The price of the club?

105 comments on “The price of the club? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. One Anonymous Bloke 1

   24 February 2015 at 5:02 pm

   As Nicky Hager made clear on RNZ this morning, our hands are already covered in blood. Club membership is obscene sophistry. Gang initiation would be a more apt description.
   • Redbaiter 1.1

     24 February 2015 at 9:32 pm

     Its not about any club, even if Key thinks it is. Its about the West. ISIS are coming after the West.

     List of countries who have joined the fight against ISIS and the contributions each one has made.

     http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/11/12/who-has-contributed-what-in-the-coalition-against-the-islamic-state/
     • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1

       24 February 2015 at 9:39 pm

       The war on nouns spawns the war on a compass point. How absolutely spiffy.

       Bombs away, tovarisch. Over your dead body.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2

       24 February 2015 at 10:01 pm

       Let’s round up all the people with better ethics than us, and murder them. That way we’ll always occupy the moral high ground.

       Disclaimer: these policy proposals are commercially sensitive, at the insistence of Stephen [redacted]. Disclosure implies consent.
     • SMILIN 1.1.3

       25 February 2015 at 12:11 am

       What Isil want is the power in their own land and we the west are collateral damage as far as they are concerned no matter where we are in the world
       And even though they are totally corrupt that wont stop them fighting to the death
       They are like the Japanese in WW2
       The west needs to take out the supply of money and ARMS all the covert deals between the Saudis and the US AND ISRAEL that are using this situation and the Russians that are funding Isil but it will be another entrenched occupation until the US and Israel achieve control
       ITS A MESS A dirty mess for the propaganda machine of who ultimately we dont really know maybe to finally do away with the millions like me who say what we do
       If we need to do something start shifting the refugees out of the place at least then when the war is over they can shift back like what happened with Israel after WW2
       It could get that big you know
   • saveNZ 1.2

     25 February 2015 at 9:15 am

     +1 @ One Anonymous Bloke
2. Paul 2

   24 February 2015 at 5:07 pm

   From the rag the Herald.

   PM ‘Get some guts and join the right side’

   OK Mr Key, why don’t you volunteer to fight yourself?
   There’s no courage required to offer up the lives of others.

   The hubris.
   The evil.

   Key is both.

   Not in my name.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

     24 February 2015 at 5:19 pm

     Yes it is.

     Unless you reject the outcome of the last election and therefore democracy, it’s being done in your name as it is in mine.

     A great evil is being perpetrated by the National Party. The Labour Party is complicit, as its leader made clear this morning on RNZ.

     Let’s degrade their capabilities.
     • Paul 2.1.1

       24 February 2015 at 5:42 pm

       I did not vote for this war.
       I did not vote for Key.
       He has ruined New Zealand and the lazy consumers worried about sport and reality TV have let him do it.
       Sheep.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1

         24 February 2015 at 5:57 pm

         You voted: you took part in the process and must accept your responsibility for the outcome.

         Key’s proposal is that soldiers and Sunnis die for his war crimes. My personal opinion is that we should make him a scapegoat: turn him over to the Caliph, as a symbolic gesture of injustice and criminal negligence.

         It’s only by embracing our trash that we can own it, and by owning it, become better global citizens. A sort of cathartic national self-disgust. Starting with Key in a box.
         • Paul 2.1.1.1.1

           24 February 2015 at 6:47 pm

           How can I be responsible if I did not vote for Key?
           Had I not voted, would that have been better??
           • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1.1

             24 February 2015 at 7:34 pm

             Alas no: we’re all hoist up Johnny’s treacherous petard, and to make matters worse it’s Helen’s petard too.

             Old soldiers’ disdain for politics is nothing new. Tragically, familiarity breeds contempt.
           • In Vino 2.1.1.1.1.2

             24 February 2015 at 7:42 pm

             For heaven’s sake, you are part of our country, right or wrong. If we got a bad result in your view in the last election, we need to fight for a better result in the next one.
             Saying, “Don’t blame me, I voted the other way.” is a simplistic, shallow denial of collective responsibility. Even if we voted against a policy, we are not totally innocent in saying, “I voted against it.”

             Maybe we did not fight hard enough to make the vote go the other way.

             Many Germans have been wondering about this since 1933.

             OAB – true, but a bit mean for many to cope with.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               24 February 2015 at 9:47 pm

               In the pogrom to eradicate authoritarian followers, you’re either with us or against us. What’s it gonna be?
               • In Vino …

                 25 February 2015 at 1:38 am

                 Your English is confusing. ‘Authoritarian followers’ is almost nonsense: authoritarians demand, they do not follow. How can followers be authoritarian if they are only following? Or do you mean followers of Authority? If so, I can only say that at this moment of time I am taking the matter into serious consideration, and after full due procedure will probably fail to get back to you after I have gone to get some needed sleep. Humph.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   25 February 2015 at 9:48 am

                   Yeah it was a bad joke 😳
                 • Colonial Rawshark …

                   25 February 2015 at 12:34 pm

                   Authoritarian followers is terminology which indicates those who have personalities which readily submit to and indeed thrive in authoritarian environments.
   • David H 2.2

     24 February 2015 at 9:21 pm

     Key just want’s to join the ‘ I’ve got blood on my hands club ‘
   • saveNZ 2.3

     25 February 2015 at 9:29 am

     +1 @Paul

     Yes, when are John and Max Key enlisting to fight the ‘right side’?

     Where are their guts?

     Is that the ‘right’ side that started an illegal war in Iraq based on the weapons of mass destruction that were never found?

     US and UK made an absolute mess of Afghanistan which they ‘won’. Now Taliban are back in business there, as US and UK rush off for the next conflict, Iraq. Now we suddenly have ISIL in Iraq that previously no one had heard of. Hmm they seem to be lighting new fires wherever they go to ‘fight the war on terror’. I’m more terrified of them than the terrorists.

     If the UN and security council agree to go to war then we are part of that. Now is not the time for NZ to be supporting a splinter group off the UN for this war. If Iran were deployed on the ground ISIL will be defeated. Nope it is Kiwis and others expected to be sacrificed.

     It has already cost the US trillions. It is expected to cost NZ $65 million. I would prefer the money to go to bio security of which the fruit fly is more of a threat to NZ.

     John Key’s undemocratic actions will increase our ISIL threat (as being on part of the list of countries fighting them) and for no reason but to be pawns in the JK 5 eyes golfing partnership and to pretend the war is not illegal by enlisting a larger clique of countries fighting.

     Not a good reason to go to war.
3. Skinny 3

   24 February 2015 at 5:16 pm

   I thought Norman stole the show today with his price of the club speech. Well done Russ Russ the muss!
   • Murray Rawshark 3.1

     24 February 2015 at 8:46 pm

     He’s been far better than Rockjaw McLittle. The Labour leaders also want to be in the club, maybe just in a slightly different role.
4. DoublePlusGood 4

   24 February 2015 at 5:22 pm

   Wow. He used the phrase MIA? When he’s talking about entering a war where NZ troops are going to go MIA? What a disgusting individual.
   • greywarshark 4.1

     24 February 2015 at 5:48 pm

     Double
     What are you on about. Who is a disgusting individual? I have a strong suspicion that it is you.

     I liked Russel Norman’s attempt to bring some rationality and integrity and background to the matter. He pointed out that we had no opportunity to have a say whether we ahould go to this violent conflagration where we would just inflame the combatants further. The USA is probably busily selling them armaments through third parties. There is no integrity in the USA government, and Russel is right to condemn the whole sorry business.

     Russel NormanNational had prevented Parliament from voting on whether or not the country should go to war, he said.
     “It makes no sense to enter a conflict that simply endangers New Zealanders overseas or here…[John Key] does not have a mandate, and he knows it.”

     Mr Key was behaving as if he headed the 51st state of the United States, Dr Norman said. It was therefore more correct to address the Greens’ protests to US president Barack Obama.

     Dr Norman said the United States’ list of ills in the Middle East was a long one that went some way to explaining the growth of extremism in the region. “Every Western bomb that has been dropped on the Middle East over the last half century…has only added to the ISIL recruitment queue.”
     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11407112
     edited
     • weka 4.1.1

       24 February 2015 at 6:23 pm

       John Key is the disgusting individual.
       • greywarshark 4.1.1.1

         24 February 2015 at 6:31 pm

         yek is disgusting – I’ll go with that.
5. greywarshark 5

   24 February 2015 at 5:37 pm

   How to take over a country. Lessons from Hawaii.
   http://www.hawaii-nation.org/soa.html
   In 1887, during the reign of Lili`uokalani’ s brother, King Kalakaua, a group of planters and businessmen, seeking to control the kingdom politically as well as economically, formed a secret organization, the Hawaiian League. Membership (probably never over 400, compared to the 40,000 Native Hawaiians in the kingdom) was predominantly American, including several missionary descendants. Organizer and fire brand of the league was Lorrin A. Thurston, a lawyer and missionary grandson, who would later be a leader in the overthrow of the monarchy, with many of the same men….

   … They would allow the king to remain on the throne with his power sharply limited by a new constitution of their making. Dethroning him would be a last resort, if he refused to comply. Many Hawaiian League members belonged to a volunter militia, the Honolulu Rifles, which was officially in service to the Hawaiian government, but was secretly the league’s military arm.
   Kalakaua was compelled to accept a new Cabinet composed of league members, who presented their constitution to him for his signature at `Iolani Palace. The reluctant king argued and protested, but finally signed the document, which became known as the Bayonet Constitution. As one Cabinet member noted, “Little was left to the imagination of the hesitating and unwilling sovereign, as to what he might expect in the event of his refusal to comply with the demands made upon him.”

   The Bayonet Constitution greatly curtailed the king’s power, making him a mere figurehead. It placed the actual executive power in the hands of the Cabinet, whose members could no longer be dismissed by the king, only by the Legislature. Amending this constitution was also the exclusive prerogative of the Legislature.

   The Bayonet Constitution’s other purpose was to remove the Native Hawaiian majority’s dominance at the polls and in the Legislature. The righteous reformers were determined to save the Hawaiians from self-government.
   The privilege of voting was no longer limited to citizens of the kingdom, but was extended to foreign residents — provided they were American or European. Asians were excluded — even those who had become naturalized citizens.

   A dirty little tale of wide-boys of USA and other western descent out to seize a country under direct leadership of an acknowledged royal family and appoint themselves as controllers, though not as sovereigns. At one time the USA was arranging to hand the sovereignty back to the people and the usurpers refused to comply. First they had approached the USA with their documents ceding control to them by the Hawaiians who were under duress. The plotters then acknowledged the USA as arbiter, then when the President found it unsafe, they would not step down. And then Congress acted without honour and refused to back the President to do the right thing.
6. greywarshark 6

   24 February 2015 at 6:02 pm

   I suppose that someone has brought up this before but in Helen Clark’s time when troops were sent over to the Middle East supposedly to be just for humanitaritan purposes, they came under USA command and were involved with some attacks. And would or could they stand aside and refuse to take part if asked? The defence chiefs did not, I understood, tell Helen Clark what exactly was going on.

   The soldiers are trained to fight and expect that will happen, and when under the control of a bigger power they have to do what they are told. Otherwise they would lose credibility. Also they would not be defended if under attack if they had stood down from carrying out maneouvres themselves. It is ridiculous to lie to us and tell us that these 2015 forces will just go round doing good and building things like houses, Keep them here and let them practice building things in NZ. Believing yek is and McCulled is like believing in the Tooth Fairy. Our forces may at great cost, do some good, but likely more harm than good.
   edited
   • Murray Rawshark 6.1

     24 February 2015 at 8:49 pm

     Our military officers above a certain rank are died in the wool Tories and lickers of American rectum. Some of them are even sex offenders, just to complete the analogy.
7. joe90 7

   24 February 2015 at 6:11 pm

   The losers club.

   http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/why_the_worlds_biggest_military_keeps_losing_wars
   • greywarshark 7.1

     24 February 2015 at 6:29 pm

     Thanks joe 90 that was a good item from Pieria, I’ll try to remember that name. It’s the most sensible thing I have read for a while.
   • Ad 7.2

     25 February 2015 at 6:44 am

     great find there, with many points relevant to our own debates here, oddly.

     will bookmark this site.
8. mary_a 8

   24 February 2015 at 6:39 pm

   If a nation’s leader such as a PM, decides to deploy troops to a war zone, with neither a majority Parliamentary consensus (through a vote), nor a mandate from the people, then doesn’t this have some legal consequences?

   Not being familiar with the laws and legalities of war, or conflict, particularly that on foreign soil, not in defence of individual national sovereignty (NZ), I would appreciate some information on the definition of a war crime and a war criminal.

   Anyone out there know?
   • GregJ 8.1

     25 February 2015 at 6:30 am

     Mary,

     Definition of War Crimes from the NZ legislation (International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000.

     For a longer definition & list of war crimes in the relevant Customary International Humanitarian Law you can read it on the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) website here.

     Also (as I’ve posted a few days ago) under our “constitutional” arrangements the decision to commit troops or even to declare war is made by Cabinet (if a formal declaration of war is required it is signed by the Governor-General). This is how it happened in 1939 (and also in 1914 I think) and also with the sending of troops to Malaya and Vietnam.

     The debate and vote in the House in 2003 on the Iraq deployment was the exception rather than the rule. So this decision by the Prime Minister & Cabinet is “legal” as such although as Bill pointed out in another post surely in the 21st Century we should have a better, more democratic and open way of making these decisions.
9. Paul 9

   24 February 2015 at 6:41 pm

   ‘Get some guts and join the right side’ – John Key lashes out as he sends NZ troops to Iraq for Isis fight

   The man is losing control.
   • Adrian 9.1

     24 February 2015 at 7:04 pm

     Channelling George Bush, it seems.
   • ScottGN 9.2

     24 February 2015 at 7:41 pm

     It was interesting that all that screaming invective in the House today was aimed squarely at Andrew Little. The Nats must have realized they should be really scared of him.
     • fisiani 9.2.1

       25 February 2015 at 8:27 am

       Don,t be silly. No one in National is really scared of Andrew Little. We all know that he is just a temporary pace holder till Robertson makes his move either in early 2017 or after the lection loss,.
       Andrew Little is just playing at being Angry Andy. He privately agrees with John Key and has even told him so but is posturing in Parliament as a pretend pacifist merely to placate his shaky caucus. No wonder John Key is justifiably indignant. He is really saying “Get some guts…..(and stand up to your caucus and party)”
       • Jenny Kirk 9.2.1.1

         25 February 2015 at 9:44 am

         Total Bullshit, fisiani. Anyone who reads or hears Andrew Little’s speeches can tell he’s coming from a strong background of integrity, knowledge, history and depth of thought. He’s not playing. He’s serious, and he is showing himself to be a real threat to the ShonKey trickster.
       • mac1 9.2.1.2

         25 February 2015 at 10:12 am

         Fisiani, nice use of alliteration there with ‘your’ second paragraph- ” …….playing at being Angry Andy……. privately agrees with John Key ……….. posturing in Parliament……… pretend pacifist………. placate his shaky caucus.”

         The ‘ng’ sounds followed by a plethora of ‘ps’ and then the ‘ak’ and the ‘k’ of the last phrase. Very good writing, indeed. Not usually seen in your comments. Also the second paragraph is also free of grammatical errors and typos. Care to comment as to the provenance of the second paragraph?

         That’s my first point.

         The second is, of course, what a pity such style is without substance. Instead we have name-calling “pretend pacifist”, an assertion about private conversations with John Key without evidence, and another about “shaky caucus” and another Crosby-Testor, focus-group tested, attack on Andrew Little with your “Angry Andy” reference.

         Of course, according to Fisiani, when John Key’s spittle flies then it’s “justifiably indignant”.

         Whenever you write in such a vein, I know where the Nats are weak and worried, so you just keep it up. It’s like John Key’s nose pulling- we all know when he’s lied.

         And we know what you think of John key’s lies…….. according to you it’s called ‘winning’.
       • thatguynz 9.2.1.3

         25 February 2015 at 10:45 am

         “He privately agrees with John Key and has even told him so but is posturing in Parliament as a pretend pacifist merely to placate his shaky caucus”

         Citation please fuckwit.
10. Paul 10

    24 February 2015 at 6:43 pm

    The Herald is polling for the Prime Minister and David Farrar.

    Should NZ be contributing to the fight against Isis?
    After 6450–6500 votes, quite scarily 44% say yes.
    Wonder how many repeat votes the Tories are doing.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11407096
    • greywarshark 10.1

      24 February 2015 at 7:56 pm

      @ Paul
      But the Hairy’s question is deliberately fuzzy. What is meant by contributing? Armed forces, money, humanitarian aid. It’s weasel words again. Get some words and turn them into a definive statement.

      What we hear is distressing but there are many ways to contribute. We could be contributing by offering to supply medical assistance, fund Turkey and Jordon or whoever is being swamped with refugees. Which is a terrible burden and makes Oz refusal to take a few hundreds and our small commitment on a percapita basis, look small and mean.
      • weka 10.1.1

        24 February 2015 at 8:44 pm

        +1 FNZH
    • Tautoko Mangō Mata 10.2

      24 February 2015 at 8:25 pm

      A petition to sign if you oppose the sending of troops.
      http://www.actionstation.org.nz/notinmyname
      • Paul 10.2.1

        24 February 2015 at 8:51 pm

        Signed
    • saveNZ 10.3

      25 February 2015 at 9:34 am

      @ Paul

      Actually the Herald poll is rigged and when you put in ‘no don’t support’ the dial just spins. Will not take my no vote. Democracy Herald style, not sure whether deliberate or just bad IT.

      Everyone have a go and see. Unless there is some computer conflict with my machine.

      Just another reason not to trust MSM.
      • Colonial Rawshark 10.3.1

        25 February 2015 at 9:47 am

        Simpsons: electronic voting machines

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoWJkrlptNs
11. johnm 11

    24 February 2015 at 6:55 pm

    I may be naive but contributing some ” trainers ” with a protective force appears to me to be a clayton’s commitment. I’d be surprised if any would come near any harms way. The fight back against ISIS has begun the Iraqi army intends with 20000 soldiers to retake Mosul in the spring from 2000 to 3000 ISIS fighters. Our lads will be way back in the rear and will have nothing to worry about. Sounds like a holiday in uniform to me except its a hot dry place. Party in the beer lads you’re going to need it!

    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Feb-21/288226-iraq-aims-to-retake-mosul-with-20000-troops.ashx
    • Pascals bookie 11.1

      24 February 2015 at 7:27 pm

      Hi John. About that Mosul plan, this is a good read on some of the potential problems:

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/02/23/blind_into_mosul.html?wpsrc=fol_tw

      Not only has the situation not been rectified, but Iraq’s official military is being largely eclipsed in the anti-ISIS fight by Shiite militias. The Washington Post reported in February that the militias’ ranks had swelled to between 100,000 and 120,000 fighters while the Iraqi army has dwindled to just 48,000, The plan that CENTCOM officers outlined last week involved five special Iraqi army brigades plus three brigades of Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, but many in the region, including the Kurds, are skeptical that the Iraqi army can mount such an attack without substantial help from the militias. And if that were to happen, it would mean that the U.S. would be providing air support to Iranian-backed paramilitaries. Not exactly what Obama wants to be doing.

      Here’s another likely outcome: A “successful” U.S.-Iraqi operation in Mosul delivers a great propaganda victory to ISIS. Thus far, any wins by local forces against ISIS have all required substantial U.S. air support. Even the much-vaunted Kurdish Peshmerga needed an assist. They pushed ISIS out of the Syrian city of Kobani in January—the last battle viewed as a test case for Obama’s strategy—but not before four months of brutal urban warfare and a massive U.S. bombing campaign devastated the city. As an activist in the ISIS capital of Raqq wrote in the Guardian, “People don’t look at Kobani and see a defeat, because everyone had to leave and the Americans bombed it to rubble to win.” The judgment would be even harsher if the U.S. decides it has to destroy Iraq’s second-largest city in order to save it.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2

      24 February 2015 at 7:48 pm

      Pascal’s Bookie is wrong. Our boys will be swimming in beer and Shia maidens. The glorious Iraqi Seals will prevail against the Caliph’s brow-beaten dishwashers, see if they don’t!
      • Pascals bookie 11.2.1

        24 February 2015 at 8:17 pm

        I hear they will be welcomed with candy!

        (pssst guys, don’t eat the candy!)
        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.1.1

          24 February 2015 at 8:23 pm

          You rotten pacifist, your lack of patriotism exposes the country to danger!
    • Macro 11.3

      24 February 2015 at 9:39 pm

      Yeah! that’s what the Canadians thought too….
      Even their top General.
      But it turns out that that’s not the case…
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-top-general-says-special-forces-role-changed-since-deployment-in-iraq/article22698048/

      Canada’s top general says he didn’t foresee that Canadian special forces troops would be directing air strikes in Iraq when he publicly ruled out this role during interviews last fall.
      General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, told MPs at a House of Commons committee Thursday that “we’re seeing an evolution in the mission” for 70 military advisers in Iraq.
    • hoom 11.4

      25 February 2015 at 9:43 am

      16 Trainers + over 100 Force Protection & Logistics as well as SAS.
      That is not a Training mission.
      Its a Combat mission with a tiny Training sub-mission cover story.

      I fully expect to see this ‘training’ mission wind up being primarily SAS leading urban combat assaults & recon/assassinations deep behind enemy lines like it did in Afghanistan.
      • Colonial Rawshark 11.4.1

        25 February 2015 at 9:52 am

        And “force protection” is in reality guarding a Forward Operating Base from which assault operations on ISIS will be co-ordinated and supplied.

        We’re being taken on a suckers ride and people are going to die.
      • hoom 11.4.2

        25 February 2015 at 10:21 am

        Also regarding ‘behind the lines’, this map supposedly updated as of 24th Feb shows Taji is only 25-30km from the front line, is basically a frontline bastion protecting Baghdad.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png

        Safe far behind the lines would be like a base in Basra or something.
12. Colonial Rawshark 12

    24 February 2015 at 7:05 pm

    I may be naive but contributing some ” trainers ” with a protective force appears to me to be a clayton’s commitment. I’d be surprised if any would come near any harms way.

    You’d be “surprised”??? WTF does that exactly mean, when there have been recent suicide attacks in Baghdad?

    And what the fuck does “way back in the rear” mean to you when cities less than an hours drive from Baghdad are controlled by ISIS?

    Sounds like a holiday in uniform to me except its a hot dry place. Party in the beer lads you’re going to need it!

    Oh I see, you’re taking the piss.
13. Janet 13

    24 February 2015 at 7:09 pm

    Can’t find Nicky Hager on RNZ website. Please can you give me a link
    • greywarshark 13.1

      24 February 2015 at 7:44 pm

      @ Janet
      Got this off google by requesting Nicky Hager and going to – any time and ticking past 24 hours.
      http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/sending-kiwi-spies-iraq-would-risk-another-afghanistan-hager-6240804
      and
      Radio nz http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20168425
      Got this by simple request in search slot for Nicky Hager.

      Easy peasy
      edited
14. CJess 14

    24 February 2015 at 7:39 pm

    Mary_a, in answer to your question in NZ (as UK) the deployment of troops is a “royal prerogative” which means that it is beyond Parliamentary control. Here the PM/Govt exercise this prerogative and require no votes, consent or agreement to do so. Legally, politically or morally however are up for grabs.
15. Ecosse_Maidy 15

    24 February 2015 at 7:41 pm

    Ok, help me out here?
    I may be as thick as a fruit fly on botox, however…

    If Keys proposes to site any of our servicemen over seas, even in a peacekeeping role in Narnia, should it not be subject to a vote in the house? (A Vote he would probably win, the ******** however due process would have had the veneer of being followed)

    Have the opposition challenged the legality of this move?

    Is there a consensual mandate to do this?

    Have we been asked or invited by NATO, United Nations to assist in either a humanitarian role or other role?

    Why are we allowing Keys to act as some Dickhead CEO of a Company, that makes decisons first, then sells his choice after the fact?

    Even fellow RightWingFacsist in UK, Cameron had to get a vote through the house before the UK took current action against Isis in Iraq. He had to get it past the legal mandate requirements. I think Harpur in Canada had to do the same….not sure about Keys fellow comb over right winger brother Abbot in Oz….

    Yet we are that weak in NZ that we are allowing this to occur without any legal accountability or vote?

    If we have to send any fooking thing…..have these combat ready, pain in the arses, ninja attack fruit flies, Isis!
16. CJess 16

    24 February 2015 at 7:46 pm

    Crosse_Maidy as the NZ constitution works, this decision.Is not subject to either legal or parliamentary oversight. It’s a”royal prerogative” and can be exercised at any time, for any reason by the Govt. That is legally speaking. Politically and morally there should be some consequences – but that won’t stop the troops being deployed.
    • Ecosse_Maidy 16.1

      24 February 2015 at 8:04 pm

      Oh we have a constitution?…
      I would have thought Keys Furher would have burnt that years ago…how remiss of him.
      Morally I concur,,,tis so wrong….
      If as a nation we cant question this, legally, morally or just get pissed off with the way its been preordained, we deserve the shyte that is Keys.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2

      24 February 2015 at 8:17 pm

      The troops were deployed long ago. Signals intelligence* officers to be precise.

      *Terms and conditions apply.
17. Janet 17

    24 February 2015 at 9:19 pm

    Greyrawshark – thanks
18. Chch_Chiquita 18

    24 February 2015 at 9:28 pm

    Does our PM think that by obeying his masters demand Obama will open the door wide open to the agriculture containers through the TPP? From this video it sounds to me that that is all that matters to him; what “free trade” agreement we can get in return for sacrificing our soldiers.
    Doesn’t matter our soldiers are going to find themselves trapped in an un-winnable war, in a country where their presence will only intensify the problem and will achieve zilch progress; doesn’t matter the scars they will come back with if they are lucky enough to come back; as long as master John Key can keep on selling our country via the so called free trade agreement.

    And what was that about other Labour parties that voted yes? What significance is there to the fact that other Labour parties have no back bone? If they all decided to jump off the roof will he jump too? Obviously in JK case he will; I do try and teach my children to think for themselves and not jump off the roof just because everyone else does.

    What a sad day for New Zealanders.
19. whateva next? 19

    24 February 2015 at 10:10 pm

    Little’s response to Key’s “performance” today was, as usual cogent and lucid, I just hope he has the stamina to stand firm against the inevitable tide of “patriots” that have been dog whistled to react and distract.
20. Reddelusion 20

    24 February 2015 at 10:41 pm

    What a beat up and over reaction to 100 troops deployed to do training, by the way you lot are carrying on we are about to launch a second campaign to Gallipoli The soldiers are happy to go, Iraq is happy to have them, likewise we are committing sweet FA compared to our security partners . iIts simply our contribution to bring Isis down both military and otherwise , in contrast to the ostrich strategy of above and shearers strategy to send a battalion of gardeners
    • Colonial Rawshark 20.1

      24 February 2015 at 10:45 pm

      I should have guessed that risking 100 Kiwi lives on a futile mission of failure means fuck all to you. Both you and Key were moulded out of the same shit, I see.
    • Jenny Kirk 20.2

      25 February 2015 at 9:48 am

      Its not an over-reaction. Its a valid reaction to what is a ludicrous situation – 16 so-called trainers backed up by over 120 support staff. 16 trainers are not going to do much real training in the big corrupt defence force that is the Iraqi army …. that is just the camouflage for what will really happen : NZ troops going into war against a state-less and elusive enemy.
    • thatguynz 20.3

      25 February 2015 at 10:49 am

      Sigh. Need better redneck wingnuts..
21. les 21

    24 February 2015 at 10:46 pm

    5 eyes

    corporate owned warmongers
    Canada-Harper
    Australia-Abbott
    U.K-Cameron
    U.S.A-Obama(Nobel peace prize)
    N.Z-Key (Wall ST running dog)
22. Reddelusion 22

    24 February 2015 at 11:00 pm

    great response rawshark you intellectual giant, you feel better, I am sure those 100 troops don’t really give an ass what you think and really that all that matters. They are happy to serve and do what they signed up and are trained for
    • Murray Rawshark 22.1

      24 February 2015 at 11:08 pm

      The troops aren’t happy about going to Iraq actually. Stop talking shit. They are not trained to score brownie points with O’Bomber.
    • Colonial Rawshark 22.2

      24 February 2015 at 11:11 pm

      Like I said, you don’t give a fuck about the lives of these service personnel, as far as you are concerned it doesn’t matter that they are being sent into harms way with no plan and no way to victory of ISIS.
23. Whateva next? 23

    24 February 2015 at 11:11 pm

    re delusion, you may think this is all great fun, but we do not.get a life
24. Reddelusion 24

    24 February 2015 at 11:15 pm

    You believe that muzza if it helps sustain your alternate reality The raw sharks seem to have a fascination and preoccupation with shit, very strange, oh well each to their own
25. Reddelusion 25

    24 February 2015 at 11:18 pm

    Colonial your comments are now getting silly, just because you say it does not make so.
    • Colonial Rawshark 25.1

      24 February 2015 at 11:22 pm

      I’m making a very simple point. One that you can’t cope with. There is no plan for victory over ISIS. It’s deteriorating into a civil war over there. US and UK forces failed at training Iraqi forces for over 10 years. And our men are being set up to fail as well.

      And you don’t give a chicken shit about our troops as a chicken hawk.
26. Reddelusion 26

    24 February 2015 at 11:22 pm

    Whateva I don’t think the subject is funny. I do think the above over reaction is absurd similarly I don’t care if your upset nor should you if I am offended by the silly postings and positioning of above
    • Colonial Rawshark 26.1

      24 February 2015 at 11:24 pm

      Throw lives away on a no-plan military adventure which has already failed before it has even started. But what do you care, you’re just another armchair chick shit chicken hawk who loves the thought of war and stuff being blown up.
27. Whateva next? 27

    24 February 2015 at 11:28 pm

    It is Key that is “reacting” and Little who is “responding” as I previously said, in a cogent way. This situation is dire, and will impact for many years if we continue down this path, mostly on the masses, not the elite club Key has joined.
28. Reddelusion 28

    24 February 2015 at 11:30 pm

    Then 10 years of Lessons learned rawshark to get it right this time , exit plan is 2 years then pull out , simple really unless you are a bit dim, Helen managed it so I am sure key can , by the way I am coping with your genius ( just) but thanks for asking
    • Colonial Rawshark 28.1

      24 February 2015 at 11:35 pm

      Sorry mate you live in the fantasy land of a chicken shit chicken hawk – The US and UK failed to train the Iraqi Army even after more than 10 years of trying and billions of dollars. It went gurgling down the tubes. The Iraqi Army ran at the first sign of trouble. We’re being set up to fail, not that you care about our military men and women, you don’t think 100 lives is worth jack shit I can tell.
29. Reddelusion 29

    24 February 2015 at 11:38 pm

    More preoccupation with shit from rawshark, can’t help self
    • Colonial Rawshark 29.1

      24 February 2015 at 11:41 pm

      You’re a chicken shit chicken hawk, you’ll sit at home nice and safe while you happily send our troops off into a dangerous losing situation. What a chicken shit.
30. Liberal Realist 30

    24 February 2015 at 11:40 pm

    So Key and NAct have just painted a target on New Zealand and our service men / women, going it alone without the sanction of parliament! The worst part of it is that half the country is cheering them on!

    Are people so god dam naive?

    The often repeated straw man argument of ‘we have to do something’ crumbles when it’s clear we’re not deploying to Nigeria to ‘do something’ about Boko Haram abducting school girls then selling them into slavery? Or off to Kenya to take on Al Shabaab where they’re busy bombing shopping malls or oppressing and terrorizing Somali’s?

    This entire exercise is just Key climbing the ladder. It’s despicable and it makes me sick.
31. Reddelusion 31

    24 February 2015 at 11:44 pm

    I am not in keys elite club but don’t share your concern as one of the masses whateva next, I do however feel very concerned about doing nothing and hoping that if we are nice to these crack pots they will leave us alone. They have declared war on our way of life, we need to stand up, irrespective of what has gone before, right or wrong
    • Colonial Rawshark 31.1

      24 February 2015 at 11:50 pm

      Stop running stupid propaganda lines. Kiwi soldiers are being sent into an unwinnable civil war. The US and UK failed for over 10 years to train the untrainable Iraqi Army. The Iraqi soldiers ran away at the first sign of trouble.

      Grow up and stop being such a pro war chicken shit chicken hawk.
    • thatguynz 31.2

      25 February 2015 at 10:52 am

      Keep sipping the Kool-Aid… How about you try thinking for yourself instead of supping on everything that is spoonfed to you – you’ll come across as less of a drongo.
32. Reddelusion 32

    24 February 2015 at 11:53 pm

    I think you will find western support in all these theatres liberal, it just a matter of degrees and priorities
33. Reddelusion 33

    24 February 2015 at 11:57 pm

    Raw shark that’s a tired old silly line. Can you write anything without mentioning birds and shit, I am struggling defining your disorder possibly a form of Tourettes
34. Whateva next? 34

    25 February 2015 at 7:13 am

    So when the troops went in to sort out the Taliban, al quaeda were spawned, then bin laden was hunted down, and ISIS were spawned, each time more evil and more determined.
    Did you happen upon Andrew Little’s plan to respond to this very real danger, which none of us are ignoring? Once again, his plan is cogent and lucid, I would feel a lot safer with Little at the helm than this bloke who thinks he is in a movie.
    • Pete George 34.1

      25 February 2015 at 7:41 am

      What is Little’s plan?

      Russel Norman’s plan is well meaning but naive:

      We must also ask if there is another way we can alleviate the suffering and misery of people in Iraq and the wider Middle East. What they want from us is support for humanitarian aid and civil reconstruction—a large-scale, international diplomatic effort to stop the flow of arms and cash to ISIL.

      ‘Missy’ pointed out:

      So, Russel is against sending Soldiers into the Middle East and into danger, even though this is what they train for and joined up for, but he is willing to send in civilian humanitarian and medical workers with no protection.

      Has he even been watching the news, humanitarian workers are one of the main targets of ISIS, and as ISIS has no respect for borders the aid workers would be more at risk than the soldiers.

      What would his response be if one of those aid workers was captured and beheaded?

      Aid and peace promoting is very risky where ISIL is concerned, well meaning people are prime targets.

      Civil reconstruction is also not easy in a state of civil war. And calling for the UN to sort out the Middle East ignores a futile history.

      Norman right abour Middle East risks, wrong about solutions
      • freedom 34.1.1

        25 February 2015 at 9:03 am

        nice to see you admit we are really going over to help one side of a civil war
        • Colonial Rawshark 34.1.1.1

          25 February 2015 at 12:32 pm

          EXACTLY

          I believe this has the early hallmarks of a revolt by northern Sunni and Baathist areas against sectarian, corrupt, incompetent rule from Baghdad.
      • DoublePlusGood 34.1.2

        25 February 2015 at 12:29 pm

        Feel free to explain with actual reasons how Russel Norman’s plan is in any way naïve.
        Who said Russel wants to have the aid workers anywhere close to ISIS militias? Humanitarian aid can be given in Jordan refugee camps, for instance.
35. RedBaronCV 35

    25 February 2015 at 7:52 am

    Does our Prime Minister also hold a USA passport?
36. Sable 36

    25 February 2015 at 7:54 am

    Kiwi bodies for bucks. Keys is a disgrace.
37. Dont worry. Be happy 37

    25 February 2015 at 8:58 am

    So Key’s great patriotic plan, is to contribute 16 trainers (all the rest are there to protect these 16) even though the 16 will be ‘behind the wire” and therefore as safe as he, John Key, can reasonably make them.

    16 NZ trainers are going to turn this situation around and make the World a safer and more civilized place.

    And they will only cost us, the tax payer, $65 million dollars.

    What are they Super Heroes? He’s been hanging out with Warner Brothers too long.

    Key is bat shit crazy. 16 trainers! And their protection squad. All they need is Key’s flag to parade under.

    If it was’t so sad it would be really funny.
    • saveNZ 37.1

      25 February 2015 at 9:45 am

      @ Don’t worry. Be Happy.

      Yep they must think we are all thicko’s to believe the latest lie, I see repeated all over MSM

      Kiwi troops in non combat role?

      WTF?

      If 16 are trainers, what the rest doing… making cups of tea?

      Oh and the SAS might pop in, too.

      At least be honest about it John!

      John Key may not believe in democracy, John Key may have MSM in his pocket, but really we are all supposed to believe the troops are not in a combat role?

      Iraq is full of terrorists hoping to blow up or capture the overseas soldiers invading their country. We are not defending someone’s county being invaded, we are in their country invading without UN and security sanction and no legal protection either.

      Sometimes it helps to look at it, from the locals point of view. Iraqis believe an eye for an eye, so they might send a few buddies to visit our country and blow a few things up.

      NZ should stay out of it and stick with the UN.
38. Rosie 38

    25 February 2015 at 9:39 am

    Spot on Stephanie. You’ve highlighted the impoverished morality and sickening and corrupt logic of Key.

    Supporting coalition forces in military interventions = something in it for me. Nothing has changed since 2003. Now it’s “the price of the Club” It’s still “something in it for me”. The man is sick.

    How shameful it is to be an NZer, to sit there watching AlJazeera last night with the headlines trundling along the bottom of the screen “NZ to join fight against ISIL” (or words to that effect).

    It’s hard to believe that it got that bit more worse to call yourself an NZer, but it just has.

    Shame shame shame upon you Key.
    • Rosie 38.1

      25 February 2015 at 9:52 am

      And because there’s never a song far away:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcKvCjO4JlM

      At 3am thinking about this shameful government this song came to mind. “Shame shame shame” from the TV series “Treme” about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in new Orleans, The song is about the lack of assistance from the Bush government and the disaster capitalism that swept in to fill the vacuum.

      Change the lyrics and make up your own shame song about our leader.
39. JanMeyer 39

    25 February 2015 at 11:03 am

    Labour “supports the air strikes” (Goff, Little) but would rather send civilians to help in the Iraqi reconstruction efforts than non combat troops to help train the Iraqi army. Do we honestly think IS would draw a distinction between these two positions? IS are at war with the Iraqi government. They don’t want that government to be “helped”. And they are certainly aware of which governments “support” the coalition air strikes.
40. Dorothy 40

    25 February 2015 at 11:13 am

    John Key get some guts deal with the increasing poverty in NZ.
    $65 million would provide much needed houses, and healthy food for the next generation,
    instead of joining a futile no win WAR

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS