Keys rules out SAS going to Iraq

June 18th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has ruled out sending New Zealand special forces soldiers to as the United States mulls options in response to an unfolding crisis there.

Speaking in New York, Key said the New Zealand government was currently looking at what humanitarian aid it might provide as tens of thousands of Iraqis have been displaced by a violent takeover of parts of the country. …

New Zealand special forces soldiers were deployed to Afghanistan in a similar role.

But Key said he did not believe it likely that New Zealand special forces would be deployed or requested.

“I don’t think that’s likely. We’re just so far away from probably ever having to make that call. But in the end in so much as with any global issue, as things play out New Zealand would always look to the [United Nations] Security Council for its view and its sanction of anything that may happen. So you can never say never in a world where the Security Council decides that Iraq needs support of some sort, engineers or whatever it might be, that could always be considered but I think that’s very unlikely.”

Asked if that meant he could rule out New Zealand special forces soldiers being deployed to Iraq, even in an advisory capacity, Key responded; “I would say yes’.

This means that the only Prime Minister to seen soldiers to Iraq remains Helen Clark.

Tags:

44 Responses to “Keys rules out SAS going to Iraq”

  1. mike tan (491 comments) says:

    Locking up that center vote!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Ashley Schaeffer (508 comments) says:

    Good call. The challenge for any SAS team sent to Iraq would be trying to decide whether to deploy in support of the ‘legitimate’ Iraqi government or our Sunni allies in Syria.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    I appreciate that the goal here is to keep the muslim world divided by in-fighting, and therefore weak…

    Given how frequently the tide turns, it must get tricky deciding which team to back.. before you know it one lot might manage to take over almost everything?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I appreciate that the goal here is to keep the muslim world divided by in-fighting, and therefore weak…

    Lets not forget about carrying out acts of terrorism and then blaming them for it.
    9/11 NY
    7/7 London
    3/11 Madrid
    All three events had exercises running concurrently with the actual attacks.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. stephieboy (3,371 comments) says:

    UT, even if it were true ( military exercises are regular and routine events carried out almost daily ) there is absolutely no evidence that those three events were orchestrated inside jobs.
    None whatsoever except amongst the deluded and most often bitterly divided Truthers.
    Name also whistleblowers who have testified otherwise.??

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mikenmild (11,627 comments) says:

    But let’s not get derailed by Ugly’s bizarre trutherism.
    Did DPF’s comment imply he disapproved of New Zealand’s earlier military role in Iraq?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. stephieboy (3,371 comments) says:

    “This means that the only Prime Minister to seen soldiers to Iraq remains Helen Clark.”

    Thats a bit unfair DPF. Since when was NZ listed as part of the”coalition of the willing. “??. I understand a small non combatant force of army engineers was sent there for civilian reconstruction projects. Hardly comparable to say Australia’s full military commitment .
    Did the National Opposition support or oppose this deployment.???

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

    But let’s not get derailed by Ugly’s bizarre trutherism.

    Let’s not get derailed by you lying about 9/11, Milky.

    Remember your PRATT bullshit? The point about the excess heat of of 9/11 has never been rebutted.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. stephieboy (3,371 comments) says:

    UT the so called” excess heat ” perfectly explainable by a combination of the explosive and kinetic force of 11 and and 175 impacts on the towers with the admixture of a variety of materials inside the towers etc, etc .
    No evidence of mini nukes and victims vapourized or killed by by them. Nor visual evidence of the explosions. Suggest you can more productively focus on the the whereabouts of the 200 or so passengers and crews and the uncovering of whistleblowers who participated in the alleged ” cover up. “

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

    “In this communication I shall show that only explosives could have produced the large amounts of molten steel found at the site of the World Trade Center (WTC) in the days following 9/11. There is universal agreement by scientists in and out of government that the temperatures reached in the fires were much lower than the melting point of steel. Steel could have only have melted (assuming no explosives were used) if it gained additional energy in falling. I shall show that this gravitational energy is insufficient to cause melting.

    Conclusions: Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought down by explosives or cutter charges.”

    Terry Morrone, PhD – Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University.

    http://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. stephieboy (3,371 comments) says:

    Not onethose from your link comes from any of the Universities that count like Harvard, MIT, Princeton , Stamford, UCLA , Cornell, Columbia and Yale etc.
    I do note from your link the presence of Steven Jones who debunks and refutes the bizarre and fanciful mini nuke claims including those by Terry Morrone.

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

    You don’t get to set the bar for expert opinion, idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. stephieboy (3,371 comments) says:

    Three lies in a single sentence from Terry Morrone,

    http://67.228.115.45/showthread.php?t=203835&page=3

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. ShawnLH (5,643 comments) says:

    “You don’t get to set the bar for expert opinion, idiot.”

    No, YOU DON’T. You don’t get to make accusations unless you can prove them, which you can’t. You don’t get to make accusations in support of Islamic terrorists if you cannot link to any serious academic expert to prove your case, which you can’t.

    Either post the proof from a reputable source or shut up.

    Oh, and dicks like Peter Arnett or alien lizard people sites are NOT reputable sources to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ShawnLH (5,643 comments) says:

    “e point about the excess heat of of 9/11 has never been rebutted.”

    Yes it has, repeatedly. You just don’t care because facts are of no concern to you.

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

    You’re lying again, Shawn Lee Herles.

    If you were telling the truth you could post a link to the actual rebuttal.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mike tan (491 comments) says:

    The 911 conspiracies have been well debunked. If you need someone to point you in the direction, it only demonstrates that you either refuse to acknowledge the facts, or you are unable to use the internet.

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

    The 911 conspiracies have been well debunked.

    Debunking and rebuttal are two different things. Debunking can simply involve ridicule, and a skilled debunker can effectively mislead people.

    A logical rebuttal involves the refuting the original points. To do this here, somebody would have so show an energy source than can account for extraordinarily high levels of heat evidence by 700 degree hotspots days after the event and underground fires burning months after the event, and this energy source would have to be consistent with the MSM explanation.

    The fact that nobody has been able to do this, but have instead reverted to lying about it should how significant this point is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    This means that the only Prime Minister to seen soldiers to Iraq remains Helen Clark. ,/i>
    And Jim Bolger.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mike tan (491 comments) says:

    UT,

    The official report that was compiled with the assistance of thousands of leading experts involved no ridicule. I trust you are aware of this report (and if you aren’t, then you are pretty unwise to be taking a position on something you haven’t even researched).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The official report that was compiled with the assistance of thousands of leading experts involved no ridicule.

    The report didn’t address the issue of what the energy source was for the extraordinary levels of heat at the site.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. mike tan (491 comments) says:

    You haven’t read the report have you?

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

    You haven’t read the report have you?

    I’ve read enough criticisms of it to know that it was a whitewash.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/high-level-officials-eager-to-spill-the-beans-about-what-really-happened-on-911-but-no-one-in-washington-or-the-media-wants-to-hear.html

    The 9/11 Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements

    9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

    9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mike tan (491 comments) says:

    So you cherry picked a couple of quotes from the 9/11 commission. I thought that we were talking about the popular mechanics report, you know, the one that used that science thing to look over the conspiracy claims?

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

    So you cherry picked a couple of quotes from the 9/11 commission.

    I pointed out that several of the people involved in the production of the report had no confidence in some sources of information used used in the report.

    I note that you have no explanation for the original point concerning the extraordinary heat levels. Does your popular mechanics source have any answer to the question of where the energy came from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. mike tan (491 comments) says:

    What a surprise, you haven’t even bothered to read it.

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

    Why would I bother to read a something that avoids addressing the evidence of conspiracy?

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-9-11-commission-report-a-571-page-lie/907

    Why are you avoiding the issue of where the energy came from, the issue that mikenmild and shawnlh lied about?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. stephieboy (3,371 comments) says:

    All over again. The molten”steel ” from anecdotal reports in fact ,on closer examination ,was molten ” metal ” ( a combination of substances from the WTC collapse including aluminum (also from 11and 175 ), plastics, copper wiring , various trace elements used in interior office construction etc).
    The only so called evidence of molten ” steel ” is from excavators in the link picking up “molten steel .” How can a machine pick something that is “molten “???

    http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

    The Thermodynamics of the WTC Towers collapse readily explains those “hotspots ” as explained analyzed by Manuel Garcia below,

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/28/the-thermodynamics-of-9-11/

    “Manuel Garcia a native New Yorker who works as a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California with a PhD Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, from Princeton His technical interests are generally in fluid flow and energy, specifically in gas dynamics and plasma physics; and his working experience includes measurements on nuclear bomb tests, devising mathematical models of energetic physical effects, and trying to enlarge a union of weapons scientists. He can be reached at mango@idiom.com

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mike tan (491 comments) says:

    UT,

    “Why would I bother to read a something that avoids addressing the evidence of conspiracy?”

    How can you make a judgement about what is inside the report, when you by your own admission can’t be bothered to read it?

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

    The only so called evidence of molten ” steel ” is from excavators in the link picking up “molten steel .

    You’ve been made aware of this before, liar.

    “molten steel runnning down the channel rails, like you were in a foundry”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Lance (2,704 comments) says:

    Oh dear
    Ugly Truth never misses a chance to wheel out his nutter conspiracy theories, sigh.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. stephieboy (3,371 comments) says:

    UT, tets take but two of Dr Griffen ‘s claims from so called Global Research.

    1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers – including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC – are still alive (19-20).

    That claim has proven to be utterly untrue.Also none of their families have came forward to substantiate the allegations.Surely they would be among the first to back it up, not to speak of the alleged hijackers themselves.? Why.?

    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive

    and,

    4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

    False. Shortly after the 9/11 provisional or victims lists were released to CNN which were not manifests or complete. The complete manifests were released by the Airlines on the 12th Sept with the hijackers names .

    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/No_hijackers_on_the_passenger_man

    The fire crews are purely speaking anecdotally . It’s not based on actual analysis but what they thought was or looked like molten “steel ” . That issue is covered in my link above .

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. mike tan (491 comments) says:

    Without fail, they always bring out the random youtube video.

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

    How can you make a judgement about what is inside the report, when you by your own admission can’t be bothered to read it?

    By reading what other commentators have had to say about it and by considering the wider context.

    Idiot boy has now joined the ranks of the liars, he knew about the testimony of the firemen.

    He tries to address the issue of where the heat came from, but Garcia’s analysis cannot explain the length of time that the site stayed hot: days in the case of the 700 deg. C hotspots, and months in the case of the underground fires. Garcia suggest that the fires reached a maxium temp off 700 deg C, but has no explanation as to how material could remain at this temperature for days, especially with the addition of rainwater.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. mike tan (491 comments) says:

    Maybe you should try reading source material and forming your own conclusions.

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

    Without fail, they always bring out the random youtube video.

    Are you suggesting that the witnesses were lying about observing molten steel?

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

    Maybe you should try reading source material and forming your own conclusions.

    What source material explains where all the heat came from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mike tan (491 comments) says:

    I am suggesting that, time and time again, when presented with academic reports, the science deniers back up their positions with youtube videos, and links to shady websites. It’s as sure as shit.

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

    You mean academic reports that support the MSM position, right? And you accuse me of cherry picking.

    “In this communication I shall show that only explosives could have produced the large amounts of molten steel found at the site of the World Trade Center (WTC) in the days following 9/11. There is universal agreement by scientists in and out of government that the temperatures reached in the fires were much lower than the melting point of steel. Steel could have only have melted (assuming no explosives were used) if it gained additional energy in falling. I shall show that this gravitational energy is insufficient to cause melting.

    Conclusions: Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought down by explosives or cutter charges.”

    Terry Morrone, PhD – Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University.

    http://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911

    So tell us, mike, how does the fact that video testimony from witnesses becomes less important due to it being posted on youtube?

    Or is this just another question that you won’t answer because doing so would only tend to make you look like a shill for the conspiracy?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. stephieboy (3,371 comments) says:

    UT, the presence of molten “steel. ” ?? Did Morrone actually examine it or was he relying again on anecdotal accounts and visual evidence .???

    “… Garcia’s analysis cannot explain the length of time that the site stayed hot: days in the case of the 700 deg. C hotspots, and months in the case of the underground fires.”

    Precisely why.??

    You avoid the claims that Ray Griffen incorrectly made.Attention to those would be appreciated .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Aussie Aussie Aussie (22 comments) says:

    That is not a Religion Folks the sooner your wake up to it

    IT IS A PRIMITIVE HEAD HUNTING CULT

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. ChardonnayGuy (1,209 comments) says:

    Good to see multipartisan consensus on this issue. The only way that New Zealanders should be sent to Iraq is within a neutral medical and humanitarian mission, serving the innocent civilian bystanders of what seems to be an escalating Shia/Sunni civil war. So much for those conspiracy theorists who view Islam as a seamless and monolithic ‘juggernaut.’ Apart from 9/11 and the Afghan and Iraqi Wars, most of al Qaeda’s victims have been ‘other’ (read: Shia and Alawi) Muslims. And yes, I am aware that ISIS is no longer regarded as an al Qaeda subsidiary, I’m making a general point. One hopes for similar multipartisan support for refugee and asylum seeker resettlement, if necessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “… Garcia’s analysis cannot explain the length of time that the site stayed hot: days in the case of the 700 deg. C hotspots, and months in the case of the underground fires.”

    Precisely why.??

    Because hot things cool down over time.

    Surface temperatures of 747 degrees C were measured on September 16. ref: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

    Garcia’s analysis does not explain how the temperature increased from his 700 degree upper limit to 747 degrees over five days. The simplest explanation is that the surface hot spots were heated from underground – there are several reports of molten steel would would account for this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. ChardonnayGuy (1,209 comments) says:

    Yes, but at least the SAS option facilitated a later NZ free trade agreement, don’t forget.

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