Comments on: Hello to the Exclusive Brethren http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/ hopping along the corridors of power Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:44:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: exkiwiforces http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36959 exkiwiforces Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:03:12 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36959 This Government (which you lot help to keep prop up) has reduced the NZDF capability though pay & conditions i.e. losing most of your junior officer corps, those in the technical trades and those in the combat arms of the army (like me) to Oz, the Poms, and the Canadians or to private sector. The so called re-equipping of the NZDF is a joke in some cases you lot would been better to new gear instead going for the cheapest option the good old upgrade. 1) NZ is soon going to down to about 2-3 C-130’s for a silly short term upgrade. Where in the long run it would have been cheaper to have backed onto the Oz air force order when they got C-130J’s where they have a life span of 40yrs. Again the you lot want to get rid of the P-3’s yet they have the legs to going south and even land on the ice! The only aircraft that have range are the Nimrod and the Tu-95 Bear. 3Sqn is going from 24 helo's to new 8 ones and the new light helo's can't land the Ships in anything above sea state 1 or be put inside a ships hanger more money down the plug hole. 2) NZ can’t even deploy a battalion group on ops. The last time (ET99 -03) it happen the supply line almost broke down on a number of times. In ET06 the NZ Inf Coy we using a lot of our gear so they operate safety while on duty in ET. 2nd/1st had to be role back to light Inf because of the lack of numbers and QA Sqn are there LAV’s in a recon role. 3) The poor T.F forces in all 3 services are more run down ever under this government than the Nats. 4) You lot want to get rid of the Frigates and the tanker but at the same time You lot want them to going chasing the Japs down south what the hell is going on here? And again the greens have seemed to forget the Navy did an outstanding job in ET during INTERFET and later with the UN. Has anyone in the greens done any real peacekeeping in a Blue hat or an INTERFET Style Op? From the sounds of it sweet f all. This begin my last time that I will vote in a NZ election I would’ve like to have voted for the greens but when u have the likes of Keith, Sue and Russell sorry I can’t do it because of my mates that are still in the NZDF as I’ve lost to 2 mates to peacekeeping already and that’s 2 too many already though the lack of training, having the right equipment all because due to the lack of funding. This Government (which you lot help to keep prop up) has reduced the NZDF capability though pay & conditions i.e. losing most of your junior officer corps, those in the technical trades and those in the combat arms of the army (like me) to Oz, the Poms, and the Canadians or to private sector. The so called re-equipping of the NZDF is a joke in some cases you lot would been better to new gear instead going for the cheapest option the good old upgrade.
1) NZ is soon going to down to about 2-3 C-130’s for a silly short term upgrade. Where in the long run it would have been cheaper to have backed onto the Oz air force order when they got C-130J’s where they have a life span of 40yrs. Again the you lot want to get rid of the P-3’s yet they have the legs to going south and even land on the ice! The only aircraft that have range are the Nimrod and the Tu-95 Bear. 3Sqn is going from 24 helo’s to new 8 ones and the new light helo’s can’t land the Ships in anything above sea state 1 or be put inside a ships hanger more money down the plug hole.
2) NZ can’t even deploy a battalion group on ops. The last time (ET99 -03) it happen the supply line almost broke down on a number of times. In ET06 the NZ Inf Coy we using a lot of our gear so they operate safety while on duty in ET. 2nd/1st had to be role back to light Inf because of the lack of numbers and QA Sqn are there LAV’s in a recon role.
3) The poor T.F forces in all 3 services are more run down ever under this government than the Nats.
4) You lot want to get rid of the Frigates and the tanker but at the same time You lot want them to going chasing the Japs down south what the hell is going on here? And again the greens have seemed to forget the Navy did an outstanding job in ET during INTERFET and later with the UN.

Has anyone in the greens done any real peacekeeping in a Blue hat or an INTERFET Style Op? From the sounds of it sweet f all. This begin my last time that I will vote in a NZ election I would’ve like to have voted for the greens but when u have the likes of Keith, Sue and Russell sorry I can’t do it because of my mates that are still in the NZDF as I’ve lost to 2 mates to peacekeeping already and that’s 2 too many already though the lack of training, having the right equipment all because due to the lack of funding.

]]> By: Trinny http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36941 Trinny Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:41:10 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36941 Sorry to interupt your defence discussion but as I've only looked in ..... re your 'Hello Exclusive Brethren, now you can vote'................. EB vote? EB speak! Like the individual exercise last time. The Secret Seven funded the campaign......yeah right, have another Tui. Heard of media management? Sorry to interupt your defence discussion but as I’ve only looked in ….. re your ‘Hello Exclusive Brethren, now you can vote’……………..

EB vote? EB speak! Like the individual exercise last time. The Secret Seven funded the campaign……yeah right, have another Tui.

Heard of media management?

]]> By: andrew http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36910 andrew Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:34:13 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36910 i could be wrong, but i didn't think bleach would kill mercury! but maybe it disguises the taste...? i could be wrong, but i didn’t think bleach would kill mercury! but maybe it disguises the taste…?

]]> By: insider http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36884 insider Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:39:11 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36884 Well there is an awful lot of mercury from the geothermal plants up river Well there is an awful lot of mercury from the geothermal plants up river

]]> By: andrew http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36882 andrew Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:28:46 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36882 <blockquote>Then calling this an “outright lie� by Jeanette might be a little strong? </blockquote> i've found this a difficult discussion to follow because of twisted formations like this. please look to your grammar! why should any foreign military vessels be allowed in our ports? i don't get it. i could understand if it was a country with which we have a formal, active alliance. saying we can just lay a complaint with the police if we have reason to suspect there are nukes on board is insultingly disingenuous. do you really see the police boarding with a warrant & inspecting it & impounding the ship? law is futile in the face of this kind of politics. was it legal for police to use busses to block protestors? was it legal to arrest & then release protestors without charge? was there any legal force behind the order to remove protest banners from the airport so it wouldn't offend the chinese government? does ANYONE in the country outside of the government want increased trade or other relationships with china? & what kind of evidence is the man on the street going to bring to the police about nukes aboard chinese vessels? "it's the chinks, we can't trust them as far as we can throw them" is hardly going to cut it. i wouldn't want any contact with the US military given they're among the world's foremost aggressors, but i find china every bit as sinister. on a side note, does it seem to any other observers that the bleach in the water has become chronic since the tapping of the waikato? is there something in the waikato water that seriously needs killing?

Then calling this an “outright lie� by Jeanette might be a little strong?

i’ve found this a difficult discussion to follow because of twisted formations like this. please look to your grammar!

why should any foreign military vessels be allowed in our ports? i don’t get it.
i could understand if it was a country with which we have a formal, active alliance.
saying we can just lay a complaint with the police if we have reason to suspect there are nukes on board is insultingly disingenuous. do you really see the police boarding with a warrant & inspecting it & impounding the ship? law is futile in the face of this kind of politics. was it legal for police to use busses to block protestors? was it legal to arrest & then release protestors without charge? was there any legal force behind the order to remove protest banners from the airport so it wouldn’t offend the chinese government? does ANYONE in the country outside of the government want increased trade or other relationships with china?
& what kind of evidence is the man on the street going to bring to the police about nukes aboard chinese vessels? “it’s the chinks, we can’t trust them as far as we can throw them” is hardly going to cut it.
i wouldn’t want any contact with the US military given they’re among the world’s foremost aggressors, but i find china every bit as sinister.

on a side note, does it seem to any other observers that the bleach in the water has become chronic since the tapping of the waikato?
is there something in the waikato water that seriously needs killing?

]]> By: ZenTiger http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36880 ZenTiger Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:39:33 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36880 <em>Fair cop about not publishing a formal defence policy before the 2002 or 2005 election though ZT. I guess that left the Greens open to claims that old policy still applies.</em> Then calling this an "outright lie" by Jeanette might be a little strong? It's not as if your various policy statements have changed over the last 9 years, except for the fact the air strike wing has been removed. Back in 2005: <em>This year, the government suddenly announced it was spending an extra $460 million a year on defence which, if put into overseas aid, would have brought our spending up to 0.66% of GNI.</em> Sounds like you are still averse to increasing expenditure. and <em>We are wasting around half a billion dollars a year on a naval combat force...</em> and it is still policy that this should go, at the very least in favour of "cheaper" alternatives that would support peace keeping rather than defence? Whatever. We'll find out soon with the release of your new defence policy. But I remain convinced the Brethren had every reason to make the claims they did, given they were based on specific money saving proposals that are still supported today. Fair cop about not publishing a formal defence policy before the 2002 or 2005 election though ZT. I guess that left the Greens open to claims that old policy still applies.

Then calling this an “outright lie” by Jeanette might be a little strong? It’s not as if your various policy statements have changed over the last 9 years, except for the fact the air strike wing has been removed.

Back in 2005: This year, the government suddenly announced it was spending an extra $460 million a year on defence which, if put into overseas aid, would have brought our spending up to 0.66% of GNI.

Sounds like you are still averse to increasing expenditure.

and We are wasting around half a billion dollars a year on a naval combat force…

and it is still policy that this should go, at the very least in favour of “cheaper” alternatives that would support peace keeping rather than defence?

Whatever. We’ll find out soon with the release of your new defence policy. But I remain convinced the Brethren had every reason to make the claims they did, given they were based on specific money saving proposals that are still supported today.

]]> By: Ivan Sowry http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36878 Ivan Sowry Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:16:48 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36878 toad said: <blockquote>Fair cop about not publishing a formal defence policy before the 2002 or 2005 election though ZT. .. Hopefully one will be released for this this year’s election. </blockquote> It will indeed, toad. I agree it was a rather unfortunate omission, and one I can assure you will not be repeated. Ivan Sowry Green Party Policy Co-convenor toad said:
Fair cop about not publishing a formal defence policy before the 2002 or 2005 election though ZT. .. Hopefully one will be released for this this year’s election.

It will indeed, toad. I agree it was a rather unfortunate omission, and one I can assure you will not be repeated.

Ivan Sowry
Green Party Policy Co-convenor

]]> By: Scott http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36876 Scott Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:03:57 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36876 There would be no "anti-us" bias if the US were not in the thick of things. The only way to get around this would be for people to ignore what the US is up to or for the US to have a radical turnaround as model world citizens seeking to provide a global benefit instead of feathering their own pockets. Remember no country has ever benefited from a US invasion (military or commercial). There would be no “anti-us” bias if the US were not in the thick of things. The only way to get around this would be for people to ignore what the US is up to or for the US to have a radical turnaround as model world citizens seeking to provide a global benefit instead of feathering their own pockets.

Remember no country has ever benefited from a US invasion (military or commercial).

]]> By: toad http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36869 toad Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:14:21 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36869 ZT said: <i>And you are still quoting the Peace Dividend on your main archive page?</i> Precisely, ZT, on an <b>archive</b> page, meaning the campaign is not longer current. Along with others on that page like the campaign against wasteful WINZ spending (it's not even called WINZ anymore) which is no longer relevant because it was stopped, and the campaign to stop the Waikato water pipline to Auckland, which is no longer relevant because we lost and it was built. <i>Your attempt to wiggle out of this and claim you don’t want to reduce defence spending,...</i> Who ever claimed that on behalf of the Greens? Not a claim I've ever seen. Fair cop about not publishing a formal defence policy before the 2002 or 2005 election though ZT. I guess that left the Greens open to claims that old policy still applies. Hopefully one will be released for this this year's election. ZT said: And you are still quoting the Peace Dividend on your main archive page? Precisely, ZT, on an archive page, meaning the campaign is not longer current. Along with others on that page like the campaign against wasteful WINZ spending (it’s not even called WINZ anymore) which is no longer relevant because it was stopped, and the campaign to stop the Waikato water pipline to Auckland, which is no longer relevant because we lost and it was built.

Your attempt to wiggle out of this and claim you don’t want to reduce defence spending,… Who ever claimed that on behalf of the Greens? Not a claim I’ve ever seen.

Fair cop about not publishing a formal defence policy before the 2002 or 2005 election though ZT. I guess that left the Greens open to claims that old policy still applies. Hopefully one will be released for this this year’s election.

]]> By: Sam Buchanan http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36867 Sam Buchanan Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:13:18 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/01/28/hello-to-the-exclusive-brethren/#comment-36867 "Not a word is said about Chinese Warships visiting our ports complete with armed guards on the wharves." Does anybody know who authorised them to carry guns and why? Far as I know moping about the Wellington wharves with a sub-machine gun is an offence under the Firearms Act. I was out of town at the time and didn't get a chance to check their firearms licences. “Not a word is said about Chinese Warships visiting our ports complete with armed guards on the wharves.”

Does anybody know who authorised them to carry guns and why? Far as I know moping about the Wellington wharves with a sub-machine gun is an offence under the Firearms Act. I was out of town at the time and didn’t get a chance to check their firearms licences.

]]>