Desperation
Labour have been trying to push for months on end some sort of smoking gun (more a damp water pistol) about where John Key lives and how it compares to his electoral residence.
They have a nerve doing this as it was a Labour MP (and Alliance MP) who some years ago was found to be claiming a living out of Wellington allowance, despite being on the Wellington Central electoral roll.
In Key’s case, there is no pecuniary gain involved, but more to the point he actually went and got a written legal opinion from the Clerk of the House which advised how he could register a different electoral address to a company’s address.
The Herald has a story on this. John Armstrong also writes in his column that Labour risks sinking itself deeper into the electoral mire. Also a Dom Post story on how this is going nowhere.
Of course when you have run out of ideas and policy, and you can’t even provide substance to the carbon neutral rhetoric, this is the only thing left.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:36 am
Just heard Hodgson on natrad. What a weasel. Oh yes he wasnt digging dirt, just a humble truthseeker who happens to have been going through company officer records for charitable purposes no doubt.
Oh well, at least we now know who was going through John Key’s bins!
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:36 am
Pete Hodgsen should explian to the public of New Zealand why he spent time on this rather than the pressing issues in his portfolio. How many people died while Hodgsen left unattended life saving issues related to his portfolio.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:48 am
They seek him here , they seek him there, they seek the elusive house hopping MP everywhere.
Key has been quoted in the newspapers as lowering expectations the polls wont remain high for ever.
Could there be more revelations to come. Who knows what effect they will have, but we know that alpha male Clinton was able to survive jennifer Flowers
[DPF: Selma should be careful. There are indeed some Flowers around Wellington, but a lot closer to Selma than she might realise. An old saying about glasshouses and stones]
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:53 am
AS for where some Mps live as opposed to where they say they live
this from the white pages
Dr Mary English
Molesworth House 101 Molesworth St Thorndon Wellington 0-4-473 xxx
[DPF: Wow Selma is quick off the mark. I mean Bill and Mary have only had their primary residence in Wellington for 15 years or so. I doubt a single voter in Clutha-Southland isn't aware of this. It's about as much a secret as Selma's Mensa membership is]
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:53 am
que?
So on one hand we have Pete “the midnight bin man” Hodgson, and on the other we have Selma, what a tag team!
and there was me thinking that Clinton was on your side?
If the best you can come up with is the earthshattering revelation that the polls wont stay up for ever, perhaps you should have stayed in bed? Hint, they don’t have to stay up for ever, just until Winston jumps.
Everyone knows you don’t look at the number you look at the trend Selma. If Labour keeps up this crap you’ll be into the margin of error in six months. Maybe at that point Winston will offer to bail you?
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 am
another hint for the feeble minded Selma, Molesworth House might be a medical practice. But I am sure Mrs English will thank you for the free advertising.
Sheesh.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 am
Grow up Selma. I have my post box number in the white pages. Do I live there??? No, I want to keep my private address private.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:58 am
Selma – if you have evidence that John Key is a serial philander a la Clinton, put up or shut up. Better still, set up your own blog – it’s easy – I’m semi-computer illiterate, and mine took about 10 minutes to have up and running. But to come on here and make michievious references to Clinton is defamatory, and discourteous to the blog owner
BTW – blatant commercial announcement – visitors always welcome at http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ …… even Selma!!!
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:02 am
It’s all about creating a perception, look at how National have jumped on every little thing they can to paint Helen Clark as an evil and twisted.
It’s a bit rich for those of you who have wallowed in any mud Ian Wishart and chums can make up to get all shirty about a legitimate point about Mr Key being a bit economical with the truth to the electors of Helensville about his residence in the constituency.
It seems you love to dish it out, but can’t take it back.
[DPF: Sonic is saying the Hodgson is equivalent to Ian Wishart. Not sure who should be most offended
]
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:05 am
on the early shift today sonic?
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:06 am
Labour is grasping at straws with this latest attack on Key. Bill English summed it up nicely when he got up after Hodgson in the General Debate. He noted that “on a day when New Zealanders were thinking about high interest rates, events in the global economy and the state of the health system, the most important thing was apparently where Mr Key lived in 2002″ – he even left out how pissed off people are about the EFB!! Labour has lost the “war on Iraq”; now it seems they’ve lost the plot completely!
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:10 am
It’s a bit rich for those of you who have wallowed in any mud Ian Wishart and chums can make up to get all shirty about a legitimate point about Mr Key being a bit economical with the truth to the electors of Helensville about his residence in the constituency.
Not to let the facts get in the way of a good rant, I’d note many on the right (including myself and DPF) have treated Wishart’s panty-sniffing antics with the contempt they so richly deserve – including the queer-baiting sin-uendo directed at both Clark and her husband from that sewer. Wasn’t very impressed with the ‘gotcha’ non-story about David Parker either.
Now, if Hodgson really believes that Key has breeched the Companies and Electoral Acts (a claim he was very carefully back-tracking from on Morning Report) perhaps he should put the evidence he has in the hands of the proper authorities?
I’d also like someone to ask Hodgson if he has confidence in the advice of the Clerk of the House, David McGee.
Keep spinning, Sonic. I just have faith that people can see a desperate politicial smear campaign for what it is.
And perhaps Hdogson can table the notification David Cunliffe sent to his constituents that he was shifting to Herne Bay?
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:15 am
Points well made Craig – this is a beat-up, nothing more, nothing less. But it does seem that everyone on the Labour front bench is so obsessed with John Key, they run the risk of putting all their eggs in one basket. If their strategy fails (and isn’t Hodgson the main strategist?), what is Plan B?
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:15 am
BTW, Sonic, if you’re using Ian Wishart and Insinuate magazine (a rag I wouldn’t wipe my arse with for fear of rectal poisoning) as your baseline for politics… oy vey!
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:27 am
Love the moral outrage from Craig and DPF.
“Not to let the facts get in the way of a good rant, I’d note many on the right (including myself and DPF) have treated Wishart’s panty-sniffing antics with the contempt they so richly deserve”
Come off it Craig, for the last couple of years the demonisation of Helen Clark has been consistant and pretty horrible to watch. For your side to, at the lease, tacitly support such tactics is up to you. However it serves you ill when people start subjecting Mr Key to some scrutiny.
Perhaps if he came out with some policies we could talk about them, however since he is still awaiting someone to tell him what they will be…..
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:28 am
Bill english address was left the story about Mps not living in their electorates in the Herald.
Much was made of Cuniliffe living in herne bay for ‘family reasons’
Somehow Bill Englishs ‘house’ had the boundaries move around it but where Bill and his family lived did not make to print in their tame tory press.
Why doesnt Bill come clean and stand for the list only like Cullen did when he moved permanently from Dunedin
[Because unlike Cullen he still has a house in his electorate, and he goes down there regularly and they spend their summers down there. The Englishes decided that they wanted to see Bill more than two days a week, hence they school and work in Wellington. More to the point his constituents keep giving him massive majorities so they understand]
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:31 am
Please Please Please Labour keep on with the muckraking. Two weeks ago it was John Key and Iraq and you dropped anoth 4 points in the polls. This week its John Key and his bedroom and very soon the Progressives will be polling higher thann you.
Fascinating watching the Organ Grinder sending the Monkey out to wallow in it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:34 am
Selma …. Phil Goff, Phil Goff, Phil Goff, Phil Goff, Phil Goff, Phil Goff.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:41 am
Sonic:
And I love your usual cocktail of faux outrage, slimy innuendo, hypocrisy and just making shit up. It must be a day with a ‘Y’ in it…
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 am
Helen Clark is being demonised simply because she deserves it, and if Sonic finds that horrible to watch then I for one am well pleased.
G
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 am
I think you’ll find that many (if not most) NZers feel it their duty to blow the whistle on the corruption that is so evidenced by this Labour government. Hardly demonisation – Helen Clark is simply being called to account as the most powerful person in our country.
By contrast it is Clark who has demonstrated the most adroit demonisation, mostly directed towards anyone and everyone who succeeds in pointing out this corruption. Her personal attacks are disgraceful and contemptuous, and are probably a substantial contributor to Labour’s flagging support.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
with apologies DPF,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
Mohammed Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff, phil goff phil goff, phil goff,
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 am
For Goodness sake Selma and Sonic & co whoever you are please do some proper research and find some decent policy to get onto instead of all this muck racking – it is not helping us at all !!!!!
And if you really want me to say it every time you bring up some attempted muck racking all it does is make cringe as the mighty rightys bring up speeding and pledge cards etc.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 am
Get out of bed on the wrong side today Craig?
Must have if that is the best response you can come up with.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 am
hey flagging red dog, give yourself a break and abandon Labour like so many of your contemporaries. you might be surprised to find that some of us rightys are economically to the right, and socially not to far from you
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 am
Sonic said “Come off it Craig, for the last couple of years the demonisation of Helen Clark has been consistant and pretty horrible to watch.”
Come off it Sonic – the person most responsible for the demonisation of Helen Clark is none other than Helen Clark herself. And yes, it is “pretty horrible” to watch – from all sides of the political spectrum. The sight of her reclining back, grinning like a cheshire cat on the day the Labour started its attacks on John Key over Iraq, clearly orchestrated by her office, was especially galling. Her put-downs at Question Time, refusal to answer legitimate questions, her taunts, even the way she hung Benson-Pope out to dry – all create a perception of an arrogant, vindictive woman.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:10 am
Addendum – did I mention her refusal to take responsibility for any of her misdeeds, or her Fonzie-like inability to say “I was wrong”?
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 am
Krazykiwi – You’re being silly. It’s the “economically to the right” that scares them shitless. This means responsibility & accountability and of course, putting in an honest days work.
As for Selmanella poking at Keys, Mr F is right, people in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones, especially Clark.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 am
Sonic, what parliamentarians do and say and what Wishart does and says are not the same at all.
Straws. Clutching. At.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 am
Yup agree. This is a pretty scary thing for many. And so it should be.
But remember that a great many Labour voters are also hard working folks who deserve good leadership, which they’re absolutely not getting.
Instead Labour are perpetrating some of the worst corruption we’ve seen. No NZer, regardless of their political leanings, deserves that.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 am
Sonic:
I’m quite happy to quote Pete Hodgson’s own statement in the DomPost:
Labour says Mr Key may have breached either the Companies Act or the Electoral Act by listing different houses as his place of residence in 2002.
Labour MP Pete Hodgson said the penalty under either act was stiff enough to force Mr Key out of Parliament.
Well, I merely suggest they take what evidence they have and lay complaints with the appropriate authorities. You know: put up or shut up, as Helen likes to say.
Otherwise, my dear Sonic, invoking Wishart and his tawdry little rag is all too apt – just not in the way you intended.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:57 am
Just making a simple point Craig that those who live by the smear shall die by it.
As a certain Mr Brash found out to his cost.
Perhaps there is nothing to see here, perhaps Mr Key just could not make up his mind where he lived in 2002 so he chose to say in both places.
Not untypical of the man really.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 am
Found this over at xtra – from Newstalk last night:
“Wednesday August 22, 07:50 PM
Key cleared over living arrangements
National has released a statement from the Clerk of the House which clears John Key of any wrongdoing over his living arrangements.
Labour has been questioning Mr Key’s declarations about his living arrangements in Auckland in 2002 and 2003, speculating he could have breached both the Electoral and Companies Act in his statutory declarations. Labour has identified three separate addresses; one in Parnell; another in John Key’s electorate of Helensville and a third in Remuera.
The letter from the Clerk of the House David McGee is dated March 2006. It states the National leader’s registration complies with the Electoral Act.”
Try again Gollum!
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:03 am
Off topic :
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:09 am
“The letter from the Clerk of the House David McGee is dated March 2006.”
So Key was worried enough back in 06 to go and check out his legal postion way back last year?
Interesting.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 am
Sonic; you are on something seriously mind altering aren’t you?
The Labour cabinet is collectively the most mallicious, petty, nasty group of individuals ever to walk the halls of Parliament.
Mallard, Cullen, Maharey et al….and Her Royal Clarkness herself, have never been above grubby personal attacks.
FFS, Mallard outed Brash re his alleged affair, in the friggin house!
As Craig R said earlier, people in glass houses….
I truly hope that your statement “who live my the smear shall die by it” comes to fruition. Labour would take decades to recover their losses.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 am
Sonic, you are being a particularly pugnant dickead today aren’t you.
Key was smart enough to know his living arrangements may be an issue due to unusual circumstances, so he asked the right person for a clarification. That was the intelligent thing to do.
Clearly, intelligent action is beyond your comprehension this morning.
How the hell you can see it as anything other than the right thing to do, is stretching even your usual blinkered approach.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 am
ssssselma and sonic – I am sure you two know what happens when you get into quicksand – the more you struggle the worst it gets. Labour are in there with both feet and I am happy to see them firing shots at Key, continuing with the Electoral Finance Bill, letting Hodgeson be their brilliant strategist and whatever else they can dream up. The NZ Labour Party is kaput. There is no way back and the only argument is about degrees of damage and when the point of realisation occurs and damage limitation starts. In the meantime – I am loving your work.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 am
“Just making a simple point Craig that those who live by the smear shall die by it. As a certain Mr Brash found out to his cost.”
Well, I’ve always said the left were smearers, and here’s the little commie scumbag shamelessly admitting to it. BTW, whats with the completley baseless allegation that Don Brash “lived by the smear”. An utter lie (and another smear). The truth is that he was far too good a man to mix it with psycopathic power obsessed vermin like Klark Sonic et al.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 am
“Key was smart enough to know his living arrangements may be an issue due to unusual circumstances”
Curiouser and Curiouser, more to this than meets the eye I reckon.
I wonder what else Mr Key has gotten advice on from the Clark of the House?
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 am
“Curiouser and Curiouser, more to this than meets the eye I reckon.”
Best you get your media lowlife on to it then scumbag.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 am
Another busy day in an Auckland office………
G
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
“from the Clark of the House?”
freudian slip Sonic? hilarious. I doubt he has asked Clark for advice on anything.
Read the article in the Herald for the circumstances. I couldn’t be bothered repeating it all.
Take your chill pills sonic. You really are being ridicilous today, even by your standards.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Sonic, ha ha ha ha. Try not to be so desperate old chap. It’s does your personal brand no good whatsoever you know.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:41 am
Craig quoted and noted: “Labour MP Pete Hodgson said the penalty under either act was stiff enough to force Mr Key out of Parliament.
Well, I merely suggest they take what evidence they have and lay complaints with the appropriate authorities. You know: put up or shut up, as Helen likes to say.”
Unfortunately for Labour, in relation to the Electoral Act, they both too late, and wrong. There is a six month time limit for prosecutions, and the particular offence is not a corrupt practice and carries at most three months’ imprisonment – categorically not enough to force Key out of Parliament.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
Danger for H1 is the change of the “vibe” since Brash.
It’s slippery and doesn’t respond to trivial attacks.
The warning signs are panicky legislation and own goals like the Air NZ joke, where reflexive dogma restores a sense of control.
You’ll also know the Labour elite are convinced they are finished when Labour becomes the party of major Tax Cuts.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 am
It is fascinating to watch Labour’s descent to the bottom of the barrel as the cumulative weight of its spectacular own goals reflects in their increasingly dismal poll ratings. I was a Labour activist in 1989/90 and at least back then you could blame the post share and property market crash recession and the ideological internecine warfare over Rogernomics (and FPP) for the party’s eventual wipe out in 1990. This time round its electoral fortunes are entirely of their own making. Vicious personal attacks, hanging onto demonstrably bad ministers (DBP) and MPs (Field) until forced by events to finally act, a blatant attempt to steal almost $1 million from the taxpayer, forcing silly PC legisalation down our throats (the smacking law) and now an Orwellian attempt at shutting down any opposition in an election year (EFB), the blatant politicising of the civil service AND interference in the prosecution of the law (nothing done on Paintergate or the Pledge Card vs petty prosecutions of Ahern and Smith), the NOT free 20 hours child care and now the pointless souring of our relationship with our closest ally (and the dimishing of the value of our national airline) over a petty point score about the Iraq war- the list is becoming long and tedious.
Having failed to burst Key’s rising balloon stay braced for ever more silly attempts to ‘circuit break’ Labour’s poll nightmare. Its is significant that Labour’s most persistent shills on this blog (Sonic and Selma) have become virtual parodies as they seek to defend the indefensible EFB and try to cling on to at least one of the deck chairs on the Titanic as it goes down.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 am
kia – you enumerate a litany of betrayals of the trust that labour voters placed in their party.
the titanic metaphor is particularly relevant. there will be plenty of labour folks in the lifeboats (witness the polls) but still plenty of casualties (witness some of regular posters here)
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 am
Wormtongue – you need to use subtle and plausible attacks to get any traction. Desperate and pathetic just doesn’t cut the mustard.
Listening to Pete Hodgson on Morning Report podcast, he sounded incredibly tentative and unconvincing. He must have been under orders, because he clearly didn’t believe it himself. Even National Radio editorialised it as “desperate”.
The interesting thing is that Labour are soooo out of touch. They don’t seem to have realised that the major newspapers and radio have had enough, and are determined not to let them get away with the blatant lies and distortions any longer.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 am
There’s plenty of skeletons in closets on the government benches. I vividly recall a current Cabinet Minister telling the people of a provincial North Island city that he was standing for the City Council, and telling the local voters that he was totally committed to the role, and would not be seeking the Labour nomination at the next election, then within a year, standing for Parliament. That’s a flip-flop that Steve Maharey might have conveniently forgotten!
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 am
inventory 2 said..
“..the day the Labour started its attacks on John Key over Iraq, clearly orchestrated by her office..”
um..!..that john key had the lack of basic intelligence/political nous to see..as many others of us did..(including cheney..!..eh..?..heh-heh..!..)
that the invasion of iraq was not only illegal..not justified..
but would end in the quagmire is has..
is indeed most relevant when doing any evaluation of his worth to hold high office..
let us not forget…
brash/key..both said they would have taken us into that quagmire..
(and no matter how much you nutjobs rant on about the evil bilious bitch..etc..etc..
clark will go down in the history books as having made the right decision..
and it will be noted how fortunate it was for new zealand that national..with their sycophantic/lickspittle/’can i be your ‘bitch..?..please..?”..attitude to american war-mongering..
were not in power at that time..
and that..indeed..it was a ‘close-call’..for us/new zealand..
so all of this examination of keys’ (now denied by him) warmongering quotes/desires..inventory 2..
..is most relevant..
eh..?
and old redbaiter..!..eh..?..always to be relied upon for that belly-laugh..
here he is..defending that other warmongering nat..don ‘bubbles’ brash..
(he who..in his time/work/policies at the reserve bank..blew up the residential housing bubble..that is in the process of deflating..
believe me..!..you’ll be cursing him and his previous works soon enough..
as the mortgagee-sale signs blossom..throughout the land..)
“..The truth is that he (brash) was far too good a man to mix it with psycopathic power obsessed vermin like Klark Sonic et al..”
(can’t you just hear his voice ‘catching’ as he says that..?..that ‘too good a man’..phrase..?..heh-heh..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 am
Phil
Clark SENT armed troops into Iraq.
What is your point of difference?
Key/Brash may or may not have, Clark did.
Sorry cant see your point.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:51 am
“Of course when you have run out of ideas and policy, and you can’t even provide substance to the carbon neutral rhetoric, this is the only thing left.”
A bit rich coming from a john key acolyte. I mean the accusation that labour has an apparent lack of new policy initiatives – what have we seen from Mr Key? ohhhh- Tax cats maybe in 2010, don’t really know if we can afford them, but labour are money grubbing socialists for not giving them to you now. What else is there David? Do you know what Key’s actual agenda is? or are you just flying blind in the faith that key will have some good policies that he hasn’t shown the public yet?
And as for the jibe about labour’s lack of substance on the issue of climate change, well what would National do differently? Livestock account for 50% of our GHG emissions and nick smith has already said that he would do nothing about cutting that back. 20% comes from transport, and would National introduce milage taxes on SUVs etc (like EU countries have)? Would they up our petrol tax to the level of most other OECD countries? (twice what it is now). Would they prioritise investment in public transport over new highways? Not on your life hey David? Then we’ve got the electricity sector, Labour’s due to introduce a carbon trading scheme there, so what is National going to do that’s better there?
So what the hell is National going to do about climate change? 50 by 50 my arse.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
That is absolutely pathetic Roger Nome. To respond to complete failure of leadership by saying “Nyah, nyah, National’s no beter” shows how low Labour’s credibility has fallen.
I’m not a member of the National party. I’m a New Zealander. Tell me, what is Helen Clark doing about going carbon neutral?
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
“Phil
Clark SENT armed troops into Iraq.
What is your point of difference?
Key/Brash may or may not have, Clark did.
Sorry cant see your point.”
Labour went into Iraq under UN auspices, and has tried to help in the stabilisation of Iraq after GW and co illegally invade Iraq without a UN mandate. John Key would have had young New Zealanders dying in that fatuous invasion, that was based on, at best shonky intelligence, and at worst cynical lies. There is a huge difference between those two positions and if you can’t see that you’re a lost cause mate.
[DPF: Actually the invasion was by far the safest time to be in Iraq. The casualty rates from the invasions were miniscule. I think friendly fire was the biggest threat. The UN mandated occupation has been far far more risky and it is during that mandate that Clark sent troops – the same mandate Australia is operating under today”
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“That is absolutely pathetic Roger Nome. To respond to complete failure of leadership by saying “Nyah, nyah, National’s no beter” shows how low Labour’s credibility has fallen.”
Donkey: Believe me, I think that Labour’s climate change policy is next to useless as well – neither National or Labour have any credibility on this issue. I think that the time has come to stop trying to score rhetorical/political points on this issue, and develop a cross-party policy consensus on the issue so we can get some real action – it’s far too important an issue to be a “political football”.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
“if you can’t see that you’re a lost cause mate.”
Yawn, the brain damaged narcissist is here. Four posts to every other contributor’s one, and endless unsupported assertions, lies smears and propaganda straight from Communist Central Command. Fuck off bore.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Roger Nome:
Cross-party consensus seems to be code for Labour can’t govern, so can National please help them out? Labour made the play on carbon neutrality, and have done next to nothing to back it up. Do they think the electorate is really that stupid?
Oh, and on young men dying under John Key. I think that is a very unwise smear. It never happened, did it? But five young men were shipped home in body bags under Helen Clark. Did she go to their funerals? Well, did she?
Meanwhile, read what the NZ Herald readers think of this deperate ploy on the address. They make kiwiblog look moderate!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10459398
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
RB – appears as his usual chirpy self. God only knows why he bothers to continue with life.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
There is a huge difference between those two positions and if you can’t see that you’re a lost cause mate.
There is no difference if you are dead. Helen Clark has overseen both deployment of military personel into war zones and the bringing home of body bags from war zones. And she enjoys photo-shoots with VC winners while lambasting Key about hypothetical outcomes. Her lying hypocrisy is unparallel save for a few posters here.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Bit early isn’t it philu?
Here’s a video to brighten your day.
Scroll down half a page.
Don’t despair, give de-quagmirisation a chance.
http://twentymilesofbadroad.blogspot.com/
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Roger Nome/phil u
Was the attack on Bosnia ordered by Bill Clinton illegal? As I recall he had no UN resolution of any sort to justify this attack. Saddam Hussein was in breach of 14 UN SC resolutions – the last (1441) ordered him to finally and fully co-operate with UNSCOM weapons inspectors and to answer the discrepencies in Iraq’s reported missing chemicals unearthed by Blix’s inspectors or “face serious consequences”. Which of these two wars was the most envisaged by the UN? Just repeating the the term “illegal war” over and over again doesn’t make it true. Given that the west had tried pretty much all known diplomatic sanctions against Iraq, I’m curious as to what you believe the UN SC contemplated as the “serious consequences” they warned about in 1441?
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Hodgsen is a freak. Just look at him and that strange squeeky voice dripping with venom. How people died while Hodsen was trying to dig up dirt instead of focusing on his portfolio.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“Bit early isn’t it philu?”
Give him a break. He voluntarily medicates himself 24 hours a day just so he can ‘deal’ with life (as he perceives it).
Imagine how bad he’d be if he was clean.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Roger Nome and phil u ride to the rescue. Funny thing is, the Democrats have changed their tune on Iraq. Isn’t it time you blokes caught up with the real world outside Daily Kos?
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Incredible!
These supporters of our very own Mugabe regime haven’t got the brains of a bloody sheep!
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Sorry … lost the plot there a bit!
I’ll retract that.
These supporters of our very own Mugabe regime HAVE got the brains of a bloody sheep!
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Unfortunately Gollum lives in my electorate. Wish he didnt, it lowers the tone. Miaow ……………..
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Red, in my experience arrested development can always be traced back to some childhood trauma concerning potty training.
Help is available philu.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
“Democrats have changed their tune on Iraq”
Dead right. They’re slowly but surely awakening to the fact that listening to the braindead rhetoric of the extreme left (ie RG and Phil) is getting them nowhere with the American public. Just like they’re awakening to the similar helpfulness of extreme policies based on the myth of anthropological climate change and anti progress troglodytic thinking, policies that cost ordinary citizens an arm and a leg but have absolutely no beneficial outcome.
The left in NZ don’t fully realize it yet, but their dominance of the political debate by means of widespread propaganda becomes more a thing of the past as every day goes by- and more and more people gradually awaken to the fact that they’ve been lied to, conned and duped by power mad commies.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:11 pm
“some childhood trauma concerning potty training”
Yeah? I wonder if he ever got his diploma?
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I’m a little bit confused, DPF.
John Key sought advice from the appropriate authorities, and acted legally within that advice. Labour is now making a political issue of it, claiming his action, by seeking advice from the decision makers, should expel him from Parliament.
Is this the same Labour Government that legislated to retrospectively validate the election of Harry Duynhoven, after it was discovered he was ineligible to serve as an MP due to his Dutch citizenship?
[DPF: Great point - yes it is]
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Those silly democrats, so out of tune with US pubic opinion
“A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that almost two-thirds of Americans — 64 percent — now oppose the Iraq war, and 72 percent say the Petraeus report will have no effect on their opinion.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/22/bush.iraq.speech/?iref=mpstoryview
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:50 pm
“Oh, and on young men dying under John Key. I think that is a very unwise smear. It never happened, did it?”
Fortunately no – though it would have, had he been prime-minister in 2003.
“Labour Defence Minister Phil Goff’s forensic dissection of Mr Key’s statements on whether or not New Zealand should have sent troops as part of the Coalition of the Willing to Iraq was particularly telling. Labour had turned up a quote from Mr Key in the Rodney Times in 2003 saying “New Zealand should be prepared to fight for the values it believes in”, along with a statement that he would be prepared to commit any troops requested by the United States. Mr Goff contrasted that with Mr Key telling TV3′s John Campbell he personally had not supported sending troops to Iraq.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/4162282a6483.html
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Complete Labour generated tsunami in a tea cup,
Let us get back to the main point here – Key is on a roll and Helen is preparing for plank walking.
SO ENTER FINALLY NEW LEADERSHIP CONTENDER
Ladies and Gentlemen [and others], The Labour Party today welcomes in the new Leader of the Labour Party
The Hon PHIL GOFF,—[muted clapping]
Goff would be at least workable with the Nats.
He is an accomplished statesman and needs some reward for having been forced in Foreign Affairs to tango with Luigi Peters by H1 and H2.
Although he cooked it completely with Air New Zealand gate he is learning thru the school of hard knocks how to act like a leader.
Goff, Goff would be better than choke, choke
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
kiwi in america said..
“..Was the attack on Bosnia ordered by Bill Clinton illegal? ..”
um..!..yes..it was illegal..
and as an aside..it also saw the premature ending of the career of boutros boutros ghali as un secretary-general..
this was because he refused to give un authorisation for the bombing clinton wanted to do..
the americans cut his designated time in office in half..
and found a candidate for the job who would rubber-stamp clintons’ bombing-desires..
and this all came to pass..
” . Saddam Hussein was in breach of 14 UN SC resolutions – ”
just as a compare/contrast..how many un resolutions is it that israel has ignored..?
” . Which of these two wars was the most envisaged by the UN? ..”
well..in the first one..the united states ‘engineered’ un consent..
so i see little difference..your point..?
“..Just repeating the the term “illegal war” over and over again doesn’t make it true..”
um!..sorry to disabuse you of that piece of convoluted ‘logic’..
but the invasion of iraq..under international law..was both illegal..and unjustified..
and the case for it was built on ‘proven’ lies..
what’s to dispute there..?..kiwiinamerica..?..
haven’t you been keeping up to speed with the growing chorus of ‘mea culpas’ coming from former war-pimps..?
(whereas you ..are still singing from the old songbook..eh..?..kiwiinamerica..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
CNN – Is there any truth to the rumour that their head office building leans so far to the left that it may have to be demolished?
The funny thing is that apparently none of the staff noticed, as they all lean the same way.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Let’s look at the facts, Woger/Phillip John.
Five New Zealand soldiers returned to New Zealand in body bags from East Timor.
Several New Zealand soldiers have been critically wounded in Afghanistan.
New Zealand troops have been working in Iraq since 2004.
Those are the facts of Helen Clark’s record of international intervention.
Now, stop trying to peddle Labour Party spin about what John Key *would* have done if he *had* been Prime Minister. He wasn’t even leader of the opposition at the time. If that’s the best you’ve got, then on that basis alone Labour doesn’t deserve to be in Government.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
adolf said..
“..Funny thing is, the Democrats have changed their tune on Iraq…”
are you referring to their craven acquiesence to eveything bush wants..?
in direct opposition to the policies/promises they made..?
and that has seen their poll ratings plung to lower than the despised republicans they replaced..?
is this the ‘change of tune’ to which you refer..?..
adolf..?
(questiontime calls..i must hasten..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
“Cross-party consensus seems to be code for Labour can’t govern, so can National please help them out?”
No – Significantly GHG emissions will hit voters in the pocket. Consequently there is a price to pay at the polls for the party that takes meaningful action. As such the public will always prefer that can promise us that we can “have our cake and eat it too”. This is why neither of the big parties are ready to commit to concrete policy with regard to reducing GHG emissions – hence my comment that no real changes will be made until both National and Labour rise above political point scoring, act in our common interest and form that cross-party policy consensus.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Roger Nome:
Australia has had very few casualites in Iraq. It is quite possible we would have none. Your claim that people would have been killed under John Key is wishful thinking. You wish for the deaths of our boy, simply to prop up your weak political position.
Moral. Bankruptcy.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Oh shit, that last post is so terrible that I’m going to re-post it. Sorry all.
“Cross-party consensus seems to be code for Labour can’t govern, so can National please help them out?”
Not at all Donkey:
Significantly reducing GHG emissions will hit voters in the pocket. Consequently there is a price to pay at the polls for the party that takes meaningful action. As such the public will always prefer the party that tells us we can “have our cake and eat it too”. This is why neither of the big parties are ready to commit to concrete policy with regard to reducing GHG emissions. Hence my comment, that no real changes will be made until both National and Labour rise above political point scoring, act in our common interest, and form that cross-party policy consensus as to how we can best reduce our GHG emissions.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
kiwi_donkey thinks it is moral bankruptcy to assume people get killed in wars.
I think he should buy a dictionary and discover that stating absolute facts does not fit that description.
Good news Kiwi_Donkey! the war is still very much on, I look forward to you demanding John Key send troops if elected.
Just so no-one can accuse you if being a hypocrite you see.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Well Wormtongue, H1 has sent troops. Didn’t you notice?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
“Australia has had very few casualites in Iraq. It is quite possible we would have none. Your claim that people would have been killed under John Key is wishful thinking. You wish for the deaths of our boy, simply to prop up your weak political position.”
Oh don’t be so disingenuous Mr Donkey – risking young the lives of young New Zealanders in an illegal invasion based on the lies of a power/money hungry US military industrial complex is never morally justifiable. No in fact it’s your position that currently wrecks of moral bankruptcy my friend.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I’m confused again, Woger/Phillip John. Your statements are causing general confusion.
Why is it necessary for New Zealand to take unilateral action to tax greenhouse gas emissions by taxing the crap out of people, when your previous claims have been that peak oil will see a massive decline in global oil production within the next few years?
Because if the world does start producing much less oil, and if by your previous claims oil prices will triple, then we just don’t have a greenhouse gas emissions problem.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
“Why is it necessary for New Zealand to take unilateral action to tax greenhouse gas emissions by taxing the crap out of people, when your previous claims have been that peak oil will see a massive decline in global oil production within the next few years?”
here’s your answer IP ….
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0708/S00223.htm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Well said sonic.
Kiwi’s could do similar tasks to the Aussies for equally good results.
Guess we are all keen to see an Iraq with some democratic institutions over time, could be just what the Middle East needs.
I’ll never forget those purple fingers and the way they queued to vote for half a day knowing a bomb to destroy the queue was very possible.
Good democratic luck to them.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
IP – if you are the cause of rn turning this into a peak oil thread, i will hunt you down and make you listen to me recite all of his posts from the past 12 months without a break.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
“when your previous claims have been that peak oil will see a massive decline in global oil production within the next few years?”
That’s a lie IP – i’ve said that all of the people who have bothered to do an in-depth study of the issue agree that production will either flatten off or begin to decrease within the next 30 years. I’ve also said that most of them think it will be more like 10 years. My position is that it’s too important an issue to gamble with, so we should, as the OECD’s International Energy Agency has recommended, begin to reduce our dependency on oil.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:29 pm
“IP – if you are the cause of rn turning this into a peak oil thread”
Notice the contradiction CraigM?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Granted, CraigM. It doesn’t take much to set the stupid bugger off, tho’.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
“A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation”
That you actually bother with these fuckwits (CNN), and that you post such events here believing they have significance, is just one more indicator of how out of touch the hard core left are. You’re ideology is dying Sonic, CNN is dying, the left is dying, your whole house of cards, your propaganda onslaught, your Marxist bullshit is going the way of the dinosaurs. And like the dinosaurs, your miserable narrow little brain is so ineffective you’ll never work out what caused your demise.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I asked this question the other day but Roger Nome, Selmer, Sonic, Phil Whoar and Co don’t seem to want to answer it. Of all their waffle trying to pick on technicalities.
As we can not defend ourselves – Who would you really FEEL SAFE WITH as friends or allies if we were invaded by a country run by a tyrannical dictator like Hitler or Stalin or in our time Mugabe or Saddam .
a) China
b) Russia
c) USA
d) Australia
e) UK
f) France
g) Fiji
h) Iraq.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
rn – one comment does not a thread make. I was trying to head off any response
Still trying to figure out how the lefties hijacked this one into an ant-war thread. Credit where it’s due, you guys are so good at deflecting from the real story.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
hehe – you’ve just in the last few minutes been shown to be a liar, and had your argument (re- peak oil and AGW) demolished by this “stupid bugger”. But I guess you don’t call yourself “insolent” for nothing hey?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
For the chumps who think CNN is a branch of Al Queda, here is a fox news poll with the same results.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289976,00.html
Kiwi Donkey, are you for a future National government commiting combat troops to Iraq.
Yes or no?
“if we were invaded by a country run by a tyrannical dictator”
Could you name the country you are thinking about, Antartica? The Cook Islands? Vanuatu?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“here’s your answer IP ….”
Except it isn’t any answer, just more of the same old same old anti progress green left commie propaganda. Fuck off with your one track bullshit you brain damaged dumbfuck. The day you mount a real argument here is the day Helen Klark gets a job as a tooth model with Colgate.
The extreme left. Running on empty. Out of ideas, out of information out of intelligence and out of time. And I’m out of patience with this brain damaged iliterate plagiarising dumbfuck RG and his endless and repetitive propaganda.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Yes, I agree Woger/Phillip John. You totally destroyed my faith in orthodox economics and global commodity pricing models, with that scintillating, evidence-based press release from Scoop from a fringe environmental lobby group that wants to shut down the state coal company.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
“For the chumps”
You’re the chump Sonic. As usual, your cognitive dissonance prevents you from understanding what is being said here. Your inability to break free of your painfully immature leftist perceptions and the politically partisan lies of your leftist information sources guarantees you’ll never really know what’s going down.
The point is, things are changing you fuckwit, from what they were a month ago. Even those scumbags at the NYT have been forced to acknowledge it.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/poll-american-support-for-war-inches-up/
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Funny, the ranting bedwetter has not attacke dme for using the discredited, brain dead communist leaning Fox News poll.
He must be slipping.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Seems like I got it wrong.
I thought sonic wanted to help some of these people who have never known any democracy, get their country in order.
I think sometimes we have to help people although it might not be easy.
The Aussies look like a pretty good example over there, how come we aren’t doing the same thing?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Oh IP and RB –
I had hoped that you would be able to work it out for yourselves but alas no. My point was that our government, along with others are preparing for the flattening off of oil production as of 2010 (as predicted by the IEA) by meeting future demand for liquid fuels with coal to liquids technology. CTL is far worse GHG wise than conventional oil. So IP’s ‘point’, that peak oil will solve our GHG problem, is a load of bollocks. Understand dimwits?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
From Bedwetters poll
“two-thirds majority of Americans continue to say the war is going badly. But the number of people who say the war is going “very badly” has fallen from 45 percent earlier in July to a current reading of 35 percent, and of those who say it is going well, 29 percent now describe it as “somewhat well” compared to 23 percent just last week.
What a landslide of support, well it looks like I’ll have to withdraw my comments that the Amercan people are as sick of his futile war as anyone else.
Although who knows, when John Key sends in the Kiwi lads to finally win the conflict perhaps American morale will lift!
“some of these people who have never known any democracy”
They had a democracy until they elected a president the west did not like, guess what happened then?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Hmmm …sonic , they want to vote for democracy right now.
Is there something wrong with that?
Do they deserve to be supported?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
RB: “And I’m out of patience with this brain damaged iliterate plagiarising dumbfuck RG and his endless and repetitive propaganda.”
I award you a medal for being so angry and virtually aggressive without spontaneously combusting. But if tomorrow I read in the paper that some mad, frothing at the mouth guy wearing a sweat band on his head and toting a semi-automatic mows down a bunch of people for wearing red – then I will take the medal back. Seriously man, calm down. You’ll give yourself a hernia.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
“They had a democracy until they elected a president the west did not like,”
Readers can so easily see what psychopathic liars the left are.. they’ll say and do anything to limit damage to their position of power, from manufacturing issues with John Key, to attacking freedom of political expression here in NZ and persecuting religious groups, to promoting propaganda for murdering totalitarians like Saddam Hussein and his supporters. Feel good does it Sonic you contemptible lowlife? Why don’t you fuck off to Iraq and fight for the anti -democracy terrorists. (… and take that other boring brain damaged plagiarising loser RG with you)
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
“Seriously man, calm down.”
Fuck off, its because of the failure of wimps like you to get angry that we’re in this fucken mess. Get a life you patronizing mentally dysfunctional bozo.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I judge by that little rant that Bedwetter has no answer to his “here is a real poll” nonsense, so he has to revert to childish abuse again.
Not easy being a bedwetter, especially one of little brain.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Tina, they want the US army out of their country now.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
“Hmmm …sonic , they want to vote for democracy right now.”
Democracy will mean that Iraq becomes an Iran-friendly Sheiite dominated fundamentalist regime. At least that’s what most people who seriously study middle eastern politics think. In short – it won’t stay a democracy for long. This is what Cheney meant, when in the 1990s he said that getting rid of Saddam would cause a “quagmire”. When the US is eventually forced to withdraw from Iraq, it will have successfully created a terrorist breading ground.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
RB: “Fuck off, its because of the failure of wimps like you to get angry that we’re in this fucken mess.”
So besides ranting in this forum, do you actually do anything? Sun’s out today, maybe you could get some exercise, or find a girlfriend or something.
Just stay away from uppers.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Redbaiter, you’re supposed to offer the bait, not swallow theirs and then thrash around. i’ve seen you do the former really really well. seriously – i agree with a lot of what you say. please don’t tell me to fu*c off. i’m not nasty. just being honest.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
“I judge by that little rant that Bedwetter has no answer”
No answer necessary because as usual you don’t have a point. Its the same time frame as the CNN poll you tiresome dickhead. Furthermore, the results are reported on more objectively- for example
“The public has mixed views on whether the United States is obligated to stay and help the Iraqi people. Even if the United States wanted to remove its troops from Iraq, about half of Americans (48 percent) think the country is obligated to stay there and help the Iraqi people, while the other half disagrees (46 percent).”
or…
“Some Americans would like to hear less blame and criticism about the war. While 48 percent think criticism of the administration’s handling of the war is part of our country’s democracy and is healthy, almost as many — 46 percent — think the criticism has gone too far and is hurting the country.”
See now why the democrats are backing off you thick as two short planks left wing robot?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Krazy, you do it your way, I’ll do it mine. I don’t need advice from social liberals who don’t even know which direction to shoot in.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Hmmm, not sure about that sonic.
If you have 12 million Iraqis who vote for a secular/semi secular democracy concept and they know that Iranian mullahs will run the place or another non democratic outcome will happen without US and allies there…… why would they vote in the first place if it was all hopeless?
What you say doesn’t make sense.
I remember the purple fingers.
I think they want to see if it can work.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Speaking of stats I think we can safely say 99% of people who read this thread will think you need to calm down a wee bit mate.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
“Even if the United States wanted to remove its troops from Iraq, about half of Americans (48 percent) think the country is obligated to stay there and help the Iraqi people, while the other half disagrees (46 percent).”
That’s too ambiguous a question to be meaningful. i.e. many people would probably agree that the US should stay and help re-build the country’s infrastructure, yet disagree that the US should maintain a large military presence.
“46 percent — think the criticism has gone too far and is hurting the country”
So? That doesn’t mean they don’t want the troops out very soon. In fact both CNN and Fox polls show that the vast majority of Americans want the troops home within a year.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
“If you have 12 million Iraqis who vote for a secular/semi secular democracy concept’
They voted for sectarian religious parties, which sparked off a violent civil war that is killing thousands of people every week
And you think we should just keep on with the same failed strategy?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Iraq has massive oil reserves. Once democracy has bedded down, the Iraqi population will see the benefits of living in a stable, democratic, oil-based economy.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
“Tina, they want the US army out of their country now.”
Sonic, the little commie in Wellington, faithfully repeats the propaganda of US hating totalitarians the world over, from Ahmadinejad in Iran to Castro in Cuba. Funny tho, its not what your fellow progressives at NBC perceived.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11217
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Sonic, I didn’t know that the elections started the terrorist bombings etc in Iraq.
Sounds not quite right.
I thought that trying to enforce democratic institutional governance is a big plus.
The alternative is rule by mullahs or strong men I suppose.
Don’t know if NZ should be supporting that.
What do you think?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
“Iraq has massive oil reserves. Once democracy has bedded down, the Iraqi population will see the benefits of living in a stable, democratic, oil-based economy.”
You mean like Shiite dominated, oil-rich Iran has?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Whatever I may write on here, I’m not so brain damaged at to believe I speak for 99% of readers, or every Iraqi. Its a common delusion of leftists, the arrogant patronizing view that they are fit and proper to express views for others. Proof that most of them had ill mannered bog farmers for parents.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Tina, sorry you need to keep up
http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-reduced-expectations/us-generals-finally-admit-theyre-not-in-iraq-for-democracy-either-292381.php
Called “Ill-mannered by bedwetter?” I think thats enough irony for today.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Correction, sorry bedwetter was calling my parents “I’ll Mannered bog farmers”
Duly noted bedwetter, duly noted.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
“I thought that trying to enforce democratic institutional governance is a big plus.The alternative is rule by mullahs or strong men I suppose. Don’t know if NZ should be supporting that.What do you think?”
It could work if the US is able to create a secularist Military hierarchy (National Security Council) that’s willing to stomp out any popular political-religious movements (i.e. Turkey). However – that’s not happening as far as I’m aware.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Death by dictatorship or death by democracy? A truly horrific outcome for the victims regardless of how the choice is made or by whom.
But tell me, what has that to do with the thread topic which relates to Labour’s increasing desperation? Ah, perhaps the connection is that we can all feel grateful that Helen Clark is not involved in the Iraqi situation. Given her administrations gunboat diplomacy with our closest ally I’d expect loose nukes in the Middle East if she waded in tongue-first.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
RN: “In fact both CNN and Fox polls show that the vast majority of Americans want the troops home within a year.”
I’d interpret that poll to show support for the invasion of Iran. They know if the troops are pulled out of Iraq they can be rested and redeployed. It is too risky to leave the Iran project to the airforce and navy. The Iraq issue is now a moot point.
The question we need to ask is how many troops are we willing to send to support our friends in the invasion of Iran.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“Correction”
Gawd, for once you realized your poor comprehension before it was pointed out to you. Keep it up, you might one day reach the level where you can call yourself educated (that’s quite a few steps further down the road tho from indoctrinated.)
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
An perhaps you, sonic, could be less of a smart arse. Obviously another busy day in that office..
G
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
“Tina, sorry you need to keep up”
Hahhahaha.. wonkette.com.. CNN.. Jezuz, no wonder you know fuck all about fuck all you sad little dinosauric commie bimbo…
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
John Key lives in a big smart house in Remuera that he worked for.
Helen lives in equally big smart house in Wellington that we’ve all worked hard for to own.
Who pays the rent and the power and staff?
Actually John Keys helps with that (like the rest of us)
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
“I’d interpret that poll to show support for the invasion of Iran.”
Which poll? I referred to two.
Iran has four times the population and military might of 2002 Iraq. It has a close political relationship with China and Russia (both have invested billions in their energy sector). If its oil supplies were cut off there would be a severe global oil shortage. Also, Chavez has also promised that he would turn off the taps in such a scenario.
Conclusion: Invasion of Iran ain’t gonna happen.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“Hahhahaha.. wonkette.com.. CNN.. Jezuz, no wonder you know fuck all about fuck all you sad little dinosauric commie bimbo…”
Oh how refreshing – RB is proved wrong on all factual points, and so resorts to childish, bigoted name-calling. Groundhog day anyone?
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
banana-guy said to redbaiter..
“..Just stay away from uppers.”
now..ain’t that the truth..eh..?..
heh-heh..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
RN: “Conclusion: Invasion of Iran ain’t gonna happen.”
Typical left wing comment.
You forgot the WMD & likely attack on Israel with resulting instability in the ME leading to the oil tap being turned off for the West. If Iran flexes its muscles we’ll have no choice.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
“You forgot the WMD & likely attack on Israel with resulting instability in the ME”
So you think it’s Likely that Iran’s political leadership will nuke Israel? And for what? So they can kill a few million Jews – only to be wiped off the face of the earth by their allies – who posses thousands of nukes? Nah – more paranoid BS fed to you by the corporate media. Can’t believe so many on the right are actually stupid enough to believe this crap.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
I went to the site you posted, sonic.
If you are serious about the integrity of the information there…..
I will have to say you are posting in bad faith.
I’m sorry about that but I believe no other alternative exists.
I post a quote from the site you like as follows….
“Experts say the only solution is to detonate nuclear bombs throughout Iraq to kill all the Arabs, install George W bush as dictator of the world, repopulate Iraq with people from Texas (but not Mexicans….) “
You can’t be seriously relying on this stuff….can you?
It is difficult for me to understand why you wont address the questions I’ve posed in previous posts so I’ll post them again.
- “The Aussies look like a pretty good example over there, how come we aren’t doing the same thing?
- They want to vote for democracy right now. Is there something wrong with that? Do they deserve to be supported?
- If you have 12 million Iraqis who vote for a secular/semi secular democracy concept and they know that Iranian mullahs will run the place or another non democratic outcome will happen without US and allies there…… why would they vote in the first place if it was all hopeless? What you say doesn’t make sense.
- The alternative is rule by mullahs or strong men I suppose.
Don’t know if NZ should be supporting that.
What do you think?
I went back and found you have not addressed any of this.
I am starting to think you may be what they call a troll.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Tina:
So how long should the allies stay there? Long enough that we can be sure that democracy will be assured without the west’s military involvement? And how long will that take? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? You see the problem don’t you? Just as with Vietnam, most of the population want the American military gone. They’ve lost the most important battle. That of the Heart and the mind.
“Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority.
In the poll, 80 percent of Iraqis surveyed reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the United States and allied militaries in Iraq.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001927572_iraqpoll13.html
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
“So you think it’s Likely that Iran’s political leadership will nuke Israel? And for what?”
The scenario would be escalation of tension between the US and Iran, including Iranian influence in Iraq, with the aim of getting the US out of the ME. I’d expect the actual attack to come from a third party. I don’t think the US would use nukes.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
You can’t crave democratic institutions then want no-one to enforce them.
Not possible.
So the purple fingers lie or the “polls” lie….you choose.
Of course I could be wrong, i’d just like sonic to address the alternatives…..I’m new at this.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
John Key
Law refers to residential addresses and postal addresses. A residential address is where you live. A postal address is where you want your mail to go. To say that your residential address in the terms of the Companies Act 1993 is different from your residential address according to the Electoral Act;
Hey!
Come on!
We all expect that sort of sh*t from Mallard or Maharey, but John, you must never ever insult our intelligence with that sort of crap again.
John Key = Clark without the ovaries.
I sincerely hope not.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Opinion polls in the US about the efficacy and/or wisdom of the Iraq war wax and wane depending on how well or badly conditions are perceived on the ground. There was post invasion euphoria reflected in widespread support. Support then dipped when the insurgency took hold, rose after the various elections, went into gradual and steady decline as the Rumfelt ‘light footprint’ approach proved to be essentially ‘whack a mole’ only to be relieved temporarily when key figures were found/killed. With the increasingly widespread view in Washington that the surge is having noticeable military benefits to the extent that increasing numbers of Democrat leaders in Congress and their MSM water carriers (eg Washington Post) are grudgingly acknowledging, it will not be too long a stretch of the imagination to expect public opinion on the war to become less negative (ie more voters saying they support the war and fewer expressing a desire for a pull out).
But the political reality is that no matter how negative the polls got at the height of sectarian and insurgent violence, Bush is not up for re-election and he was never for turning or cutting and running. When political sentiment in Washington and the country at large was for withdrawing the troops, the Democrats were too scared to use their Congressional majorities to defund the troops (as they did to Nixon in 1972 during the Vietnam War) and force a withdrawal. Instead they tried to bully Bush and Congressional Republicans into backing down in the face of what Democrats saw as universal opposition to the war hoping they would ascede to early withdrawal leaving the Dems free of any voter backlash. The Dems tried various early withdrawal funding tags to appropriations bills as a stealth way of reducing the war effort by a thousand small cuts but they utterly failed in being able to override the veto Bush threatened and ultimately used. In the end, the Democrats could not win over the so-called Blue Dog Democrats (conservative Dems elected in 06 in largely Republican held districts) and the more poll sensitive liberal Republicans to defeat the President even at the height of negative public sentiment on the war.
Following on the heels of the apparent military success of the surge has been some quiet but significant shifts in the Maliki goverment’s tactics. Maliki has dumped his support for Sadr and his radical Shi’ite militias and he has recently met with major Sunni tribal leaders in Saddam’s heartland in Tikrit. Whilst there is still much much more progress to be made on the political front, the success of the surge across not just Baghdad but all regions (baring the disasterous British managed Basra region) has had the result that the sectarian groupings are more willing to talk as they do not see default civil war positions as being as helpful or necessary as there is a growing believe that Petraeus is for real and the US will stay as long as it takes to do the job. Ironically the Democrats attempts to bring the troops home created the very unstable mindset amongst the politicians that acted against the necessary political compromises that lead to real lasting governance.
phil u – you haven’t answered my main question. What do you think were the “serious consequences” the UN SC UNANIMOUSLY voted for in 1441? Oh and please cite the relevant international law you hide behind and finally – did you believe Clinton did the right thing in ordering an illegal war against the Bosnian Serbs?
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
“…..I’m new at this.”
But you’re good at it. However, you won’t get any response to the excellent points you make from Sonic. He’s a narrow minded little intellectual coward, and he’ll never address the real issues.
I’ll tell you why. Like most such socialist retards, its impossible for him to think outside the leftist square. He is so soaked in leftist ideology, so indoctrinated, so detached from reality, so lacking in basic understanding and simple common sense, so absolutely and utterly full of the worst kind of leftist bullshit, he can’t even comprehend what you’re asking him let alone come up with a coherent and logical response.
Admire your persistence, and your attempts to be civil and logical, and I wish you good luck, but believe me, you’re flogging a dead horse.
Here is what I think is always going to be the left’s preferred modus operandi. Its the MO that Sonic uses, and its the MO of almost every leftist who shows up here. They know that they cannot win an argument on facts and logic. They know that defending their deeply flawed and failed ideology with reason is impossible. They know that the only way they can retain power, and advance their cause is to perpetuate the illusion that socialism brings some kind of benefit. The illusion must always be defended. The fact that the emperor has no clothes should never be exposed.
If you attack that delusion, they will of course defend against your attack, but they will not argue the issue. They always attempt to discredit anyone who threatens to expose their delusional ideology. Examples- Bush is a liar. (no lies exhibited) Don Brash is “corrosive” (he succeeded with some telling attacks on socialism) John Key is “rich”, or as is the subject of this thread, “dishonest” about where he lives. John Howard lied about the boat people. Cheney is a “profiteer’. See the pattern? No defence of socialism. BECAUSE THEY CAN’T DEFEND IT AND THEY KNOW IT.
Wait for the issue of this up coming election. The left need something similar to the EB issue that over-shadowed the last election. Something to take the heat off the short comings of socialism. Something their disgustingly partisan media acolytes can run with. What will it be?
Sonic won’t answer you here Tina. This site, as far as the leftists are concerned, is just a microcosm of the larger political arena, where the left run from real argument (questions such as yours) like the intellectual cowards they always are, and continually smokescreen the fact that they are part of an empty and intellectually bankrupt and socially destructive political system that only exists as a means to provide the left with the political power and the control that is their raisson d’etre..
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
should read “what you say was an illegal war against the Bosnian Serbs”
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Redbaiter
Your last post was excellent – and not a single swear word!! It’s interesting in the US you rarely find the blogs on the right or right leaning posters who wade into the fever swaps of the Daily Kos, DD Underground and Huffington Post using foul language whereas the left here are constantly using dirty language to make their point.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Red thanks for your post.
Surely sonic will deal with things on their merits rather than be offended that his poltics don’t fit the solution?
I believe sonic will address the questions I re-put in my 4:46 post.
He was very keen to comment in this thread previously.
Did I offend him by saying he might be a “troll”?
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
“You can’t crave democratic institutions then want no-one to enforce them.
Not possible.”
80% of iraqis want the US military gone, just as was the case in vietnam. The iraqi prime-minister is seen as a US puppet by iraq’s people (and rightly so) For this reason the various insurgencies (freedom fighters in the public’s eyes) will be undefeatable – just as with vietnam. We saw the same dynamic happening with the British and French African colonies during the 1950s-1960s. The people wanted independance from their colonisers, and many protracted civil wars resulted. Eventually the colonialists gave up – they saw that was a battle they couldn’t win in the long term. They realised that those countries had to discover their own identitie, democratic or not. So we have to keep in mind – the war in iraq is occuring in a colonial context (the US and the British have been in Iraq for 40 of the last 80 years), and this is why the British and US are so unpopular amongst the iraqi public. They don’t want a paternalistisic quazi colonial government – they want to be able to determine their own destiny free from anglo-saxon medaling. For this reason there will be no “stability” while the US are there. Like it or not, only the Iraqi people can determine their political future. The US should piss off and let them get on with it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:50 pm
KIA, someone has to cover point for the right. The right are naturally more well behaved than the left, where the pathology of narcissism is the dominant factor. However, the left have exploited our reticence and discretion, and used it to their advantage in imposing their ideology on this country.
The left have used this personality trait, the natural reservedness of the right, to attain the social and political ascendancy they enjoy today. The left will continue to exploit this weakness as long as we let them. My objective has always been to drag the center in NZ further to the right. My objective has always been to try and ignite some fire under those who claim they value liberty but say and do so little to defend it. Someone has to put some stress on the envelope.
Y’know, when I first arrived back in NZ (around 2000) I was widely pilloried on the internet for merely using the descriptive word “leftist”. See how things have changed?
The left are a vicious and cunning enemy of freedom and the individual. You will not defeat them by following the path you have followed over the last few decades. Something has to change, or the left will keep winning.
BTW, I put little store in complaints of bad language. Everywhere you look you see examples of the left’s destruction of the culture that once made this country great, but none more so than in popular entertainment. TV, movies, music, where obscenity and vulgarity, nihilism and hedonism are the new religions. This is the culture of the left. I’ll bet you that the leftists who complain bitterly here about vulgarity actually hold Hollywood movies full of profanity and barren of morality or civility as examples of the entertainment they prefer. Its not my language the left dislike. They only pretend this. It is my attacks on their ideas, and my undisguised expressions of contempt for their sick power seeking ideology that upsets them.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Nome. Fuck off with your 80% bullshit. The poll is deeply flawed for so many reasons, but I wouldn’t waste my time trying to point that out to a boring brain damaged dumbfuck like you. Most of all, it cannot (due to its 82% majority) be representative of the religious and political fracturing of the Iraqi population, and, above when criticizing a poll I referenced, you used the argument that the question was to vague, when the question that is the basis for this poll (“Do you support the presence of coalition forces in Iraq?”) was about as vague as you can get.
Furthermore, it is a result that is markedly different to other recent polls on the same issue (that I would reference if I thought it would make a difference.) Piss off you verbose pro-terrorist propaganda spieling commie loon.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I guess you could be right Roger Nome.
Iraq could have voted for a democratic parliament and not meant it.
Still the US is shooting a lot of foreign Al Qaeda there, so that’s good I suppose.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Welcome to the blogosphere Tina. I like the way you put your questions – honestly and without malice. Redbaiter has it right with his reasoning about why Sonic wont debate you but he forgot to add another point you need to be aware of – strangely enough, Sonic generally only adds his comments during working hours. Very odd indeed.
G
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Betwetter as your voice of reason, the voice in the wilderness crying out for reasoned debate.
So is the cycle complete.
I’ll leave you to it
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Oh and may I add, Grant, right on the money as usual.
That boy will go far, mark my words!
August 24th, 2007 at 7:15 am
The simple fact is the left want the US to lose in Iraq. It is a geopolitical example of the same “politics of envy” that the increasingly desperate Labour party are wallowing in , in their attacks on John Key.
I nominate Kiwi in America “Blogger of the week.”
Keep it up KIA.
We don’t get such in depth reporting from the MSM over here.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Overtime Sonic?
August 24th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Poor Grant.,
Think before you try the snide insinuations Granty, your not smart enough
August 24th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Raw nerve Grima? Feeling guilty?
Smart enough to not be a Labour supporter.
G
August 24th, 2007 at 10:06 am
As predicted, Sonic has all the time to attack Grant for saying he “generally only posts during working hours” , (a true enough statement), but has failed to even recognise that Tina is attempting a well intentioned debate on the issues. Proving once again that everything I have said about the left and their cowardly strategies is perfectly correct. The point is emphasized by their current yellow backed attacks on John Key. Policy? They’ll never rise to the challenge.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Red I don’t want to embarrass anyone with difficult questions.
I’ll leave it there.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
“I guess you could be right Roger Nome. Iraq could have voted for a democratic parliament and not meant it.”
TINA (is that short for “there is no alternative” re- Thacture? ), like it or not this system has been foisted on the Iraqis by the American military-industrial complex. The fact that 58% of the population turned out to try and have some say isn’t a vote of approval for the continuance of the American occupation. It merely says that most people will tacitly go along with the form of government available when it is forced on them through military might.
You bag sonic for not directly answering your questions directly, yet you have hypocritically avoided answering my question: How long would you say is reasonable for the US lead forces to militarily dominate Iraq? 5 more years 10, 20, 100? I suspect your answer will be “when there is a peacefully “functioning democracy”, or something along those lines – so when is that successfully achieved? When the insurgencies are defeated? What if that never happens? The US military should just dominate Iraq forever? Regardless of how many thousands of US soldiers and Iraqi Civilians are slaughtered? Sorry that I have to embarrass you with these difficult questions.
“Still the US is shooting a lot of foreign Al Qaeda there, so that’s good I suppose.”
There was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before the invasion – they will be there as long as the US are there. In fact US generals have confirmed this. Most of the Al Qaeda fighters are coming from Pakistan (A US ally), and are funded by the CIA’s sister organisation (it was established by the CIA) the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence . This is also the case with the Taliban in Afganistan.
Although the corporate media won’t go so far as to acknowledge the USA’s complicity in this, it does point out that there is a close relationship between the ISI and al-Qaeda.
“”Each arrest of al-Qaeda top leadership in Pakistan takes place after the FBI and U.S. investigators effectively gather evidence to force Pakistani cooperation. Little of this evidence has come from the Pakistani agencies, which consistently seek to deny the presence of al-Qaeda in their country and mislead U.S. investigators to the extent possible,” stated Sahni.
“This deception has been at the very highest level,” noted Sahni.”
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/25/154855.shtml
“The Army’s dual role in combating terrorism and at the same time promoting the MMA and so indirectly supporting the Taliban (through the ISI) is coming under closer and closer international scrutiny.
Indirectly Pakistan (through the ISI) has been supporting terrorism and extremism – whether in London on 7/7 or in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Musharraf knows that time is running out for him…at some point the US is likely to withdraw funding (and possibly even protection) of him – estimated at $70-80M a month.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5388426.stm
So why the hell is the US giving $70-80M a month to the top terrorist nation in the world? Why does the US list Pakistan as an “ally”? Why did it not invade Pakistan years ago? Simple – the threat of terrorism serves the interest of US’s military industrial complex – provides them with a way to legitimise spending hundreds of billions of dollars on weapons, and it serves the strategic interests of the US military (provides an excuse to project their power where they want). Puts the joke into the “war on terror” hey?
August 24th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Sorry I didn’t think you were looking for answers.
I guess it’s probably impossible to say how much time will be needed to give the new Iraqi democracy space to establish itself into the future.
Would leave it to the US military on the ground and the Iraqi govt recently elected to have much more information than anyone in NZ.
There is therefore no way I can judge the reasonablity of how long, but wish them best of luck.
Hillary Clinton is saying that the surge is having good results so coming from a Democrat that’s a good indication I believe.
Guess I’m for as many dead Al Qaeda as possible, where they are killed is of little concern.
I don’t have any more knowlege than you but I suspect the US supports the existing Pakistani regime or any regime there that will stop their nuclear arsenal getting into the hands of a new Islamofascist regime, just a guess.
The nature of this requirement will produce twisted illogical alliances and circumstances wrapped in fog.
Hope this helps.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
“Sorry I didn’t think you were looking for answers.
I guess it’s probably impossible to say how much time will be needed to give the new Iraqi democracy space to establish itself into the future.
Would leave it to the US military on the ground and the Iraqi govt recently elected to have much more information than anyone in NZ.
There is therefore no way I can judge the reasonablity of how long, but wish them best of luck.”
So your answer is that the US should stay in the Iraq as longs as it likes. Who cares about the fact that over 60% of Americans want their troops home in one year’s time? Who cares about the fact that 80% of Iraqis want the US military out of Iraq now? In fact if the US troops were to leave within the next year that would be DEMOCRACY in action right Tina? So being a true champion of democracy you would support this right?
“I don’t have any more knowlege than you but I suspect the US supports the existing Pakistani regime or any regime there that will stop their nuclear arsenal getting into the hands of a new Islamofascist regime, just a guess.”
So you acknowledge that the US would rather support a military dictator than a democratically elected Islamist regime in Pakistan. I agree. It does however show, just how circumstantial the US establishment’s support of democracy is though. They support it when it suits them. For this reason, many people laugh at GW when he says that the US military is staying in Iraq for the sake of democracy. The problem that they’ve created, as they well know, is that once they leave, the Shiite majority will have control of the country. This regime will form a natural alliance with its Shiite dominated neighbour, Iran. Together they will form a very powerful block that will hinder the US’s commercial and geo-strategic imperatives in the middles east. This is why the US military cannot leave and won’t leave.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Oh and I found this story linked to on philU’s blog. It follows on from my point about the likelyhood of the Shiite dominated Iraq teaming up with Iran …
Enjoy Tina:
“Iraq’s embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki paid an official visit to Iran, undoubtedly looking for support in case the U.S. turned on his government.
Maliki “held hands” with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, met with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and called for cooperation.
In response, all President Bush could do was issue a vague threat: “I will have to have a heart to heart with my friend, the prime minister, because I don’t believe [the Iranians] are constructive…. My message to him is, when we catch you playing a non-constructive role, there will be a price to pay.” (Later, a National Security Council spokesman had to offer a correction, insisting the threat was aimed only at Iran, not Maliki.)
Then, to add insult to injury, just a week after Bush and Karzai met in Washington, Ahmadinejad headed for Kabul with a high-ranking Iranian delegation to pay his respects to the Afghan president “in open defiance of Washington’s wishes.””
http://www.tomdispatch.com
August 25th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
It’s hard to see your point Rog.
My last post addressed your second last post before you wrote it.
How’s that for predictive behaviour.
The US went to Iraq in an attempt to get one working Arab democracy in the Middle East in the (probably) boy-scout hope that it might be contagious.
I’m not sure how good your knowledge of markets is, maybe not that good.
You seem to think there is cheap oil for the US in Iraq?
It doesn’t work that way Rog, there isn’t a barrel of oil anywhere in the world that does not sell at the relevant benchmark price. The US buys oil at the same price as NZ.
If you want to use opinion polls instead of the last election as the arbiter of political authority I’d be all for it. Unfortunately that’s a silly suggestion for most Western democracies let alone Iraq.
So an elected govt is the existing democratic decision maker in Iraq.
It may well collapse under the Islamofascist load
The US may fail to establish a stable democracy there.
But they tried.
Don’t be distracted by the convoluted politics around doing anything to prevent nuc bombs getting into the hands of a democratically elected Taliban type Pakistani govt….the US will nuc them in an instant to prevent that.
That you cannot come to terms with that is probably not a concern in the US.
The world is a far more serious place than the provincial commentariat in NZ can imagine Rog and some of the choices are for grown ups.
Please don’t think I’m being sarcastic, we are posting buddies.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
AS for where some Mps live as opposed to where they say they live
this from the white pages
Dr Mary English
Now now Selma
A few years ago our great leaders Husband lived and worked in Christchurch. Maybe Her Highness also secretly lived down there too
August 25th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
The Englishes decided that they wanted to see Bill more than two days a week, hence they school and work in Wellington.
Remember it was the great Labour leader Lange who got in trouble spending all his time in Welllignton (As his job demanded) while his wife stayed in Auckland (And maybe Muldoon before him)
English is no fool.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Instead Labour are perpetrating some of the worst corruption we’ve seen. No NZer, regardless of their political leanings, deserves that.
SImply put we know who is runnig the party now
The trade union socialists, the gay rights socialists, the radical feminist socialists are all getting very desperate
Labour is down to its hard core as all the swinging voters and moderates are abandoning them in droves. The veneer/whitewash carefully constructed to keep all these radicals out of public sight has fallen off
August 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
‘The US went to Iraq in an attempt to get one working Arab democracy in the Middle East in the (probably) boy-scout hope that it might be contagious.”
hehe – nice one Tina. I guess you must still believe in the tooth fairy too.
“I’m not sure how good your knowledge of markets is, maybe not that good. You seem to think there is cheap oil for the US in Iraq?
It doesn’t work that way Rog, there isn’t a barrel of oil anywhere in the world that does not sell at the relevant benchmark price. The US buys oil at the same price as NZ.”
Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point Tina.
It’s more about securing access to the world’s remaining oil reserves than getting “cheaper oil”. Remember, the OECD’s official energy market watch dog, the IEA, has predicted a flattening off of global oil production around 2010. Of course there is also much profit to be made for US oil companies through gaining the contracts to produce Iraq’s oil.
This was written in 2002:
“The Bush administration, intimately entwined with the global oil industry, is keen to pounce on Iraq’s massive untapped reserves, the second biggest in the world after Saudi Arabia’s. But France and Russia, who hold a power of veto on the UN Security Council, have billion-dollar contracts with Baghdad, which they fear will disappear in ‘an oil grab by Washington’, if America installs a successor to Saddam.”
“A government insider in Paris told The Observer that France also feared suffering economically from US oil ambitions at the end of a war”
“The total value of Saddam’s foreign contract awards could reach $1.1 trillion, according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2001.”
The problem now is that the Iraqi government is turning on the US.
“The purpose of the US ongoing OCCUPATION of Iraq is simply to secure that country’s huge oil reserves for private companies such as Exxon, stealing it from the Iraqi people, to whom it rightfully belongs. The main “benchmark” required by the US president, backed by Congress, is passage of a law in Iraq that would privatize oil, taking it out of the hands of the Iraqi government, where it has always rested. The Iraqi parliament refuses to pass such a law, the Iraqi labor unions oppose it, the Iraqi people oppose it.”
“Washington’s predatory interest in Iraqi oil is clear, whatever its political protestations about its motives for war. The US National Energy Policy Report of 2001 – known as the ‘Cheney Report’ after its author Vice President Dick Cheney, formerly one of America’s richest and most powerful oil industry magnates – demanded a priority on easing US access to Persian Gulf supplies.
Doubts about Saudi Arabia – even before 11 September, and even more so in its wake – led US strategists to seek a backup supply in the region. America needs 20 million barrels of crude a day, and analysts have singled out the country that could meet up to half that requirement: Iraq.”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,805530,00.html
So what has actually happened?
“Under Washington’s guidance, the Iraqi government wrote the oil law in secret deliberations. It needed secrecy to obscure the fact that it gives foreign corporations control over exploration and development in one of the world’s largest oil reserves, through agreements called “production-sharing” contracts. Such deals are so disadvantageous that they have been rejected by most oil-producing countries, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and otherwise conservative regimes throughout the Middle East.
“The leaders of the Iraqi opposition to the oil law are the industry’s workers. In early June, the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions shut pipelines from the Rumeila fields near Basra, in the south, to Baghdad and the rest of the country. Their main demand was that oil remain in public hands, although they also sought to force the government to improve conditions for workers.”
“When Halliburton Corp. went into Iraq in the wake of the troops in 2003, the company tried to seize control of wells and rigs, withholding reconstruction aid to force workers to submit. The oil union struck for three days in August 2003, stopping exports and cutting off government revenue. Halliburton then closed its Basra offices and left the oil region.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/19/IN69RI00G.DTL
I hope this helps you Tina.
Yours Sincerely,
Roger Nome.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
There comes a point where we will have to agree to disagree Rog.
I guess the one thing that you can work on to improve your understanding is with the world oil market. No matter who controls the wells anywhere, the oil all reaches an international market at an international price which you seem to have grasped now.
Say Chavez wants not to sell oil to the US.
He can say that, but he better be sure of his end user because otherwise it gets a $5/barrel arbitrage and on sold into any deficiency of supply.
So it might work if the nearly expired Castro swears to not on sell under any circumstances.
Otherwise not. Markets don’t work that way.
Whether the US is in Iraq or not makes no difference to the oil available to it, that’s exactly the same as the rest of the world.
Try to make an easy example for you.
If Australia refused to sell any of its large yearly gold output
to India, the same amount of Australian gold would be around Indian necks at a minimal increase in spot price to Indians.
Aren’t markets wonderful?
August 26th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
“Try to make an easy example for you.
If Australia refused to sell any of its large yearly gold output
to India, the same amount of Australian gold would be around Indian necks at a minimal increase in spot price to Indians. Aren’t markets wonderful?”
Yes, oil is a highly fungible commodity Tina. As such spot prices are fairly similar (though not exactly *the same* as you are claiming) in the different markets around the world.
However, you Forget however that a strong and united OPEC is more likely to drip a slower quantity of oil out over a longer period at a higher price (the strategy of the OPEC countries with Nationalised oil industries), than it is to pump it out fast as possibly over a shorter period, at a lower price (what happens in countries with a privatised oil industry). Clearly the latter scenario is preferable for the US, and indeed the global economy.. So this is one oil/economic related motivation for going into iraq.
Also you don’t seem to understand is the meaning of these “production sharing” agreements.
“While companies can accept exploration risk (that they won’t find oil) or price risk (that the oil price falls), both being beyond their control, they try to manage ‘political risk’ (that tax or regulatory demands will increase) by locking in governments. They thus seek to bind governments into long-term contracts that fix the terms of their investment. Production sharing agreements generally last for 25 to 40 years with terms protected from potential change by incoming governments.”
“Oil companies want a deal that guarantees their right to extract the reserves for many years, thus ensuring their future growth and profits. Furthermore, they want a contract that allows them to ‘book’ these reserves – including them in their accounts – which increases their company [share] value. Production sharing agreements, like concession contracts, permit companies to book reserves in their accounts. .”
“Generally, oil companies make their profits from investing and risking their capital. In some cases, they lose their capital, for example when they drill a ‘dry well’. But in some cases they will find large and hugely profitable fields. Oil companies are therefore very different from service companies like Halliburton, which make money from fixed fees on predictable contracts. Oil companies aim for deals which may be more speculative, but which give them a chance of making super-profits. Production sharing agreements are designed to allow companies to achieve very large profits if successful.”
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#pumping
Then we’ve got Haliburton/vice president cheney/oil connection
Such a clear case of conflict of interest it’s not funny.
“Cheney was chief executive officer of Halliburton from 1995 through August 2000. The company’s KBR subsidiary is the main government contractor working to restore Iraq’s oil industry in an open-ended contract that was awarded without competitive bidding. ”
“A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney’s denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday.”
“According to Cheney’s 2001 financial disclosure report, the vice president’s Halliburton benefits include three batches of stock options comprising 433,333 shares. He also has a 401(k) retirement account valued at between $1,001 and $15,000 dollars.
His deferred compensation account was valued at between $500,000 and $1 million, and generated income of $50,000 to $100,000.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml
I hope that this information helps you to understand what I mean by the US’s commercial and geo-strategic interests in iraq.
August 26th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
I’m confident that you are up to getting it Rog.
Being a high achiever as you are.
Commodities 101 should be possible.
There is no way that the US can obtain advantage in price or supply from Iraqi oil.
Devious deals to done by opportunistic capitalists to profit from extraction etc don’t change the availability or price to individual buyers but to all buyers.
No matter how many layers exist and how many nasty capitalists are involved in ripping off money from Iraqis in the oil production train, all oil offered is available to everyone at very close to the relevant quality benchmark prices.
You can’t turn Iraqi oil into a private supply by being the capricious operator of an oil field.
The ethics of opportunistic capitalists are irrelevant.
Nice deal for Halilburton but immaterial to the market where the US buys oil .
.
Maybe you have a better understanding of the gold market …whoever mines, owns, refines, markets gold is not able to select its availability or price to any particular buyer to any degree.
Is there some other market you are used to that I can give you an easier example from?
Guess you’ve been trading your boots off during the current opportunities, eh Rog?
August 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
“There is no way that the US can obtain advantage in price or supply from Iraqi oil.”
It can’t obtain an exclusive advantage but it can obtain *an* advantage. You failed to address this point so i’ll post it again for you.
“A strong and united OPEC is more likely to drip a slower quantity of oil out over a longer period at a higher price (the strategy of the OPEC countries with Nationalised oil industries), than it is to pump it out fast as possibly over a shorter period, at a lower price (what happens in countries with a privatised oil industry). Clearly the latter scenario is preferable for the US, and indeed the global economy.. So this is one oil/economic related motivation for going into iraq.”
Actually you failed to address any of the points I made in the last post. Maybe next time you can? I sincerely wish you luck Tina, as I’m not sure that you’re able to grasp those above points.
All the best,
Roger Nome.
August 26th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Maybe you should read my last post again slowly Rog.
Your main upset seems to be about Haliburton’s business methods.
Your error is confusing your dislike of Haliburton with oil pricing/supply to the US.
Remember price and supply are the same thing, you understand that don’t you Rog?
And it applies to everyone.
Opec machinations apply to everyone Rog.
It’s a long story but the US doesn’t need Iraq as a swing prodiucer, its got Saudi.
and the Gulf states.
Finally and definitively….the US gains not one dollar or extra barrel that is not available to anyone by occupying Iraq.
Have a nice evening Rog.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
“It’s a long story but the US doesn’t need Iraq as a swing prodiucer, its got Saudi. and the Gulf states.”
Really? How much spare capacity does Saudi actually have? Do you really have any idea?
You should read this interesting article at “the Oil drum”. It may help you understand the situation in Saudi Arabia a bit better. Some conclusions are that:
1) Saudi Arabian oil production is now in decline.
2) The decline rate during the first year is very high (8%), akin to decline rates in other places developed with modern horizontal drilling techniques such as the North Sea.
3) Declines are rather unlikely to be arrested, and may well accelerate.
Matt Simmons appears to be right in Twilight in the Desert, but the warning did not come until after declines had actually begun.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325
“Your main upset seems to be about Halliburton’s business methods.”
More specifically Dick Cheney’s business methods actually. He’s making profits out of an illegal war, which he was a key architect of.
“Your error is confusing your dislike of Haliburton with oil pricing/supply to the US.”
You seem to be confused here Tina. Halliburton specialises in construction. It’s not in the production business.
“Remember price and supply are the same thing, you understand that don’t you Rog? And it applies to everyone.”
Actually demand is a factor in price as a well. Here, this might help you to understand it better.
“The supply and demand model determines price and quantity sold in the market. The model is fundamental in microeconomic analysis of buyers and sellers and of their interactions in a market. It is also used as a point of departure for other economic models and theories. The model predicts that in a competitive market, price will function to equalize the quantity demanded by consumers and the quantity supplied by producers, resulting in an economic equilibrium of price and quantity.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
“Finally and definitively….the US gains not one dollar or extra barrel that is not available to anyone by occupying Iraq.”
No qualms there – I’ve already said this myself several times.
“Opec machinations apply to everyone Rog.”
I’ll try and explain it to you again Tina. Oil production from non-OPEC sources is set to flatten off around 2010. This will leave us at the mercy of OPEC. If OPEC is strong, united and dominated by Nationalised oil industries, future global production will become ever more dictated by political decisions, and less by market mechanisms. The US’s invasion of Iraq and subsequent privatisation of its oil industry had three aims this regard.
1) To create an economic environment in which market forces will lead to greater production, helping to meat future increases in demand from the US, and the rest of the world.
2) To remove the threat of the oil weapon – which would have become increasingly potent as spare capacity grows ever smaller within the “swing producer” states.
3) To discourage any other OPEC states (i.e. Venezuela, Iran etc) from using the oil weapon in the future.
It’s a shame that you’re either unable or unwilling to acknowledge that oil companies with close ties to the Bush administration have sort to benefit hugely from the oil “production sharing contracts” – drawn up in secret by the US, their puppet Iraqi government and the oil companies.
Thanks for the interesting discussion Tina.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:19 pm
One law for the National Party…
John can’t seem to get his story straight (again). Since he claims to support the concept of ‘one law for all’ let’s start with that.
Under the Electoral Act you can reside in one place only. Under the Companies Act you cannot m…