the risks that many noble and honest Iraqis are making to make democracy work in the teeth of threats from al Qaeda.
August 18th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
“he was deeply moved by the risks that many noble and honest Iraqis are making to make democracy work in the teeth of threats from al Qaeda.”
..and in the face of the many of expressions of support and encouragement for the anti-democracy terrorists by nauseating Bush-hating leftists throughout the globe. (not to mention the spineless silence of those [supposedly on the right] who should be openly challenging the left on their pro-terrorist strategies)
August 18th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
“spineless silence”?
What, like that strange quiet socially inept little guy who only speaks out when he’s hiding away in his parents basement assuming his weird little ‘Redbaiter’ persona! Gold kiddo!
KIA, what on earth are you on about? None of that anecdotal crap is of any relevance, lame.
August 18th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
IMHO, the recent faux outrage spewed out by the Labour Party is purely desperate cyncial and hypocritical point scoring motivated by a party leadership that is desperate to stave off any challenge to its hold on power.
As for the war on terror itself, I am passionately against it, because as far as I’m concerned, the terms “just war” and “legal wars” are both oxymorons. It is merely a good example of the West’s slavish devotion to the 20th Century geopolitical theories of Halford Mackinder who formulated the Makinder Doctrine, attempts by them to secure valuable natural resources (oil and natural gas), and the usual inept attempts by the US administration to manipulate forces far beyond their control that has resulted in the deaths of millions of people since World War II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
It has got nothing to do with security, freedom, human rights, or democracy. It disgusts me that the above are being used once again to justify it as they have been used in the past.
The Congress of Vienna after the Napoleonic Wars, the establishment of League of Nations and the UN, and inception of the Bretton Woods economic system were all cynical and ultimately disastorous attempts to maintain the status quo or the maintance of the current ruling powers preeminent position in global affairs and millions have paid for the arrogance and narcissism of those “world leaders” with their lives and nothing has changed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6950986.stm
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070022944
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6898897.stm
http://www.conservativeusa.org/panama-washtimes.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
“For every dollar supplied by the US, another was added by the Saudi Arabian government. The combined funds, running into several hundred million dollars a year, were transferred by the CIA to special accounts in Pakistan under the control of the ISI.” (The Bear Trap, p. 81)
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html
“STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3535.htm
August 18th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
“None of that anecdotal crap is of any relevance, lame.”
What unbelievably stark hypocrisy. Almost every word the anti Iraq democracy left have posted during this discussion has been “anecdotal”, or unsupported assertion, or propaganda, or fiction. What utter blind bigotry. For example this- almost every word just utter bullshit.
“When you invade a country without mandate, [ what "mandate"? Mandate from whom? What about the other 49 countries?] based on intelligence -not from a neutral source-but from your own agency, [based on intelligence not only from the US but also from almost every other western country you dumbfuck] and your own agency’s info is contrary to info being accepted by UN [who the hell cares about that pissant bunch of crooks cronyists communists, totalitarians and dictators? Only th left, because most of those aforesaid crooks are their poster boys], and in the face of furious argument that you were making a mistake, [from whom? Most senior Democrats and numerous politicians from western democracies fully supported the premise for the war], and after the fact -your own agency- admits it was wrong, [wrong about what? The presence of WMD? Even that pack of Bush hating commies at the BBC announced that Saddam had them, not that that was ever the sole reason] yet you have already created an absolute bloody disatster [a propaganda lie. The war is being won, in spite of the cheering of the left every time a few hundred pro democracy Iraqis are killed by a demented suicide bomber] with no signs of improving. [another propaganda lie, the surge is working, as KIA details above] A disaster that by all accounts has seen the deaths of well over 100,000 people by conservative estimates. [More worthless propaganda based on a "study" carried out by a bigoted organisation and which has been so discredited only the most deranged Bush hating loonies still reference it] In spite of the opinions of millions [millions of Bush hating commies. Who cares for the opinions of uninformed propagandising dumbfucks??] who told you exactly what was going to happen if you proceeded. [and even if that claim was true, the included prediction would be wrong] Then, at least then if not before, you hang your head in fucking shame, and you forgo your right to ever make a decision of such magnitude EVER again.” (Fuck off- you’re a nauseating pro terrorist propagandist without the faintest grasp of reality or fact)
“anecdotal crap” Pffft.. What a fucken joke, and if you weren’t so hopelessly indoctrinated with third rate left wing mainstream media propaganda, you’d know what an utter bloody hopeless ignoramus you look.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
“The war is being won, in spite of the cheering of the left every time a few hundred pro democracy Iraqis are killed by a demented suicide bomber] with no signs of improving.”
Because people are opposed to causes that you support you spout insulting drivel like this?
We’re opposed to this war, because as usual its a result of US government’s and their intelligence appendages’ interference in the affairs of other sovereign nations in the pursuit of corporate and geopolitical hegemony. If their motivation is to oppose evil tyrannical movements worldwide, why do they then support the same kinds of regimes who are merely at opposite political poles?
“…”based on intelligence not only from the US but also from almost every other western country you dumbfuck.”
Um, they BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD, a belief bolstered by the claims of the US government who were intent on the invasion, proof or not. And regardless they were wrong, obviously.
“The presence of WMD? Even that pack of Bush hating commies at the BBC announced that Saddam had them, not that that was ever the sole reason] yet you have already created an absolute bloody disatster [a propaganda lie.”
Hmm. Riiight.
“Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year’s US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm
“…anecdotal crap” Pffft.. What a fucken joke, and if you weren’t so hopelessly indoctrinated with third rate left wing mainstream media propaganda, you’d know what an utter bloody hopeless ignoramus you look.”
Um, the “leftwing media” as you call originally believe Bush and Blair’s claims and wholeheartedly supported the invasion. Did you not see the news coverage at the time. I did and the patriotic and warmongering fervour spouted by that blathering nutjob Dan Rather and co. sickened me.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Gawd you commies are thicker than a truckload of short planks- Rather, who attempted to pass off forged documents as proof that Bush had deserted his post, was pro the Iraq war? Yeah right.. Jezuz, what’s to be said in the face of such unbelievable ignorance??
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22dan+rather%22+bias+iraq&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
August 18th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
BBC- Saddam’s Bomb Friday, 2 March, 2001, 23:52 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/1191203.stm
August 18th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Heres a good analysis of the pro-war bias even amoung the so-called “left wing media.”
http://www.mediaed.org/news/articles/mediairaq
“Gawd you commies are thicker than a truckload of short planks- Rather, who attempted to pass off forged documents as proof that Bush had deserted his post, was pro the Iraq war? Yeah right.. Jezuz, what’s to be said in the face of such unbelievable ignorance??”
First, you equate opposition to the “war on terror” with support for communism and then you justify your criticism of my level of intelligence by citing my mistaken attribution of Dan Rather as supporting the war. Thats more of an indication for your idiocy rather than mine.
If a BBC journalist was able to find “proof” that Saddam had nuclear weapons whilst Blair had to rely on what is reliably considered to be a hoax by representatives of the expatriate Iraqi community who were almost guaranteed places of power in the case that Britain and the US invaded, it is a testament to the incompetence of the US and British intelligence services.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/1191203.stm
August 18th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
“Heres a good analysis of the pro-war bias even amoung the so-called “left wing media.””
Good god you commies are so ignorant you’re beyond belief. You, you fucken troglodyte, need to crawl back into your cave and go to sleep for another 100 years before you dare crawl out again with this kind of hapless bullshit.
Where you try and present the opinions of a group that is represented by such outstandings examples of extreme left wing zealotry as Sut Jhally, Noam Chomsky, Norman Mailer, Chalmers Johnson, Daniel Ellsberg, and Tariq Ali as objective commentary. Fuck off you pathetic deceitful waste of time. If that’s the best you can do you’re better off painting your toenails than writing stuff here.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
the money shot from RB is “who the hell cares about that pissant bunch of crooks [the UN]”
That is the money shot alright, considering the UN were right and the US ‘intelligence’ was completely wrong.
How does that poo taste RB! yummy yummy yummy, eat that shit up boy.
August 19th, 2007 at 12:43 am
“the UN were right and the US ‘intelligence’ was completely wrong.How does that poo taste RB! yummy yummy yummy, eat that shit up boy.”
You’re so pathetic Cairney, the only thing that matches your ignorance is your misplaced arrogance. The 1999 UNSCOM report referring to the conclusions of the aborted inspection program said-
Quote
“Iraq’s offensive biological weapons programme was among the most secretive of its programmes of weapons of mass destruction. Its existence was not acknowledged until July 1995. During the period from 1991 to 1995 Iraq categorically denied it had a biological weapons programme and it took active steps to conceal the programme from the Special Commission. These included fraudulent statements, false and forged documents, misrepresentation of the roles of people and facilities and other specific acts of deception.”
Unquote
As well as all that, the German, Russian, French, Israeli, British, Chinese and U.S. governments all agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The German assessment was even more dire than that of the US, and they were convinced Saddam would have a nuclear weapon by 2005.
Your much admired United Nations weapons inspectors reported time and again throughout the 1990s that Saddam had not disarmed.
French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin said, “The security of the Americans is under threat from people like Saddam Hussein who are capable of using chemical and biological weapons.”
Your focus on the US intelligence as being wrong, and the UN as right is just a farcical misrepresentation, of the kind that typifies the left’s approach to any argument. Just tell the fucken truth one day, and surprise me.
August 19th, 2007 at 7:36 am
James Cairney
I have some specific questions that I want you to answer:
1. Why do you think an increasing number of journalists, politicians and other observers who are not known supporters of either the war or the Bush administration are reporting that Petraeus’ strategy is showing early signs of success?
2. Did Bill Clinton do the right thing by bombing Serbia thereby toppling Milosovic from power?
3. In terms of viciousness and brutality, where in the patheon of dictators did Saddam Hussein fit in your opinion (at the Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot end or more the Pinochet, Chavez, Mugabe end)?
4. Do you have anyone in your family who has ever served in a real live shooting war (not peacekeeping) in a branch of the military in any country?
5. What do you believe was the intent of the UN SC passing resolution 1221?
6. Of the major wars of the 20th century, which ones do you believe were worth fighting and which ones would you have opposed?
August 19th, 2007 at 11:09 am
KIA, you are a strange one. I simple have one question for you.
1. How do any of your above questions relate to the *legality* of the Iraq invasion?
By delving into irrelevancies you risk looking like baiter, and trust me pal, you have a tonne more credibility and respect than that guy.
A run down on your questions anyway:
1. Considering the freedom the middle east desires most is freedom from the west, how do you want me to measure your ‘signs of success’? And again, what relevance do subjective opinions about a ‘new strategy’ have in helping justify why they were there in the first place? Strange question.
2. Serbia would have been a better (but still problematic) analogy had the US attacked SH in the 80′s. It is not relevant as you are not comparing apples with apples, in my opinion. As you are well aware, there are a number of factors that go into any decision, and no set of facts are the same. I am not however, saying that Clinton’s actions were the right actions. It is, as you are also aware, a complicated debate in its own right, and not one that could be done justice tagged onto the back of this one. That said, I do not believe the ends justify always justify the means.
3. 4. 5. All these questions are about me personally or my subjective opinion as to which dictator *I* hate the most. And that is just weird, and pointless.
August 19th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
James
The invasion was not illegal – simple answer.
I do believe you failed to answer any of the questions and merely dismissed them by making snide references to them being weird. You are evasive on the Serbian campaign because if the Iraq war is illegal as you claim, then this campaign was clearly illegal by your definition. Your evasiveness reveals that you appear to turn a blind eye to the excesses of dictators because you eshew the force necessary to remove them.
The lack of answers and your comments confirm your mindset and world view. You dismiss valid and truthful recollections of a soldier as meaningless and you remain fixed in your view of the war regardless of reasoned arguments backed by verifiable facts thus honest debate with you on this subject is difficult . It will be interesting to see how you and so many of your ilk cope if indeed the US prevails militarily in Iraq and the Iraqis manage to establish stable democracy. Undoubtedly you will be saying it is still dark while the sun is shining.
August 19th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
The invasion was illegal, there were no grounds, nor mandate. Show me how 1441authorised force? Seriously.
“if the Iraq war is illegal as you claim, then this (Serbian) campaign was clearly illegal by your definition”
You may want to look towards the Rome statute and the dates (not that its relevant anyway). You may also want to consider I have not announced either way on the Serbian conflict, it deserves more attention than being tagged onto *this* argument. And again (please get this fucking point!!) the legality or otherwise of the Serbian strikes change nothing about the legality or otherwise of the Iraqi invasion. NOTHING.
The only reason you refer to them can be: 1. you believe the end justify means, or 2. you want to mitigate Bush’s actions by pointing to equivalent acts of Clinton. Neither justifies the Iraq invasion -*in any way*. Do you get that?????
And your anecdotal irrelevant and dreamy distractions really let you down, such as the “truthful recollections of a soldier”. I’m sorry, but what the fuck has that got to do with justified rights of invasion?
“if indeed the US prevails militarily in Iraq and the Iraqis manage to establish stable democracy”
On that, here’s a prediction. And every prediction I have made has been dead right on Iraq over the past six years to I’m happy to proceed (unlike, dare I say, the ‘flowers and welcoming parties’ predictions from you idiots – fucking moonbats). the prediction is: Iraq will NEVER be peaceful and there will NEVER be meaningful stable democracy WHILE there is a significant US military presence. As usual, I hope I’m wrong. As usual, time will prove me correct, it always does. You pricks are always wrong, even when Kay (the CIA guy you quote above!!!!!!!!) stated *to congress* that ““It turns out we were all wrong”, yet there are certain pricks out there that are still pretending otherwise. Go figure eh?
August 19th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
James
Tell us the “serious consequences” detailed in 1441 didn’t mean war – all other potentially serious consequences had been tried and proven ineffectual. Just because you and the anti-war left interpret that to mean the war was illegal is merely your interpretation. Just like Noam Chomsley and John Pilger – they (like you) believe their view is THE view but it is nothing more than their view.
You are starting to act like RB who you clearly despise with your needless foul language, personal attacks and arrogant assumptions of rightness. History will prove one of us wrong. Whilst I supported the invasion I have mostly been mildly pessimistic about any long term positive outcome until recently.
“As usual I hope I’m wrong” – hmm I hear little acknowledgement of hope in all your chest beating claims of rightness. As they say – watch this space.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
James you’d be the first person to complain ‘why didn’t he US do anything?’ if Saddam committed some kind of atrocity.
And don’t think for a second that a man who had gold machines guns while his country was starving wouldn’t commit an atrocity.
Plus the west was spending huge sums just keeping an eye on the twat. Something had to be done about him.
Kiwi in America has you beat James. I suggest you’re out of your league. You are so stubbornly committed to your course and rely on emotive arguments. Unless you want to be a hypocritic than you have to admit something had to be done about Saddam.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
“I supported the invasion” and “History will prove one of us wrong”
It already has kiddo.
And NX, we all know it’s you who’s out of their depth, who do you think you’re kidding?
This shows your level: ” you have to admit something had to be done about Saddam.”
??? But that was not the justification for the invasion though was it. Short memory boy, or are you just a young’in?!
August 19th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Yeah he was. WMDs don’t make themselves James.
Here’s a question. If the UN sanctioned the invasion then NZ would be there… & everyone would be fine, right?
August 19th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Yeah, except they didn’t because they were all on the take from Saddam and his oil for food scam..
August 20th, 2007 at 9:10 am
“Here’s a question. If the UN sanctioned the invasion then NZ would be there… & everyone would be fine, right?”
hahahaha, that’s a big if kid! And No, everything would not likely be fine. But the safeguards against a mess like this WERE IN PLACE, and the UN did not sanction the invasion. Are you arguing with my side because that point is, well, kind of important!!!
hahaha, to paraphrase NX:
1. “the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN”
2. “they invaded anyway and it’s a mess”
3. “had they sanctioned it would still be a disaster”
4. Which leaves only one conclusion, the invasion and the ignoring of the rest of the world was a stupid fucking idea which has cost thousands and thousands their lives!
August 20th, 2007 at 9:12 am
So, according to NX, the the rest of the world were right, the ‘coallition’ were wrong.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:51 am
What get me is that when Saddam was doing all his mass murdering the USA did nothing about it at all. That was 20 – 30 years ago. Saddam was the US’s friend back then.
Fast forward to these recent years and all of a sudden the USA calls him a tyrant and all that. The US media gives us full saturation of the story of his gas attacks at Halabja (happened in 1987, 20 years ago).
And when Saddam’s sham trial began, it was all about the killing of those men in that other small village.
At the trial the USA didn’t want Saddam to spill the beans about US involvement in the Halabja gassing. The USa supplied the chemicals, consultants, and the technology used to murder thousands of innocent Kurds back then.
Funny that.
August 20th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Kiwi in America, don’t waste your time debating with James Cairney, the man has a mentality of a toilet cleaner. I have offered James a job here at DPF as a toilet cleaner since that is the only thing he qualifies for. He is evasive about Bosnia, at the same time he is fixed about illegal war in Iraq. Only toilet cleaners think in that way.