ticket to ride
In honour of our national carrier making such ethically sound and politically disastrous business decisions, check out this powerful trailer….
Bookmark to:
65 Responses to “ticket to ride”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
What on earth is wrong with Air NZ flying in troops, they are a public airline and have made a substantial profit.
I fail to see how it can be “politically disastrous”
We should be supporting the war on terror, I would have preferred to see the Govt pick up the tab for flying in the Aussie troops, it is the very least we can do seeing as we refuse to pull our weight in other areas.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Who care what Frankie say!
jh
August 15th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
If the Labour government were serious about not supporting the war, it would have prohibited this kind of activity years ago. You can’t complain if you don’t pass a law or set a policy.
If Air New Zealand broke no law, then the government needs to apologise for not having taken action earlier to prevent this kind of thing. There are also Kiwis participating in Iraq as independent security experts and contractors; perhaps the government should do something about that as well, now that we’re on the subject.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:02 am
As for being politically disastrous, it certainly could be. By having NZ planes with NZ national emblems on them flying troops to fight in Iraq, it looks like New Zealand actually supports that conflict. The possibility of terrorist strikes against New Zealand targets is now higher than it was before. This is a terrible result.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:47 am
The big picture is not that Air New Zealand made a commercial decision to do charter work.
It is that state servants from MFAT did not pass the information that they had actually been informed of ANZ’s troop carrier charter work, onto their political masters.
The implications are clear that state servants are loosing faith in their political masters at a high level.
Call it a long bow but I would think that after the governments recent involvement in Penson Pope’s office staff affair (and the not so recent Doone affair) that senior state servants are upping the “ansi” a bit.
Maybe getting ready for a new government?
Either way it is a seriously bad look for Labour. Their best option would have been to feign ignorance and stand behind the fact that government is but a shareholder and the directors are running the company for profits to be returned to the shareholder.
Taking an anti war stance, but letting ANZ do what it is supposed to do, return a profit for the investment in any commercial endeavour.
As andrew questions correctly, did the government (shareholders) actually tell the directors of ANZ that doing troop carrying charters was against their wishes? Or were the directors supposed to second guess their political shareholders wishes?
Another Labour back track coming up. They really are losing the plot, or worse, are their strategists panicking? Where are the cool heads in that party?
Implications for the Greens? Still confident in Labour to be the senior government party?
August 16th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Andrew
Many New Zealanders DO support the war, I also find your comment about possible terrorist strikes to be alarming.
You seem to be suggesting that should we be the target of some mad Muslim terrorist it would be the fault of Air NZ, this is so typical of the American haters from the left.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Like Gerrit says, the bigger question is the fact that MFAT didn’t inform the Government of this information. So, while the Greens are currently focusing the blame on the Government (which is understandable), maybe you should be applying some heat to the public service on this issue.
MFAT’s senior managers have a track record of being rather conservative or rightwing, and will obviously frustrate any left-leaning government trying to do progressive things in foreign affairs. As one example, check out MFAT’s complicity in the oppression of East Timor:
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/02/new_zealands_co.html
I also remember David Lange telling the story of how when he wanted to go to the Oxford University Debate to put forward the Government’s view on being anti-nuclear, MFAT refused to send *any* officials with him on the basis that he shouldn’t be going and he would damage NZ’s reputation.
Then of course in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, MFAT senior managers clamped down strongly on any staff wanting to be involved in any protests against war.
I’m sure there’s lots of further examples, which I’ll try to remember.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
August 16th, 2007 at 10:59 am
The issue as I see it is that if Air NZ is transporting troops to Iraq via Kuwait and a terrorist hiding in a hole with a rocket grenade launcher sees an Air NZ plane fly overhead accompanied by fighter jets then he may be excused for thinking that New Zealand is supporting the war effort.
Australia is part of the coalition of the willing - New Zealand is not. Regardless of whether Air NZ made a lot of money out of this or not we as a country (and this includes responsible business owners) shouldn’t be seen to support the war in ANY way.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Commentator on RNZ commented that we lack experts in international relations in (I think) the NZ media. I tend to think the Greens spokesman’s would be typical knee jerk stuff (IMHO).
Meanwhile the good guys (Al Kaeda(spelling?) are forced to blow up 250 infidels to embarrass the US, and Iraqi Govt, dear, dear
jh
August 16th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Terrence O’Brien was dead right - this is a complete beat up that is more about a domestic agenda than any risk or foreign policy embarrassment.
Air NZ flies daily to Fiji - we’ve been having a bit of a dispute with their illegal govt recently - yet Phil Goff has never once suggested that ANZ stop flights. Air NZ even flies to China! Will the scandals never cease.
Odd how providing a commercial service to foreign governments that we are very very good friends or allies with is considered such a foreign policy faux pas. It just shows the immaturity of student politicians.
We’d better rush off and ensure that no Tait radios or NZ lamb or beef are being incorporated into AUssie military supplies. We wouldn;t want al Qaeda to find out we are supporting the war effort.
PAthetic, just pathetic.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
It’s a bloody outrage really, Winston Peters goes to North Korea to talk peace, wont mention the torture and enslavement of children there, and the Greens say absolutely nothing… but a commercial publicly listed airline uses spare capacity for charters, when exactly the same activity might have been carried out by Emirates, Qantas or some other airline (and the 777 that flew it is virtually brand new and very fuel efficient).
Adolescent journalism in NZ led by a bigoted muckraker who appeal to NZ First voters.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
There’s a big difference between flying tourists to Fiji, and soldiers to Iraq. Presumably the plane was loaded to the gunnel’s with uniformed army personnel, and they had their rifles and ammo loaded in the cargo hold. Imagine the fuss if the plane was taken out by the grenade launching terrorist I mentioned in my previous comment.
Air New Zealand isn’t a troop carrier. Let the Australians fly Qantas.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Skinny, if the plane was taken out by a grenade launching terrorist then Air New Zealand would be rigtly condemned for carrying ammo in the hold. Have you laid a complaint with CAA about this serious breach of safety regulations. Or did you just make it up?
August 16th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
No skinny this whole issue is premised on Air NZ acting against govt policy which is opposed to the war -Cullen just said that in Parliament. It has nothing to do with safety or the conveying of troops per se.
So why is it acting against policy here but not in servicing the govt and economy of Fiji which the NZ govt actively opposes (and which chucked out our ambassador)?
August 16th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
So, this is the war we shouldn’t be fighting because the people we’d be fighting are no threat to national security. And yet, the use of Air NZ - a commercial carrier, not a military force - will so incense these people that they’ll kill themselves in order to harm Air NZ, and New Zealanders in general? Something doesn’t quite add up here.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Hey it gets even better, as well as potentially going to Iraq these troops could also have been going to Lebanon and Afghanistan (no-one knows), according to MFAT. So Labour and teh Greens are getting themselves in a tangled mess opposing an action by Air NZ that could be directly supporting govt policy - ie UN peacekeeping ops.
Once again the kneejerk comes back to kick them squarely in the bollocxs
Ain’t life grand!
August 16th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
it wuz the gummint officials who screwed up..not the ministers..
they weren’t told..
i live-commented questiontime today..
“..(locke is getting wound up about this..
but c’mon keith..!..the greens are supporting this government which has s.a.s. troops killing in afghanistan..(!)
how the hell can locke not direct his anger/rage back at himself..?)..”
does anyone see the hypocrisies/contradictions in that afghanistan/s.a.s. killing/’confidence and supply’ from the greens..um..!..tangle..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Tempest in a teacup. Actually a whole gale in the thimble sized container that is apparently oversized to fit the collected brains of this government AND its detractors on this topic.
[yawn]
Nothing to see here folks, just the usual noise, smoke and hysteria signifying that parliament is in full cry.
Even some greens can find this a bit over the top. The Airline TOLD the bureaucracy… which did nothing of interest with the information.
I think Air NZ can be excused for believing that they don’t have to ask at the ministerial level to get information about whether a charter is permissable.
Which makes all the rest of this noise far more useless than even the usual level of uselessness that is achieved by Parliament.
Even with me as against the war as I am, I can’t get excited.
The Airline notified and should’ve been told no THEN… and has to be held blameless as it wasn’t given any direction. Should it have been told no then? Yes I believe so… but I don’t think it’s that clear if the destinations of the troops included places where we ARE supporting actions being taken. Then it’s at the Green level to say get our troops out of Afghanistan too, but as long as we haven’t done that the answers are hardly clear-cut.
respectfully
BJ
August 16th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Well said “Yanky boy”
& I found this bit from Der Spiegel:
Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq — it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe. Ramadi demonstrates that large parts of Iraq — not just Anbar Province, but also many other rural areas along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers — are essentially pacified today. This is news the world doesn’t hear: Ramadi, long a hotbed of unrest, a city that once formed the southwestern tip of the notorious “Sunni Triangle,” is now telling a different story, a story of Americans who came here as liberators, became hated occupiers and are now the protectors of Iraqi reconstruction.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html
jh
August 16th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
You guys seem to think that there is a consensus that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
Even Dick Cheney (Bush’s Vice President) doesn’t seem to agree with himself. Don’t believe me? Take a look at what Cheney said in 1994:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
He just explained why Bush’s war turned out to be the fiasco that it has.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Now that he’s VP, Cheney’s tune changed, but his original argument is just as good as it was before.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Big Bruv,
You said to Andrew:
===========================================
“Many New Zealanders DO support the war, I also find your comment about possible terrorist strikes to be alarming.
You seem to be suggesting that should we be the target of some mad Muslim terrorist it would be the fault of Air NZ, this is so typical of the American haters from the left.”
===========================================
Big Bruv, we should all be very alarmed. New Zealand is a very stupid country to think that we ‘could not possibly be a target’. If we decide to actively support the War in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East for that matter, then New Zealand will have it’s own 9/11. If people like you think we are safe from such attacks then you are a real stupid fool.
Furthermore, New Zealand and the Labour Party were absolutely stupid to do away with its strike force. And I think the Greens had a hand in that as well. If the National Party sends troops to Iraq, then they had better reinstate our Air strike force forthwith; otherwise we will be in real danger from such attacks. Nothing will stop a hijacked aircraft being flown into the Sky Tower in Auckland or whatever any other targets that may attract these al Qaeda lunatics. I do not have any confidence in our Airport security. These al Qaeda lunatics are capable of anything and getting past a lax security would be chicken-feed to them.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I am not an American hater. I *am* an American. That should give me more right than you to say whether the Iraq war was a huge mistake. Which it was and is.
By the way, Bush’s popularity in *America* is currently in the mid-20s. Only Harry Truman at the nadir of the Korean War was more unpopular. How conservatives band together across boundaries for other conservatives with bad policies is beyond me.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Go on you Andrew. I was hoping you would tick Bib Bruv off for making such sweeping and scandalous statements.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
My point about Air New Zealand and inviting terrorist reprisals is simply cautionary. It is like saying, “hey there, don’t stir up that hornet’s nest in my backyard!”
We like the peace and quiet around here.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
And caution needs to be exercised. Our country needs to be kept peaceful and that peace needs to be protected.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
andrewudstraw Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
You guys seem to think that there is a consensus that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
============================
1. The Greens think the Americans should unilaterally withdraw.
2. What would happen?
3. What do they know?
4. The “Greens” (these franchise operaters) appear to be America obsessed Muslim apologists ie unobjective, ideologically motivated posers.
5. America (presumably) is trying like hell to get out of Iraq. It just doesn’t want to withdraw on anybodies terms.
6. There is plenty of opposition in the US to the war… why does a small party like the Greens waste effort on this when there are so many other Green issues.
jh
August 17th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Bush has dragged this war out, in the face of demands from the Democrats (they sent him legislation with deadlines, which he vetoed). You can’t generalise about what “America” has done. The left want out, and large majorities are now agreeing with them. But until January 2009, Bush calls the shots.
NZ Greens are a progressive party, and they agree in principle with those in the U.S. who oppose Bush’s war. This should be no surprise.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:00 am
jh, are you being disingenuous or just silly ?
“1. The Greens think the Americans should unilaterally withdraw.
2. What would happen?” … etc.
The Greens were against the war and against NZ’s involvement. It is not incumbent upon us to find a solution to the insoluble situation the US administration has got itself into.
You seem to be advocating that we should now undertake a detailed and necessarily complex analysis to determine whether the US should, on balance, stay a bit longer to try to undo some of the damage they have caused, or cut and run straight away…
Frankly I think that a “small party like the Greens waste effort on this when there are so many other Green issues”, i.e. I think it is far better to stick to our position of principled opposition to any NZ involvement in the whole sorry mess. Which is what this thread is about.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:02 am
insider Said:
“… this whole issue is premised on Air NZ acting against govt policy which is opposed to the war -Cullen just said that in Parliament.”
Since when has Air New Zealand been obliged to act in accordance with govt policy? CCMAUs website http://www.ccmau.govt.nz/site-map.html makes no mention of SOEs, CRIs, SEs or CECs having this obligation unless it is specifically included in the annual performance agreement with the sharehlding minister. Labour had to pass legislation imposing government policy on the SE Transfund.
Presumably Air New Zealand’s relationship with the government will be akin to s4 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act.
State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986
Part 1 Principles (s 4 to s 9)
4 Principal objective to be successful business
(1)The principal objective of every State enterprise shall be to operate as a successful business and, to this end, to be—
(a)As profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown; and
(b)A good employer; and
(c)An organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so.
“having regard” can mean pretty much what you want it to mean at the time. ie Air NZ had regard to govt policy by informing MFAT.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:32 am
There were no Air NZ logos on the aircraft. Maybe if you stop talking about it, no-one will hear and then you might feel safer.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:10 am
andrewudstraw said..
“..NZ Greens are a progressive party, and they agree in principle with those in the U.S. who oppose Bush’s war. This should be no surprise..”
so andrew..so why do we..the greens..support/fight in the (equally ‘unlawful’) war on the people of afghanistan..?
(a country..b.t.w..that has never ever done us any harm..)
(and isn’t it all going so well..eh..?..and as george galloway noted..even genghis kahn couldn’t conquer the afghanis..
so..keith..w.t.f. are we doing there..?..)
we have soldiers/commandos there..doing the americans ‘dirty/killing work’ for them..
are we/the greens so disconnected from these realities that keith locke can jump up on a soapbox..
and..quivering with (no doubt heartfelt) rage..
dennounce the transport of troops to the ‘other’ war..(!)
surely he/the greens are most definitely not standing on the requisite moral high ground..?
to make such dennunciations..?
um..!..nobody bled/died on those flights..keith..
on the other hand..
(it’d be useful if keith locke were to appear in this forum..to explain to us puzzled ones just what the differences are between a ‘bad’ war..and a ‘good’ war..eh.?
but i wouldn’t hold your breath..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 17th, 2007 at 10:41 am
hmmm shot yourself in the foot there Phil (non-violently of course…)
Greens were the only party to vote against sending NZ troops to Afghanistan.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:05 am
that may be the case alistair..
but in this case..it would seem that words/votes/stances are cheap..eh..?
and that actions speak so much louder than any words/votes/stances..
and the fact/actions are that this government would fall if the greens did not provide them with confidence and supply..
and..when deemed appropriate..our co-leader is proud to trumpet that she is the spokesperson for the government..on energy.?..isn’t it..?
the other fact is that this government is engaged in an unlawful war upon the afghani people..
you can’t have it both ways..eh alistair..?
and tho’ you may be happy with any chinese-walls/votes/stances erected between the greens..and the consequences on the afghani people of their actions..
others of us ‘aren’t fooled’/consoled…eh..?
and can see holes in those walls big enough to drive a truck through..
which is why..when recording keith lockes outburst of righteousness during questiontime yesterday..
i could only type with one hand..
the other was holding my disbelieving/incredulous jaw..off the floor..
(and hey..!..y’know..sorry to draw attention to the big elephant in the greens’ room..
but keith ’started it’..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 17th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
jeez Phil did you get out of the wrong side of bed this morning or what?
August 17th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
some more uncomfortable facts for mr locke/us greens to muse on..
“..Afghanistan -
Ten Bronze Stars, three other valour decorations, a Presidential Unit Citation and a VC.
Thats some hard-core “reconstruction�.
Not to mention more COMBAT decorations over that period of time than any other since WWII..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 17th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Love this! A Cheney interview from 1994 on why the US had not taken Baghdad during the first Gulf War - from Pakistan Daily Times:
Asked why the US had not taken Baghdad, Cheney replied, “Because if we’d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a US occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it - eastern Iraq - the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.�
Cheney continued, “It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families - it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.�
So how come you got it so wrong this time round, Dick?
August 17th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Why would the Greens vote against sending troops to Afghanistan?
I can only imagine it is because they hate the USA
August 17th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Enough Iraq and Afganistan Toad, send Metiria, Kieth and Sue on sabbatical to Timbuktu and increase the Greens electoral chances.
This is more important:
biofuels should be termed agrofuels
we are in danger of running out of porridge
http://www.grain.org/nfg/?id=502
jh
August 17th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
BB
You have a mind with but a single track. You’ve been told often enough but you haven’t listened even once. Darth Cheney and his minions are simply evil people. Americans aren’t hated here… how many hate me? I don’t hate America either and what America used to be is respected here, but we know that it is NOT the same as it was.
As for rejecting war in Afghanistan, that’s a question you have to take in context of the time. Could the Taliban have been persuaded to turn over Osama? Did the USA really WANT Osama turned over as a prisoner? How hard did our team try to get him through legal actions relating to the Taliban government in place? Could we have brought him to trial and convicted him even THEN? We couldn’t do it when he was in Somalia.
So what was the reasoning behind the rapid escalation into war in Afghanistan?
Even THAT war was probably a wrong move, but it might have worked out if we’d done it right, and left the personnel and equipment in place to deal with the results instead of yanking them out with the job half done in order to go to war in Iraq. Knowing what I know now it seems likely that the whole thing was a put-up job.
No BB… you don’t get censored here, and your posts get pretty much the respect they deserve. You can “imagine” all you like. You aren’t approaching the truth and you aren’t respecting any of us in the process.
You have your moments.
This wasn’t one of them.
BJ
August 17th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
good link..jh..
i have transported it to whoar..
and could someone please get russel norman to read this..
going on his previous comments..he seems to be somewhat over-enamoured of this false ‘green’ god..
and needs to be shown the errors of his ways..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 18th, 2007 at 11:21 am
BJ
So because you say so it is true?
You can “tell” me all you like but the facts do not back up your stance.
Cheney is not evil, what you and other left wing supporters do not like is the system Cheney represents.
I see nothing wrong with that system, I also think it is pointless trying to argue with terrorists in a court of law, are you really suggesting that they would take any notice of the outcome?
The Americans are doing what needs to be done, left wing democracy haters will always twist the facts to suit their argument.
You claim that the USA is not hated here, frankly that is not true, I have read contributions from people on this site offering excuses for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it does not matter what atrocities are committed by the terrorists many of your fellow greens will find a way to blame the USA.
If history has shown us anything it shows that appeasement does not work, I simply cannot comprehend how anybody from the USA hating left can think that the terrorists will simply go away if we leave them alone, I am sure you are well aware of the old saying “all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing”, that remains as true today as it ever was.
As for your last comment re the truth, the truth is all I seek, this may surprise you but I do not mind if people hate the USA because that is their right, i happen to believe they are wrong but I would defend to the death their right to say it, what angers me is the outright lies and half truths of the left and its biased left wing media, if they hate the USA then have the guts to come out and say it.
It also baffles me that highly intelligent people such as yourself are taken in by this rubbish, we are at war and as unpalatable as that is this is a war that we cannot afford to run away from, whats more I really think that deep down you know that.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
hi Phil, just wondering why you think Russel should read the anti-biofuels article. Are you aware of any occasions where Russel has advocated for biofuels? I should hope not. I should hope that the NZ Greens are strongly against biofuels given the disaster they will be for the world.
As well as pushing up food prices and making poor people around the world go hungry they are an energy sink (they need more fossil fuels and fertilisers to produce than the energy you get out) and they don’t even achieve their supposed benefit of reducing carbon emissions because of all the deforestation caused in order to grow them. That last point comes from this new study:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6949861.stm
August 18th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Without entering the debate as to whether Air New Zealand executives, officials or government were at fault, or whether we should support the war in Iraq or not, one issue that nobody seems to have brought up yet is what it means for a government to own an airline or anything else. It is worrying that the public cannot have any control over the assets that they supposedly “own”.
The minister has said it cannot interfere with a commercial decision by a publicly owened company. If that is the case, then can the public reasonably be said to “own” the airline. If I owned an airline, and my employees did something that was against the policy I had set for the company (for example flying animals to vivisection labs) then I would be quite within my rights to interfere with their commercial decision in the strongest possible terms, including putting into place disciplinary proceedings against the executives involved. Ownership implies some degree of control.
So it appears as if the current regulations do not even allow the public to have any control over the assets they collectively own, and to enforce the values that society has collectively determined. The taxpayers have therefore bailed out a private company from the mess they got themselves into, and still got no say in the way the company is run. There is certainly something wrong with the law surrounding accountability in publicly owned businesses.
August 18th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
stuey said..
“..hi Phil, just wondering why you think Russel should read the anti-biofuels article. Are you aware of any occasions where Russel has advocated for biofuels? I should hope not. I should hope that the NZ Greens are strongly against biofuels given the disaster they will be for the world…”
i totally agree with you stuey..re bio-fuels..
i have long railed against them at whoar..
it was in this forum..a while back..that russel made warm/murmering noises re bio-fuel
and..as is my wont..i came back at him with a reasonably robust rebuttal..
i have heard nothing from him on that since then..
(i don’t necessarily connect the two..)
but..if you can be bothered..it will be in these archives..
and could someone tell me why oh why the greens aren’t standing up in parliament..or anywhere..?
and telling everyone/us punters what an oil-industry driven crock bio-fuels are..?
isn’t that one of the things we expect from them..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 18th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Hi Stuey, JH and PhilU
I noticed this page today - an argument that biofuelled food price rises may have positive spinoffs for developing countries. Doesn’t help the poor in developed countries though…
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5302
August 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
hi q, I’m still not convinced!
That report says that biofuels will only be a good thing if:
* There are major agriculture reforms and infrastructure development to ensure that the increased benefits [of the commodity price rises go to the farmers and not agribusiness]
* The expansion in biofuels is not at the expense of rainforests and other valuable ecosystems that store carbon and provide other ecological services” - instead energy crops should instead be established on the millions of hectares of degraded land that can be found around the world
* Farming practices need to be reexamined to avoid fossil fuel- and chemical-intensive crops
* There is a transition to a more efficient, less polluting and more diversified global transport sector including dramatic improvements in vehicle fuel economy, investment in public transportation, and better urban planning.
Yeah like any of those are going to happen!!!
The danger of promoting biofuels is that it allows people to think that the age of happy motoring can continue. As that Worldwatch report says biofuels are only a good thing if there are a series of dramatic changes to business, agriculture and transport - so why not just advocate for those dramatic changes and forget about the biofuels part of it?
I remain convinced that the push for biofuels will fuck the planet up even faster than fossil fuels because of business trying to maximise profits from the biofuels industry.
August 18th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
We believe that the prefix bio, which comes from the Greek word for ‘life’, is entirely inappropriate for such anti-life devastation. So, following the lead of non-governmental organisations and social movements in Latin America, we do not talk about biofuels and green energy. Agrofuels is a much better term, we believe, to express what is really happening: agribusiness producing fuel from plants as another commodity to in a wasteful, destructive and unjust global economy.
August 18th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Good points Stuey and jh. I mostly agree, and think that the waste-bio-fuel and agro-fuel distinction is key. Within the context of reducing dependence on fuel generally, substituting fossil fuel with waste-bio-fuel made from by-products such as woody-biomass or whey or waste-cellulose or sewage algae would seem to be positive, especially where the bio-waste was to be otherwise dumped/unused. This is a very different scenario to growing crops or trees, or farming animals specifically for agrofuels. Do you agree with such a distinction, and what do you think of Gull’s E10 fuel, which uses ethanol from whey, dairy byproduct otherwise unused (I assume) and with minimal energy/emissions needed to process (I assume). Or, buses in Christchurch that runs on a B20 bio+diesel blend. Not all public transport can be electrified, so where we need internal comustion buses, it would seem that biofuel is a good option, provided it is not agrofuel. Do you agree?
August 19th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Big Bro
Which facts would those be.
The fact that he knew invading Iraq would lead to a quagmire but went in anyway?
The fact that he’s a founding member of the People for a New American Century?
The fact that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction?
The fact that he organized changes at CIA and Defense to show falsely that there might be WMDs.
The fact that he’s arrogated more power to himself than any executive in the history of the USA?
The fact that he is behind the efforts to wipe the 4th amendment clear off the Constitution, is helping Alberto Gonzales’ hang onto the AG’s office in spite of having determined to get rid of several federal prosecutors for purely political reasons. The Attorney General of the USA is a criminal BB, and he is Cheney’s criminal.
I am quite certain of MY facts BB. I’ve been proven right so often that it is almost boring, and yet I don’t lightly declare someone evil. Cheney is an exceptional case. He’s running the country and he flouts the law and ignores the Congress. His actions have led to over a hundred thousand unnecessary deaths and half a trillion dollars of losses to the US economy. His actions BB. He’s smart enough that it can’t be accidental, and it can’t be simple mistakes.
Bush could make simple mistakes and he does what Cheney tells him to do in any case. Rumsfeld was possibly just totally incompetend.
Nobody here or in the US opposition to the war has ever said anything about appeasement BB, that’s a massive leap on your part. Falsehoods piled on misconceptions seem make up your entire worldview.
I can’t even work out what facts you’re touting here. Someone “excused” 9/11? Perhaps someone said that there are legitimate grievances that Arabs might have? That isn’t an excuse… it is an explanation. It happens to be part of the explanation for why 9/11 was able to happen.
I haven’t been taken in by anyone BB. You look at what I said, what I predicted before the fact, what I got right on every count. Did you or did you not expect there to be WMD’s in Iraq? Did you or did you not, expect Osama Bin Laden to be captured. Monetary problems in the USA? Flower strewn streets for the liberators? Permanent bases to be built. Continuing warfare in a divided country.
You can’t win a “war on terror”. That’s one of the biggest mistakes. Terrorists have to be convicted in a court of law before they are carted away. Justice is the salve that gives someone the motivation to turn them in.
I can’t go on here… the topic is barely touched.
It is precisely because I am intelligent that I cannot be lied to through a single source of news.
BJ
August 19th, 2007 at 7:26 am
BJ,
Mustard Gas is a WMD and he had plenty of that. Just ask all those Kurds mothers who had their children poisoned.
The UN now backs support for Iraq and has done after the DEMOCRATIC elections were held. So we are not supporting an illegal war.
Perhaps you should consider those facts…
August 19th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Russia begins the battle for Arctic oil
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/03/wpole2 03.xml
August 19th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Roman
After watching the debacle and being shut out of any role in the decisions for the better part of a decade the UN is finally being permitted and encouraged to toss additional bodies into the conflagration of the insane? Because with more troops being sent it has become apparent that there are problems there that the USA cannot fix. Because the USA being there is one of the PROBLEMS.
I, unfortunately for you, am not a gullible moron who watches Fox to get my news.
As a justification for the war in Iraq the Mustard gas used a decade earlier and destroyed by time and managed by the UN inspectors that the US managed to get pulled out of Iraq, IS A SCARLET RED HERRING.
The problem with Faux is that they call it news.
respectfully
BJ
August 19th, 2007 at 8:59 am
I think we need to acknowledge credit where it is due g. If fuel is made from waste thats ok and if genetic engineering has a positvie affect that’s ok.
jh
August 19th, 2007 at 9:29 am
bj wouldn’t it be better to let the US finish the job (if what the der spiegel article is true)? I don’t know the truth frankly Iraq is not reality for me, just a model in my head.
jh
August 19th, 2007 at 11:02 am
JH
Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki asked for 400,000 and Rumsfeld and Cheney made him go. Powell made the point as well, but was ignored.
We have half that number now, and reservists 55 years old are being called up. The war in Afghanistan is suffering for lack of manpower and there are shortages throughout the supply train.
In the meantime pallets of dead presidents are being stolen… a half billion US $ in one theft and more pallets are being delivered to Halliburton every day.
As much as I agree that the US should clean up its own mess, I do not think it can. I observed at the time of the “mission accomplished” lie, that it was bad enough they were doing it, but even worse that they were too inept to do it correctly. Which comes of having people with no war or defense experience in every position of power in the entire Cabal. I knew what would happen…. but Cheney knew too. Evidence above, of his speech back in first Iraq.
The thing is that Cheney knew what he was doing every step of the way, and he knew people were going to die because of things he decided were necessary for the well being of his buddies… and he needs to be called the evil, immoral, lying b@st@rd that he is except that even saying something that he construes as argumentative can get you slammed into the jailhouse and questioned for a day or two.
respectfully
BJ
August 19th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
andrewudstraw:
You made the comment:
“I am not an American hater. I *am* an American. That should give me more right than you to say whether the Iraq war was a huge mistake. Which it was and is.”
Actually, you have no more or less right than anyone else to comment on whether the Iraq war was a huge mistake. Everyone, from Big Bro to the most anti-war person, has a right to free speech. Coming from the land where they _claim_ liberty, freedom etc is so important, you should know this.
August 19th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
BJ I’m going to send you on a secret mission> Your mission (should you decide to accept it) is to deflate the tyres on Dick Cheyneys car.
jh
August 19th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Samiuela,
“Actually, you have no more or less right than anyone else to comment on whether the Iraq war was a huge mistake. Everyone, from Big Bro to the most anti-war person, has a right to free speech. Coming from the land where they _claim_ liberty, freedom etc is so important, you should know this.”
Unless it is an election year in New Zealand and the current government’s policy was anti war. Then your right to free speech would be limited, under the proposed Electoral Finance Reform Bill, to an expenditure ceiling.
August 20th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Gerrit, Free speech costs nothing. Advertising costs money. Egalite, fraternite, liberte demands that Parliament ban ALL advertising in election year. Advertising people will just have to get proper jobs for a year.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Kevyn,
Wrong. It bans electioneering, not advertising. Just ask yourself though who is going to decide the difference beween the two? Who will settle the disputes? By which time any suspect electioneering masquarading as advertising will have been published and seen. The resulting courtcase will keep that bit of electioneering in the news right up to election time. God, the advertising people are going to love this new bill.
“Advertising people will just have to get proper jobs for a year.”
Yep, as state servants deciding what is electioneering and what is advertising. Like we need more unproductive state servents?
August 20th, 2007 at 5:41 am
Kevyn,
Here is an example for you to mull over.
The AA runs the following advert for new members.
“Join the AA and help us fight to get a new bridge at Kopu”
The current government position is that a new bridge at Kopu is not required (ask the local Green MP, she is against a new bridge).
Now is this an advert for new members or an electioneering statement from a third party?
Oh yes, the proposed bill is going to be fun!
August 20th, 2007 at 7:11 am
jh..when you use someone elses’ words..
is it not the accepted custom when doing this to enclose those those words in speech marks..
or to credit the author..?
(in particular i’m referring to your ‘agro-fuel’ comment..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 20th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Sorry Phil, I just neglected to do that.
jh
August 21st, 2007 at 6:34 pm
BJ
I never called you gullible, however you do show your political leanings when you slag off Fox news.
I feel the same about TV 3 News and in particular Socialism (Communism) at seven with Comrade John Campbell, how anybody could consider those shows to be fair and balanced is beyond me.
TV3 and Campbell should at least be honest about their agenda, Fox could never be accused of hiding theirs