COMMENTS:
I think it shows a sharp difference between Australia and New Zealand, in that NZ refuses to be pushed around, and is willing to speak our and stand up for its beliefs. I admire them for that, especially since they're such a small country. I also think that the USA's attempts at intimidation are madness.
Everyone I know who's vistied New Zealand says they are great people.
Yes and so did Canada, its admirable not be be influenced by political pressure to do the wrong thing
by ABC on Fri Jun 17, 05 12:42pm
[+]
And you say you've stoped anti-Americanism? Please...get over yourself Euro. Why don't you ask confucius or some other whacked out monk why the EU constituion was rejected.
BTW New Zealand is a great country.
But no one thinks it is ungrateful since the US helped NZ from a possible Japanese attack during WW2?
Republican_RightWing- I am not anti-American, I am anti-nuclear (for obvious reasons). And you are right New Zealand is a great country. Speaking or Europe... why is it okay for you for NZ to oppose US policy but when Europe does it RR you get angry? You probably have a good reason- and I would like to know.
This ballot is also not anti-American because it also critical of British, French, and Japanese policies. And I don't see how I am full of myself- I'm not a New Zealander. But when I read and learnt about it, I felt I had to make this ballot because I think many overlook and underestimate NZ. This ballot is for NZ not against the US, Britain, France, or Japan.
Ok, lets throw away all the US nukes, abolish our military, stop all foreign aid, knock down our defence systems and step down from the only super power status. The world will then be a great place to live in then huh Euro?
cool idea RR, can I have the tanks?
by ABC on Fri Jun 17, 05 1:24pm
[+]
Republican_RightWing- I believe that the world would be better if countries did that. But it any case as an individual I refuse to take part in militarism in any way and I refuse to support others militaries- especially nuclear ones. That is my chosen path, everyone else is to choose their own.
"The world will then be a great place to live in" - no, it wouldn't be 'great', this world is full of suffering and anguish- the rich, the poor, the powerful, the powerless - they are in pain, depression, yearning. It is not an issue of making the world perfect, it is simply about minimising the unpleasantness of this form of existence. But With proper realisation one can break free from that struggle and is capable of finding true happiness. That is my point of view.
I admire them for sticking to their beliefs. However, you have to give a little to get a little. That's the nature of politics and friendships in general. Guys might understand me better on this: If were about to fight someone and your friend wouldn't help you, wouldn't you be a little ticked off?
Who cares. New Zealand enters my thoughts about every...hmm, never! Really not a big deal if you ask me.
See, whether anyone likes it or not, the US is the best friend on Earth to have. It is rich, powerful, and will protect its friends.
..which is why Tony Blair likely supported the Iraq War, despite much opposition at home. He knows that, with US support, England is much better off. If they ever need money, who can they call? If they ever need military assistance, who can they call? Etc. etc. etc.
I also want to clarify. The way you word the ballot is baiting and misleading. You write "refusing to be pushed around by the United States," and that wording implies that we bullied them or that we threatened them. That is just not true. I'm aware of this issue and as far as I know, at no time did the United States threaten, bully or seek retaliation against New Zealand. In fact, to claim that we prevented them from the free trade agreement is just not true. Show your source please. As for their not wanting nuclear ships or ohter nuclear vessels in their territory, that is their right and I'm sure most Americans feel that way. You might want to word these ballots in a less pre-disposed way.
^Agreed.
They have courage but I pity them for being socialist.
..which is why Tony Blair likely supported the Iraq War, despite much opposition at home. He knows that, with US support, England is much better off. If they ever need money, who can they call? If they ever need military assistance, who can they call? Etc. etc. etc.
by CletuSlackedJawYokel on Jun 17, 2005
I guess he didnt do it because Iraq had WMD'S then which makes him a lying twat along with Bush!
by isay on Fri Jun 17, 05 4:03pm
[+]
^You really think, whether they really thought they had them or not, the war was just about wmd's?
In saying that NO "nookleer-powered wessels" (sorry- had a Chekov moment) could enter their waters, they set their foot down as being anti-nuke, NOT anti-US. If we had an administration with COMPETENT foreign diplomats, then Washington would realize that. It's not as if there are no near ports for US ships. Last I looked, there WAS this tiny little thing just north of NZ, called Australia...
Isn't New Zealand somewhat irrelevent? If britain stuck to their guns and broke their alliance with the US that'd be something. But as isn't really saying much. New Zealand will still enjoy our protection, all they gave up was . . . well nothing really.
That war is being fought for Israel.The "war for oil" argument is a red herring as far as I can see.Here are a few bit's I'd like to pass along.
Sharon reportedly turned toward
> Peres, saying "every time we do something you tell me
> America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell
> you something very clear: Don't worry about American
> pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control
> America, and the Americans know it."
When a prominent American political figure speaks boldly about Jewish-Zionist power, that's news. So the recent remarks by South Carolina's senior Senator that Iraq was invaded "to secure Israel," and that "everybody" in Washington knows it, are indeed remarkable.
Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, a Democrat who has represented his state in the US Senate since 1966, is now serving his final term in Washington. That fact may also help explain why he's now willing to defy the pro-Israel lobby and speak candidly about its power.
It began with an essay about the Iraq war that appeared in the May 6 issue of the daily Post and Courier of Charleston.
"With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country?," he wrote. "The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there had been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area."
Several Zionist organizations, as well as some prominent Jewish political figures, quickly chastised Hollings, and his remarks were denounced as anti-Semitic.
But he didn't back down. Instead, he rose in the Senate on May 20 to defend and explain his essay.
"I don't apologize for this column," he said. "I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism." President Bush went to war in Iraq "to secure our friend, Israel" and "everybody knows it," Hollings declared.
Referring to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues openly to acknowledge this reality, he said that "nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on." With few exceptions, members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies due to "the pressures that we get politically," he said. The pro-Israel lobby knows "how to make you tuck tail and run." But "not the Senator from South Carolina," he added, referring to himself. To emphasize the seriousness of his remarks, Hollings said: "I have thought this out as thoroughly as I know how, and it worries me that here we are..."
Bush's motive in going to war for Israeli interests, Hollings charged, was to get Jewish support in election campaigns. "President Bush came to office imbued with one thought: reelection. I say that advisedly. I have been up here with eight Presidents. We have had support of all eight Presidents. Yes, I supported the President on this Iraq resolution, but I was misled. There weren't any weapons, or any terrorism, or al-Qaida. This is the reason we went to war. He had one thought in mind, and that was reelection...
"That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy. I didn't like to keep it a secret, maybe; but I can tell you now, I will challenge any one of the other 99 Senators to tell us why we are in Iraq, other than what this policy is here. It is an adopted policy, a domino theory of The Project For The New American Century. Everybody knows it because we want to secure our friend, Israel...
"Let's realize we are in real trouble. Saudi Arabia is in trouble. Israel is in trouble. The United States is in trouble. I am going to state what I believe to be the fact. In fact, I believe it very strongly. They just are whistling by on account of the pressures that we get politically. Nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on."
Hollings cited the role of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most important pro-Israel lobby group in Washington, in determining US policy in the Middle East. "You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here. I have followed them mostly in the main, but I have also resisted signing certain letters from time to time, to give the poor President a chance.
"I can tell you no President takes office -- I don't care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat — that all of a sudden AIPAC will tell him exactly what the policy is, and Senators and members of Congress ought to sign letters. I read those carefully and I have joined in most of them. On some I have held back. I have my own idea and my own policy..."
The Iraq war has been "a bad mistake," said Hollings. "Getting rid of Saddam was not worth almost 800 dead GIs and over 3,500 maimed for life..." This war is "a mistake like Vietnam," he added. "We got misled with the Gulf of Tonkin . We got misled here, and we are in that quagmire...
"The entire thing is a mess. Don't give me 'support the troops, support the troops.' I have been with troops, about three years in combat, so don't tell me about troops. I have always supported the troops.
I like you alot cletus so I hope you can differentiate candor from hate.We Americans,for the most part,are brainwashd beyond belief.I used to be a republican.I used to give GW the benefit of the doubt.I have since read too too much that has exposed not just our president but virtually every politician of both parties and the whole smoking mess of a mainstream media we have in this country.The whole thing is rigged and I'm sure if you look behind the curtain,IE search internet news sources long enough,then you will come to realize who is really pushing buttons and pulling the levers.
I love this country as laid out by our founding fathers but what we have now for a government doesn't resemble the plan put into place by Jefferson and many others.It has mutated into an empire where our soldiers are spent at will to the country that rules us through proxy,Israel.I hope a quote like this will at least raise your's and other's curiosity.
"We believe the removal of Saddam Hussein and the rise of a free Iraq will in time help create the conditions where a lasting peace between Israelis and their Palestinian neighbors is more likely," Cheney said.
"The great majority of the Senate of the United States...somewhere around 80 percent...are completely in support of Israel, anything Israel wants. This has been demonstrated time and again, and this has made it difficult." (Senator William J. Fulbright)
Unlike the other 30 or something third world nations that were bribed into the war, I admire them.
New Zealand is only known for people having sex with sheep and being the place where Lord of the Rings was filmed, beyond that, it's a terd on the ass end of the earth.
jappy- NZ is a peaceful country. They may not be discussed as often as Israel, but that's what I like about them- they are peaceful and quiet. You might think that makes them unimportant- but for me personally that is what I like about them. And the fact that they are such a small country and are capable of standing by their principles makes them even more impressive. It's easy for a counter-power to stand their own, but when a small country does it- that takes more courage and conviction in beliefs.
CletuSlackedJawYokel- give a little to receive a little? At what cost? I'm glad NZ didn't sell out on their beliefs. I would never do that just because a 'friend' demanded it from me. And Tony Blair going to war just to impress the US- THAT is what angers a lot of Britons. IF the US is only willing to invest and give military assistance on condition that everyone conforms to all their interests and joins in all their wars then that is not friendship at all.
Kev24- "You write "refusing to be pushed around by the United States," and that wording implies that we bullied them or that we threatened them." - The United States did demand that if NZ was going to remain an ally of the US it had be on condition of letting those nuke ships in their water. Otherwise the US would withdraw from the alliance. Of course it is subjective, some may call it 'hard-line diplomatic pressure', but I personally interpret that as being intimidating. This is NZ internal politics afterall. As for NZ not receiving the same economic advantages of free-trade that pro-Iraq war Australia did- maybe you're right it was just coincidence, probably not, but maybe.
"See, whether anyone likes it or not, the US is the best friend on Earth to have. It is rich, powerful, and will protect its friends."
- what are the conditions for being a 'friend' of the US? I wouldn't call that 'friendship' then, that is merely being engaged in business. That is not what my friendships are like. I know my friends are not perfect and my friends know I am not perfect, we do not have the same opinions on everything, but we love each other anyway- that is what friendship is about.
Why don't you go ask Confucius what he thinks Euro, so you can throw more of that crap at us.
*Noble Silence*
NZ rocks!
we in the US love you guys!
I think Eurotopia is mad cause what ever country he lives in (probably a third world country) cant afford nuclear weapons like us.
|
