Silly Frog
The Greens’ frog is having a rush of blood to his or her head.
Not only does it hysterically over-react to a call for the Iranian nuclear threat to be confronted, they breathlessly demand to know whether John Key will send troops to Iran.
First of all they seem to have conceded the next election, and assume Key will be PM. Now as this is not until probably Nov 15, some two weeks after the US elections, their hysterical scaremongering is based on the scenario that Bush will launch an invasion of Iran during his caretaker period as President.
Even putting aside their stupidity of timing, there is noone at all (except the Greens) talking seriously about invading Iran. Sure someone may drop a couple of bombs on their nuclear facilities (as Israel did to Saddam in 1979) but that is not the same as invading a country to topple its Government. And you know I can’t really see the US wanting to use our Hercules to drop bombs in the Middle East – it would take a week for them to even get there probably!
Not that I think conflict with Iran is remotely likely. Certainly not in 2008.
But I did find it interesting that Frog said:
Would he agree that Iran was “the world’s leading state sponsor of terror”? Many would say that the US was, citing their financial and technical support for Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein prior to turning against them.
When Frog says “many would say” this is code for, “most in the Greens believe”. Their hysterical anti-Americanism is why Helen Clark keeps them out of office I suspect. You just can’t have people around the Cabinet table who actually believe the US is worse than Iran. The US is far from perfect with its behaviour and choices, but really someone should send the Frog to Iran to live.
Next the Greens will blame Stalin’s 20 million dead on the US, because hey in WWII they fought with Stalin as an ally, so hell that makes them responsible for everything he did since. Now NZ also fought as an ally of Stalin, so does that also make us responsible? Hell the shame, the shame.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
This probably explains in some small way why phil seems so desperate for the US economy to implode.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
<i>Next the Greens will blame Stalin’s 20 million dead on the US, because hey in WWII they fought with Stalin as an ally, so hell that makes them responsible for everything he did since. Now NZ also fought as an ally of Stalin, so does that also make us responsible? Hell the shame, the shame.</i>
David given your hysterical commentary on the EFB (not to mention your disgraceful billboard campaign) don’t you think this is a little rich?
After all the accusations of Nazism and comparisons with Stalin, Hiter, Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong Il you’ve made against Labour and other parties recently your credibility on this is zero.
[DPF: If you can't understand the difference between a humourous billboard (bet you hate Tom Scott cartoons also) and a serious political statement of the US being worse than Iran, then tough.]
January 15th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Um Tane, totally opposite contexts, but I guess you dont let that get in the way of some good old fashioned faux outrage eh?
January 15th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Tane – apparently a considerable proportion of NZ voters do not agree with your analysis of events…. again !! Keep shouting though Bro and you may even convince yourself.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
The Greens supported this government prior to, during and after it sent troops to participate in the occupation of Iraq. But promise they won’t do it again.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
fair question..
given nationals’ war-mongering record..
how can it not be..?
what does simon “all the way with bush” power have to say about this..?
and criticise clark all you like..(and i do..)
she still deserves respect for not taking us to war..
whereas your lot would have..
so..don’t come over all ‘precious’ now..eh dpf..?
your/nationals’ credibility-sheet on this is in tatters..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
But DPF Of course WW2 was the fault of the Americans And WW1 as well. Hell EVERYTHING is the fault of the USofA
Ignore the Greens They are sooooooooooooooooooo last century
January 15th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
how is ‘the marketing of financial services’ going right now..adolf..?
and the sharemarkets..?
(i have noted that the only optimists are ‘feckin idjits..eh..?
so..your call..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
and adolf..
i did note the other day that i take no satisfaction from these/those grim economic/environmental tidings coming to pass..
how could i..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
David this is the most bizarre piece of spin I’ve seen you post here.
“Not only does it hysterically over-react to a call for the Iranian nuclear threat to be confronted”
No, it doesn’t, it says GWB is calling for Iran to be confronted. While it is true that the next president will probably avoid another conflict, it isn’t exactly an implausible scenario that the US will attack Iran in time.
Wait a sec, are you actually calling the Greens warmongers? You might want to clarify that position.
“First of all they seem to have conceded the next election, and assume Key will be PM.”
No, they haven’t, they’re asking a hypothetical question. An entirely valid one considering the discrepancies between Key’s opinions on whether NZ should have helped the US to invade Iraq.
“When Frog says “many would say” this is code for, “most in the Greens believe”.”
The US has pumped BILLIONS into the area, and what do you think that’s been spent on, infrastructure? This isn’t a belief, it’s a matter of public record. They may have done it with the best intentions, but that just makes them stupid. I guess whether describing this act as, “Sponsoring terror”, even unintentionally, is a matter of debate.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
In support of David’s assertion I doubt if any of our aircraft is serviceable enough to make it past Darwin, and this usually entails a delay in Brisbane to sort out aircraft problems found en route. Look at recent history of our aircraft.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
“First of all they seem to have conceded the next election, and assume Key will be PM. ”
Stop being disingenuous DPF. You have better reading skills than that. Frog is posing a hypothetical situation in which John Key is prime minister –
Frog in fact said …
“The real question is: Would John Key [if he were prime minister] answer Bush’s call and send troops to Iran?”
It’s an interesting rhetorical question, whether it’s practically possible or not.
“You just can’t have people around the Cabinet table who actually believe the US is worse than Iran. The US is far from perfect with its behaviour and choices, but really someone should send the Frog to Iran to live.
”
If we’re talking shere number of invasions and connections to political murders no state that exists today beats the US. In this respect the US is surely worse than Iran, and are the “world’s leading state sponsor of terror”. This isn’t to say that Iran is a nicer place to live, but frog never even indicated that. Do you even engage your brain slightly before typing this rubbish?
“Next the Greens will blame Stalin’s 20 million dead on the US, because hey in WWII they fought with Stalin as an ally, so hell that makes them responsible for everything he did since. ”
David – The Iran-Iraq conflict was a proxy war being fought by the US and USSR. The US (George Bush senior – who is now acknowledged to have been the defacto president behind the figure head Ronald Regan) supplied Saddam with the poisoness gass which he used to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians. So the US used Saddam to commit this war crime.
Oh and then we have Henry Kissanger, who was right behind Operation Condor,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
January 15th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
David – The Iran-Iraq conflict was a proxy war being fought by the US and USSR.
So you think the USSR was backing Iran?
Either somebody wasn’t around during the 80s, or spent the entire decade in a cave.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Ok daedalus_x – It would have been more accurate to say that the US used Saddam as a conduit in a proxy war against Khmeni’s Iran. Still doesn’t negate the fact that the US supplied inhumane and illegal weapons to Saddam to commit war crimes.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Still doesn’t negate the fact that the US supplied inhumane and illegal weapons to Saddam to commit war crimes.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt wrong, you might want to looks towards Germany, France and Italy for that.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I thought we were at war. L-Cpl Apiata won a VC in it.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
It’s very obvious who the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism is. And yet every day, the Bush Administration pushes more dollars into their coffers by provoking unnecessary tension with a state which is one of the more democratic in the region, and who is not the state in mention.
15 of the 17 bombers in the 9/11 attacks came from this country. They have used the oil revenues of the West to foster a militancy with their direct sponsorship of the extremist Wahabbi sect that they can no longer control, and which they take no responsibility for.
Its people, being denied democratic and just governance by their rulers, are turning to Islamic extremism and being encouraged by their rulers to point the finger at the West for their impotence, lest they find themselves subject to the people’s wrath.
This country presents a far more compelling case for deposition and regime change by force. Even as a leftist, I would support military action to liberate its people and to defeat the scourge of terrorism which is a by-product of its authoritarianism.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Ok daedalus_x – It would have been more accurate to say that the US used Saddam as a conduit in a proxy war against Khmeni’s Iran. Still doesn’t negate the fact that the US supplied inhumane and illegal weapons to Saddam to commit war crimes.
Wake up and smell the coffee Roger Nome. The world is not so full of lily-smelling democracies that we can afford to only help them out. Sometimes you’ve got to deal with the lesser evil to deal with the greater evil. Saddam was the lesser evil. Sometimes the lesser evil becomes the greater evil and then you’ve got to be man enough to deal with that. Saddam became the greater evil and the USA dealt with him. Admittedly they should have dealt with him in 1991 not waiting 12 years but that’s what you get when you have socialists like Bill Clinton in power.
Arming dictators is the price of being a superpower in this world we live in. You think the USA shoudln’t have armed Saddam, we wouldn’t be dealing with Iraqi militias and Iran building nuclear bombs, we’d be dealing with an Iranian superstate, new Persian Empire taking up Iran, Iraq, of course Saudi ARabia and the GUlf too, probably also Syria, Jordan… and you’d better believe they’d have had plenty of nuclear weapons for a while now.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Such as what Roger, would those be the AK47s, or the T72s that America supplied?
January 15th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Roger, Tane and co..
Why not simply say that you hate the USA?, it would save a lot of time.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Nome – in fairy land again are we? Who exactly acknowledges that George Bush senior was the de facto president? Last I heard the talking points from the left were that both the Bush presidents were too stupid to spell their own names – are you sure you’re reading from the right sheet?
January 15th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
15 of the 17 bombers in the 9/11 attacks came from this country.
This is a poorly thought part of your arguement PP, lets flip this – if 15 of the 17 hijackers (not bombers) came from Tonga, would you support bombing Tonga?
This country presents a far more compelling case for deposition and regime change by force. Even as a leftist, I would support military action to liberate its people and to defeat the scourge of terrorism which is a by-product of its authoritarianism.
Which would send the entire planet into a recession so deep, many first world countries would resemble that in Mad Max movies. Can you say $10/ltr for petrol? I know it sucks, I like the house of Saud about as much as you – but be a little realistic and wait until a decent alternative fuel source is found…..
January 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Bev:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-45
January 15th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Jeez you lefties should work out whether you like Wahabism or not…seems like when the US seeks to cobat it in places like Afghanistan, Wahabist Islam is deemed to be the ‘religion of peace’ and the US are ‘Racists’ etc…but when its in Saudi its “extremism” which needs to be replaced with “democracy”.
Incidentally, take a look at every other nation in that general local, you’ll find that the only nation where Arabs enjoy democracy, is Israel.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
<i>[DPF: If you can’t understand the difference between a humourous billboard (bet you hate Tom Scott cartoons also) and a serious political statement of the US being worse than Iran, then tough.]</i>
Except that they weren’t humorous in any way, they were just kind of silly and embarrassing. I see Key’s wisely distanced himself from your third party campaign, and now this from Deborah Coddington describing you as a liability to the National Party:
<blockquote><b>Deborah Coddington: What we could stand to see less of next year</b>
9. Ridiculously hyperbolic political billboards, such as the Free Speech Coalition’s Kim Jong-Il, Frank Bainimarama, and Chairman Mao so-called protests against the Electoral Finance Bill, with their fake quotes. Is spokesman David Farrar’s strident National Party activism destined to become that party’s 2008 election campaign albatross, like the Exclusive Brethren proved to be in 2005?</blockquote>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10484656&pnum=2
[DPF: How desperate is Tane when he starts quoting Deborah Coddington as an authority? Wasn't she Deputy Leader of the Libertarianz once incidentially?]
January 15th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I’m not going to start a crisis, I just think they should be put officially on notice to start undertaking meaningful reform towards a democratic constitutional monarchy.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“Last I heard the talking points from the left were that both the Bush presidents were too stupid to spell their own names”
Not true at all. George Bush senior was a successful businessman (even if he recieved a lot of help from his wife’s father, a wealthy banker who financially supported Hitler’s war effort). Bush senior was also director of the CIA for some time. So he was certainly no yokel. Bush junior on the other hand … well no need to go there.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Good God, the US gave Iraq Helicopters!! Er, Nome, what about the actual ingredients for the nerve agents? Possibly you can enlighten us as to where those originated? For the record, you might also want to also let us know where all the AK 47s, T72s, MI24 jets and Gazelle Helicopters originated…
January 15th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Oh Nome, to be honest I was waiting for you, lets cut the crap and I’ll respond to the m,ain points….
Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops.
The plants to make which were built by German company Karl Kobe, other German firms supplied precussors for sarin, tabun and mustard gas.
Or is your main gripe that Rumsfield went to Iraq?
“The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think it’s a devastating record”.
Do you actually know what these dual use items are? I dont, all I ever see is that phrase “dual use technology”. Advanced Computers, beakers, bunsen burners…… Is it the USA’s fault that Saddam used these for nefarious purposes? Is it Ford’s fault when someone runs down a pedestrian in their Ford Explorer?
According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq used to “calibrate” its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.
They gave them satallite imagery, I doubt if they stated it was only to be used for conventional attack that Iraq would have listened.
Quite frankly the rest of the quote is shit, doesnt implicate the USA much at all, especially when compared to the information here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
And quite frankly Im a little surprised you didnt pick up what I would say is the biggest stuff up by the Yanks in this regard, and that was them sending biological samples like Small Pox to Iraq, mind you Saddam said they needed it for medical research, the lying fibber eh?
January 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Bevan, surely you don’t expect anybody to take Wikipedia as a reputable link. Try http://www.conservapedia.com. That’s a good online encyclopaedia without any of the America-hating, the liberal bias or the aggressive atheism.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Many would say that the US was, citing their financial and technical support for Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein prior to turning against them.
I don’t think there’s any proof supporting the claim that the US ’supported Osama bin Laden’. He had plenty of his own money so its hard to see why he’d need the CIA, or vice-versa.
Saddam is another matter – its a matter of record that the US supported Iraq during the war against Iran and later sold him helicopters and chemical weapons that were used against the Kurds.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
“Matter of record that the US sold…chemical weapons that were used against the kurds” where exactly?
January 15th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Bevan, surely you don’t expect anybody to take Wikipedia as a reputable link. Try http://www.conservapedia.com. That’s a good online encyclopaedia without any of the America-hating, the liberal bias or the aggressive atheism.
I purposely used it as Nome used it as a source. Plus in my opinion Wikipedia is only as good as the sources referenced in the article.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Saddam is another matter – its a matter of record that the US supported Iraq during the war against Iran and later sold him helicopters and chemical weapons that were used against the Kurds.
Please outline these chemical weapons that the USA supplied or sold to Saddams regime.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Try http://www.conservapedia.com.
I could have done without clicking that link, hardly an example of an unbiased information source.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“so..don’t come over all ‘precious’ now..eh dpf..?”
If it was up to clueless commie dipshits like you Phil, anti war at all cost, Europe would still be suffereing under the Thousand Year Reich and European Jews would all be dead.
How bad was Castro in using arms to attack the legitimate government of Cuba?
January 15th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“Bush junior on the other hand … well no need to go there.”
Not for you there isn’t because as usual, all you’ve got are cowardly lies and vicious smears.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Russel with all this anti National and anti US rhetoric just places himself in a corner where its obvious the only coalition partner he would have is Labour. Strategically very dumb and no wonder the Greens are correctly labeled as “Poodles”.
Helen Clark can do as she likes knowing full well that the Greens under Russel will just go along. Even Philu has been cast out and its hardly a surprise Nandor wants to go.The Greens aint what they used to be.
There is no point in National even pretending to be nice to the Greens. They may as well just steal the real green policies and get the votes of those of us who endorse environmental issues.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Bevan, I think to you ‘biased’ means ‘christian and unashamed of its anglophone heritage’
January 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
“Saddam is another matter – its a matter of record that the US supported Iraq during the war against Iran and later sold him helicopters and chemical weapons that were used against the Kurds.”
Meanwhile the Tiananmen Square murderers, the anti free speech totalitarian scum, the uniform wearing Army Generals who control China by power that emanates from the barrel of a gun, are numbered amongst Helen Klark’s best friends on the international stage. I’d guess you’d deny that she was at all complicit in the crimes of these totalitarian scum right??
January 15th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
” and now this from Deborah ”
What a confused erratic wanker she has turned out to be.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Deafening silence from the lefties at present… where is that “matter of record” evidence which one would imagine to be so easy to come by?
January 15th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Bevan, I think to you ‘biased’ means ‘christian and unashamed of its anglophone heritage’
Not really, I just prefer my information sources to have as little propoganda as possible if they are going to provide any value to an discussion at all.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Sorry to deviate off topic here, but holding up Deborah Coddington as an example of clear-headed strategic thinking? Who were you thinking of quoting next, Tane? Alamein Kopu?
What we could stand to see less of next year: Abject failures endeavouring to lecture the rest of us.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Still no reply from the lefty trolls about where all Saddam’s AK-47’s. T-72’s, and MiGs came from.
Frankly, the story that the US was a main former sponsor of Saddam is something that can be seen through by any schoolboy wargamer. Typical of the LIES, LIES, LIES, of the anti-US Left.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
So proclaiming that you are a christian who is pro-US and anti-dictatorship is ‘propaganda’, but of course atheists, US-haters and people who like dictatorships except when the US gives them money are just unbiased individuals trying to share truths with us all?
January 15th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
So proclaiming that you are a christian who is pro-US and anti-dictatorship is ‘propaganda’, but of course atheists, US-haters and people who like dictatorships except when the US gives them money are just unbiased individuals trying to share truths with us all?
My god you need help. People like you make us right wingers look like deluded nut jobs, much like Nome does for the left side of the political spectrum.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Well, I did predict in my post that my rhetorical question, [yes, DPF, it was rhetorical] was likely to cause a flame war. While some may see my statement as anti-US, all I was really doing was stating that the pot [US] was calling the kettle [Iran] black. In the case of King George, this is definitely the case. With the suspension of habeus corpus in the US, the illegal wire-tapping, the imprisonment and torture of US and foreign nationals without trial, George has gone a long way towards destroying what most people respect in America. Feel free to call me anti-George, but not anti-American. I want the old America back. Not perfect, tortured by its own contradictions, but otherwise trying its best to live up to its ideals.
Interestingly, I still haven’t seen any comment on whether the Nats would or would not support a Bush led military adventure in Iran. And sorry, whoever posted it, the Greens have not supported Helen’s troops in Iraq because NZ hasn’t sent any.
[DPF: You'll get comment on sending troops to a mythical war in Iran around the same time as you'll get comment on whether NZ will send troops to invade Fiji to restore democracy there. And Helen has sent troops to Iraq - they spent a year there in 2004]
January 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Summarising from Stratfor:
Things are going quite sweetly for GW at the moment. In exchange for dialing down the rhetoric on Iranian nukes the Iranians have reduced their support for insurgency in Iraq. However, the latest small boat provocation of the US navy in the Gulf allowed Bush to appeal to the Gulf Arabs where they matter most, ie, in the pocket. Bush can now legitimately claim that Iran poses a direct threat to much of the transport of Gulf oil, and get the Arabs on side and isolate Iran.
The Iranian nuke threat is real, but a little way in the future; but shutting down Gulf oil with a tanker war is real and immediate and much more likely to bring the Arabs and Western nations including China on side. In defence of their little war game against the US navy the Iranians described it as “nothing unusual”.. and thus made the point that they regularly test the possibilities of closing off the Strait of Hormuz.. and Bush will be playing up this threat to the Gulf Arabs.
Bush is playing a pretty good game.. he accentuating a much more urgent threat to the Arabs, promising he’ll protect Gulf shipping and bring in the Arab states behind him on isolating Iran. Even China has to be on side with this because of it’s desperate need for large and regular supplies of oil.
So is Bush going to attack Iran? No, but under the right circumstances it might be in the interests of the Gulf states, Europe and China to demand that the US protect Gulf shipping and remove the more obvious Iranian threats to the area.
JC
January 15th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Frog, The engineers sent to Iraq were soldiers and engineers both, ie they were not civilians. Also what about the war in Afghanistan? Any comment?
January 15th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Bev, seems you’re largely right here and the Germans have the dirtest hands as far as support for Saddam’s use of chemical weapons goes, and I have no problem admiting that I was wrong to say that the US had been the supplied Saddam with such weapons. However, the US did actively fail to offically condem Saddam for these war crimes.
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
In addition to this the US provided Saddam with logistical and financial support during Saddam’s war with Iran – so their hands are far from clean.
Then, as you point out there was this:
So does giving biological WMD’s to a know sadistic dictor make the US a sponsor of state terror? I leave it for the readers to decide.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I’m with JC and Stratfor’s interpretation.
The US needs to reach an agreement with Iran over Iraq. Neither state has the power or ability to impose their own preferred solution on Iraq without the other’s cooperation. There are clearly high-level discussions going on between the US and Iran.
Much of the posturing, pressuring and “ground laying” in these discussions is happening via publicised events. The NIE assessment of Iran’s progress with its nuclear programme seems to be a part of that. The recent media about the IRGC & US Navy in the Hormuz Straits should also be seen as part of a broader engagement between the US & Iran.
The US may be realising it can’t get general Arab support for a “contain Iran” platform based on Iran’s nuclear programme.
Most likely the US is trying “Plan B” … let’s get the Arabs to support us in pressuring Iran by drawing their attention to the threat Iran poses to the Arab states oil revenues.
I don’t think anyone is seriously expecting the US to invade Iran. I don’t even think there’s many people seriously expecting the US to attack Iran from the air … that would threaten the US’s goal of finalising things in Iraq.
************************************************
It seems easy for us Kiwis in particular to take a holier-than-thou view of geopolitics, because to be candid we don’t have any meaningful heft in the bigger strategic picture. So we can afford to be the virginal innocent wringing its hands on the sidelines.
In the meantime America has to employ a lot more realpolitik than we ever have to face up to. I can think of plenty of areas where I think America could have behaved in a more principled way. But all the same I accept that sometimes they have to deal with the devil.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“any would say that the US was, citing their financial and technical support for Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein prior to turning against them.”
David those are undisputed and verfiable facts, unless certain facts have an inbuilt anti-American bias you are talking out of your hat.
[DPF: They are not facts, the US has never supported Osama Bin Laden in the way implied and it is anti-Americanism unless one also condemns NZ for supporting Stalin]
January 15th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
“Things are going quite sweetly for GW at the moment.”
Can I nominate that for funniest comment of the year so far?
January 15th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I havent read much of the above except sonic’s last.
I agree – usa backed Laden and Saddam. I guess that makes them terrorist supporters.
And then last night on some foreign news channel I see Bush selling $US20billion worth of arms to the saudis!!! BUT WEREN’T THE 9/11 TERRORISTS FROM SAUDI ARABIA?
W T F ?
January 15th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
vto … I think the key dynamic in Saudi Arabia is the relationship between the Saud family and the Wahhabi establishment.
The Saud family recognise that democracy would be the end of the them … they’re a relatively small tribal group who’d never win an election. So no voice for anyone else then.
Like any minority group dominating a larger population you need a big buddy to help you out. Enter the USA.
The USA (i) just generally is the immoral “Great Satan” type outfit and (ii) has too many troops & expats in the Saudi “holy land” for Wahhabi comfort.
So … you end up with the USA & the Saudi establishment being quite cosy. And the Wahhabi religious authorities rarking up the masses to drive out the infidels and purify the Holy Land.
And then overlaid on top of that the Saud family find it’s useful to opiate the Saudi masses with Wahhabi-istic zeal and jihad, so they’re too busy to question (i) just why the Saud family are in control of Saudi Arabia, (ii) why does no one else get a say and (iii) what’s with all the girls & booze & immoral behaviour of the Saud family on their overseas excursions.
There’s more than enough contradictory motivations and incentives there to create never-ending turmoil.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Virtualmark, cheers. I had heard about that type of carry-on.
It is exactly why the usa is going down down down in people’s cred stakes. And politicians everywhere frankly. If hypocrisy had a stench the whole world would smell like Rotorua.
Give more power to the people. Less to the authorities.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Yeah, take it like man Nome, you got caught lyin’ again.
Damn you’re thick.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
vto … I’m not sure what the best path is for countries like the USA.
Sure, we’d all like them to be pure and altruistic, but that only works if the countries you’re dealing with are also pure and altruistic … and that’s just not going to happen.
And they have so many interests to protect, and those interests extend all around the world, so they’re inevitably going to have a presence (ie meddle) in other countries.
Added to which they’ve consciously chosen a defence posture of not fighting their wars on American soil … ie they’ve consciously chosen to fight their wars on other people’s soil.
Those sort of assumptions are actually quite rational, but they lead the USA into some unpopular escapades.
I think it’s naive not to expect the USA to show some sort of realpolitik, and not to put extreme pressure on other countries to align with the USA’s interests. I don’t necessarily like that sort of behaviour, but it’s quite rational.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Right, so Frog thinks that army engineers in Basra aren’t troops, and roger nome/phillipjohn thinks that russian weapons and german and french technology means that the americans armed Hussein.
What an interesting day. At least phillipjohn admitted he was wrong (even if he had to try and weasel out of being caught lying again…)
sonic is just trolling as usual – black is white, americans are evil etc etc – must be the scottish way?
January 15th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Friendly Reminder; Which country stopped the japs invading Oz nd NZ in WW2 ?
Name the nation that sends 747 loads of food around the world to needy people ?
In the event of a nuclear exchange and only one of the nuclear armed states had survived,would you prefer that state to be China,Russia or USA ?
The UNs budget is 40% funded by just one country-Who?
and so on….you get the picture O frog,green with envy.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
“George has gone a long way towards destroying what most people respect in America.”
What utter worthless juvenile crap. The measures Bush has taken to combat terrorism are necessary due to the peculiar nature of the terrorist forces the US is fighting. If a suitcase nuke goes off in New York, it will be hate driven irrational and raving bigots like Frog who will be the first to scream that Bush hadn’t done enough.
The fact is that the right to criticism of the government is still totally undiminished by anything Bush has done. You cannot say that about the Klark government, attacking the Exclusive Brethren and the right to freedom of political expression in a way the Bush administration would never even dream of. Frogblog while so predictably complaining about the actions of the Bush administration simultaneously supports Klark. What arrant hypocrisy.
This pathetic nonsense is a measure of the immature and illogical thinking processes that underpin the writing of the extremist leftists on Frogblog. Its why I never normally read it. Rambling logically inconsistent commie pissants without a clue.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Sonic
If we are talking about funniest comment of the year, this one is in the running….
“Unlike our ratbiter, who’s sunny disposition and joyous attitude to life shines through in almost every comment!”
If course I am biased cos I dont like Redbaiter
but it was a great come back.
There was another comment about 4 days ago that was possibly funnier but I cant remember what it was about
might have been Kimble
January 15th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
virtualmark, I read some comments further back and tend to agree with you in that it IS easy here in NZ to sit back and avoid the hard realities of life in the more packed and older parts of the world.
The US simply reflects one part of humanity, for better or worse, as we all do in our small ways.
One thing though, very briefly – the US is a system where the power is spread so wide that no single person, or even entity, can control it. It is spread through the judiciary, the executive, the elected reps, the military, the biz world, the churches, the … etc etc etc. Each has some type of power and control and a form of veto over one another.
As such, as no one person can control it the system is effectively out of control and is running on and bending and moving all the time, according to the structure in place. As far as I know there has not been a system like this before as previously power was more concentrated and hence controllable.
It will be very interesting to see where it ends up as it runs towards some form of stop.
Bring on the cloning improvements as I would like to be around to watch (from the safety of my living room of course)
January 15th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
With respect to some above comments regarding weapons supplied to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war and Kurdish gassing incidents:
War with Iran is much more likely than some seem to think. And the consequences will be devasting to the world economy.
Iran, China, or Russia won’t tolerate any bombing of Iran’s facilities, and that is looking very likely indeed. Olmert is reported today to have told a cabinet committee that “All options that prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capabilities are legitimate within the context of how to grapple with this matter.”
Add that comment to the Bush comments about (a) disregarding the NIE, (b) all options are on the table (meaning “nukular”) and (c) standing beside Israel no matter what, and we begin to see a potential issue.
The consequences of China and Russia becoming involved are obvious. Even if they don’t, Iran will immediately escalate the Iraq conflict and possibly cut the supply lines to the US Forces there. The US know this – just why do you think ALL 36 of those intelligence agencies issued NIE? There have been many reports of the military resisting Cheney’s insane Iran adventure (that’s where its coming from). The Stratfor comment from JC is not taking into account the manouvering both Russia and China has been engaging in against the US not only in the ME but elsewhere and both nations could well use an Iran strike to deal the US a serioud blow.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
“They are not facts, the US has never supported Osama Bin Laden in the way implied “
Well unless it implied they did not fund his group and give him weapons.
Really David, have you forgotten your hero’s Maggie and Ronnie and their unflinching support for the “Afghan freedom fighters” battling the evil empire?
Or is this another “we have always been at war with Eastasia” type of day?
[DPF: Go check the facts about what his involvement was then. And they were 100% right to support the Afghan people against the USSR, even if some of them were unsavoury, just as NZ was right to support Stalin in the war against Hitler]
January 16th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Brzeznski provoked Russia to invade before he initiated Operation Cyclone.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Yes: if it’s politically expedient to support psychotic Islamic fundamentalists or the greatest mass-murderer in human history, we should certainly do so. Er, why exactly?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:45 am
nice one DPF
January 16th, 2008 at 10:48 am
It’s very easy to find out who the major suppliers of arms to Saddam were – it’s a pity the extreme anti-American Left prefer their lies to facts.
go to
http://armstrade.sipri.org/arms_trade/values.php
and dial up Iraq, imports and a time frame.
The biggest suppliers by far were Russia, China and France – who were funnily enough the very countries that prevented Saddam’s overthrow being done via the UN.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“Go check the facts about what his involvement was then.”
I have done, he was part of the Mujahdeen being funded by the US and Saudi Arabia to fight the Russians.
You seem to be denying that fact then justifying it David, do try and get your line straight.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Yes NeilM, my post was directly specifically at those who denied the U.S. had supplied agents of chemical warfare.
I just think there’s sometimes appalling ignorance displayed by some who seem the imagine the US is always 100% true and just and the baddies are always 100% wrong.
That’s a childish, naive view of reality which can be easily negated if you approach the history with an open mind. However if you approach it with a mindset like some pining Reaganite refugeee from the 80’s, then perhaps that’s why you end up with the transparently incorrect analyses promulgated by some. And BTW, in case you wonder I’m a lifelong conservative, not that orientation matters when you’re analysing geopolitics.