Three speeches on going to war

Written By: - Date published: 8:42 am, February 25th, 2015 - 109 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, democracy under attack, iraq, john key, Parliament, russel norman, war - Tags: , ,

The first three speeches from yesterdays session in Parliament on sending troops to Iraq – John Key, Andrew Little, Russel Norman. Little’s speech is cogent, Norman’s is brilliant.

Russel Norman (0:26):

We’re going to supposedly defend democracy in the Middle East, but the National Party government has just now prevented Parliament from voting on whether New Zealand should go to war. Democracy it seems is a military export and is not for domestic consumption.

109 comments on “Three speeches on going to war ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Enough is Enough 1
    25 February 2015 at 9:02 am

    This is just the start

    We are allowed to shoot to defend ourselves apparently. After the first shot is fired Key will call up reinforcements and we will have hundreds troops on the ground.

    Our boys are coming home in bags so that Key can continue to attend his ‘club’ drinks.

    • Puckish Rogue 1.1
      25 February 2015 at 11:23 am

      Don’t be so stupid, the NZ army only has around 7000 members of which roughly 4500

      NZ still needs troops to nominally defend its borders not to mention maintain commitments around the world

      Yes be concerned all you like but hyperbole and histronics to make a point is not the way to go

      • Colonial Rawshark 1.1.1
        25 February 2015 at 11:29 am

        Interesting how you are claiming that our involvement in Iraq won’t escalate even as the situation there deteriorates.

        Why would you be against sending more Kiwi soldiers to Iraq if it turns out that our boys over there come under active attacks? Would you simply choose to leave our guys out there to hang it out by themselves?

        Why would you do that? Are you that callous?

        • Puckish Rogue 1.1.1.1
          25 February 2015 at 1:30 pm

          He/she makes it sound like NZ will be leading the charge, they won’t as due to the numbers they’ll come under a larger force

          Yes more troops may be sent however there is a duty to pretect NZ as well but the big problem i had was with the comment: Key can continue to attend his ‘club’ drinks.

          Thats utter bollix

          • fisiani 1.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2015 at 2:29 pm

            Agreed, This is just another typical John Key hating post masquerading as opinion. Any reasonable person would agree that ISIS have a world domination plan on a par with the Nazis in 1939. Their barbarity seems to know no bounds and it is the moral duty of the world to stand up to them in the same way that the world stood up to the Nazis. We cannot stand around wishing for “peace in our time” like the morally bankrupt Greens nor posture in parliament pretending to be a pacifist. Grow some guts and let the Army do its duty.

            • thatguynz 1.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2015 at 3:13 pm

              You absolute fucking dickhead. How about you back up your assertion with facts and figures as to comparisons between Nazi Germany and ISIS. Asserting that their plans are congruous overlooks a rather simple notion of capability and capacity.

              Now grow some guts and actually justify your position instead of conjuring up waffle words like your hero leader.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                25 February 2015 at 3:18 pm

                Let’s just remember that US elite business men and corporations including both heavy industries and banks were major backers of the NAZI regime.

                • thatguynz …
                  25 February 2015 at 3:25 pm

                  Valid point but there is still a rather large difference in terms of both scale and capability between the Wehrmacht and ISIS 🙂

                  That being said, I’m acutely aware that those type of distinctions will be lost on fizzanus and he/she will adopt their usual practice of making an asinine comment and disappearing into the ether.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1.2
              25 February 2015 at 3:51 pm

              Fisiani, you really believe the Iraqi “army” is a good vehicle for our fight against ISIL?

              It’s just that your remarks fall short of supporting this training exercise.

            • JRyan 1.1.1.1.1.3
              26 February 2015 at 7:10 am

              Wow common sense on this site for a change. Yes totally agreed. The like minded free world either band together or slowly be converted or havoc spread throughout the nations. And what if in time Indonesia introduced Sharia Law, pressure on the free countries to their south. Would most of these shallow thinkers on this site reject US intervention then? Scamper like rats I’d say and let the normal everyday kiwi battle for their life and country. Some on this site seem to encompass as much hate towards our leaders as the ISIS does against the Western lifestyle. Sick.

              • thatguynz …
                26 February 2015 at 10:48 am

                What? Methinks you haven’t actually read any of the commentary here.. Who is rejecting US intervention? We may have views on whether the US should intervene or not but I don’t recall seeing any discussion around their role. The discussion has been about whether we (ie. NZ) should be involved..

                Now fuck off and do your shallow thinking elsewhere. Sick.

              • ewingsco …
                26 February 2015 at 10:11 pm

                “And what if in time Indonesia introduced Sharia Law, pressure on the free countries to their south. ”

                Then it would probably be about as relevant to New Zealanders as :

                ‘christianity’ ?

                Islam, Judaism and all the Christianities all share a common origin.

                I mean – do you REALLY believe that Iran is getting

                ‘more religious’

                as the years go by?

                That ‘shouldn’t you worried about sharia law?’ bullshit

                is the very same bullshit that sean hannity and mark steyn

                was trying to ram down western throats YEARS ago.

                Enough !

          • Murray Rawshark 1.1.1.1.2
            25 February 2015 at 4:52 pm

            “but the big problem i had was with the comment: Key can continue to attend his ‘club’ drinks.”

            I have no problem with that at all. I think it sums up the situation extremely well. It’s the only explanation that fits the events as they have unfolded.

  2. esoteric pineapples 2
    25 February 2015 at 9:16 am

    It’s no good New Zealand just saying it is not going to participate in this war. It needs to develop a long term strategy for neutrality and efforts to help end conflicts, that remains consistent from government to government. The present government’s paradigm REQUIRES it to take part in the war. It can’t not do so, while we position ourselves as part of US led block.

    • weka 2.1
      25 February 2015 at 9:32 am

      “The present government’s paradigm REQUIRES it to take part in the war. It can’t not do so, while we position ourselves as part of US led block.”

      No reason we can’t say no and develop a neutrality strategy at the same time. Pretty sure if the GP were the govt we wouldn’t be going to war. This isn’t about NZ not knowing what else to do or not having other options. It’s about National being warmongers for the sake of capitalism.

      • Colonial Rawshark 2.1.1
        25 February 2015 at 9:42 am

        Well I think that EP has a good point – yes we can say “No” today, but in order to ensure that NZ makes the right decisions going forward in all fields (not just military) we need to know what our place in the world is all about.

        At the moment, close alignment alignment with the colonialism of the US and UK (whether it is through signing anti-terror/mass surveillance legislation or shipping troops off to Iraq) is where our political leaders see us.

        • thatguynz 2.1.1.1
          25 February 2015 at 9:55 am

          Nothing like tying ourselves to the apron strings of an empire in its death throes – that’s really aspirational politics. Do I expect more from National, sadly no.

          • Colonial Rawshark 2.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2015 at 10:08 am

            China and Russia are going to be Pacific powers of the 21st century that are comparable to the USA in influence and reach. South East asia and India are both going to continue with economic growth over the next 10-20 years while the USA stagnates, monetizes its debt and moves further towards secret centralised government decision making.

            • thatguynz 2.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2015 at 2:00 pm

              Precisely – yet we’re continuing to align ourselves with an axis that is on a self-confessed collision course with the prospective Pacific powers. Colour me simple but that doesn’t sound like a particularly smart move..

        • weka 2.1.1.2
          25 February 2015 at 10:05 am

          fair enough CV, but there seems to be a conflating of NZ with the National Party in that argument. Which takes us nowhere particularly useful.

  3. ianmac 3
    25 February 2015 at 9:21 am

    The softening up of NZers over months is actually quite effective. Had Key kept quiet and suddenly announced entry into Iraq, the outrage would have swept the country. As it is, we were sort of used to the idea as happened with Asset Sales.
    Cunning, unscrupulous but effective.

    • vto 3.1
      25 February 2015 at 9:23 am

      And predictable, as with all times of war and propaganda.

      The other predictable thing is, seemingly, the public’s willingness to believe such proven liars and their propaganda.

      • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.1
        25 February 2015 at 9:43 am

        “Manufacturing consent” – a term which is a century old now, and which Chomsky grabbed for the title of his famous book.

        • ianmac 3.1.1.1
          25 February 2015 at 10:24 am

          Thanks for that. And I see the term “disambiguation” is used in this context to untangle the meaning of words like “Club” and “No boots on the ground.” John Key needs a lot of media help for that.

          • Wayne 3.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2015 at 11:38 am

            ianmac,

            Are you suggesting that the government should not be able to make its case. Surely the Prime Minister is entitled to set out what he proposes, why he is doing it and what outcome he expects to achieve. And of course others will state why he is wrong.

            On the issue of neutrality, it seems clear to me that the Greens and some of Labour would prefer New Zealand to be like Chile. As I have noted in several comments, Chile is a sophisticated and advanced country that is well regarded. But it is never asked to participate in the various western causes (though interestingly Chile is part of TPP). Of course Chile is part of South America, which in general does not take a role in these things. And by and large did not participate in WW2 (and neither did Spain or Portugal).

            I suspect such an approach would place quite a strain on our relations with Australia, but if that is what New Zealand decided I guess they would just accept it.

            But such a shift would require explicit endorsement by the electorate, even if not a such a dramatic shift all at once. Parties could argue for instance that they would never deploy troops unless there was a specific UN authorisation. While the UN has passed several resolutions against ISIS, I don’t think there is a specific Chapter 7 resolution, as was the case in Gulf War 1991. Alternatively they could argue that the only international contributions would be humanitarian assistance, and the provision of truce monitors as in Lebanon and Sinai with the MFO. These matters would rarely, if ever, be the main issues of a political campaign, but the electorate could reasonably expect that the major political parties will have position papers on these issues going into an election.

            The Nats did so in 2008. Murray McCully and I essentially wrote the National Party policy on foreign affairs and defence. We were explicit that we would improve the relationship with the US. We specifically said there would be occasions where troops might be deployed without a UN resolution. I appreciate that these matters were not the main issues of the 2008, or 2011 or 2014 elections. But certainly by 2014 everyone knew National’s position on these things. The GCSB debate ensured that, and the Afghan deployments also reflected that.

            So these thing have been part of the party political contest.

            I would note that It is clear that in many respects New Zealand is no longer part of the inner circle of friends and allies (by our choice), where these decisions are made without much controversy. For instance there was not a drawn out debate in the US, Australia, Canada, the UK or indeed much of Western Europe about militarily acting against ISIS. Neither did the body politic split as it has in New Zealand.

            Though I am sure if Mr Little had been PM he would have made much the same decision as John Key.

            • ianmac 3.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2015 at 11:47 am

              @Wayne:”Surely the Prime Minister is entitled to set out what he proposes, why he is doing it and what outcome he expects to achieve.”

              Is that what Mr Key did? I thought it mostly waffle, emotional blackmail and no clear aim and no way of evaluating success/failure. The reasons that he did use do not stack up. Suspect that other forces unstated are at work here.

            • DoublePlusGood 3.1.1.1.1.2
              25 February 2015 at 12:13 pm

              I sure hope you’re willing to apologise personally for writing the National Party policy when troops come home in body bags. And to the people of the Middle East for helping make things worse there. And to the New Zealand public for making us a target for fanatics angered by our presence in the Middle East.

            • freedom 3.1.1.1.1.3
              25 February 2015 at 1:41 pm

              “But certainly by 2014 everyone knew National’s position on these things. ”

              Is that why, just before the 2014 Election, the Leader of the National Party said very clearly there would not be NZ troops on the ground in Iraq?

              • JRyan …
                26 February 2015 at 7:20 am

                Situations do change. If nothing is done about this cult of hatred, it would in the end reach our shores. We have no option other than letting others do the dirty work on our behalf.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  26 February 2015 at 9:00 pm

                  Drivel. The west has directly or indirectly caused the deaths of up to 2 million Iraqis over the last 30 years. That’s the “cult of hatred” right there.

                  If you want to find the callous, murderous “enemy” just take a look in the mirror.

                • ewingsco …
                  26 February 2015 at 9:47 pm

                  “We have no option other than letting others do the dirty work on our behalf.”

                  That’s just your opinion. That’s not a – fact –

                  Would this ‘cult of hatred’ reach our shores any sooner

                  were we to enter the conflict’?

                  Wouldn’t entering the conflict certainly ensure a ‘response from ISIS’ ?

                  And if we do ‘enter the conflict’

                  – wouldn’t the people (zionists) trying their level best

                  to blame the problems in South West Asia on ‘religious extremists’

                  – then feel completely free to start attacking New Zealand

                  and the people living on it

                  with false flag acts of terror?

                  – which they would then turn ’round and thinly blame on muslims?

                  … and what do you mean by ‘dirty work’?

            • meconism 3.1.1.1.1.4
              25 February 2015 at 1:58 pm

              So Wayne, are we allowed to send troops into an environment littered and poisoned by at least ten years use of Depleted Uranium weapons? Does that not contravene our nuclear free status? Or are we not concerned about the long tern health effects of these weapons on our troops? Or do we class Depleted Uranium weapons as merely chemical weapons? And if that is the case are we allowed to submit troops into an environment that uses chemical warfare. Just what are the rules about troops from Nuclear Free States serving in and around Depleted Uranium weapons?

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                25 February 2015 at 3:21 pm

                I’m pretty sure the residents of Fallujah are looking forward to seeing white Western troops back in their neighbourhoods again. It worked so well for them last time.

          • Jo 3.1.1.1.2
            25 February 2015 at 12:24 pm

            Some fruitful searches:
            The Century of the Self – the magnificent four-part BBC documentary by Adam Curtis. One link: http://freedocumentaries.org/documentary/bbc-the-century-of-the-self-happiness-machines-season-1-episode-1

            ‘Sigmund Freud’s work into the bubbling and murky world of the subconscious changed the world. By introducing a technique to probe the unconscious mind, Freud provided useful tools for understanding the secret desires of the masses. Unwittingly, his work served as the precursor to a world full of political spin doctors, marketing moguls, and society’s belief that the pursuit of satisfaction and happiness is man’s ultimate goal.
            Episode One: Happiness Machines

            The story of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his American nephew, Edward Bernays. Bernays invented the public relations profession in the 1920s and was the first person to take Freud’s ideas to manipulate the masses. He showed American corporations how they could make people want things they didn’t need by systematically linking mass-produced goods to their unconscious desires.

          • Jo 3.1.1.1.3
            25 February 2015 at 12:24 pm

            Some fruitful searches:
            The Century of the Self – the magnificent four-part BBC documentary by Adam Curtis. One link: http://freedocumentaries.org/documentary/bbc-the-century-of-the-self-happiness-machines-season-1-episode-1

            ‘Sigmund Freud’s work into the bubbling and murky world of the subconscious changed the world. By introducing a technique to probe the unconscious mind, Freud provided useful tools for understanding the secret desires of the masses. Unwittingly, his work served as the precursor to a world full of political spin doctors, marketing moguls, and society’s belief that the pursuit of satisfaction and happiness is man’s ultimate goal.
            Episode One: Happiness Machines

            The story of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his American nephew, Edward Bernays. Bernays invented the public relations profession in the 1920s and was the first person to take Freud’s ideas to manipulate the masses. He showed American corporations how they could make people want things they didn’t need by systematically linking mass-produced goods to their unconscious desires.

            • Jo 3.1.1.1.3.1
              25 February 2015 at 12:30 pm

              oops, sent by mistake – Another fruitful search is George Lakeoff and his fantastic writings on framing language, herds of elephants in rooms. ‘Behind the wire’… Will good old Number 8 do it this time?

  4. GregJ 4
    25 February 2015 at 9:26 am

    So the NZ forces are being deployed to Taji, smack in the middle of the Sunni triangle. It’s hardly behind the front lines – see here.

    It was originally an Iraqi Republican Guard base during the Saddam era and a center for the manufacture of chemical weapons. It was also the location of the largest tank maintenance facility in Iraq.

    • Colonial Rawshark 4.1
      25 February 2015 at 9:45 am

      Yeah pretty much we have been lied to from the start, and we continue to be lied to.

      Amazing how all the right wingers who love to hold government accountable have gone dead quiet.

  5. Jan Rivers 5
    25 February 2015 at 9:32 am

    Kennedy Graham’s speech was powerful, principled and highly pertinent. It’s here with a transcript. He mentions that the situation in Iraq/Syria can be linked directly back to the US decision to pursue a ‘war on terror’ rather than a criminal trial for the perpetrators of 11-9 and criticises the use of diplomatic passports as overturning 300 years of diplomatic conventions.

    https://www.greens.org.nz/news/speeches/kennedy-grahams-speech-nzs-deployment-troops-iraq

    • Murray Simmonds 5.1
      25 February 2015 at 11:21 am

      Yes, I agree, Graham gave a well-thought-out, intelligent and insightful speech that nicely commented Russel Norman’s earlier speech – which I thought was clearly the best-delivered, most intelligent and most clearly articulated of the lot.

      If Norman decides, eventually, to leave parliament, his presence will be sorely missed.

      There’s a lot to be said for a voice of reason in troubled times.

  6. freedom 6
    25 February 2015 at 9:34 am

    And now, ladies and gentlemen, Fifty First State Productions in association with Hegemony Enterprises present the career defining performance of John Key in A Man Who Would Be King

  7. infused 7
    25 February 2015 at 9:51 am

    “Norman’s is brilliant.”

    I’ve not seen anyone else say that.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 7.1
      25 February 2015 at 10:16 am

      Its true. Im not his biggest fan, but it was outstanding

    • weka 7.2
      25 February 2015 at 10:38 am

      I also thought Norman’s speech was very good.

      (You had your chance NZ, now the man is heading in another direction).

      • infused 7.2.1
        25 February 2015 at 1:53 pm

        Yeah. And look at the polls. Majority support it, just like the majority support National.

      • Puckish Rogue 7.2.2
        25 February 2015 at 3:09 pm

        NZ saw enough of Key, Cunliffe and Turei/Norman and voted accordingly

        • weka 7.2.2.1
          25 February 2015 at 3:19 pm

          You’re missing the point. Very few NZers watch parliament tv. Norman is an exceptional politician. When time proves him and the GP right on things like AGW, National voters can sit and burn in their shame. Like I said, we had our chance, quite a long one. Norman is exactly the kind of leader we need going into the coming crises and RW voters like yourself are too stupid or selfish to see what matters (or like Key you just don’t care, because it’s all about the power and the money and the rest of the world be damned).

          • Puckish Rogue 7.2.2.1.1
            25 February 2015 at 4:07 pm

            You are missing the point (deliberately I suspect) hes been the co-leader since 2006, hes had plenty of time for the public of NZ to get to know him

            Hes had more time as leader then Goff, Shearer and Cunliffe had as leaders put together

            Sure you like him and support what he says and thats cool but the majority of voters don’t support him and don’t agree with what he says

            and when it comes to history it’ll be written that Key was one of the best leaders NZ had

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.2.1.1.1
              25 February 2015 at 4:19 pm

              🙄

              …und vor allem bleibe bei dem, was du gelogen hast!

            • Macro 7.2.2.1.1.2
              25 February 2015 at 5:35 pm

              “and when it comes to history it’ll be written that Key was the most deceitful, abusive, corrupt, and amoral leaders NZ ever had.”

              FIFY

            • weka 7.2.2.1.1.3
              25 February 2015 at 10:53 pm

              “Sure you like him and support what he says and thats cool but the majority of voters don’t support him and don’t agree with what he says”

              Still not getting the point. I said NZers had their chance. They chose Labour, Key, Peters. They were wrong. Time will demonstrate both how we lost the opportunities in mitigating and preparing for AGW/PO/GFC, and how Norman was a sorely needed politician who was never given the chance to help NZ do the right thing. By the time NZ wakes up and realises that the GP were right, Norman may well be gone. We are fools.

            • mac1 7.2.2.1.1.4
              25 February 2015 at 11:04 pm

              “and when it comes to history it’ll be written that Key was one of the best leaders NZ had”

              Hagiography, please, not history.

              History is to do with facts, research and is a narrative based on objective interpreting of events.

              Anyway I’ll be pleased to read the verdict of history on John Key in 35 years time…………………..

              We’ll compare notes then, Puckish Rogue, eh? 🙂

            • SMILIN 7.2.2.1.1.5
              25 February 2015 at 11:26 pm

              Your problem is your condescending and sarcastic. the facts are we live in a culture that looks to be saved from having to do what all the other countries under fiscal threat have to do hold their aggressors to account take Iceland even Ireland Greece to name a few who wont kowtow to being fiscally coerced by an oil driven derivative based subprime money printing excuse for an economy wake up we are being used

            • Stuart Munro 7.2.2.1.1.6
              26 February 2015 at 3:46 am

              Until the outbreak of narcissism-fuelled arrogance that destroyed his public credibility together with the entire Taji force, ultimately precipitating his trial and public execution.

  8. Chooky 8
    25 February 2015 at 9:58 am

    Wow great speech from Russel Norman!….it was quiet, concise, well argued, principled and BRILLIANT!

    ….if only he were New Zealand’s Prime Minister!…left the other speeches for dead…GO GREENS!

    ( Key on radionz with Kathryn Ryan sounded like used car salesman, soft and full of bullshit)

    • Wayne 8.1
      25 February 2015 at 11:40 am

      All he has to do is get enough votes.

      • Colonial Rawshark 8.1.1
        25 February 2015 at 11:52 am

        ? Is Key now brave enough to put the deployment to a vote in Parliament then?

        • Chooky 8.1.1.1
          25 February 2015 at 11:54 am

          no KEY is a coward…cant even put it to a democratic vote in New Zealand Parliament

          …..therefore he should be on the front line leading the brave NZ soldiers and setting an example with his life

          • Puckish Rogue 8.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2015 at 4:25 pm

            Key is a brave man, making the right decision yet knowing the scoundrels and isolationists will paint this as undemocratic

            Key is a leader and a leader leads even when he knows the decision is unpopular yet needed

            • Chooky 8.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2015 at 5:36 pm

              Key’s loyalties are not to New Zealanders

            • Macro 8.1.1.1.1.2
              25 February 2015 at 5:45 pm

              You do realise that this decision is against the rules for involvement of troops by a foreign nation as outlined by the UN. It is not true that Iraq have invited NZ troops (only a faction of the Iraqi parliament have voted on this). In other words NZ (and any other foreign troops) are there illegitimately, and are technically “invading”. This is a very poor decision, by a stupid man, who is only concerned with his own grandizement.

            • Lloyd 8.1.1.1.1.3
              25 February 2015 at 11:00 pm

              Of course it was the RIGHT decision, it just wasn’t the CORRECT decision. Crawling up the backside of the US and the UK has been a right-wing tradition that usually results in NZ getting hurt for little but pats on the head for being a good dog.

        • infused 8.1.1.2
          25 February 2015 at 1:54 pm

          Like Helen?

      • DoublePlusGood 8.1.2
        25 February 2015 at 12:17 pm

        Yes, unfortunately people would rather have the flashy showmen, flim-flam merchants and incompetent ministers of your government rather than MPs who know what they are doing, explain the reasoning for their policies clearly, and are principled.
        Shame really.

  9. saveNZ 9
    25 February 2015 at 10:21 am

    What a fantastic speech from Russell!

    He nailed it.

  10. mac1 10
    25 February 2015 at 10:51 am

    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2015/02/24/gordon-campbell-on-drip-fed-info-about-the-iraq-deployment/

    A clear account of how a fortnight is a very long time in politics.

    And this on the worth of sending troops to Iraq.

    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2015/02/25/gordon-campbell-are-nz-troops-the-least-of-iss-problems/

    and also

    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2015/02/23/gordon-campbell-on-todays-announcement-on-iraq/

    Gordon Campbell seems to write with clarity and insight into the question of sending troops to Iraq way beyond the rhetoric and the rationale for our involvement as being part of the ‘family’ or of the ‘club.”

    Who remembers sending advisers to Viet Nam which became 500,000 troops?

    Who remembers Keith Holyoake’s “guns for butter” rationale for sending a company of NZ troops and artillery into Viet Nam?

    Who sees the parallel between then and now? Key himself said it this morning. It’s the least we can do. It’s the least we can do to keep in good with the club. It’s the least we can do without doing anything, he said.

    So why this level of commitment? Is it like Holyoake who also sent the minimum he could get away with, to curry favour with the Americans?

    What is the effect of this action in the world? Who has respect for New Zealand with this action and especially with this rationale? We are using our good name, our credibility and our reputation for admittedly minimal gain in Iraq and for much approbation in the world.

    We are there, I believe, to give America and its allies credibility as we did in Viet Nam, acting then and now outside the sanctions of the UN and world opinion.

    It is not right. It is not honourable. It is not even good sense, as Gordon Campbell argues above.

    There. That’s my speech. I am sorry for the occasion of having to write it.

    • JanM 10.1
      25 February 2015 at 11:16 am

      It is awful – like going back in time to the sixties.
      On the positive side it did wake middle NZ up somewhat and the from the protests many people found a new and more ethical way of thinking and being. Let’s see if the reaction this time will breed another ‘rennaissance’.
      p.s. Holyoake, as a concession, no doubt, to acknowledging that he was sending troops to a war that had no conscience, at least sent only volunteers, if I recall correctly.

    • SMILIN 10.2
      25 February 2015 at 11:35 pm

      Key is a financier and that the way he is
      Also he is bipolar not just a thief but a liar and a traitor to our traditionally accepted form of action when it comes to sending troops
      WW1 RING A BELL about how NZ changed the rules of engagement for NZers until this bastard Key came along that is
      The nation has been conscripted

  11. greywarshark 11
    25 February 2015 at 11:02 am

    esoteric
    Yes we are part of the filling in the hamburger, there’s no show without the cheese being squished into the middle. We are so needed. Without us on our white chargers appearing at the end of the long column of USA fellow travellers in uniform and without (a huge number of USA personnel aren’t soldiers), the parade wouldn’t be complete.

    I heard some one talking the other day on Radionz giving figures for the huge numbers of non-military personnel in Iraq or Middle East. (Does any one have knowledge of that with a link?) Then add the military and WTF are we doing thinking to go there accompanied by some emotional rhetoric about a death that is only one in a shit war being fed by western war hawks producing inhuman behaviour on ALL sides?

    I can’t find the information above myself, but while looking found this stuff that looks interesting for anyone who wants to advance their thinking beyond the political swirl and churn.

    McCully has criticised the UN on poor record. That could lead to something useful happening to vitalise good work there, or not.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/266916/mccully-says-un%27s-conflict-record-poor

    I googled this – usa statistics military and non-military personnel in Iraq
    I got first – United States military casualties of war
    then, in another listing the info that:
    Ukrainian troops ride alongside US Marines in Iraq
    then
    Lithuanian Armed Forces
    so the information is not easily to hand.

    Wikipedia has exhaustive information thank goodness as there is little background about the deployment and attacks on Iraq but plenty about relief, refugees and the humanitaritan side resulting.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Other_foreign_interventions_in_Syria

    I came across this site – http://www.diplosphere.org/
    From Wellington, it seems a very slick site with images that change so fast you can’t read the people identification at the bottom. It looks like a good place to go to get right wing, establishment opinion.

    Then a paper on PMFs and their effect. (Private Military Firms). Useful finding to consider:
    Paradoxically, following the precepts of neo-liberalism results in unintended and conflicting consequences as far as corporate militarism goes. A fundamental precept of neo-liberal economics is that ‘the market’ encompasses all human activity, and that human behaviour can be analysed on the basis of market transactions. However, it is easily demonstrated that there are finite limits to the operation of the market, and so it is impossible for the market to encompass all human activity.

    Here is an internet site bravely helping commerce survive in Iraq.
    http://www.learn4good.com/jobs/language/english/list/country/iraq/

    Procurement notice advertising by United Nations for Iraq.
    http://procurement-notices.undp.org/search.cfm

    Book reviewed 2010 – Michael Otterman: Erasing Iraq.

    http://michaelotterman.com/books/
    Western governments and the mainstream media continue to ignore or play down the human costs of the war on Iraqi citizens This has allowed them to present their role as the benign guardians of Iraqi interests. The authors deconstruct this narrative by presenting a portrait of the total carnage in Iraq today as told by Iraqis and other witnesses who experienced it firsthand.

    Meanwhile Israel still suppurates and no antibiotic can be found that will heal.
    UN political chief warns of ‘increasingly toxic’ Gaza; calls for new talks, international support
    18 February 2015
    Briefing the United Nations Security Council after «another tumultuous and deadly month» in the Middle East, the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, warned that further escalation remains possible in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and could be highly damaging to both parties and to the two-State solution.
    http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/news/
    edited

    • Wayne 11.1
      25 February 2015 at 11:46 am

      greywarshark

      I am pretty sure that Diplosphere would be regarded as centre left, going by those who have put it together (though admittedly they could be seen as of the establishment).

      Tonight they are putting on a panel discussion on ISIS at Parliament, arranged several weeks ago.

      • Chooky 11.1.1
        25 February 2015 at 11:57 am

        “Tonight they are putting on a panel discussion on ISIS at Parliament”….so what?

        Big deal ! …the decision has already been made by John Key to send troops

        • Wayne 11.1.1.1
          25 February 2015 at 12:36 pm

          At the time they organised it they would not have known the decision was going to be announced the day before.

          Now we know why, when and where deployment is taking place, maybe the panelists will adjust what they say, perhaps on the likelihood of success or analysis of what the coalition is trying to achieve.

          • Colonial Rawshark 11.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2015 at 2:00 pm

            Why bother analysing the “likelihood of success” once you’ve already committed to boots on the ground. That’s far too late. Such an exercise is no more than a sop to democracy after all the important decisions have been made by a privileged central committee.

            • Lloyd 11.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2015 at 11:06 pm

              They may have been promised but they are not there yet. There may be ways to stop this insanity yet.

      • greywarshark 11.1.2
        25 February 2015 at 6:18 pm

        @ Wayne
        I blame the earthquakes for what appears to be a seismic shift in what is left or right. TMM the right is indicated by a tendency to be more concerned about style than substance and to be more concerned about efficiency, financiers and investors and dismissive of those who don’t match up to an invisible criteria (probably established in Paul Fussell’s old book called Class which still says useful things today).

        Certainly the site appears to have style, efficiency and the patina that comes with money. The substance could be judged on seeing who it serves, whose best interests short and long term it refers to.

  12. greywarshark 12
    25 February 2015 at 11:32 am

    And being closely involved in this Wart – threats on our malls. Perhaps those already chosen are because they have West in their name.

    It seems that it would be wise to change the name of the now Westfield malls in NZ to some other brand name that won’t be a ‘western’ propaganda point for Muslim youth to take out hatred and frustration on.

    Any ideas for the big corporate running them? Something not geographical but more statement-oriented? ModeGalerie or something which sounds upmarket with a flavour of French soigne remniscent of Galeries Lafayette. What’s in a name, and you might well ask this if caught in the downdraught of the fire of conflict.

    Just a change from thinking of yek and qari – two subjects that are as easy to understand as mirror writing.

  13. Tautoko Mangō Mata 13
    25 February 2015 at 11:44 am

    I’d like to commend Annette King’s mention of an alternative to sending soldiers. This all or nothing choice painted by John Key is misleading. An humanitarian group sent to Jordan to assist with the refugees was never considered as an option by Key and yet would have probably produced a much better outcome overall. John Key has made it less safe for New Zealanders both overseas and at home. He is a dangerous embarrassment to this country.

    • Chooky 13.1
      25 February 2015 at 11:59 am

      +100

    • Sable 13.2
      25 February 2015 at 12:14 pm

      Agreed.Maybe he could get together with Abbott, Harper and Cameron, do a comedy show “The Political Stooges”. Obama could direct.

      • greywarshark 13.2.1
        25 February 2015 at 3:27 pm

        @ Sable 😀
        And about those persistent Nact voters – just picture them as big stupid people sitting on baby’s potties gnawing on a piece of wet mushy sloppy biscuit. Easily pleased. That’s their level and that will give lefties a moment of satisfaction when that po-arsed image
        flashes past their brain.

  14. Sable 14
    25 February 2015 at 12:12 pm

    As usual Russell Norman is right on the money. Little rambles and Key lets the US make decisions for him. What’s worse is people voted for this. Shame on those voters who still feel National will do anything good for this country.

    • Colonial Rawshark 14.1
      25 February 2015 at 2:58 pm

      The only criteria some of those voters have is – “did my Auckland property portfolio go up in value last quarter.”

      • Macro 14.1.1
        25 February 2015 at 5:49 pm

        Unfortunately this comment is so true. 🙁
        The sheeple of NZ have a lot to answer for in the future. And pay they will.

  15. Murray Rawshark 15
    25 February 2015 at 5:07 pm

    Russell Norman was really great. It needed pointing out that this situation is happening because of a slavish allegiance to the US and A, one of the most dangerous failed states of all time.

  16. Kriss X 16
    25 February 2015 at 7:36 pm

    If war and Western intervention was the answer, then Iraq would be the best place on earth.

    Key is too willing to play along with the US foreign policy, as dictated by the Israel lobby.

    • JanP 16.1
      25 February 2015 at 11:22 pm

      The assumption made by many is that the goal of the ‘club’ is peace in the region. Instability is possibly the actual goal as outlined in “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” authored by Oded Yinon and the 1996 strategy paper “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”.

      More of the same may be what is needed to achieve the desired result.

      The Destabilization Doctrine: ISIS, Proxies and Patsies http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41093.htm

      • Kriss X 16.1.1
        26 February 2015 at 8:07 pm

        Very true. This is why the US has supported the rise of radical Islam through out the Middle East, under the guise of regime change. Syria was a stable secular country and one of the better ones, by the standards of the region. Obama has paid hundreds of millions to support the uprising, even though the people he supported declared they wanted Sharia law ! ISIS is the result.

        Why ? That is easy. Israel did not want a strong Arab/Muslim country, that gets on okay with Iran, right next door. They want a weak and divided Arab world.

        I doubt many Jews actually approve of this, or even realize it.

  17. Ad 17
    25 February 2015 at 7:38 pm

    For those on record supporting sending troops to train other troops – and I’m one of them – we are left in quite a position.
    We defend the deployment, despite:

    – It won’t change much, and is likely to get worse
    – It’s political rationale is to be part of Five Eyes
    – It hasn’t worked before
    – It should have been UN sanctioned, and we’re a member of the UN Security Council
    – It should have been humanitarian not military assistance being provided by the NZ taxpayer
    – The US are the last nation to go in with given their track record
    – Knowing we were likely to get sucked into something as bad or worse than Afghanistan
    – We’re a continuing part of the West’s worst military incursion since World War 2

    And so people like me are left with a fairly tight space to operate in, morally.

    But. I’m confident that when we look back five years from now, we will prefer it that we:
    – did something rather than nothing
    – did it with nations whose militaries we trust, more than others
    – did it now and not later
    – sought to support those at the sharp end against ISL
    – tried to stop something really bad getting worse
    – felt outrage, knowing we were being manipulated by ISL, and still knew responding was right

    Ain’t easy, either way.

    • Colonial Rawshark 17.1
      25 February 2015 at 11:22 pm

      I frame it like this:

      Supporting the sending of troops supports the actions of our Government lying to, disinforming and manipulating the NZ public. It also supports sending troops into an operational theatre where a sectarian civil war is brewing against a corrupt, incompetent, partisan government in Baghdad, there are no clear or militarily achievable goals where there is no believable military plan for getting there.

      It uses the lives of our troops as a token of pretend morality.

      All in order to try and give ourselves that feel good factor of being on the correct side of truth, justice, and the American way.

  18. ewingsco 18
    25 February 2015 at 7:49 pm

    Zionist false flag terrorist attack here we come.
    Then – sit back and watch New Zealand’s sheep swallow it hook, line, and sinker when the blame is thinly placed on muslims.

    We’ve all been lied to: ISIS is fake. It’s a proxy weapon – moved around and used against countries like Syria to destroy infrastructure

    – all because they have the ‘wrong’ banking system.

    “ISIS completely fabricated enemy by USA”, former CIA contractor” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_lN1fPfBkU

    Why doesn’t ISIS attack israel?

    This decision to go into Iraq – in order to fellate our traditional allies – is a big mistake.

  19. swordfish 19
    25 February 2015 at 9:43 pm

    To some extent, the issue cuts across the political divide – with fairly substantial minorities of Nat/Lab/Green/NZF supporters dissenting (in one form or another) from their own Party’s official stand.

    A few Colmar Brunton breakdowns here…..http://sub-z-p.blogspot.co.nz/

    37% of Nats either Oppose sending troops or Don’t Know.

    44% of Labour supporters, 40% of Greens and 40% of NZF supporters either Support or Don’t Know.

    • weka 19.1
      25 February 2015 at 10:59 pm

      One problem is, the question is about sending troops to train. That’s not all we are doing. So how would we answer the question? If I didn’t know anything else and thought that sending troops to train meant simply that, I might support it too (well not me, but people I know who would be otherwise opposed).

  20. Ecosse_Maidy 20
    25 February 2015 at 9:52 pm

    Why is NZ allowing him to do this for this to happen?

    CEO Keys decides we don’t need a vote in the house on sending (or sent already) to Iraq on a peacekeeping/humanitarian mission? Yeah right!
    Also Basra ain’t no joyride, ask the Brits, whom the Yanks tasked to occupy/liberate it. Yanks only off load tasks like that on dispensable allies blood, not their service men and women.

    One of the most onerous tasks of a Govt PM is surely, too send our servicemen and women to a war zone?

    Why are we letting this pass, so easy? Why aren’t we holding this Arse In Chief to account?

    Springboks tour the country on a tour during apartheid and we rage in crowds at it and rightly so!

    A peaceful boat blown up in one of our harbours and we rage as a nation against those that did it and rightly fucking so!

    Yet Clown in Chief sends/sent our people out there, and their is virtually fuck all.

    So in essence he has ordered this, (himself)…. as no one else is holding him accountable and we let him do it.

    Heaven forfend that if anything, happens to our servicemen/women from injury to death, and if so he is solely responsible.

    Is that what it will take, to wake this country up?

    We are more liable to pass a law in the house on the war on fruit flies than and be hacked off about that…..than sending men and women in harms way….

    Shame on you Keys….
    and also Shame on the quiet complaint majority of this country I love.

    • Ecosse_Maidy 21.1
      26 February 2015 at 12:26 am

      I heard Keys talk of going over too….That he wasn’t prepared to send any of our troops to a place where he himself wasn’t prepared to go.

      By god I almost had to stand and give him the two fingered salute.

      Perhaps he can put on the uniform and lead the way…

  22. Kriss X 22
    26 February 2015 at 8:10 pm

    After the last two invasions of Iraq went so well, I think we can all be confident of a similarly successful war this time. Just like the great victory that is Afghanistan.

    • Colonial Rawshark 22.1
      26 February 2015 at 8:16 pm

      Victory for the corporates and the mercernary companies…

      • Kriss X 22.1.1
        26 February 2015 at 8:22 pm

        Yes indeed, they were getting nervous about losing revenue as Afghanistan slows down. But Obama has sorted that out and re-started the Cold War as a back up plan.

  23. ewingsco 23
    26 February 2015 at 8:36 pm

    Truth in Media: The Origin of ISIS