Key on Iraq

Written By: - Date published: 6:54 am, June 18th, 2014 - 52 comments
Categories: national - Tags: ,

John Key on Iraq in the Herald today:

We are not a country out there looking for a fight.

John Key on Iraq 2003:

52 comments on “Key on Iraq ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tc 1
    18 June 2014 at 7:03 am

    Here are my principles but if you don’t like them I have others you may like and a number of ways to distance myself from any prior actions I may or may not have taken.

    • Tom Gould 1.1
      18 June 2014 at 11:30 am

      Will the National Herald run oblique sources calling him a hypocrite playing politics with war? Of course not. That’s kind of vivid memory recall is only reserved for Labour.

  2. Gruntie 2
    18 June 2014 at 7:10 am

    Can’t believe Keysie has been aN MP since 2002! Done do much harm , so little good and still his shit doesn’t stink

  3. Sanctuary 3
    18 June 2014 at 7:28 am

    To paraphrase Philip Zec –

    The price of the TPP deal just went up one more NZ soldier’s life – official.

  4. irascible 4
    18 June 2014 at 7:31 am

    Key was well trained as a money speculator. In that trade principles are so fluid that it becomes easy to forget that which you said yesterday and to believe that which contradicts that which you said earlier is the truth.
    To those on Planet Key that which was said in 2003 was expedient and was based on principles while that which is said in 2014 is just as principled.
    If you can live such a tortuous line then life on Planet Key is easy.

    • miravox 4.1
      18 June 2014 at 7:50 am

      That is John Key sticking up for what he believes in.

      Everything outside of his core beliefs though, is fluid.

      That spittle-fleck tirade is not fluid. Pass it around and don’t forget it, because gradually he’ll calm the masses and then go and do stuff anyway. A bit like no mining in Schedule Four land, but then forest parks and dolphin sanctuaries are not Schedule Four so no worries.

      • phillip ure 4.1.1
        18 June 2014 at 9:30 am

        “.A bit like no mining in Schedule Four land, –

        ..but then forest parks and dolphin sanctuaries are not Schedule Four –

        • so no worries..”

        ..+ 1..

  5. Colonial Viper 5
    18 June 2014 at 7:59 am

    Investment bank commodity traders speculate on things like the price of wheat, corn, barley. Their market manipulations force artificial price fluctuations in those foods which leave hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people even hungrier.

    But what do they care, all these traders look forward to is receiving their just rewards at bonus time.

    • Gosman 5.1
      18 June 2014 at 10:59 am

      Speculators don’t tend to bet against underlying market fundamentals very often. They do attempt to identify situations where markets may not reflect the underlying economic reality though and use that to their advantage. In short they largely drive markets to more realistic positions rather than the other way around.

  6. BLiP 6
    18 June 2014 at 8:39 am

    ‘

    John Key is lying, as usual. Its too close to the election for him to be worrying the punters about involving New Zealand in another US war so he’s outfront denying the possibility but, behind the scenes . . .

    . . . Key has ruled out being part of a “military intervention”. But he has left open the possibility of New Zealand joining a “training intervention” which the US is expected to table in Washington . . .

    . . . just like the “training” work our armed forces did in Afghanistan. The public fell for it last time, so its just rinse and repeat. Expect TINA to arrive shortly after September.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1
      18 June 2014 at 8:47 am

      For sale: used Prime Minister. Will kill for money.

    • Tracey 6.2
      18 June 2014 at 11:37 am

      exactly. I was confused about whether he would of would not commit military personnel after seeing him on the news. he seemed to be saying no and yes.

  7. Brian 7
    18 June 2014 at 9:23 am

    Does this man have any principles?

    It would appear not.

    • AmaKiwi 7.1
      18 June 2014 at 11:53 am

      “Does this man have any principles?” Yes.

      1. Greed is good.
      2. Winning isn’t the most important thing. It is the ONLY thing.
  8. Chooky 8
    18 June 2014 at 9:50 am

    That is damning.!!!!!..John Key was up there with petroleum investor speculator George Bush and Catholic Tony Blair and the Zionists…as a WAR MONGER!

    True New Zealander Helen Clark is to be congratulated for NOT taking New Zealand into that immoral tragic man- made war!…She stood with the wishes of New Zealanders ….up against the male leaders of the Americans and the British and the Australians( who were opposed by their own peoples)….She had real guts…and way more morality and courage than John Key! … who is not a real New Zealander imo …his interests are elsewhere.

    ….We need far more women politicians like Helen Clark running the world.!

    In fact we need an International Feminist Party…the boys have had their day and they have made a f…ing mess of it!

    Tony Blair and George Bush should be hauled before a World Court for that war and crimes against humanity!…luckily for John Key, Helen Clark was in charge of New Zealand at that time…otherwise he might be joining Bush and Blair, in the future annals of history

    • swordfish 8.1
      18 June 2014 at 10:15 am

      “Catholic Tony Blair”

      Believe me, I’m no fan of the authoritarian, uber-conservative, deeply-dysfunctional Roman Catholic Church, but what the flying hell has Tony Blair’s (recently-acquired) Catholicism got to do with his central involvement in the Iraq debacle ?

      “We need far more women politicians like Helen Clark running the world !…….the boys have had their day and they have made a f…ing mess of it !”

      All very Right-on, but what about hawkish women leaders like Thatcher, Merkel, Shipley……. ? Are they just a little too inconvenient for your rather reductive evil-Men / saintly-Women argument ?*

      *(Not that I’m denying a kernel of truth to what your saying. On balance, female leaders do tend to be a little less hawkish – but that’s probably because they tend to come from the Left).

      • Chooky 8.1.1
        18 June 2014 at 10:39 am

        @ swordfish ….It is significant that Tony Blair has embraced and been embraced by the Catholic Church and a Pope ( maybe he thinks this affiliation will purge him of his sins?!)

        Yes i agree there have been some bad women( usually running for the right wing) , not least of all Madeleine Albricht

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albricht

        In May 12, 1996, Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright replied “we think the price is worth it.”[86] Albright later criticized Stahl’s segment as “amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda”; said that her question was a loaded question;[87][88] wrote “I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean”;[89] and regretted coming “across as cold-blooded and cruel”.[86] Sanctions critics took Albright’s failure to reframe the question as confirmation of the statistic.[89][90][91] The segment won an Emmy Award.[92][93]

        ….but as a general rule I think women are better leaders , because they are generally the carers of people and the environment at the grass roots…and women are generally at the bottom of the heap in society…especially in the third world ….. so they have a better understanding of the powerless underdog…they are also the victims and underclass of patriarchal religion!

        Helen Clark has not received enough recognition imo for NOT joining the attackers in that illegitimate disgraceful war on Iraq and the Iraq people ! …which has resulted in crimes against humanity on a massive scale…and is ongoing!

      • Colonial Viper 8.1.2
        18 June 2014 at 10:58 am

        Believe me, I’m no fan of the authoritarian, uber-conservative, deeply-dysfunctional Roman Catholic Church, but what the flying hell has Tony Blair’s (recently-acquired) Catholicism got to do with his central involvement in the Iraq debacle ?

        How about this:

        “The fervour was part of him and it comes back to it being Christian fervour that spurred him into action for better or worse.”

        Mr Burton says that inherent in Mr Blair’s faith was the belief that people should be treated fairly: “He applied that same principle in everything he did – from establishing the Social Exclusion Unit to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and ridding Iraq of the evils of Saddam Hussein’s rule.”

        The comments will add to the suspicions of Mr Blair’s critics, who fear he saw the Iraq war in a similar light to former US President George W Bush, who used religious rhetoric in talking about the conflict, as well as the war in Afghanistan, describing them as “a crusade”.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5373525/Tony-Blair-believed-God-wanted-him-to-go-to-war-to-fight-evil-claims-his-mentor.html

        And of course it is clear re: Iraq that George Bush was driven by his particular belief in Christianity

        George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.
        Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

        One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I am driven with a mission from God’. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.”

        And we know Blair and Bush were thick as thieves all the way through these military adventures.

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

        • Gosman 8.1.2.1
          18 June 2014 at 11:29 am

          I have a suspicion that the Middle Eastern view of a mission from God has coloured their view on what G W Bush was meaning. There was no direct religious motivation for invading Afghanistan or Iraq. The usual geopolitical reasons were the driving forces behind the decision.

          • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.1.1
            18 June 2014 at 11:35 am

            Did you read the article?

            George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

            • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.1.1.1
              18 June 2014 at 11:36 am

              There’s not that many different ways to interpret that, Gossie

              • AmaKiwi …
                18 June 2014 at 12:00 pm

                As they used to ask when Bush was President, but it applies to Key, too.

                Q. What does George Bush think?

                A. Bush doesn’t think. He believes.

                Winning is everything, which means you don’t have to look at the long term consequences.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  18 June 2014 at 12:04 pm

                  I hear that with Iraq now rapidly descending into chaos, many members of the DC elite are in full bore a-historical denial that the US had anything to do with the current situation.

            • Gosman 8.1.2.1.1.2
              18 June 2014 at 11:54 am

              Yes hence my response about this being a middle eastern interpretation of mission from God rather than a Western one.

              • Colonial Viper …
                18 June 2014 at 11:59 am

                Sigh. I’ll give you a clue. When Bush uttered those sentiments he wasn’t speaking to his religious Middle Eastern voting constituency, he was talking to the ones back home.

                • Tracey …
                  18 June 2014 at 1:51 pm

                  ” I have a sense of calm knowing that the Bible’s admonition, “Thy will be done,” is life’s guide.” george w bush immediately prior to invasion of Iraq

          • dimebag russell 8.1.2.1.2
            18 June 2014 at 11:49 am

            I have a suspicion that Gosman does not know what he is talking about. Convinced he is another crosbytextor/hooton/boag worm crawler. they just have this list of standard stock answers that mean nothing and keep shovelling them out. they are so devoid of content that anyone might think they were cogent analyses but they are just piffle designed to confuse people who have better things to do.

        • swordfish 8.1.2.2
          18 June 2014 at 11:39 am

          And here, to my ever-lasting shame, I find myself largely in agreement with Gosman. Re: “The usual geopolitical reasons were the driving forces behind the decision.”

  9. travellerev 9
    18 June 2014 at 10:23 am

    What get’s me is that most people here seem to think we still have a choice. We don’t.

    And so the spin begins!

    • Wayne 9.1
      18 June 2014 at 10:55 am

      You do, and you can exercise it on the 20th September. But maybe a lot of your fellow New Zealanders won’t have the same choice as you.

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.1
        18 June 2014 at 11:05 am

        It’s the Americans I feel sorry for, their pretence of an electoral choice. Corporate employed Republicrats, the lot of them.

        GW Bush – War in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, drone strikes, warrantless mass surveillance, unaccountable bank bail outs, setting up of young US Muslims on terror charges, militarisation of civilian police.

        B Obama – War in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, drone strikes, warrantless mass surveillance, unaccountable unlimited bank bail outs, setting up of young US Muslims on terror charges, militarisation of civilian police.

  10. Enough is Enough 10
    18 June 2014 at 11:49 am

    He has changed his mind.

    This is a good thing people

  11. dimebag russell 11
    18 June 2014 at 11:50 am

    so does Key actually know where Iraq is?

  12. Will@Welly 12
    18 June 2014 at 12:16 pm

    Those who never knew the realities of war are the first to lead us into battle.
    George Bush managed to hide away while many of his fellow Americans were drafted and served in Vietnam, Tony Blair never had such a worry, and John Key was a member of the privileged middle class for whom service was never an issue.
    Churchill knew the realities of war, and what failure meant; the Windsors knew they had to stand steadfast with their people, they didn’t cut and run even though the politicians wanted them too; and the Roosevelt’s kept America out of the war as long as they could. Even then he broke protocols by sending ‘aid’ that was against what Congress wanted.
    Our own Government only committed us to war because they knew what could happen in Europe.
    Key is the biggest charlatan and liar this country has ever seen. When he thought North Korea were going to be aggressive, he was ready to commit troops then. This man wants a legacy for his time in office – a war does more than that. It confers status. He doesn’t give a sh!t about the average fighting man or woman. They’re all collateral damage.

  13. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 13
    18 June 2014 at 1:40 pm

    “Surely” New Zealanders are not so gullible as to accept an aggressive and internationally illegal approach toward warfare….surely…..hopefully.

    The only ‘rules’ that we have internationally are codified by the UN organization – i.e. the UN reflects a collection of world-wide norms.

    If ‘we’ (read ‘Key’) are going to be ‘just jumping in’ or even making preemptive and aggressive statements internationally with respect to the UN approach, then we are part of undermining the only order toward avoiding wars that has been achieved to date.

    Surely New Zealanders can appreciate the advantages that the UN agreement provides. (The benefits may not the best they can be, but benefits are provided by this agreement)

    I would really appreciate it if the mainstream media would provide New Zealanders with information about the potential consequences of the UN losing legitimacy.

    It would appear such information is required when even ex MPs from the National party don’t appear to understand this aspect of the issue (if comments on other threads on this topic are anything to go by).

    This is a pretty important issue and I sincerely hope a PM of ours isn’t about to assist other Noddy-countries in creating utter chaos internationally – near complete chaos is being achieved so excellently by powerful countries who should know better – I DO NOT WANT NZ TO BECOME ONE OF THIS GROUP. They are simply reckless and narrow visioned saboteurs.

    Fuck off John Key
    and wake-the-fuck up NZers.

  14. Tracey 14
    18 June 2014 at 1:56 pm

    First they steal the words. Then they steal the meaning. G orwell

    Be it america or nz, the two major political parties are barely a whisker apart, especially when it comes the survival of the financial system, banking.