Clark claims Key would have killed 60 Kiwis
Fresh from Michael Cullen blaming John Key for the global financial crisis, Helen Clark is saying that 60 Kiwis would have died in Iraq if National had got into Government.
Good as always to see the PM focused on the future. But let us dissect her rather hysterical claims.
First of all Helen keeps forgetting to mention a rather important fact. Helen did send troops into Iraq. Sure she sent them in the post-invasion phase, but that is the phase where most have died, and which has lasted the longest.
Now some may claim that this is somehow different – they were just engineers that were technically troops. Well go look at the Wikipedia article on the Iraq war.
See that NZ flag there. Yes we are listed as a belligerent force. I repeat – Helen Clark sent troops to Iraq. Yes there was a UN mandate, but there has been a UN mandate for all the troops post invasion – up until the end of 2008.
The troops were kept there for a full 12 to 13 months – two entire rotations of six months.
Now Clark says that as there have been 4,000 US troops killed, if NZ had sent troops in (which we did) we would have had 60 pro-rata deaths.
Even the media are sceptical of this, noting that Australia has had no deaths (actually there have been two).
Now Clark’s pro-rata calculation is based on a premise that NZ would have had troops there the entire six years (and Clark had them there for one year herself) and they would have been doing operations as dangerous as the US military (which is ludicrous but we will come to that).
Now the US military has 2.9 million personnel. The NZ military has 11,000. So pro-rata would be 15 not 60.
But as I said, Clark herself sent troops in, during the post-invasion phase. Luckily none died. So there is no reason to think National would have had any casualties in the post-invasion phase. The difference between the two parties is whether they would have sent troops for the invasion phase.
So how many US casualties were there during the invasion phase? The invasion phase was from March 20 to May 1 2003. During that time there were only 139 US deaths.
Helen Clark sent troops to Iraq in September 2003. So even if we extend to the end of August, there were only an additional 150 US causalities for a total of 289.
Now if we use Helen’s pro-rata calculation against 139 and 289 we get 0.5 and 1.1. So in fact the likely death toll of taking part in the invasion was maybe one casualty.
By comparison we have had four soliders killed in East Timor!
So the toll from taking part in the invasion of Iraq would pro-rata be 1/4 the death toll from being in East Timor.
Incidentally during the 13 months Helen Clark had troops in Iraq, there were 773 US deaths, which is 20% of the 4,000 total. The year they were there was one of the most dangerous!
September 17th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Where is the trust?
It is well known that Helen Clark has integrity issues.
She lies, BADLY. End of story.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Have the Greens been handing out free wacky weed at pre-election parties around the beehive
because lately Cullen and Clark, (not to mention Winston) sound completely nuts!
September 17th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Further proof that this government are either liars or just is very bad at maths!
Perhaps this is why school exams are getting so easy. So that future Labour MPs can pass their exams and qualify for university so they can study politics!
September 17th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Great post DPF. It seems as though the PM might have well and truly pooped in her own nest today!
September 17th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Yes, Klark is unusually desperate for a hit on Key, and dragging out the old Iraq war chestnut must means she ain’t got as much as I thought she might have. In fact there hasn’t been an attack they’ve tried in the last few days that has risen above the level of pathetic. Wonder what desperate deceitful dishonest cowardly smear they’re saving up for the last week of the election. It’ll need to be a hell of a lot better than this.
Of course the real pity is that if NZ had sent troops to fight along side the US, we’d still have a working relationship with our Anzus partners, not have any need to suck up to Chinese totalitarian murderers, and would now be basking in a warm glow of pride for courageously assisting in the landmark event of establishing a peaceful democracy in the Middle East where once there was a totalitarian dictatorship, slaughter and terror.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Why do we need DPF explaning this to us? Where are the journos with these calculations and the overpaid faces on TV? Couldn’t they do these calculations? As I never watch TV for exactly these reasons I’m happy to be corrected. But I’m sure no one on these overpaid jobs could present nor has presented the public with this information.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
just all about massaging the numbers..eh dpf..?
..nothing about the immoralities of the invasion destruction of iraq..
..they don’t call him simon ‘all the way with bush’ power..for nothing..
..our premier armchair warrior..
..slavering over the thought of war..
..wanting it sooo bad..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 17th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
I am convinced that Helen Clark’s obsession with clinging to Absolute Power clearly shows she is mentally unwell.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Given the state of the New Zealand army and its commitments in Afghanistan and East Timor, I don’t think in reality John Key, had he been Prime Minister, would have made a substantially bigger commitment to Iraq than Helen Clark did. The difference would have been the tone he used. He wouldn’t have criticised the US, instead he would have said: “Yes, Mr President. We will provide moral support and dedicate resources to reconstruct Iraq in the post-invasion phase. Due to our commitments in Afghanistan and Timor, we would be stretched to commit any more, but we are supportive of the efforts the US, Britain, and Australia are carrying out.”
It is pretty dirty campaigning to scare elderly Grey Power voters about sixty body bags.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
It must be election time.
Clark has gone back into the 3 yearly slag off our allies mode.
This is the time you need a cluster bomb to land on her ministerial car and fuck her up big time. It would be the biggest bang she’s had since the early 80’s with Judith.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Voltaire is so incensed at Clark’s vomit inducing comments that he decided to post the following http://watchingbrief.blogspot.com/2008/09/helen-clark-and-hypocrisy.html
September 17th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Good analysis David. Thank you.
The problem is that Comrade Clark is not the slightest bit interested in the truth or objective analysis.
She’s interested in whatever minute poll support can be gained from a baritone sound bite directed at a cluster of microphones. The strategy works (at least it has done so in the past) and the facts are irrelevant.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Seriously, this government has reality issues!
Using the pro rata system favoured by dear leader, why have we had no-one killed in Afghanistan?
September 17th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
So by that logic Michael Joseph Savage was responsible for about 200,000 potential deaths because he allied us with the Soviet Union
Fuck that woman is absolute disgrace
September 17th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Is it a farcical premise for Hels to re-imagine the 2002 election outcome? How the hell was Bill every going to win that election then promptly decide his first and only priority would be to purchase Qantas tickets for each and every New Zealand defence personnel to be flown to Iraq in 2003? Once there they would promptly buff up their shiny bayonets, attach them to their Enfield rifles and lead the charge to Baghdad ahead of US and British troops, thoughtfully soaking up bullets for our “Allies and really, really, really good friends”.
The above scenario still wouldn’t get us a Free Trade Agreement with the US. To get that New Zealand has to wake up, start acting like actual Allies instead of spoilt hippy brats and scrap the Anti-Nuclear Legislation (Anti-American Legislation).
Hels desperation to hold on to power is making her a fantasist.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
It does make you angry. These labour leaders are just telling so many fanciful stories. I believe , the strategy is to repeat monstrous allegations (John Key caused the credit crunch, John Key killed 60 people etc…) until people start believing them.
Once again, where are the National bulldogs to ridicule the labour leadership?
September 17th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I also have to quietly wonder if Helen Clark would have been so quick to front up at Tukaki Marae, Te Kaha, if the event had been Willie Apirana’s tangi, rather than the rapurous homecoming of a V.C. Jus’ saying, folks.
The simple truth is that during Helen Clark’s political career, successive governments have sent New Zealand’s servicemen and women into harm’s way in peacekeeping operations from Namibia to East Timor. They’ve included members of my own family, and none of them have been particularly naive about what they volunteered for.
Might be time for folks on both sides of the political divide to focus on policy, and stop using servicemen who can’t respond in kind as offensive weapons in a political war.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Helen being de-briefed : http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/images/portraits/pm_nz1.jpg
yes, it’s a worksafe image…
September 17th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I can’t help but wonder if the relentless (and increasingly shrill) attacks on John Key will actually be counter productive for Labour. John Key can just keep smiling and repeating “we’re focusing on the future” which I suspect will have more appeal to the swinging voter than another piece of so called dirt. Secondly, even the media seem to be increasingly sceptical of these claims. Until recently they tended to print anything said largely uncritically (albiet giving a right of reply to Key) but the if the claims are going to be this ridiculous the media are simply going to laugh. Guyon Espiner could barely keep from rolling his eyes regarding the Cullen calls about Merryl Lynch.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Or how about this one…
Helen plans her next art forgery: http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/images/portraits/pm_nz2.jpg
September 17th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Clark has the headline.
This becomes the talking point for her minions.
Your careful rationalising of the realities are irrelevant.
The sad thing is Clark needs to deceive those from whom she needs support.
Those who trust her.
How very sad.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I just don’t get Helen Clark. The woman claims to be intelligent then she does stupid stupid power at any price shit like this. What is she on? Perhaps D4J is onto something about a few sandwiches short of a picnic of late. She grandstands on her integrity while trying to score points that make her a hypocrite. I’ve never liker her ideology but good god – what is left of the once proud woman who had her wits about her?
September 17th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
“Now if we use Helen’s pro-rata calculation against 139 and 289 we get 0.5 and 1.1. So in fact the likely death toll of taking part in the invasion was maybe one casualty.”
Well truth is the first victim in war.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
“The woman claims to be intelligent then she does stupid stupid power at any price shit like this.”
Being a clever manipulator of truth and being clever are not mutually exclusive.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Don’t forget we’ve been sending our troops into Iraq and Afghanistan in tranches of about 120, so we’d have had a 50% fatality rate by Helen math. Also, the 20 countries below the US and UK in the Iraq coalition have suffered 130 deaths, so Helen math means we would have had nearly 50% of the fatality rate there.
Note too that we’ve lost more soldiers to accidents in NZ than we have in six years of war in Afghanistan and a year in Iraq.
JC
September 17th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
“It is pretty dirty campaigning to scare elderly Grey Power voters about sixty body bags.”
Agreed, though the perfect audience for an anti-war pitch.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Hell, we could save lives by getting them into conflict zones as quickly as possible
September 17th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
The truth has never got in the way of a good old fashion Labour election campaign. Unfortunately the electorate as a whole is a fairly stupid animal. Helen has been lying for 9 years now and knows well if you repeat something often enough it becomes the ‘truth’. Remember the ‘terrible’ nineties bollacks. The worry is the Nats lack the killer instinct to show what a ridiculous waste of oxygen this woman is. Or maybe it’s just part of their ‘positive’ campaign to totally ignore comrade clark and her lying socialist minions!
September 17th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
JC
Great stuff, it’s information like that which puts it into perspective. The public health waiting lists have probably killed more people over the same time. Clark’s gone mad – as a meat axe.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
“just all about massaging the numbers..eh dpf..?
..nothing about the immoralities of the invasion destruction of iraq..
..they don’t call him simon ‘all the way with bush’ power..for nothing..
..our premier armchair warrior..
..slavering over the thought of war..
..wanting it sooo bad..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)”
Philu: sometime you scan just like JP Donleavy, I love it.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Just how many people have been murdered and maimed in her years of power. Traffic Revenue being more important than Citizen Security!
And given Cunliffes, Cullens, and her logic, they are (LABOUR) responsible for all the Natural Deaths in NZ. They would have lived longer in a Free Market Society.
Just compare Mortality Rates in the old Comecon Countries on a ‘Before and After’ basis.
The Media need to reproduce the pictures of ‘GI Jane’ with the British/Kiwi Contingent. Wonder which picture she ended putting her name on in the end?
September 17th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
“The invasion phase was from March 20 to May 1 2003. During that time there were only 139 US deaths.”
So if we had joined the invasion we would have , in all likelihood, experienced zero deaths and garnered considerable brownie points with the U.S. ( and more importantly Australia.) Instead we succumbed to the populist anti-war message promulgated by the likes of Keith Locke.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
redbaiter_baiter
It’s perhaps as foolish to assert we might have had a likelihood of zero deaths as it is to assert a likelihood of 60. 1-5 might be an agreeable margin to consider as we ponder the implications.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Is Hels going to recycle all the same tired old arguments she used in the 2005 election?
How appropriate for the tired old candidate to do so. Too bad she’ll lose by a landslide.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Australia’s casualty rate is point 01%. On that basis one NZ solider may have lost a finger
September 17th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
>Helen Clark is saying that 60 Kiwis would have died in Iraq if National had got into Government.
Still safer than being admitted to a NZ hospital.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Fair enough burt: lets say 1 – 5.
Whatever it is, it is still less than the number of New Zealanders who will die this week in motor vehicle accidents or from smoking or over-eating etc etc. Soldiers join the army to fight wars, it seems churlish of the government not to let them.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
It appears the 2007 Report for Congress doesn’t include NZ?
“CRS Report for Congress dated 15 July 2007
The latest unclassified DOD statistics indicate that as of July 1, about 156,250
U.S. troops are in Iraq, with approximately 20,000 additional military support
personnel in the region. About 11,450 non-U.S. troops are also in theater, with
Britain being the largest contributor. Other nations contributing troops include
Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia (Gruzia), Japan, Kazakhstan,
Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Singapore,
Slovakia, South Korea, and Ukraine.”
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL31701.pdf
September 17th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
How many planeloads of Kiwi’s flying to live permanently in Australia each week does 60 Kiwis represent?
September 17th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Only 60?
400 a year are dying on hospital waiting lists!
September 17th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Prior to the US invasion the UN had to make up its mind whether to support it or not. I was against the invasion so I went to a protest at Cathedral Square in Chch. Tim Barnett got up to speak, in a quite rousing tone of voice. He was at pains to mention his long history in the left including supporting the Zanu PF liberation struggle in Zimbabwe in the 70’s (he didn’t qualify this!! despite farmers being booted off the land at the time of his speech) and the ANC liberation struggle in South Africa.
He then told us that NZ would not support the invasion…unless the UN said so! and was loudly booed all round the Square.
Labour did not support the US going without UN approval, but if anyone remembers the time they were very very cagey about offering an opinion on the grounds for the war. It is half true that they kept us out of the initial invasion, the other half is that the UN did, ie policy made in New York not Washington.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
redbaiter_baiter
With you all the way on that. As I said earlier a hospital waiting list is probably more dangerous than serving in Iraq. As to letting them go, interesting perspective. All countries have sovereignty over their own forces so they do need to infact ‘let them go’. It gets interesting when we consider the reasons and looking at the risks vs the rewards it seems to be politics, politics and more politics. Nothing more nothing less and I never expect anything more from Helen Elizabeth Clark.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
redbaiter_baiter “Well truth is the first victim in war.”
probably the only victim too
September 17th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Having served in a couple of these ‘more dangerous under National’ theatres, I don’t intend to give the body count any more oxygen. However, I would add that this represents a new low in NZ politics. This is a woman who jeered our soldiers as they left for Vietnam and then offered them an apology in Parliament this year without ever once saying the word ‘sorry’. She claimed that, since her student days, she had become wiser about such matters. Today’s speech proved otherwise. Not only has she not shown herself to be any the wiser but has openly demonstrated her real view of the many brave New Zealanders, past and present, who serve their country – that, to her, they are merely pawns to be used for political gain.
If there is a shred of truth to what Clark said, then she should look to the abysmal state of our defences under the First Labour Government of the late 1930s and reflect on how differently 2NZEF might have fared without the rhetoric that has again been heard from this Labour-led coalition since 1999. Perhaps the most truthful statement made by Clark in that speech was about her inability to see clearly from one eye! It is clearly the one that the rest of us use to see people as human beings, not just votes.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Herald on Helen Clark to Grey Power
“In her speech she talked about the need for early health checks and said she had a lazy right eye which was never treated and she could now see little out of it”
I didn’t know that, but explains a lot – I could suggest a patch…..Arrrh!
September 18th, 2008 at 1:48 am
60? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAA
Stupid stupid stupid. The Aussies were there from the start and have had TWO casualties. TWO! And i think one of those wasnt in combat.
NZ missed an opportunity here. Imagine all the cool stuff our guys could have pinched of the Americans! We could have had plated vests and night visions goggles for half of the defense force by now!
“..slavering over the thought of war..
..wanting it sooo bad..”
phule, that crossed the line. You are an awful parent, a dole bludger, and are completely incapable of functioning in any sort of healthy way in modern society.
Feel hard done by? What if i I had said that you creamed your pants at the thought of people being tortured and shot? Which is essentially what you just did to Simon Power.
Which would you prefer?
You have no right to complain about anything anyone says about you ever again. You. Dick.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:28 am
Klark has lost the plot.
This is the same woman who
* has sent SAS troops to Afghanistan & Iraq & Papua New Guinea etc
* has a happy, hetero-sexual monogamous relationship
* cant see a problem with ETS, EFA, Winston
Credibility – Zero.
Trust Factor – Zero.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:39 am
I think you’ll find that Hels is a “Dirty Birdie”
September 18th, 2008 at 6:01 am
We had other ‘troops’ in Iraq too. SAS members on loan served there.
Helen knows that.
Poor deluded phule – understands nothing about the human condition.
Little lesson for you phule – In the entire human history – Peace is just a time between wars.
That’s the problem with you green idiots, you dream of changing thousands of years of human behaviour in a couple of decades as you sit comfortably in the conditions created for you by all the men and women that died in the last World War.
Your grip on reality is tenuous, at best.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Clark and Cullen need to get over their pathological hate of anyone who threatens their hold on power. They risk becoming figures of fun.
I just wish John Key had the guts to call them on this.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Kimble – “The Aussies were there from the start and have had TWO casualties. ”
I wonder what makes Klark think our troops are so incompetent they they’d do thirty times worse than the aussies ? Does she think they’re poorly trained ? Poorly equipped ? If so who’s fault does she think that is ?
September 18th, 2008 at 7:02 am
What a disgusting insult to our honourable and highly respected military. If National don’t call for her immediate resignation from power then they show the characteristics of a weak lilly livered bunch of frightened fools, who do not have the appropriate credentials to govern. Klark’s gutter sniping has gone far beyond acceptable standards and the Doctors in white coats will have to fix her deluded mind some time in the future. What a disgrace. Mad as a March Hare!
September 18th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Someone sho9uld tell Clark the Australians actually suffered zero casualties in Iraq. Zero, zilch, niz, nada. Iraq has been a safer place for troops than has been Australia.There were two deaths from accidental causes. There were no deaths caused by enemy action. They might as well have died in Australia, along with all the other accidental deaths of servicemen amnd women.
She reminds me very much of Obama, preaching to her already converted audience of leftists which ker campaign fals to bits.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Casualties are a part of war. If we are going to stop islamofascism then a few live will be lost but many more will be saved in the long run and our freedom will be preserved. Get over it.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Klark is courting the Winston heartland of greypower oldies (with classic winnie exnophobic rhetoric) so she is obviously going to cull Winnie juuuust before the election.
Hulun and Mikhael are playing the suicide cards – anything to get labour the max. possible party votes and list seats (at the moment labour are ab fab fucked).
So, the liarbore executive have obviously, realistically given up on winning and are focused on a spoiling strategy. But have to give the impression to the faithful and stupid left support base in the unons that its still worth fighting for (hah ha).
How does national counter Kamakaze Kullen and Hiroshima Hulun?
1) Stay away from the shit slinging – Hulun and Mikhael are professional evil fuckers (and the public know it and arent to happy but tweedle dee and tweedle dum are gambling one last time on the apathy of the voters-they got away with it last time huh?)
2) Campaign on what people want – more post tax income, more nz grass roots values, less gummint big brother, less expensive beauraucratic scandal, less pc rbbish, less winston, less mikhael, less hulun
3) Project leadership, morals, ethics, affiliation with the people.
4) “the economy stupid’ as the yanks so elloquently put it ,last time round.
Labour are bluffing.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Talking about defence policy, I notice that NZ First (http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/policies/defence.php) promise to:
“review the disposal process of the Skyhawks, Air Mackies and the M113s”
That’d be the Aermacchis they’d be talking about. I’m assuming that who ever wrote the policy had only ever heard about the aircraft and never read about them, and didn’t realise they were manufactured by foreign people with a funny name.
Oh, and please don’t hate me for visiting a Peters website… I got there from Hooton’s page.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Fact – Clark sent New Zealand soldiers to Iraq.
Fact – Bill English, Don Brash and John Key did not.
So that’ll be more votes for National and less for Labour then.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Fact: Kamakaze Kullen and Hiroshima Hulun
September 18th, 2008 at 8:05 am
She appears to have done her pro-rata calculation based on total population – 300m : 4.5m = 4000 : 60
Funnily enough that works out to give more deaths than any other method. I wonder how many increasingly-ridiculous methods she tried until she got one that was satisfactorily high.
By the same logic we’ve lost 9 soldiers in Afghanistan already.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:42 am
“I’ve never liker her ideology but good god – what is left of the once proud woman who had her wits about her?”
A more perfect eulogy could not have been written. Like watching the once great fighter step into the ring one time too many and the great athlete run a race too far , Clark has destroyed her legacy & reputation and will be remembered as a sad bitter woman who hung on to power way past her time. I never liked her ideology either, but I could understand how some people respected her.
That’s surely gone, with only die hards left grasping at memories.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:45 am
In her day hulun was a respectable politician with admirable views and politics.
unfortunately that day was some 8 years ago.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Everything that needs to be said has probably been said. Her utterances represent a new low in NZ politics. For myself I think she is exhibiting the classic symptoms of a person under too much pressure and flailing out wildly in blind panic hoping that something will connect.
She needs ‘professional’ help … Winston, where are you?
September 18th, 2008 at 8:58 am
The real question now is: how often does Clark make things up on the back on an envelope?
September 18th, 2008 at 9:03 am
The first casualty of war is the truth.
Also true of socialism.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:05 am
We should never have been in Iraq or Afghanistan, not even to defend them from the illegal aggressions of the US and UK.
Now, about this “Hulun” business. I’m not sure I quite understand. I see where the (terribly clever) “liarbore” thing comes from. But is the spelling “Hulun” supposed to be mocking the Prime Minister of New Zealand for having a pronounced Kiwi accent? Isn’t that more of an Australian thing to do? (“fush and chups”)
September 18th, 2008 at 9:06 am
The first casualty of war is the truth.
Also true of socialism.
Socialism’s actually the second casualty of war.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:24 am
DPF – way to cite in-authoritative garbage to make a point about someone spinning in-authoritative garbage. Wikipedia is not an accurate source, and I think you will find a great difference between reconstruction and belligerence (even if whichever chump who put that particular table together couldn’t). There is nothing official about that listing of belligerence. But that doesn’t make HC’s comments any better I hasten to add – the last thing I want to be seen is being supportive of our dear leader…
Yet, perhaps the actual point of your post is unfair – HC is simply factoring in the run-down state of our military, hence the wildly disproportionate casualties compared with other ‘belligerents’.
[DPF: Wikipedia was the easy source. We are listed in multiple places as having been a party to the conflict. We were under British military command. We were not part of the separate UN contingent]
September 18th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to use the Australian forces, who went on day 1, as a barometer for what might have happened had we sent troops in at the same time. They had returned 2 filled body-bags to home base.
One was a suicide and the other killed by “friendly fire’ during a training exercise.
Given that NZ’s armed forces are not nearly as depressing as the Aussies’ are, and we can’t afford live ammunition for training; which, together, mean that we would have used no body-bags, simply returning them to stores for future issue – we would have achieved a definite cost saving vs the expenditure (per person) of Australia.
QED
September 18th, 2008 at 9:50 am
even my wife laughed so hard the “pathetic old woman” claiming “60 death” n “my right eye could now see little”
scare tactics, and, just pathetic. “no wonder she can’t see what’s going on with winston”
September 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am
“..What if i I had said that you creamed your pants at the thought of people being tortured and shot? Which is essentially what you just did to Simon Power.
Which would you prefer?
You have no right to complain about anything anyone says about you ever again. You. Dick…”
my calling him simon ‘all the way with bush!’ power..you will note..includes speech-marks..
..that ‘all the way with bush’..is a direct quote by power..
..back when he was trying to whip up the dogs of war..
..to get us to fight ‘islamo-fascism’..by joining bushs’ invasion of iraq..
(and he wasn’t the only one..the whole of the national party were ‘itching’ to go and bash some heathens/’islamo-fascists’..
..despite key now saying he ‘dosen’t remember’..(!)
…what was that word again..?..’trust’..?..
..so maybe you need to ask power and those war-hungry nattys..that..
“..creamed your pants at the thought of people being tortured and shot?..”..question..”
cos’..they said it..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 18th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Even Helen must see the irony in making a ridiculous assertion like this to a Grey Power audience. She is clearly targeting Winston’s constituency in a desperate bid to get Labour over the 20% mark. The accusations will become more shrill and ridiculous as the election gets closer. I agree that the Nats need a rottweiler to snap at this sort of BS but Key’s strategy of saying the electorate can work this out is a pretty good one. The distinction in leadership syles becomes more and more obvious and therefore the decision of who to vote for easier. It is some of the bunnies behind Key who cause me more concern.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Well I’m impressed, apparently you recognised your own flag David.
Apart from that I have no interest in commenting on this desperate fantasy construct by the PM who has put more kiwi soldies in harms way than any other since WWII.
Show us your policies Clark!
Tell us what your sectret agenda is Clark! More dismantling of democracy and Section 59 style social enginering no doubt.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:24 am
“Richard Hurst (215) Vote: 1 0 Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 8:58 am
The real question now is: how often does Clark make things up on the back on an envelope?”
I would say, not very often. Everything would be run past H2 first, which begs the question? WHO IS OUR PM?
This may give us some indication as to who has the brains (and who wears the pants).
September 18th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Jeez Kimble, haven’t you realised that PhilU doesn’t put another comment on a thread until someone responds to him. Do.Not.Feed.The.Troll.
What I’m finding mildly amusing is that Helen sort of had a point. If she’d said ‘National would have had us in Iraq, and people could have died’ it would have worked out pretty well. But no, she had to use dodgy math to claim it was 60, and now everyone is focused on the fact it would have been ‘only’ 1 or 2. And nobody arguing about the legality of the war or any of that, just focusing on the fact that Helen cannot add.
To be clear, I would have had us in Iraq, and I don’t think the war was illegal. But given how things worked out for the first few years (before the civilian commanders in the US decided to start listening to their military rather than playing at being generals themselves), this could have been election gold. By over reaching Helen squandered that opportunity. Under pressure she is showing lack of judgment.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:36 am
News just in – Clark responsible for deaths.
In a news release by the Notional party, it’s revealed that Helen Clark is responsible for 0.019 deaths on New Zealand roads, on account of being in a speeding car from Temuka to Christchurch. Analyst Trey Gardiner has crunched the numbers and came up with the following: “a car travelling at 140kph for an hour and a half caused 0.019 deaths on NZ roads, given a road toll of four hundred and thirty of which 40% are attributable to speeding.” Trey’s continues “and it’s not just some airy-fairy ‘what if’ scenario, like could have happened if troops had been sent to Iraq. No, this is an actual case based on facts, not fantasy”. We approached Police national headquarters for comment. Superintendent Guy Smylie responded “we would advise Helen to remember, the faster you go, the bigger the mess. And we’re expecting a big mess on Nov 8th” ends.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:42 am
How many have died on waiting lists?
How many have died after being deleted from waiting lists?
How many have died because they can’t afford to heat their homes?
How many have beld out while the cops stood back waiting for it to be “safe”?
How many have died becuse labour will not fund private operations becaus ethey claim they can do them publicly?
September 18th, 2008 at 10:56 am
It seems Labour and Iraq have a lot in common.
While Iraq is struggling with the problem of female suicide bombers, the Labour Party have a big problem with a female political suicide bomber
September 18th, 2008 at 11:06 am
It seems Clark has been sized up for a moral bodybag if this release by ACT’s Heather Roy is anything to go by. My money is on the chick with the C9.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0809/S00387.htm
September 18th, 2008 at 11:14 am
“..How many have died because they can’t afford to heat their homes?..”
so..you are supporting large rises in the minimum wage..and the pittances paid the unemployed etc..?
cos”..if you aren’t ..
..you’d be just blowing it out your butt..eh..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 18th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Since Hulun is now after Winstons silver haired vote, I’m assuming part of Labours election campaign (apart from making stuff up on the back of envelopes) will involve a bit of good old fashioned red neck anti-Asian racism. It would dovetail nicely with the Greens xenophobic anti-foreigners owning land in NZ campaign. This is Green party code for Asians of course. Much in the same way that Hulun constantly uses the term ‘kiwi’ for everything these days.
Truly a vote for Labour or the Greens is a vote for Winston Peters and the remains of Rob’s Mob.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:59 am
[DPF: Wikipedia was the easy source. We are listed in multiple places as having been a party to the conflict. We were under British military command. We were not part of the separate UN contingent]
…I’m sorry, but that’s more than a little disingenuous given the point that you are trying to make regarding Helen sending in ‘belligerent’ troops:
“Two rotations of 61 military engineers, known as Task Force Rake, operated in Iraq from September 26, 2003 to September 25, 2004… They were deployed to undertake humanitarian and reconstruction tasks consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1483; they were not part of the invading force. While in Iraq the unit was under British command (South East Iraq) and was based in Basra.The Light Engineer Group consisted of military engineers and logistic support staff. The engineers were a mix of tradesmen (carpenters, plumbers and electricians), field engineers, firemen and plant operators. The logistic support staff were a mix of cooks, medics, stores personnel, electrical technicians, vehicle mechanics and drivers. They provided logistical support to the engineer group and maintained deployed NZ and loaned UK equipment. The focus of the Light Engineer Group was on assisting the reconstruction of the Iraqi nation through provision of engineer support to the local population. The Light Engineer Group was deployed as part of the post conflict Operation Iraqi Freedom and was not involved in security operations in Iraq.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0409/S00218.htm
Wikipedia is wrong to list NZ as a belligerent – not the first time that Wikipedia has been wrong of course…
Better still, here is a list of some of our ‘belligerent’ activities:
installation of 11 water tanks at local schools,
installation of three water points in local facilities,
construction of the Al Tannumah reverse osmosis plant,
construction of an Iraqi Police Station,
construction of Al Hussayn pumping station,
bridge maintenance on Cullingworth and Al Tannumah bridges, and
construction of a water pipeline in Al Tannumah.
The following projects have been completed with NZAID funding:
Refurbishment of Al Oroba, Al Shola, Al Marbid, Hamdan, and Siadit Al Bisahara Schools.
Installation of water tanks at Al Aswmia, Al Hekmah, Al Ansam, Maysam, Al Basrah, Al Harabi, Al Gazza, and Saeda Schools in Basrah.
Installation of water tanks and power at Al Waheda School.
Refurbishment of Al Faihaa Health Clinic.
Refurbishment of Al Rahek Kindergarten.
Refurbishment of the Basrah Teaching Hospital.
Provision of Hospital Furnishings to Basrah Province Hospitals and Health clinics.
Supply of furniture to Al Marbid School.
Provision of business leadership and management training to Iraqi managers of public utilities.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Well done, David.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“hubbers
Perhaps this is why school exams are getting so easy.
”
Please dont repeat something that was disproved.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
With Clark making public pronouncements based on back of the envelope calculations , her NZ First partners described in her own words as ” Amateurs “and her Deputy blaming John Key for the international financial crisis , are there any sane rational people running our country.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
The Prime Ministers retort to JK can be explained that she is very afraid that a certain incident involving her suspended Minister of Foreign Affairs a diplomatic passport issued overnight and in very unusual circumstances and an airport in a foreign country will be revealed during teh election campaign and the result will be a complete meltdown of her and her Party.
And at the rate she is going the reveal is not very far away
September 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
She disgusts me. Snarling and sneering her poisonous lies to all of the gullible morons who suck it in, just like that cretin Cullen.
It is a sad, sad state of affairs when these are the methods used to secure votes, on a par with physical violence for damage it does to real democracy.
The lack of accountability and morality in these people is simply staggering but more than balanced by the hypocrisy and, I truly believe this, evil.
I truly fear for my child’s future if this is the leadership and vision on offer.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Our Traditional New Zealand Flag can’t be ALL THAT indistinguishable from the Aussie one, then…?
September 18th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Sam … in the military lexicon Engineers are a ‘Teeth’ (read combat) arm along with Artillery, Armour, Signals and Infantry.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Ross,
The whole point of military is combat, but you need to get past the semantics and look at the actions… They were humanitarian/reconstruction engineers – they were not sent in as a hostile force – there was no declaration of war from NZ (that would be a laugh anyway…)…
DPF was using the Wikipedia article to suggest that we did have troops in Iraq in ‘belligerence’ yet didn’t suffer casualties – thus Helen is being misleading. This a laughing mockery of the actual situation…
But I have to reiterate the rider to my original post “But that doesn’t make HC’s comments any better I hasten to add – the last thing I want to be seen is being supportive of our dear leader…”.
…I just get annoyed when spurious arguments are raised against spurious arguments (especially when the refutation is hardly in need of anything so spurious in this case).
September 18th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Forget the maths of prorata military deaths – if the wastemaster general hadn,t over paid Toll by $5-600m on his trainset we could have used that for Taxcuts/Education/Health Services etc – and thats a fact not a back of the envelope calculation by a PM who would be mathematically challenged by an Abacus.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
“Her intention was to bring home to her audience, as forcefully as she could, the brutal reality that when you send people off to war, some of them are going to come back home in body-bags. And, judging by their public comments back in early 2002, John Key and his colleagues would have sent us off to fight alongside the Americans in an illegal war.”
Chris Trotter puts Clark’s statements in perspective here.
Bryan Spondre aka redbaiter_baiter
September 18th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
JC (218) Vote: Add rating14 Subtract rating 0 Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
“….Note too that we’ve lost more soldiers to accidents in NZ than we have in six years of war in Afghanistan and a year in Iraq.”
JC, it is a little known fact that the US military also had a higher death toll in the years of peace preceding Afghanistan/Iraq.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Great post, David. I read Armstrong’s analogy about this and he seems to think that it might work for Clark without going over the details. He only went into what you are talking about briefly but supports this sort of behavior from Helen. The news seem to only cover the “gossip” and hype but never has been that informative. Keys is just watching Helen dig her own grave. Can’t wait for this subject to come up in the debates because she will be shot down easily.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
# getstaffed (2221) Vote: Add rating15 Subtract rating 0 Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
“Note too that we’ve lost more soldiers to accidents in NZ than we have in six years of war in Afghanistan and a year in Iraq.
Hell, we could save lives by getting them into conflict zones as quickly as possible”
As I said above, it is a little known fact that the US military also had a higher death toll in the years of PEACE preceding Afghanistan/Iraq.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Spondre – she did send people off to war, no one died.
Oh, she didn’t mean what she said? so Trotter is going to follow her around for the next 7 weeks and interpret for her? fuckwit.
Spin spin spin….Clark needs all the help she can get after yet another dose of foot-in-mouth-disease.
My contempt for the Labour party leadership is beyond anything I thought I could ever feel for another human being.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
# Chicken Little (358) Vote: Add rating16 Subtract rating 0 Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 6:01 am
“……Poor deluded phule – understands nothing about the human condition.
Little lesson for you phule – In the entire human history – Peace is just a time between wars.
That’s the problem with you green idiots, you dream of changing thousands of years of human behaviour in a couple of decades as you sit comfortably in the conditions created for you by all the men and women that died in the last World War.
Your grip on reality is tenuous, at best.”
AGREE, Chicken L.
Here is another little famous quote for the “phules”;
Baruch Spinoza: “Peace is not the absence of war, but a virtue based on strength of character.”
September 18th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
# Ryan Sproull (785) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating11 Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 9:06 am
The first casualty of war is the truth.
Also true of socialism.
“Socialism’s actually the second casualty of war.”
RUBBISH, Ryan Sproull, governments get to make major encroachments on the freedoms of their citizens and of markets, in time of war, and then when it’s over, those encroachments don’t get wound back again. You obviously haven’t read “The Road To Serfdom” by Hayek, otherwise you’d be quite clear on this point.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Radvad, D4J, Casual Watcher, I agree, the Nats SHOULD be “calling” Helen on this. Their lack of spine on the whole Iraq issue, in the face of the hypocrisy and lies that have been emanating from Helen and her cronies on the subject, is just pathetic. DPF has at least done a great job here and now.
September 18th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
“look at the Wikipedia article on the Iraq war”
Wikipedia is your proof?
Classic David, your blog is becoming a laugh a minute!
September 18th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Couple of thing I want to know from Helen,
Will she have her pay pro rata compared to Bush? – please say yes
How many troops have died without even leaving the country while she has been PM?
Does she know how many Aussies in Iraq have been killed?? – I believe its 2, both due to accidents.
September 18th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
you never answered that question..best..
‘are you a first year student?’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 18th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Hoary old codswallop.
“Belligerent” is an international legal term that refers to parties engaged in warfare. New Zealand went into Iraq under the aegis of U.N. resolution 1483, which was specifcally aimed at providing “humanitarian relief, the reconstruction of Iraq, and the restoration and establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance” after major interstate combat had ceased. The resolution also distiguishes between “occupying powers under unified command (the “Authority”)” and “other States that are not occupying powers” which are nevertheles working under the Authority. Finally, it is important to note that other states that had not been involved in the invasion (like the Netherlands) were deployed under the resolution and made it quite clear that they were doing so on the same basis as New Zealand. Hell, there was even one state whose Constitution legally precludes it from being a belligerent (Japan) that was deployed under resolution 1483.
It is quite clear, on the other hand, that National saw 1441 as significant justification to send NZ troops into Iraq. It is also quite clear that they supported deployment of combat troops in order to help the Americans and the Aussies stick it to Saddam and mop up all of those weapons of mass destruction that he had lying around. You don’t even have to listen to J.K.’s statements:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00192.htm
But you can:
“Murray McCully: The Government may get up and say it is helping in the war against terrorism, is entering into the conventions, and has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me tell the House that the reality is—
John Key: Too late.”
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Daily/9/b/b/47HansD_20030910-Volume-611-Week-36-Wednesday-10-September-2003.htm
So, from the lips of the man himself, Helen Clark’s actions are not comparable to the actions John Key would have taken. John Key wanted more involvement – that is, combat action – in a rather retarded war that has proved to be counter to the interests of its main belligerent. EVEN JOHN KEY AGREES WITH LABOUR THAT HE WOULD’VE TAKEN A MORE HARDLINE STANCE
You can try and spin this one anyway you want Davey, but neither you nor Wikipedia were right. I see, however, that some sensible person has removed us from the belligerents list. At least that’s one of you who can change their mind.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
“philu (3201) Vote: 0 56 Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
just all about massaging the numbers..eh dpf..?”
Well Philu. you’ve been doing quite well on numbers yourself. Somewhat of a record for you isn’t it?
a total of 56 people so far today bothered to vote that you’re dickhead
(and not a bodybag in sight)
September 18th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
How many US non-combatant military personel were killed in Iraq during the time Helen had NZers over there? If we pro-rata that would we be able to get how many imaginary kiwis died because of her actions?
September 18th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
What about the 5 body bags that came home from East Timor?
September 18th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“What about the 5 body bags that came home from East Timor?”
Sure, sending troops overseas is risky. Clark’s point isn’t that Key would have risked troops on overseas missions. Her point is that Key would have sent troops overseas on ILLEGAL, badly planned overseas missions. East Timor was a peacekeeping mission that was sanctioned by Security Council Resolutions. It was also a mission whose goal was to provide a modicum of stability so that political solutions to conflicts could be found. It was not a balls-to-the-wall war without a plan that was predicated on a whole shitload of lies. The ability to differentiate the two demonstrates judgment. Key’s was surely lacking. And the point is, there is no reason to trust him with similar foreign policy decisions in future.
“How many US non-combatant military personel were killed in Iraq during the time Helen had NZers over there? ”
I’m not sure that is relevant. In fact, I think it is rather offensive.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Good on Heather Roy for posting her response to that… where is Nationals rebuttal? Why are they lying down over this?
The campaign is now on lads, get out there and fight them every sinlge day and get Labour out.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Charlie Tan (244) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating5 Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“What about the 5 body bags that came home from East Timor?”
“Sure, sending troops overseas is risky. Clark’s point isn’t that Key would have risked troops on overseas missions. Her point is that Key would have sent troops overseas on ILLEGAL, badly planned overseas missions. East Timor was a peacekeeping mission that was sanctioned by Security Council Resolutions…..”
In other words, Charlie Tan, when Russia and China veto a UN action at the Security Council, anything done after that by the USA and its friends, will be “illegal”………
So, FINE, we go by that here in NZ, and we’re still allies of the USA and not of Russia and China?
BARF. SPEW. CHUNDER. PUKE.
September 20th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Well, like it or not, that is the system we have. And let’s not forget that the United States has a veto on the Security Council too. So if the U.S. is not willing to respect SC Resolutions and claim that can prosecute wars according to its own national interests, it looks a bit of an ass when it castigates its rivals for doing the same, as in Georgia.
Just for the record, though, the action in Iraq was not illegal because Russia and China vetoed it. The action in Iraq was illegal because the United States walked away from the Security Council because it could not secure a majority. That is, the nations on the council, including the non P5 countries, examined the evidence and found that there were big holes in it. If the U.S. had followed process they would not have been in the mess that it is currently in.