US NZ business as normal finally?

October 30th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

In an amiable press conference at the Pentagon, the New Zealand Defence Minister, Jonathan Coleman, handed his American counterpart  an All Blacks jersey – and a three-decade military chill between the two nations appeared to be consigned to history.

US secretary of defence Chuck Hagel told reporters: “Today, I authorised a New Zealand navy ship to dock at Pearl Harbor… This will be the first time a New Zealand navy ship will have visited Pearl Harbor in more than 30 years.”

In fact it will be the first since the New Zealand government refused to allow a US destroyer to dock in its ports in 1984.

It’s taken a long time, but I’m glad we’re finally worked out a way to be good allies, despite a disagreement on NZ’s policy.

Tags: ,

148 Responses to “US NZ business as normal finally?”

  1. Kea (12,380 comments) says:

    I am very critical of current US military actions, but they are our allies and we should encourage their ships and military to visit. They are more likely to listen to their allies than people who do not extend them hospitality and visits are good for the economy. I think it is pretty appalling treatment of our mates not to have them over.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Gulag1917 (876 comments) says:

    Good relationships with the US certainly, but no troops. NZ needs to boost its defence budget to enable a more independent position.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Why would we be trying to further align ourselves with a powerhouse which is crumbling at the seams, and heading toward totalitarian / Police state status ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. meanybeany (27 comments) says:

    In the age of concerns about nuclear proliferation, New Zealand’s anti-nuclear stance should be held up by the US as an ideal – a template for other countries to follow. The fact that we took this step unilaterally possibly makes this difficult, although the passage of 30 years could help the US to brush that aside

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    It was embarrassing to go abroad after Lange’s mistress and associated one-legged lesbians and suchlike decided to withdraw us from the great western alliance that ultimately brought down the Berlin Wall and saw the Soviet Union disintegrate.

    Nuclear Free NZ is childish pathetic nonsense. It did nothing, and does nothing, for disarmament or peace. Just a load of codswallop for a bunch of losers.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    @ Dave C, because they are the largest economy and military power by a huge margin?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Manolo (13,572 comments) says:

    Comrade Norman and the visceral, rabid anti-American Left must be fuming.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Oh – So Wineoh – I look forward to you saying that when the largest economy and power becomes China !?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    So Wineoh – Its ok to align ourselves with the biggest bully on the block ! – get a life

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    ” Nuclear Free NZ is childish pathetic nonsense.”

    Its much worse that this. It was engineered within the old Soviet Union and specifically designed to hurt the US strategically in the Pacific.

    Hagel is just an Obama lickspittle and allowing NZ’s ships to dock at Pearl Harbour without any NZ concession is just another move to weaken the US globally, as has always been Obama’s intent. He’s a communist POS.

    NZ should have been frozen out until the Soviet inspired ban was lifted.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    @ Dave C, you’re not a student of history obviously.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Perhaps not Wineoh – however, looking at the current world and the things going on in the US today, perhaps it is you also who show your ignorance

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Redbaiter. The nuclear ban certainly warmed the cockles of Russian hearts, but it was the simple-minded Kiwis who lapped up the crap in deluded bliss. And still do, judging by the stench of stupidity.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Nick R (506 comments) says:

    There is a grim irony about the fact that NZ’s relations with the US seem to be improving at a time when the US is having a very difficult time explaining itself to many of its other friends and allies, particularly Germany and Brazil. A cynic might think there is nothing accidental about the timing of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    Its ok to align ourselves with the biggest bully on the block !

    Childish…..Your primary school classes started at 9am.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Kea – “visits are good for the economy” – How so ? What evidence do you have for that statement ? If you’re implying that this somehow helps facilitate trade agreements and the likes, then you are deluded.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. GPT1 (2,116 comments) says:

    The anti nuclear legislation was and remains a ridiculous stunt but the greatest stupidity, entirely unforgiveable, was the way in which the Lange government treated the US culminating in the demands that the USS Buchanan be searched. It was an appalling way to treat an ally, particularly given the Cold War was in full swing, and the reaction of the US was hardly surprising. The 30 year shut out has little to do with the anti nuclear policy and a lot to do with the contemptuous arrogant way in which the Lange government implemented it.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    If John Key even tries to suggest that American Nuclear ships will visit NZ – he’s gone burger – and not just in a political sense either – he would seriously be yesterdays trash.

    I firmly believe that is the limit for many NZers, in fact I asked my students a question very similar last year – basically what would be their bottom line (I gave no suggestions and nuclear power was not part of the topic) – the overwhelming winner was ‘nuclear free’.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Ouch – theres no need for stupid comments like that – Explain yourself Dazzaman ? Perhaps you consider your prowess/knowledge greater than others – But I consider my reflection on the world and the goings on in it are the same as many others – If you want to educate us – do so – but dont be so condescending to someone whos opinion does not match your own

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Isnt it amazing – many commentators who post in this blog, be they left or right leaning, can be very quick to play the person than play the issues ! Must be very shallow or have no opinion worth promoting

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. tvb (4,360 comments) says:

    Not quite normal. Nuclear powered american warships still cause a problem let along nuclear weapons. There will be none until after the election. It will need careful focus group research before approval can be given. The majority would probably support the visits but a noisy minority will not. We will have a small ships protest in Auckland harbour etc. Maybe a visit to Whangarei deep water port will do and the protesters can be kept away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. kiwi in america (2,428 comments) says:

    The essence of the ANZUS freeze was less the high-minded rhetoric of a nuclear free NZ but Lange’s reneging on his word he gave to Secretary of State Schultz right after Labour won power in 1984. Understanding the need to implement their manifesto, the Americans gave Lange wiggle room in sending a conventionally armed and powered vessel in the USS Buchanan (and one that could and was demonstrably provable to be such by NZ’s intelligence services). Lange’s backflip forced the Americans to abandon their ‘neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons/power’ stance or shut us out – against the backdrop of the Cold War, the Americans weren’t going to change a decades old global policy to satisfy the political wishes of a left leaning party in a small south Pacific backwater. We could’ve had our cake and eat it too but Lange wanted a distraction from the pain of Rogernomics and his high profile stoush with the Americans gave it to him. The cost to the NZ taxpayer in terms of going it alone militarily for decades can be measured in the many tens of millions of dollars and a degraded military capability to boot.

    We have Mike Moore to thank for this thaw – he has worked tirelessly behind the scenes in a non-partisan way (former Labour PM appointed by current National PM) to achieve outcomes best for the country he loves, outcomes that go beyond military alliances.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kea (12,380 comments) says:

    Kea – “visits are good for the economy” – How so ? What evidence do you have for that statement ? If you’re implying that this somehow helps facilitate trade agreements and the likes, then you are deluded.

    dave_c_ , The sailors and staff will spend money here. Ships need supplies. And yes it does help trade agreements.

    As I have said, I am strongly critical of US military actions and believe they have lost their way, but when push comes to shove we are on the same side.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. gump (1,634 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne

    “Nuclear Free NZ is childish pathetic nonsense. It did nothing, and does nothing, for disarmament or peace. Just a load of codswallop for a bunch of losers.”

    ——————–

    Nuclear weapons are childish pathetic nonsense.

    It’s been 68 years since they were last used in combat. So the resources spent on developing and maintaining nuclear weapon stock-piles has – for the most part – been a complete waste of financial and human capital.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kea (12,380 comments) says:

    gump, it is a shame we have to spend anything on weapons of war, but your view ignores reality. What you do not consider is the cost of not having a nulclear arsenal.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    “So the resources spent on developing and maintaining nuclear weapon stock-piles has – for the most part – been a complete waste of financial and human capital.”

    You sad indoctrinated loon. The threat of nuclear conflict has diminished the threat of war in a way that never existed before WWI and WWII.

    And you better tell the Chinese Communist Party how “childish and pathetic” they are. They’re busy arming up with nukes and submarines big time.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @gump. Doesn’t matter if nuclear weapons are not used. You’ve got a brain that you don’t use, but you need it just the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Our anti-nuclear stance is misguided. Nuclear weapons are the primary source of today’s Pax Americana upon which the world enjoys a level of peace that is unrivaled in history. For all the conflict we see on our TV sets, such conflict is the normal state of affairs in a historical context. Wars between major powers were routine prior to nuclear weapons. Their absence today is a major accomplishment that we take for granted.

    The reality is that nuclear weapons are old news. We have had them for almost 70 years and judgment day has not come. We can rely on the major powers to exercise some rationality and avoid mutual destruction. The terrorist or dictator remains a threat but this is perhaps not the existential threat that WW3 would represent.

    Technology is always risky because the same power that allows technology to make our lives so much better can also be used to harm people. In this regard nanotech and strong AI represent a bigger existential threat than nuclear weapons. Though I wouldn’t want an anti-nano or anti-AI policy either. But then I don’t expect the luddite types to be attracted to opposing such technology because these technologies are so well marketed. But then you do see people driving gas guzzlers with stickers that read “No War for Oil” so never underestimate people.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    we’re finally worked out a way to be good allies

    There is nothing good about being an ally to the country responsible for Abu Ghraib.

    Collateral damage, anyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. gump (1,634 comments) says:

    @Weihana

    “Our anti-nuclear stance is misguided. Nuclear weapons are the primary source of today’s Pax Americana upon which the world enjoys a level of peace that is unrivaled in history.”

    ———————–

    Nonsense.

    If Nuclear weapons are a source of peace “unrivaled in history” then why hasn’t peace come to Israel, India, Pakistan, or North Korea? All of those countries posses nuclear weapons, and they are all currently engaged in armed disputes over their borders.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    ” If John Key even tries to suggest that American Nuclear ships will visit NZ – he’s gone burger – and not just in a political sense either – he would seriously be yesterdays trash. ”

    It must be cold and miserable living in that subterranean cave since 1975. Never coming into contact with anyone or receiving any kind of communication.

    If John Key had the conviction, and the rhetorical skills, and of course the fucking balls, he would stand up and tell NZ why the Nuclear ban is moronic and he would end it, and there would be wide applause for this course of action.

    That’s what Lange did when he implemented the ban. what are you aying? The Key doesn’t have the leadership skills of Lange??????????

    ???????????????????????????????????????/

    Why the fuck this country lets itself be intimidated by a small gang of loony left Soviet communist inspired Marxist subversives and their media mates is something I will never get.

    Maybe its because most of them live in holes in the ground and like Judith they are too shaking and timid to come out and savour the world today.

    What a basket case country.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ dave_c_ (139) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 9:53 am

    They can’t help it – they all have ‘key’ crushes – if he told them to eat the their own poop with a silver spoon because it would make them rich, they’d do it. Key has some good qualities – and like most human’s some bad – but this lot are so ‘penis struck’ Key could order a nuclear strike on the NZ Herald and most would offer to fly the plane.

    I’ve asked many times for them to list why I should think about voting for Key – not one of them can do it, without being personal, abusive, or in any balanced manner. I’m a floating voter – as I’ve said many times, my vote is up for sale – I come here because it helps me work out who not to vote for – I’d really love some positive comments that would encourage me and provide me with knowledge and balanced realistic discussion on who is worthy of voting for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    “they are all currently engaged in armed disputes over their borders.”

    Guess what? There was a fight down the local pub the other night. And the threat of nuclear war completely failed to stop it.

    Pfffft.. God save us from such bottomless idiocy.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Simon (697 comments) says:

    ” Nuclear Free NZ is childish pathetic nonsense.”

    So it is.

    To stave off State bankruptcy Lange forced through the so called market reforms. In order to shut up the Quisling Left Lange gave them nuclear free NZ. Quid pro quo.

    How the Left still moan about the 1980s free market reforms. But they forget how they then sold out their so called principals in solidarity with the collapsing slave state the Soviet Union.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    When you lay down with dogs you can expect to get fleas.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3042907.stm

    Heavy metal music and popular American children’s songs are being used by US interrogators to break the will of their captives in Iraq.

    Uncooperative prisoners are being exposed for prolonged periods to tracks by rock group Metallica and music from children’s TV programmes Sesame Street and Barney in the hope of making them talk.

    The US’s Psychological Operations Company (Psy Ops) said the aim was to break a prisoner’s resistance through sleep deprivation and playing music that was culturally offensive to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Redbaiter (5,975) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 10:45 am

    Clearly you didn’t read my post properly – I asked my students, all of whom are over 19 years of age, the oldest being 36 years old. They weren’t even alive in 1975.

    You might like to sit in your iron castle complete with it’s ‘fuck you’ key for a space bar, but in the real world there are people that disagree with you. Many of my students are voting for the first time next year. Like me, they don’t know who to vote for, but they know the things they want for NZ and for the future – I’m not allowed to guide them politically either way – but I do tell them that the future comes along very quickly, so they should vote for the team that offers them the things they want their children to have, when they have them.

    Their lists include fresh air, good nutrition, nuclear free living and the ability to care for themselves – wealth only featured on 2% of those that answered.

    You need to listen to the young adults more – they are the ones that will be caring and paying for you when you are older, and believe me – your ‘fuck you’ key won’t get your bedpan any quicker.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. cha (3,943 comments) says:

    Hi ♪…Simon … ♫, still waiting for the details about this RBNZ money printing that’s been going on, apparently, behind our backs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. gump (1,634 comments) says:

    @Redbaiter

    You sad indoctrinated loon. The threat of nuclear conflict has diminished the threat of war in a way that never existed before WWI and WWII.

    And you better tell the Chinese Communist Party how “childish and pathetic” they are. They’re busy arming up with nukes and submarines big time.

    ————————-

    Don’t let facts get in the way of your argument.

    In 2006, the USA maintained a stockpile of 5,735 operational nuclear warheads. The Chinese had 145.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Judith – 10;47am – Good comment – Guess you cant expect myopic morons to listen to, or speak with anyone else when their heads are so far up their own ass of self importance
    I’m also here to discover more about how things work in this world, make informed decisions and possibly change my views when I’m convinced by reason – Maybe thats a foolish expectation – nevertheless it is what it is

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    “You need to listen to the young adults more”

    Just read what you wrote and you’ll see that the “young adults” with their concerns making them sad victims of the Watermelons Hitler Jugend style strategy are nothing but brain damaged products of a politically corrupt and useless education system.

    The truth must be spoken. What’s more the truth will always find an audience, and it will always defeat lies.

    But if no one dares speak it, then we are doomed to suffer.

    The truth must be spoken and it must be spoken by leaders like John Key. Otherwise we’re fucked.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. wotsisname (14 comments) says:

    to contemplate using nuclear weapons is a form of insanity – madness …

    why would a country have a weapon that is unthinkable to use?

    a country with these weapons is a threatening that they might use them – how sick!

    what would be the point of completely destroying bejing or moscow or some other city and all the innocent civilians in that city who have no power over what their governments do?

    what a waste of money and resources it is even building these things let alone thinking of using them

    surely we can come up with a better way to solve our problems, as human beings living together on this planet

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ dave_c_ (140) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 10:59 am

    Five years ago, despite having been against Nuclear power previously, I considered it, and decided that it wouldn’t be such a bad thing. I was neutral on the subject.

    One word changed my mind – Fukushima.

    We live on the Pacific Ring of Fire – we are highly vulnerable to earthquake, tsunami and volcanic eruption. I don’t care what the financial arguments are in favour anymore – you don’t stick a nuclear anything, in any harbour or any part of NZ without increasing the danger and the damage for when the big one strikes – and it will, its not ‘if’ but when.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    Trevor Louden explains how the Soviets masterminded NZ’s nuclear ship ban.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    gump (928) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 10:39 am

    @Weihana

    “Our anti-nuclear stance is misguided. Nuclear weapons are the primary source of today’s Pax Americana upon which the world enjoys a level of peace that is unrivaled in history.”

    ———————–

    Nonsense.

    If Nuclear weapons are a source of peace “unrivaled in history” then why hasn’t peace come to Israel, India, Pakistan, or North Korea? All of those countries posses nuclear weapons, and they are all currently engaged in armed disputes over their borders.

    The words “level of peace” obviously imply a relative consideration. I did not say that nuclear weapons bring about a complete absence of hostility, rather the point is that they bring about a qualititative change and an overall reduction in warfare for fear of the consequences.

    As to your examples, Israel is not confirmed to have nuclear weapons but it is widely believed they have them. Israel has not endured a major war since Yom Kippur and arguably in none of the significant conflicts since has the use of nuclear weapons been a serious consideration. Rather the conflict is defined more by terrorism.

    India detonated a nuclear weapon in 1974. Prior to this and since the partition of British India there were three wars between the India and Pakistan. Since 1974 there was one limited conflict in Kashmir in which the Pakistanis withdrew under international pressure fearing escalation.

    North Korea has been in its seemingly permanent state of hibernation since the war was paused at the 38th parallel. I’m not sure why you use this as an example. North Koreans suffer because they live in a backward state. South Korea meanwhile has prospered. Of course, we should be worried about the North Koreans getting nuclear weapons as it might be part of their plan to take down the White House. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (5,977) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 11:02 am

    The truth must be spoken and it must be spoken by leaders like John Key. Otherwise we’re fucked.

    John Key is a politician – all politicians lie – we’re certainly ‘fucked’ (as you so delicately put it) if our lives depend on him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    A perspective including some truths you won’t read in NZ newspapers or hear on NZ radio or see on NZ TV.

    The Gathering Red Storm

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    ehh… north koreans getting nuclear weapons… rather, HAVING nuclear weapons I should have said. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    There is absolutely no justification for ‘continuous war’ (large or small, nuclear or not), especially when it is promoted on the premise of ‘bringing peace to the world’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Further perspectives relating to ‘todays world’ (which you wont see in the handcuffed press and television networks)

    Rense.com

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Judith,

    Their lists include fresh air, good nutrition, nuclear free living and the ability to care for themselves – wealth only featured on 2% of those that answered.

    The “ability to care for themselves” implies a need for wealth. Not necessarily huge amounts, but some amount. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    Sorry, the Trevor Louden link above was incorrect.

    Here is the correct link.

    The untold story behind New Zealand’s ANZUS breakdown.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Manolo (13,572 comments) says:

    Thanks for the link, RB.

    But, but, but comrade Ken Douglas is a member of ONZ, one the greatest twenty living citizens of Aotearoa.
    How blessed we are in having such a faithful and dedicated communist among us.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Judith (4,195) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 11:07 am

    Five years ago, despite having been against Nuclear power previously, I considered it, and decided that it wouldn’t be such a bad thing. I was neutral on the subject.

    One word changed my mind – Fukushima.

    We live on the Pacific Ring of Fire – we are highly vulnerable to earthquake, tsunami and volcanic eruption. I don’t care what the financial arguments are in favour anymore – you don’t stick a nuclear anything, in any harbour or any part of NZ without increasing the danger and the damage for when the big one strikes – and it will, its not ‘if’ but when.

    This is unreasonable. Risk is inherent in life. We cannot forego risk, we merely exchange one set of risks for another. As such, considerations such as “financial arguments” are a means to gauge the relative risks to decide the best course of action. Fukushima is a good example of risk, but then nuclear power plants on ships are generally smaller than land based reactors. Also given that these ships would not be permanently stationed at our docks, the risk would be even less. The US navy also has an accident free record to date.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    Rense.com?

    Instant credibility fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Weihana (3,953) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 11:17 am

    All the money in the world will not protect you from radiation, should a nuclear reactor blow up in the harbour your luxury home sits above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Bhudson 11:30am – I rest my case – You give me the impression that you have a very closed mind . How does a news source like this one, prove any less credible than the ‘sound bite’ news we receive through traditional NZ papers, radio and TV sources. Ah, thats right, the only credible source of news are the ones you choose to promote. Tell me, what source of news should I use, which meets your credibility criteria ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Weihana (3,954) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 11:28 am

    A good argument for why we should not allow them in our harbours. Thank you

    Risk, any amount that increases the chances is too much – especially when there is no balancing advantage – in fact as some argue – the negatives about aligning ourselves too much with the ‘american might’ actually could be regarded as making our risk even greater.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. wotsisname (14 comments) says:

    over the last 60 years the usa has systematically crushed nearly every smaller weaker country that dared to implement social policies (like having control over their own oil or other resources) – in a number of countries the cia has overthrown democratically elected governments and put ruthless dictators in their place with the help of cia trained secret police who have murdered any opposition … failing that they have used their huge military force to invade other nations on various pretexts.

    the best thing to come out of usa is the music of their slaves

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    Hey wotsisname- you’re so full of anti-American boilerplate rubbish.

    What have you got on Red China and Russia?

    Waiting.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The US navy also has an accident free record to date.

    That they have told us about …

    Fukushima had an accident free record to, until an earthquake and tsunami hit.

    That’s the thing about nuclear – there only has to be one accident – just ask the people that survived Chernobyl.

    WHY? Just give me one really good reason for why we should expose New Zealanders to the risk of them being the victims of the USA’s first nuclear accident? (that we know about).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, being anti US interventionism is not the same as being pro-communist.

    The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Redbaiter (5,982) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 11:44 am

    That is a very weak argument, a person has to be communist if they don’t like nuclear power, and don’t want it in this country.

    Typical reactionary – quell the opposition by calling them communists – crap.

    How about such people just care for their country and their fellow Kiwis, and don’t want to risk it any of it, even a minor amount being ruined when there is no balanced gain to this country that makes it worth that risk?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Judith (4,196) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 11:38 am

    @ Weihana (3,953) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 11:17 am

    All the money in the world will not protect you from radiation, should a nuclear reactor blow up in the harbour your luxury home sits above.

    All the money in the world will not protect you from rising oceans that threaten your beachfront property. :)

    But in actual fact both statements are wrong. Money will protect you. I can move to a different harbour or country. Or if the ocean levels rise faster then I can move inland. It’s a question of how much cost and that’s why it is unreasonable to simply ignore the financial implications because these are part of the overall risk involved and are necessary considerations for any rational assessment.

    Nuclear reactors do not just blow up and if accidents do occur then there are a range of possible threats. These should be considered rationally, not on the unreasonable basis that any risk is intolerable.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Yes wotsisname – at the behest of the Jewish lobby !

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Weihana (3,955) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 11:48 am

    You can move to the other end of NZ, but the effects, even if they are just financial will effect you if there was an accident.

    Secondly – what about your fellow ‘man’? Do other kiwis not matter to you? What about those that cannot afford to move? Is the health of future kiwis and their ability to remain free from this unnecessary risk to be determined by wealth?

    That is a perfectly good reason for NOT allowing it.

    Yes, there are things that can be done if there is an accident BUT WHY SHOULD WE?
    We do not need USA nuclear ships here – we do not NEED USA protection – they NEED us to have them here.

    There is NO reason good enough to expose NZers (yes, even the poor ones) to the possible risk – the cost benefit analysis does not weigh up.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Judith,

    WHY? Just give me one really good reason for why we should expose New Zealanders to the risk of them being the victims of the USA’s first nuclear accident? (that we know about).

    Because it is on their backs that we enjoy our security.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Crap Weihana – they will no more come to our aid if we are invaded, than we can fly to the moon

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    LOL @Judith

    A massive earthquale and then giant tidal wave hit an early 70s vintage power plant and the resulting leak causes zero directly attributable deaths.

    I will agree with you, Judith, that we shouldn’t adopt nuclear power accordingly if YOU agree to only use technology that was available in 1971. Enjoy your internet.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    How does a news source like this one, prove any less credible than the ‘sound bite’ news we receive through traditional NZ papers, radio and TV sources.

    Our traditional media doesn’t promote nutbar theories like “water flouridation just a ruse to get rid of aluminium flouride from smelters” and “Shell part of conspiracy to control NZ politics” interspersed among the “my dog is pregnant to an alien” stories.

    Rense.com is a credibility fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    Haven’t you people learnt anything from the Vietnam war?

    Where Russia and China were aiding the Vietnamese Communists with the objective of installing a totalitarian communist state.

    They didn’t win that war on the battlefield, they won it by using their propaganda agents to undermine western resolve.

    What is the main thing you can take from this?

    An illustration of just how far the west has been penetrated by the Commies and how much power they actually wield within western governments. Their influence is everywhere in the west, and if they can apply enough pressure to cause a surrender in the Vietnam war, just think about what else they can do.

    You only have to read this thread to know how successful their subversive tactics are even today. Not only by means of the hard left rubbish of wotsisname, but by the soft left meanderings of Jude, who would deny to the death she was suffering any communist influence.

    The left are pervasive across the globe, but more so in NZ, a country made easy for them by means of its insularity.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Bhudson – I agree with you to a degree – but there are what I’d call many credible reporting of things happening on the world stage along with the obvious lunatic posts you see on that site -

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    and by the way bhudson – you didnt address or answer my question – perhaps you can’t ???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Because it is on their backs that we enjoy our security.

    Weihana, that is the most profoundly stupid thing I have read in a long time.

    Remember how Obama pushed by military action in Syria which could have led to WW3?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Judith (4,200) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 11:53 am

    Secondly – what about your fellow ‘man’? Do other kiwis not matter to you? What about those that cannot afford to move? Is the health of future kiwis and their ability to remain free from this risk to be determined by wealth?

    Just to clarify, I’m not rich. And yes, I think that is a high cost to tolerate. The point is that that cost should be considered relative to the risk. If you compare the cost vs the risk and conclude that, while the risk is low, the cost is still too high then ok, at least that’s a rational assessment. But you shouldn’t dismiss something on the grounds that no risk is tolerable. Perhaps I’m being pedantic, but I tend to believe that existential risks are inherent to technological progress so it’s important to weigh potential costs with relative risk because if we dismiss everything simply because there is the potential for a high cost to be paid then we will go nowhere. We will become the type of person who shelters in their home, for fear of the outside world, only to slip and break our neck in the shower.

    we do not NEED USA protection – they NEED us to have them here.

    Right… the strongest nation in the world, both economically and militarily, needs a little backwater on the other side of the world that most probably haven’t heard of. Surely this cannot seriously be believed. We are a pawn for them and they have many pawns.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. cha (3,943 comments) says:

    at the behest of the Jewish lobby !

    And we’re off!.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (1,991) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 12:04 pm

    Weihana, that is the most profoundly stupid thing I have read in a long time.

    Remember how Obama pushed by military action in Syria which could have led to WW3?

    WW3… lol. Right. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    I disagree that the Vietnam War was lost through undermining tactics of the Communist bloc. I think it was lost by a general lack of resolve among Americans to continue pressing the war because they didn’t think the costs were worth it. Interesting fact: polling data shows that young people were more in favour of the Vietnam War than older people were – both at its beginning and its conclusion.

    Somehow, Amercians convinced themselves it was an unwinnable war, despite never being bested on the battlefield and the fact that Britain, Australia and New Zealand had defeated a similar insurgency in Malaya just a few years earlier. Even when they withdrew, South Vietnam was pretty formiddable – until the US cut its funding off abruptly in 1975 – and that’s the real crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Do you have something erudite to say Cha ? If so, say it

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    “Somehow, Amercians convinced themselves it was an unwinnable war,”

    Yes well, that “somehow” leaves a gaping hole in your argument that must be apparent to you. I’m surprised you can’t see the clear answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    “Do you have something erudite to say Cha ? If so, say it”

    Ha, good luck with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. kowtow (8,315 comments) says:

    It is utterly shameful and a disgrace that Chinese communist ships are welcome in Aotearoa ,formerly New Zealand,when American ships are not.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9271619/Chinese-warships-visit-Auckland

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Weihana is right. Man it feels weird to say that…

    It’s all very well for us to curse the nuclear umbrella when we have benefited from it for so long. Is there really any doubt that the Soviets would have swept into Western Europe in the late 1940s if they could have? What stopped them? Certainly, it wasn’t the conventional forces of the Allies. There would have been a red flag over the Eifell Tower within three weeks.

    Liberal democracies can’t match totalitarian dictatorships when it comes to maintiaing conscript armies and guns-over-butter in the long run. When the democracies enjoy a nuclear umbrella, however, they can hold rational totalitarians at bay.

    Who would have benefited from a freeze on nukes in the 1980s? The free world, which could only maintain volunteer forces but was preeminent in terms of strategic weapons? Or the Soviets, who had a massive conscript army and unbeatable armour?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    I said they convinced themselves, didn’t I?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Weihana (3,958) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 11:55 am
    Judith,

    Because it is on their backs that we enjoy our security.

    That is absolute propaganda.

    And it is false.

    New Zealand is of more use to the USA than we are to them. Why do they want their ships here? Is it because they ‘care’ about Kiwis, or is it because they need NZ because geographically it enables them to maintain a position where they can best observe their enemies and maintain a physical awareness?

    You are a fool if you think NZ is at any extreme risk because we don’t allow nuclear ships in our harbour.

    Have you not noticed the american satellites that we have in this country? Do you think they are here because the US wants to provide Kiwis with better TV reception?

    IF NZ should come under any threat, do you seriously believe that the US would say “oh well, you didn’t allow our ships in your harbours, so we are just going to let them have you!” Get real !!!

    The Yanks need us!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    dave_c_ (147) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 11:57 am

    Crap Weihana – they will no more come to our aid if we are invaded, than we can fly to the moon

    I see no reason why we could not fly to the moon if we wanted to waste a whole bunch of money. The US did it with less computational power than a Sega Master System. The real question is why would we want to?

    Also, you do realize that ANZUS was a defence pact?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    WW3… lol. Right.

    Laugh it up, bozo.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341340/Could-Syria-ignite-World-War-3-Thats-terrifying-question-hatred-Muslim-ideologies-sucks-worlds-superpowers.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    There is no reasoning with them Weihana.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    “The Yanks need us!”

    They need every strategic advantage they can get at the moment. If they go down it will be because of easily manipulated mungbeans like you. Who preferred the other side to have that advantage.

    And don’t forget, if the US goes down, so do we.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Quick question Judith – what’s killed more people? Wind farms or nuclear power stations?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It’s all very well for us to curse the nuclear umbrella when we have benefited from it for so long.

    The “benefit” is entirely illusory. The nuclear arms race had it’s origins in Lend Lease, well before the cold war started.

    Is there really any doubt that the Soviets would have swept into Western Europe in the late 1940s if they could have?

    Yes, the soviet threat was exaggerated by the the Nazi intelligence agencies that were retained by the US at the end of WW2.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Weihana (3,958) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    The US need us because of our geographical position. They do not need us for any other reason, except maybe that we have a relative clean image, compared to their increasingly ‘dirty’ one.

    We are important to them only because we can provide what Australia and other countries cannot.

    As I said, you are a fool if you think that the U.S. cares about us in any other way than what we can provide for them.

    Actually there is one small thing they do like us for – many american males gets turned on by the kiwi female accent, but I’m pretty sure that is not a contributing factor to the desire to have their ships in our harbours. (no euphemism intended).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Longknives (4,690 comments) says:

    It was only 70 odd years ago (a blink of an eye in World History) that tens of thousands of US soldiers died in the South Pacific saving our pathetic little country…
    Yet now we (from our little clean, Green, Socialist utopia) pontificate and sneer at them when they want to use our harbours??
    It’s disgusting what this country has become..

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Judith (4,201) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    You are a fool if you think NZ is at any extreme risk because we don’t allow nuclear ships in our harbour.

    Just as well I don’t believe that then. :)

    From a pragmatic point of view you are probably right. But the fact remains the US military is unmatched and they are a sort of defacto world police and our security is dependent on them.

    IF NZ should come under any threat, do you seriously believe that the US would say ‘oh well, you didn’t allow our ships in your harbours, so we are just going to let them have you! Get real !!!

    Probably true. But I don’t think this has anything to do with them needing satellites in our country. They would do it because we are like them. We are first world, we are predominantly white, we speak English etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. cha (3,943 comments) says:

    Rense, the eternal Jew – nah I’ll leave the erudition to you davey boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “… many american males gets turned on by the kiwi female accent… ”

    What an absolutely bizarre thing to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    There is no reasoning with them Weihana.

    So address the issue of the exaggeration of the communist threat by the Nazis, Cato.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Cato (804) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    Wind farms are an absolute waste of time in NZ. Our wind speed is too inconsistent in the places that matter, and the variation does so much harm that it makes them too difficult and expensive to maintain. Eventually when we get over our ‘pride’ we will dump the useless pieces of crap.

    Regarding your point though – we DON’T need nuclear ships – this is not an either or argument. No one is saying if we don’t have nuclear ships then we must have some other kind of danger – there is not an alternative on offer.

    It is an offer we do not benefit from except for some false propaganda that if we don’t have them we are in danger (from what? we’ve survived very well for a long time without them?). I accept that if we keep joining with the States and spying on other countries (that we don’t need to spy on) then we might start to be regarded differently but hopefully that risk will be eradicated soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Zah?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (1,993) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    WW3… lol. Right.

    Laugh it up, bozo.

    mwahahahahahaha. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Cato (805) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    Sorry I was trying to lighten the conversation with humour – but actually its quite true – I was told at a conference I spoke at once that a ‘certain’ amercian male could listen to me speak all day (here I was thinking that he enjoyed by thesis, but no, he followed the comment with ‘do you know the kiwi female accent ) …..’. So there you have it!!

    I’ll try to be more serious – I forgot where I was posting for a moment!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    they are a sort of defacto world police

    If your idea of police action is abusing Tuhoe children, maybe.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” – George Orwell.

    I look forward to you one day growing up and joining the real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Longknives (3,176) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 12:24 pm
    It was only 70 odd years ago (a blink of an eye in World History) that tens of thousands of US soldiers died in the South Pacific saving our pathetic little country…

    What a load of unadulterated garbage!!

    The yanks only got into the war when their arses were on the line and they realised that if they didn’t pull finger, they would lose their influence in the south pacific.

    They came to ‘our’ rescue because there was the risk that if our country fell into Japanese hands, then theirs was under more threat.

    Save our butts indeed !! Pfff – they were saving their own mostly and ensuring themselves a strong future.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Zah?

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/11/302975/us-driven-by-nazi-war-machine/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    You’re an idiot. America didn’t officially go to war until 1941 – but they were basically doing everything but. The idea that the Allies could have won the Second World War without the pre-Pear Harbour aid from America is just laughable.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    OMG! Poor Joseph Stalin! I’m sure that if Nato hadn’t co-opted aspects of the German military architecture, he would have happily sat back and continued as an agrarian reformer! And, of course, we know that the Soviets certainly took no advantage of the German defence personnel and scientists who fell into their clutches.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Weihana (3,961) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    It is not just a satellite matter Weihana.

    Australia is too close to Asia geographically. An ‘off shore’ base that would enable the U.S. fleet to anchor is fundamental to any war effort in the pacific. To ensure that they are not caught short, it is really beneficial to them to have that firmly established should the need arise.

    I have no problem with that. They can have all the bases they want, they can build and prepare for anything they ‘fear’ but they CANT BRING THEIR NUCLEAR SHIPS HERE!!

    I accept that if another world war broke out, that having their Nuclear ships here would probably happen – but until such time as that does occur – there is no need to have them here and have the unnecessary risk. It’s not going to happen – I’m one of the saner ‘nuclear free’ nutters around. If Key tries it, he won’t survive – their’s plenty of extreme nutters that will deal on this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Cato, if you want to make a point you should avoid ranting like a lunatic.
    Please try again.

    From the presstv article:

    On 22 May 1945, the Third Reich’s chief of intelligence on the Eastern Front, Major General Reinhard Gehlen, surrendered himself to the American military near his Bavarian hideout. The Americans quickly realized the scoop. Gehlen had been Hitler’s “spy master” during Nazi Germany’s war on the Soviet Union, in charge of running agents, death squads and compiling data on Soviet and Red Army infrastructure.

    Gehlen prepared well for his surrender to the Americans. He traded his copious intelligence assets for liberty, instead of being handed over as a wanted war criminal to the Soviets, as the Americans should have done as part of an agreement hammered out between the Allies at the Yalta conference weeks before the war’s end. The Soviets wanted Gehlen and his high-value files, and they knew that the Americans were breaking their word.

    Hitler’s spy master was not only given his liberty. He was flown to Washington and was received with open arms by President Truman’s top intelligence brass. For the next year, Gehlen worked with American military intelligence to establish an anti-Soviet clandestine army that would operate throughout Eastern Europe, the Baltics and inside Russian territory. The Gehlen Organization, as it became known, was Washington’s “eyes and ears” on the Soviet Union.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Redbaiter (8,528 comments) says:

    “What an absolutely bizarre thing to say.”

    Yes, the futility of arguing with fools.

    Why do we do it???

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    What are you trying to tell me? That war and espionage are dirty business that force you to compromise with evil men? Stop the presses!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    All this ranting about who did what and when is academic.
    Two things happen during war – Ttruth is the first casualty, and the victors write history

    So who to believe about what happened, and whether what is recorded is based on real events is debatable.

    We should be focusing on learning from history and navigating forward

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. gump (1,634 comments) says:

    @Cato

    “A massive earthquale and then giant tidal wave hit an early 70s vintage power plant and the resulting leak causes zero directly attributable deaths.”

    ——————–

    You are being laughably disingenuous.

    It’s estimated that 1,539 people died as a result of the mass evacuations from Fukushima prefecture, The causes of death were “fatigue” due to conditions in evacuation centers, exhaustion from relocating, and illness resulting from hospital closures. Not to mention a number of suicides that have been attributed to the ordeal.

    Source:

    http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20130909p2a00m0na009000c.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Right, so people died because of radiophobia – not because of radiation poisoning. There is a difference between saying an evacuation process killed someone, and that there is some inherent thing in nuclear power that was the cause of his or her death.

    It was the worst death since Chernobyl, which itself killed … 31 people. Each one a tragedy, of course, but it’s bearing in mind that 32 people were killed in the Costa Concordia disaster. Should we abolish cruise liners?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    What are you trying to tell me?

    That the answer to your question is yes, in spades.

    You said: “Is there really any doubt that the Soviets would have swept into Western Europe in the late 1940s if they could have?”

    My point is that elements within the US administration have been responsible for the escalation of military tensions since WW2. Gehlen was one example, the US involvement in Gladio B is another.

    If you go to evil men for protection then you are no better than they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. gump (1,634 comments) says:

    @Cato

    “The US navy also has an accident free record to date.”

    ——————-

    More nonsense.

    In 1963 the submarine USS Thresher sank to the east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Poor design of its emergency ballast system prevented the ship from surfacing and the disabled ship ultimately descended to crush depth and imploded.

    In 1965 an A-4E Skyhawk aircraft loaded with one B43 nuclear weapon rolled off the deck of the USS Ticonderoga while the aircraft carrier was off the coast of Japan.

    In 1968 the USS Scorpion (SSN-589) sank while en route from Rota, Spain, to Naval Base Norfolk. The wreckage of the ship, its S5W reactor, and its two Mark 45 torpedoes with W34 nuclear warheads, remain on the sea floor in more than 3,000 m (9,800 ft) of water.

    In 1971 during the transfer of radioactive coolant water from the submarine USS Dace to the submarine tender USS Fulton, 500 US gallons were spilled into the Thames River in Connecticut.

    In 1975 radioactive resin contaminated the American Sturgeon-class submarine USS Guardfish after wind unexpectedly blew the powder back towards the ship.

    In 1975 the submarine tender USS Proteus discharged radioactive coolant water into Guam Harbour

    In 1978 a valve was mistakenly opened aboard the submarine USS Puffer releasing up to 500 US gallons (1,900 l; 420 imp gal) of radioactive water into Puget Sound.

    Here is the source for this list of incidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It was the worst death since Chernobyl, which itself killed … 31 people.

    Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences.

    It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. dime (9,849 comments) says:

    Id love to see the US navy rock up. Doubt we’d be lucky enough to see a carrier group.

    Does anyone give a shit about nukes anymore? I mean about the countries that have em. Sure, no one but kea wants the ragheads to get one, but really they are a non issue.

    80’s nuclear free
    2000’s global warming.

    fuck i hope the emissions trading scam doesnt last 30+ years

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    UT, I’ll see you the conclusions of ‘a book’ you’ve heard about and raise you the conclusions of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.

    I never said that the US Navy had an accident free record, so I don’t know what that other person is going on about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. gump (1,634 comments) says:

    @Cato

    “I never said that the US Navy had an accident free record, so I don’t know what that other person is going on about.”

    ———————

    Apologies for the misattribution. My post should have read: @Weihana

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Kea (12,380 comments) says:

    “WW3… lol. Right.”

    Weihana, yeah I know he is a violent black man so you must defend Obama regardless of his wrongs, but it could have esculated to a global conflict had Iran, Syria, Russia, squared off against your black warlords aggression.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Paulus (2,607 comments) says:

    Wussel will go spare and Cunliffe will follow his despair – after all he is now agin everything same as Wussel.

    Cannot be sure that they will get along in bed together – can’t decide which one is the man.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Cato (812) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 1:01 pm

    There are a lot more than 31 that have died because of Chernobyl, and many are still suffering, including a vast number of children born with cancers and disfigurements.

    People will always die in strange circumstances, especially when they put themselves up against nature, which is in essence what you are doing when you board a ship and sail the oceans, even on a cruise ship. No we shouldn’t ban Cruise ships – that is a voluntary risk. The same as climbing a mountain – or eating nothing but KFC and coke. No one has to do it – it is a decision people make.

    If Nuclear ships come to NZ – then the risk is not voluntary – it will affect us all – its not something we can chose not to be part of. Why should we have that risk unless there is an immediate benefit to all our citizens? No one seems to be able to answer that question with anything but propaganda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. dime (9,849 comments) says:

    “Why should we have that risk unless there is an immediate benefit to all our citizens? ”

    how many sailors in a carrier group? 10,000? all spending money, drinking piss.. i call that a benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. dime (9,849 comments) says:

    Judith – arent you in some shit town anyway? the yanks will only visit auckland :D

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    UT, I’ll see you the conclusions of ‘a book’ you’ve heard about and raise you the conclusions of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.

    New York Academy of Sciences (2013) vs Soviet officials (1986)?
    You’ve got to be joking.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908
    http://articles.latimes.com/1986-08-22/news/mn-16821_1_chernobyl-reactor

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    gump (932) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    Apologies for the misattribution. My post should have read: @Weihana

    I stand corrected. I had seen an accident free record claimed elsewhere but I presume “accident free” has somewhat of a selective meaning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Kea (8,569) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    …it could have…

    But it didn’t, which is the material point. Nuclear weapons change the dynamics of foreign relations and changes the costs and benefits of military decisions. Putin isn’t going to war with the US over Syria.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Judith (4,207) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    If Nuclear ships come to NZ – then the risk is not voluntary – it will affect us all – its not something we can chose not to be part of.

    By that logic, and since climate change is a risk that is involuntary, can you stop driving your car please. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    But it didn’t, which is the material point.

    So Russian roulette is safe if you’re still alive after the first round?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Judith (4,207) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    I accept that if another world war broke out, that having their Nuclear ships here would probably happen – but until such time as that does occur – there is no need to have them here and have the unnecessary risk.

    Sounds like signing up for insurance after the fact.

    I agree in all likelihood there is probably not a huge practical advantage in having these ships come here since they’ll probably defend us anyway. I agree with Dime that the sailors would help business but arguably the benefit is limited and the potential risks great, even if unlikely, so pragmatically your argument is not necessarily wrong. But it just seems like a bit of shitty attitude to have. If something goes wrong then we run scared to the Americans: “Hey Buddy! Long time no see!”. But until then we act like a snob: “Sorry, your kind are not welcome in our house”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (2,003) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 2:08 pm

    So Russian roulette is safe if you’re still alive after the first round?

    Arguments abound over the merits of Obama’s approach to Syria, but “peace for our time” is not necesarily the absence of military force. A lack of action can just as easily constitute a danger as the threat, or undertaking, of some action. In this case there is no plausible scenario, other than Hollywood inspired fantasies, where the major powers of the world engage in nuclear war. We have over 60 years of proof. At most they would fight a cold war through proxy interests. Putin is not an idiot nor suicidal. His interests simply differ somewhat from that of the United States.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. gump (1,634 comments) says:

    @Judith

    “I accept that if another world war broke out, that having their Nuclear ships here would probably happen – but until such time as that does occur – there is no need to have them here and have the unnecessary risk.”

    ———————

    I don’t think it would probably happen.

    New Zealand is simply too far away from any potential theatre of war. Bringing a nuclear powered ship to New Zealand would take it away from where it was needed.

    We had US troop ships here during WWII, but that’s because it was predominantly an infantry war (and there was a need for soldiers to be relocated here for R&R). We’re unlikely to see that type of war ever again.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ dime (7,570) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Judith thinks Dime should wash his mouth out for speaking about the place she lives in such a way.
    Judith also thinks Dime is mistaken when he thinks she lives in some ‘shit town’, because she lives in a city.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Weihana (3,966) Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    But that is just it Weihana, we would not ‘need’ to run to anybody. America has more reasons for ensuring that no other major power has dominance in New Zealand, they would be here as quick as a flash should there even be any suggestion. If New Zealand’s only reason to have them here is because the profits made from selling them alcohol would boost the economy then the cost/benefit risk analysis completely excludes it.

    The mere fact that they want to be here now, before or without any other threat is evidence enough that they want us! They do not want to be here because they think their ships would improve the aesthetic value of the landscape, nor do they give a rats tit about our economy – as long as it doesn’t fall into the hands of another nation.

    We live in an homoio-exighorphobic culture – I accept that, just as I accept the resulting insults one draws because I dare to question the persistent and increasing inclusion of the USA in our politics.

    To question their inclusion in our nation’s business immediately labels a person ‘suspect’. Our social determinism is driven by inclusionary rather than exclusionary ethics that negate the logic of war, and any suggestion of objection to the great ‘war monger’ is regarded as a political threat. The politics of the States has already invaded our culture – I’ll be damned if I’ll sit by and let them invade our harbours as well – and I know I’m not the only one – I’m sure before long someone will call anyone that dares to protest a ‘terrorist’ – that’s the yanky way we’ve come to ‘love’ in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. dime (9,849 comments) says:

    “Judith also thinks Dime is mistaken when he thinks she lives in some ‘shit town’, because she lives in a city.”

    dont cities usually have high rises? :D

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    In this case there is no plausible scenario, other than Hollywood inspired fantasies, where the major powers of the world engage in nuclear war. We have over 60 years of proof.

    Obama’s initial response in Syria and the Cuban missile crisis being two exceptions.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. SJM (77 comments) says:

    Judith (4,209) Says:

    October 30th, 2013 at 2:57 pm
    ————————

    Hehe, negate the logic of war….in the real world, war is interested in you Judith, and cares not about the nature of NZ culture and society.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. noskire (839 comments) says:

    China sends three naval vessels to Auckland for a “visit” last week. NZ is just about to host it’s biggest ever joint-military exercise. US announces relations with NZ are “back to normal”. Coincidence much?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. SJM (77 comments) says:

    Noskire:No, no coincidence at all, its all about hedging our bets. John Key, I think, said as much when he said he wants a free trade deal with the EU, we need to move away from dependence on one power for economic security.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. V (701 comments) says:

    So just as the USA is facing awkward pressure relating to its spying activities on allies it wants to improve relations with little old NZ. We must be last cab off the rank to use a NZ political phrase …

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. wotsisname (14 comments) says:

    redbaiter – oct 30th 11:41

    “Hey wotsisname- you’re so full of anti-American boilerplate rubbish.”

    what i wrote about the cia overthrowing various democratic or social governments was true, factual and correct – is it “anti american” to point out the truth ?

    by the way i am not anti american – i love the music their slaves make – it’s called “the blues” for good reason

    “What have you got on Red China and Russia?”

    well, what have you got? –

    how many countries have been invaded by china and russia in the last 60 years?

    how many tons of bombs have they dropped on foreign countries?

    how many military coups have they suppoerted to overthrow democratically elected governments?

    how many dictators have they helped to power?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. wotsisname (14 comments) says:

    my comment at 11:03 am … 9 people don’t like it … lol

    so you think that building huge arsenals of nuclear weapons in order to threaten the ordinary human beings much like you and me, who happen to live in bejing, moscow, and god only knows where else is a good idea and not a waste of resources and money …

    and you don’t think there can be another way of resolving our differences …

    and my comment at 11:41 … 6 people don’t like me pointing out a simple truth – either that or they don’t like american slave music, (called jazz, blues, r&b, soul, funk and rock’n’roll) in which case they probably have no soul … probably sold it to the highest bidder … lol again

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. wotsisname (14 comments) says:

    oh – forgot to mention gospel music, and of course the music of the white slaves, aka “white trash” – folk, bluegrass, country, and rock’n’roll again …

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Longknives (4,690 comments) says:

    “Save our butts indeed !! Pfff …”

    Glad you find the death of over 100,000 US soldiers so amusing Judith…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ wotsisname (12) Says:
    October 31st, 2013 at 1:16 am

    Don’t worry about the thumbs down – these are the people who feel challenged by the thoughts of those who regard the survival of all as a threat to their neo-liberalist beliefs. They would rather risk New Zealanders lives to stay friends with the USA, than to be seen as an independent country who stood against political violence.

    Such is the homoio-exighorphobic culture of today, a legacy of 911. To think differently to them, to challenge anything that isn’t consistent with the Americanisation of the globe, makes you a threat to their unobtainable dream.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Manolo (13,572 comments) says:

    Judith, are you still a Bain and Winston’s NZF supporter? Have you changed your proclivities?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Longknives (3,178) Says:
    October 31st, 2013 at 1:35 am

    For their families and the individuals, I have sympathy – for the country I have nothing.

    America lost no more than anyone else per capita – they like to make themselves the heroes because eventually when they were directly threatened they finally fully committed themselves to the effort.

    I lost three family members before they made that stand. Three that didn’t need to lose their lives had America thought of any one but themselves.

    No, I don’t see America as the heroes of the war. I see the Kiwi men that volunteered to go to war in Europe, far away from their homeland as the heroes. Their country was not under an immediate threat at the time, but they volunteered by the thousands to do what they believed was right – to ensure that their country would not ever be subjected to tyranny – so yes, I pfft at the States – they waited until the threat was knocking at their door – and then they finally officially committed.

    Individually the americans that contributed before Pearl Harbour are worthy of accolade, but as a country their procrastination is not worthy of reward. Had America as a country committed at the beginning, not only thousands of service men would have lived, but many civilians, not to mention probably millions of Jews, Gypsies, and others would have as well.

    They say the American’s won the war for us – maybe they did – but too late to save the lives of those that were needlessly exterminated. That is on America’s shoulders – to be able to influence the outcome, but not do so until it’s all about you – doesn’t make you a hero. It never will.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Manolo (10,999) Says:
    October 31st, 2013 at 8:34 am

    Will always support Bain because I believe he is innocent, have never supported Winston, and probably never will, although he has given me plenty to laugh at.

    Nice of you to demonstrate the culture I have been referring to though!! Well done – I love it when your actions make me right!! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.