what if the enemy offers to pay your army a bonus for deliberately losing the battle

Market forces in action.

tuijiboard has certainly blown the cunning reincarnation. lasted ’bout 2 days. they just can’t help themselves.

Thanks Bevan, I do agree with certain Green policieis, but not all. I also have these reasons:

Firstly – I don’t live in Mt. Albert
Second: several parties (including Labour/National) haven’t announced their candidates
Third: Russel Norman has provided no policy outside of disagreeing with Nat and Labs transport policies so I cannot make a decision on such little info.
Fourth: The Nat/Green MOU which Norman has not fully explained to green voters, especially the lack of disclosure of discussions and the silencing of Green voices on issues the Green Party do secretive deals on with the National Government. The Greens were respected in the past for their openness and accountability, come on guys, give us more info to work with, and don’t just shut up when the National Government asks you to, even legislation you agree with can be amended and commented on surely?
Fifth: The Greens reasoning for standing a candidate seems to be based on publicising the Green Party rather than providing a voice and support in parliament to the people of Mt. Abert (though I am willing to be corrected on this).

Just because he disagrees with one or two of his writings is no reason to vote for another candidate whose policies are bat-shit crazy.

I mean, what if the enemy offers to pay your army a bonus for deliberately losing the battle, for example. That wouldn’t happen?

No, of course it wouldn’t.

Shearer was simply replaying a nascent idea that others were working on in the mid-1990′s aimed at making conventional armed forces more cost-effective. The gist of it all is that any cost-analysis of the armed forces reveals that the lion’s share of the budget goes into “tail” administrative and lines of communication activities – thus at the expense of “tooth” frontline combat troops. Consequently, instead of carrying a huge fixed cost of uniformed clipboard clerks and bridge guards on the books, you get better economic and combat results by passing this work onto private security firms on a fixed term contract basis. [This avoids the classic scenario of the fully costed army budget paying $150 for $30 screwdrivers.]

Ten years later, private security sub-contracting today is a key part of a modern armed force. Private secuirty contractors now takeup all manner of administrative, maintenance and low-grade protective tasks: from running the payroll admin, to servicing helicopters, to protecting facilties and escorting road convoys. It’s all very, very old hat stuff now.

So there’s now nothing dark, dangerous and radical in all this – except it seems in the fevered imaginations of certain sections of the sheltered, uniformphobic NZ chattering classes.

We in the Greens (unlike the Lab/Nats) don’t do mercenaries!

Yeah, I think the “Urewera 17″ disproves that point.

Ever done a stint on a Greenpeace boat?

So, why not back Russel Norman?

More votes for Russel.

Goodie, goodie!

Looks like it’s Nanny Bates for Labours nomination.

So why do Labour think the private sector is an acceptable solution when women and children are dying overseas in wars, but when women and children are dying here in New Zealand’s hospitals, only the state will do?

Fair enough, thanks for the reply.

This is nothing to do with Corrections. That involves the New Zealand state setting up compulsory institutions within its jurisdiction to house individuals who it considers should be locked up. Sophisticated rules of justice apply.

UN Peacekeeping is a process normally of trying to keep warring factions apart. All that is required is trained personell with big guns. Contributions are voluntary, the UN does not have the power to require contributions. And it pays countries to get involved. Ask Fiji.

Why not pay companies to do this job?

[DPF: He also advocates Government use mercenaries for their own wars and civil wars. That is far more a core function than Corrections. But I agree UN would be better to use mercenaries than peacekeepers!]

Apparently, it’s very serious indeed.

Meanwhile…

[Shearer:] The prospect that private military companies might gain some degree of legitimacy within the international community begs the question as to whether these firms could take on UN peacekeeping functions and improve on UN effort.

[DPF:] An excellent idea. I am sure the new UNDP Administator would whole heartedly agree that UN peace keeping forces should be replaced by Executive Outcomes and Sandline. I do hope someone asks her her view.

Which will be whatever her masters think it should be, spun with a furious vengeance, and damn the torpedos, by crikey. She would have made a good pirate.

p.s. lotsa new names here. All from the Standard????