by frog
Helen Clark will formally apologise to our Viet Nam veterans today in the house.
“The apology will recognise that Viet Nam veterans were not treated fairly on their return to New Zealand after the war”, Helen Clark said.
“Those who served in Viet Nam, like other New Zealand soldiers before and after them, undertook their duties bravely, loyally and professionally. The apology, and the Memorandum of Understanding more generally, are about recognising the service and sacrifices of Viet Nam veterans and their families”.
Like so many of the apologies coming out of governments over the years, there will be those that vilify them as unnecessary or insincere, and those that get all grandiose or jingoistic. If they are like me, most veterans and their families will quietly mark the day as one more significant event in a healing process that lasts a lifetime.
As the child of a Viet Nam vet I simply couldn’t understand why my hero was being treated as a villain for simply doing his job. That wrecked his health worse than any chemical he may have been exposed to. He couldn’t understand it either, and like so many veterans of that war, he died far too young. Most of the vets who most deserve to hear the government’s apology are no longer with us. Asking why the apology has taken so long is about as pointless as asking why we went into the war in first place. There are good reasons and bad, most of which do not stand up under the scrutiny of time.
Those of us who actually care about today’s announcement will scrape the scars once again and then get back to our lives. Better late than never.
Published in Society & Culture by frog on Wed, May 28th, 2008
Tags: apology, Helen Clark, veteran, vietnam
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Frog
While I am pleased that the Vietnam vets are finally going to be given the welcome home they deserve I am somewhat uncomfortable with the apology being given by Clark given her disgusting behaviour at the time of the conflict.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is difficult to understand how those people who were against the Vietnam war at the time could not differentiate between the actions of a government, about which one has every right to protest, and the actions of soldiers who are merely tools of government policy, and as such are not expressing their own views when sent to or returning from war.
Seems to me that there are a lot of people who should be apologising to the Vets.
Perhaps the only good news is that since we’ve stayed out of the current conflict that the question wont arise again in the near term.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“simply doing his job”
When that job is that of a soldier – someone whose profession is killing, then they deserve no positive reception. They are engaged in either murder, or at the very least are accessories to murder. Yes, they are humans like you and I and have feelings, but they are doing the most inhuman of things.
I echo the calls of Tariana Turia. This apology must express only sorrow, and should contain an apology to the people of Viet Nam, who didn’t ask to be invaded and massacred, and who died in the millions. What about the millions exposed to far higher levels of dioxins than most veterans, and who suffer from cancers and diseases and defects to this day?
Any memorial to war that does not utter the words “never again” is a memorial not worth listening to. I sincerely hope that the the Government and Green response is of this type.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So what happens when all diplomacy is exhausted. Do you roll over and lose it all?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The straw man re-emerges. We’re talking about invading another country for goodness sake, not defending our own. What exactly was there to lose by not trashing Viet Nam?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting being on the campaign trail last time in Burnham. Spoke to one young serviceman and speculated on what a National win in the 2005 election might mean. That is active service in Iran perhaps. The answer surprised me but in hindsight might not be too surprising.
“We are trained to fight. Peace keeping is not what we are specifically trained for and not what I signed up for. I would like to measure myself in a real combat environment.”
And that folks means death and destruction both ways. Pity it is used to prop up economic imperialism and not actually defending ourselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I not advocating trashing Vietnam. I’m responding to georgedarrochs post, which goes beyond Vietnam, and crosses over into pacificism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s an interesting debate as to where to draw the line on state sanctioned violence. Indeed, it is the state that is technically the only entity that we, via our democracy, sanction to use violence. I’m not picking sides here, I understand georgedarrochs position even if I don’t agree with it entirely. As citizens, we mandate the state to protect us and give them license to commit acts of violence on our behalf. That doesn’t mean I feel that all such violence is justified, (particularly/including the Vietnam war), but neither would I consider condemning all soldiers as murderers.
I fully support the idea of “never again” particularly as concerns the Vietnam war. Nor will I condemn Clark or other protesters for their part in the war or this apology, as big bro would like me to do.
The whole point of an apology is to begin to reconcile the two sides of a very passionate debate, which obviously still burns more than thirty years on.
We can argue the merits of the Tribute 08 marches and all that, but today, I just wanted to focus on the apology itself and what it means to veterans and their families. We can focus on the merits and demerits of the military etc on another day. Perhaps on the day of those marches.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why can’t we do away with our offense force and instead have a well trained and large milita those role is to defend the nation, they could also handle peacekeeping to, I don’t see why we can’t take a step back and stop maintaining a permanant army.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
-So what happens when all diplomacy is exhausted. Do you roll over and lose it all?-
This statement assumes that there is an enemy out to get you and you therefore have to be ready to defend yourself even if it means going oversees to “fight them over there”.
Herr. Goebbels of German Propaganda fame once said, “if you want to to war all you have to do is to tell the people they are attacked and point them toward the enemy. It works every time and in every nation.”
You bluepeter seem to be a prime example of how easy it is. A Golf of Tonkin false flag operation which has proven to be a complete fraud and it’s the commies and bingo of to war we go.
911, it’s the Arabs and yep, there we go. Afghanistan and Iraq and in august it seems it’s Iran’s turn.
Let me give you a link to a very interesting man Major General Smedley D. Butler. This man who was once approached by granddad Bush to help with a fascist coup in the US (Google and ye shall find) wrote a book about war
Called: War is a racket. This is a speech on the subject from the same man: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
By the way I think that the apologies should extend to the Vietnamese people. We had no right to invade Vietnam.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
travellerev
Yeah, tell that to my relatives who fled the Germans.
I’m not talking about false flag operations. I didn’t support the war on Iraq.
I’m talking about defending the country if another attacks. Or before it attacks, if absolutely necessary.
Sometimes, regrettably, and after all other avenues are exhausted, we fight. The pacifists can roll over and die if they wish, but I won’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No BP, georgedarrochs’ post is not about pacifism, it is about the responsibilities individuals have, including soldiers, to question their government’s actions or be tarred with the same crimes, with the example being Viet Nam. It is worthy of debate. He may well advocate pacifism even in the event of an attack on NZ, but that was not the context of his post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis
Fighting is sometimes necessary. Yes or no?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue Peter, aside from peace keeping, all of the wars since WW2 have been false flag operations. When the Japanese hit Singapore and looked to be headed this way with no signs of stopping this was a good example of forward defense.
Another thought is that our allies are only allies if they feel like it. If there are financial or strategic benefits to us being taken over they would let it happen.
If we closed Waihopai and someone showed signs of attacking us internally or externally and said they would allow Waihopai to carry on what do you think would happen?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Turnip
There are two problems with the well-armed militia. The first is keeping the sharp edges SHARP, the second is that as an Island with serious dependencies on our fisheries and a long water barrier to any invader we would be foolish to leave the navy out of the picture.
Those problems argue for a dedicated and professional core of soldiers who’s job it is to keep maintain the edge, ensure that currently usable arms and ammunition is available and to train the militia and to integrate with the militia to make the likelihood of successful defense greater. They also argue for a fairly expensive and well-equipped Navy which can degrade any attacker’s capabilities long before they get here and prevent raids on our fisheries and resources. I know that some Greens dislike the Frigates… but if we do away with them we will need some ships that are likely to be no less expensive and dangerous to potential opponents.
As for the process of deciding when to fight and who to fight… that is a different argument. That we could create a sustainable haven here where civilization is surviving and thriving in the face of problems elsewhere, only to have a bunch of rude characters come over the horizon and take it away from us, is ultimately pretty futile and not acceptable to most Greens. However, sending our own folks over the horizon to take stuff away from someone else is also not acceptable. We have treaty obligations and we have moral obligations and we don’t live alone on this planet. The decisions about when and who are made in terms of foreign, not defense policies. and the sooner people like BP get it through their heads that non-violence isn’t taken to preclude efforts to maintain our existence… the better.
Personally I would argue that the Green Principles need to include “survival” as one of the underpinning guidelines to the party.
Changing the constitution to include it would reassure a lot of people on this point. Probably be worth 5-7 percentage points in the vote AND it would realistically reflect the views of most of the party.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
we would have to offer warm welcomes to our new overlords..
isn’t that what we’ve always done..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I take your point Scott, but as war thunders overhead, it is less about politics, and mostly about survival.
How about ethic cleansing? Worth fighting against such an idea?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Fighting is sometimes necessary. Yes or no?”
I am not a pacifist, BP, so the answer is yes. Satisfied I’ve dealt with your straw man? You really seem desperate to avoid dealing with the substance of the thread and georgedarrochs’ and others comments. Why is that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I take your point, Valis. Should soldiers refuse to obey orders to kill if they don’t agree with the cause?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see kiwiblog has started a thread on this, praising the role Nat MP Judith Collins played in the inquiry that led to the apology.
But somehow forgot to mention Sue Kedgley’s role! Never mind, I’ve filled in that little piece of history for the good kiwiblog readers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The issue is not one of a soldier’s opinion, BP, but one of law. Most western countries do not exempt their military from complying with the law and that includes international law. I accept that this sometimes may be exceedingly difficult to for an individual to determine, but joining the military does not give one license to take part in criminality and be blamless for it. I also accept that many people go into the military in good faith, never believing their governments would use them in such ways and that is part of the tragedy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s such a difficult area.
I don’t buy the idea that most soldiers would join the army, and fight in wars, just for the sake of killing, although I’m sure some do.
Those soldiers who came home, who put their lives on the line, and who did the job they were asked, by their country, should have been treated far better. The argument was with those who sent them to war, not with the “workers”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“should soldiers refuse to obey orders to kill if they don’t agree with the cause?”
Soldiers who believe a specific order constitutes a war-crime should indeed refuse to obey that order. But I (not in the military) consider it professional to carry out any legal requests of my bosses, even when I dont agree with them personally.
People who believe that all war is murder, or that military service is likely to conflict with their personal morals would be wise not to join the military in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doesn’t the American administration attempt to negotiate a climate of no blame for their serviceman abroad. That is actions that could be construed as crimes in the local jurisdiction either go unpunished or punished internally to the military?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP, I agree its a difficult area, that the soldiers should not have been the focus of protest and very much that the government, who was the main guilty party, should have treated them far better. I can’t however support sending the signal to future soldiers that they should be let off for their actions just because the government commits the first wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Clark calls THAT an apolgy?…she is a evil small minded woman who used this as nothing more than an election year stunt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Those problems… argue for a fairly expensive and well-equipped Navy which can degrade any attacker’s capabilities long before they get here and prevent raids on our fisheries and resources. ”
Nope, the latter argues for a decent coastguard, not a navy. The present navy is hopeless for fisheries operations and seldom do any. The airforce does better, though the P-3 anti-submarine aircraft are something of a Rolls-Royce solution for fisheries protection. It’s hard to imagine NZ getting a navy of sufficent strength to blunt an attacker at long range.
“As citizens, we mandate the state to protect us and give them license to commit acts of violence on our behalf. ”
I didn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
At this moment in the US 100ths of soldiers travel around and testify to the horrors they have witnessed and committed themselves because they were told to do so by their superiors. To tell these kids not to obey in situations like that are futile. You belong to a group and you want to survive so you do as you told. These young men want to tell Americans how bad the situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan. None of these wars should have happened and they should be ended as soon as possible. I know this is not a popular thing to say but until we are sure about why we went to war in the first place it is criminal to stay involved.
Have a look here and listen to these brave people coming out to accuse their government: http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Soldiers follow orders issued to them via the rank system.
If they don’t follow those orders they are breaking military law.
The only reason a soldier is allowed to not follow an order is if that order is unlawfull i.e. breacheds the Geneva convension.
A soldier is not even allowed to fire his or her weapon unless ordered to do so.
Some of you guys make it sound like a soldier just gets let out somewhere to start killing without any discression.
And by the way, I have seen someone discharged from the Army because he was dead keen on going to war to kill people, so there are certain standards in the military to try and prevent the kind of random violence that some people think the military promote.
Sh*t happens in wartime though, and there are always going to be times when bad mistakes are made, and lives will be lost needlessly, but professionally trained, well disciplined soldiers are less likely to cause these things, than a part time millitia.
And as far as the morality of a war that a soldier is sent to fight in….
That’s what governments are elected to sort out, not the military.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There are some times when it is necessary to fight, but in general I hate war. However I don’t hate warriors, even from the agressors’ side; they are often victims as well. It takes a great deal of intelligence, wisdom and courage, to rebel against the social values of your own time, and it probably also requires having the right sort of environment where independent thought is encouraged as well.
So those New Zealand soldiers who volunteered for Vietnam were not monsters, they were ordinary people often doing what they believed to be right, based on the (twisted) information of the time.
My Japanese language teacher in Japan fought in the Second World War as a kamikaze pilot (yes I know what you are going to say, but the war ended a few weeks before his scheduled mission date). He tells me how he was conditioned to fight for the Emperor who he believed to be God. He was an intelligent man and a brave one, but for some reason was unable to shake off the prejudices of his time. He has since done a lot of good in promoting understanding between Japan and the West by working as a volunteer language teacher. History has shown him to be wrong, but he had the courage to accept that, and did not commit suicide like so many of his contemporaries. Japan was the agressor in the last war, but people like Ohnuki Sensei deserve respect, not condemnation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Tribute 08″ was one of those extraordinary occasions when all elements of the regime come together in a common cause – in this case by “honoring? the New Zealand government’s Vietnam war veterans. The one dissenting voice was that of Chris Trotter who argued bravely, and forcefully, on Radio New Zealand National that the Vietnam war was unjustified and that the veterans should be held morally accountable for their role in the conflict. The media as a whole, however, chose to play its part by trumpeting the “bravery? and “sacrifice? and “service to country? of the Vietnam veterans, without giving any evidence of such bravery, sacrifice, or patriotism. It would be hard to do so, given that the veterans own published war reminiscences show many, if not all, were unashamed racists who “killed defenceless men in cold blood? (Private Colin P Sisson).
As a matter of course one would expect the major political parties, the television networks, editorial writers and columnists to adopt the big lie of “courage, sacrifice, and devotion to country? but it was disappointing to see the Green Party tacitly adopting the same line. And it was disappointing to see John Roughan (whose articles normally stand head and shoulders above the vitriolic nonsense of fellow NZ Herald columnists like Garth George and Fran O’Sullivan) producing a craven and disingenuous “mea culpa? over his own youthful opposition to the war.
Roughan resorted to the regime’s usual toolkit of selective enquiry (to demonstrate the “Vietnamese? point of view, he simply quotes an officer in the Vietnamese military regime who had fled to New Zealand when the American forces were finally ousted) and non-sequiturs. By implication, Roughan resurrects the old argument that the “sheer awfulness of the Soviet Union? (“nothing worked and noone was allowed to say so?) justified saturation bombing of an entire nation in South East Asia. And he comes up with the new argument that the post war flight of thousands of Vietnamese to the west provides some kind of post facto justification. In fact the post war flood of emigrants was made up of at least four strands – those who sought to escape the economic legacy of the war (destroyed infrastructure, a polluted landscape, heavily mined fields, the burden of hundreds of thousands of war casualties), those who had supported the ousted military regime, those who had criminal aspirations not easily satisfied in the new Vietnam (and who went on to become the major source of heroin supplies in Australia’s major cities), and those who because of an individualist temperament did not fit easily into the bureaucratic regime established by the Viet Cong. All of this was a natural, and predictable, outcome of the war. None of it provides post-facto justification for the US-Anzac invasion.
To understand the real reasons for the war, it is only necessary to know the history of Vietnam, which Roughan, and the regime’s media as a whole, carefully choose to ignore. For the first half of the twentieth century, Vietnam had been colonised by France. The Vietnamese attempted to assert their independence in 1945, but were opposed by France, Britain, and the United States. After a nine year war, partial independence was achieved. But being a former western colony ranks next to the presence of oil as a risk factor for invasion by “the international community? (Afghanistan was a former British colony; Iraq was exposed to both the major risk factors, as is Myanmar) and the western powers were simply not prepared to let go of Vietnam. They chose to virtually destroy the country rather than allow it to attain full and unequivocal independence.
Roughan’s presumptuous “confessions? on behalf of the anti-war movement (“How immature we were!… Vietnam made fools of us all?) are contrived and false. Opposition to, and condemnation of the Vietnam war was the only honorable and decent course to take at the time, as it is today. What Roughan is doing now, along with his colleagues in the regime’s media apparatus, is to justify the whole concept of imperialist invasion, occupation, and war, and to perpetrate the idea that historical evidence and moral principles have no part to play in the decision of whether to go to war. “Bravery?, “sacrifice? and “service to country? (which on analysis reveals itself to be nothing more than service to the regime) are to be the only standards by which to judge the justice or otherwise of a war.
The NZ government’s apology to its war veterans has nothing to do with truth or reconciliation. It is not even principally directed at the veterans themselves. The regime is more interested in sending a message to its military forces that in future or current imperial wars, such as the war against Afghanistan, they will receive the protection of the state regardless of their complicity in torture, “extraordinary rendition?, or the massacre of innocents. The sub-text of the NZ government “apology? is that the military forces of the state will not be held morally or legally accountable for their actions. (If in any doubt that New Zealand forces have a case to answer over their conduct in Vietnam, read the statements by seven New Zealand war veterans below). This apology is the NZ government’s way of saying “Morality does not matter. All that matters is your loyalty to our regime?.
Chris Trotter had the courage to declare that no one, not even New Zealanders, should be permitted to kill, maim and destroy without some form of personal moral accountability. He may find that there is a price to pay for such a bold and forthright statement of the obvious, but as a voice of truth in the wilderness of lies created about Tribute 08, he deserves to be honored.
New Zealand’s Vietnam War “heroes? in their own words:
Extracts from The Vietnam Scrapbook: The Second Anzac Adventure
by Mike Subritzky with foreword by the Right Hon J B Bolger.
“Joe Hoani .. found a VC who might still be alive … fired and emptied the magazine into him… I was beginning to feel very uncomfortable by what I saw as questionable morality … we were now able to kill defenceless men in cold blood…we inspected the dead … some were wearing civilian clothes .. we had inflicted many casualties upon them”
Pvt Colin P Sisson
“the two gooks were blown into next week like a couple of shattered rag dolls..Both gooks had the shit blown out of them … one of them was wearing a watch ..I got the kills so the watch was mine..”
D.R Victor 2
“We cadets did not like being paraded for an Asiatic, all sucked in our breath (it came over as hissing) as the President inspected the parade ”
Captain Christopher W Brown.
“the gook cleared the bamboo clump and we opened up … the gook went down.. the first round had spun the gook .. it was a young woman of about twenty five … not a weapon in sight, a fuckin’ civilian… and it had blown all her entrails all over her pants ..”
Private G, Victor Company
” I’d just killed my first gook, I was elated…the one I’d shot.. the gook I’d shot was a woman.. dead woman, a child’s leg and two axes, fuck me!.- I got the first recorded kill for New Zealand in the Vietnam war and it had to be a woman…”
J.B Victor 1
“kill a commie for Christ… anyone who ***** a Vietnamese is too lazy to masturbate …”
“We had a lightning tour around Singa’s in a cab with my mate Dinga.. showing us how to slap the gook taxi driver round the ears to get him to drive faster …”
Pete and Mac, ANZAC reinforcements
“Then the Gooks closed the bar and we all went “Ape Shit”, throwing chairs, smashing tables, and kicking the shit out of the walls…”
Shorty Barrett, 161 Battery
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Having spent the middle of the day today in tears, watching TVOne’s “Tribute 08: Out From The Darkness” coverage of the history of, and the apology to, the Kiwi Veterans of the Vietnam War and their families, and their families’ families, …
AND having heard the first hand experiences of a brother who spent two tours of duty in Vietnam working in an Australia/New Zealand hospital for Vietnamese civilians … and who is knowledgeable about the true after-effects of the defoliant sprays used,
AND having believed in and joined the anti war Protest Marches at the time the Vietnam War was underway,
I believe that the Ceremony and the Apology were both very necessary and very well thought out and very WELL DONE !
As a country we learned a lot from that conflict, especially about listening to our young adults, about not “following our (erstwhile) WW1 and WW2 allies, right or wrong” into silly wars …
If any males reading this need to participate in, or pontificate about such conflicts to relieve your testosterone urges, please follow or play Rugby or Chess or something similar instead!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m afraid eredwen that this country did not learn enough because once again we followed our US allies into the war in Afghanistan.
Only now they know better than to allow journalists in. We are peace keepers over there?
Not very likely. Our partners NATO and the US are using depleted uranium for example and that is a material which will contaminate that country for the next 45 billion years. That sounds like long term Genocide to me.
Also there are a few problems with the events of 911 as well.
How many of you knew there was a third building that collapsed that day?
youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
It fell at the end of that day in 6.5 seconds into it’s own footprint. It was not hit by a plane and had only minor damage and small fires.
I put it to you that we have once again been lied into a war with a false flag attack just like the golf on Tonkin was a bogus event. So will we have to apologise to the troops that are now stationed in Afghanistan when their kids are born with horrific deformities caused by DU.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Geoff Fischer, I agree that there were some appalling things done and said by some of our Vietnam vets, as you have quoted.
But I do not agree that means they do not seserve an apoogy. They were not responsible for the development of the military culture that led them to do and say those things – the NZ Government of the day, via its armed forces, was. And the vets themselves deserve an apology for that too!
And the Vietnamese people deserve an apology, as has been commented earlier, because NZ had no justification to wage any war on them, let alone the dirty war we participated in.
But at least I think the Government’s apology, limited in scope as it was, is at least a start to acknowledging the horrors we as a country forced both out own soldiers and the Vietnamese to endure through a war in which we should have never been involved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why did Tame Iti have them weapons?…. and the testoserone of the police lead to a massive over reaction… Never mind that wasn’t in the script so we’ll ignore it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don’t turn it off! It wasn’t my war! You asked me, I didn’t ask you! And I did what I had to do to win! But somebody wouldn’t let us win! And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting. Calling me baby killer and all kinds of vile crap! Who are they to protest me? Who are they? Unless they’ve been me and been there and know what the hell they’re yelling about!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
travellerev :
I do agree with you !
However: as far as Aotearoa NZ’s involvement is concerned, these current conflicts have elicited a different response than previously, and I believe this needs acknowledgment:
1. Only a small specialist group of career military personnel, supposedly not under the command of others, went to Afghanistan (ONE STEP FORWARD!) I understood that they were working in cooperation with the Brits rather than the Americans.
and
2. The current Government forgot about our “perpetual, unquestioning loyalty to the Americans for the Battle of the Coral Sea” (A SECOND STEP FORWARD!) and did not send troops to Iraq despite various threats from the Bush administration about not being such “close friends” anymore … )
The use of DU is an obscenity and a War Crime beyond comprehension that the USA should be held responsible for now.
I’d love AotearoaNZ to be a part of such a move, (but so far I’m not holding my breath).
Having said that, from the rhetoric at the time it seems that a National-led Government would have done differently and joined the USA et al “no matter what”.
It remains to be seen what could happen after the Election, so I guess it is up to the voters, our MMP system, and about our general population feeling strongly enough to make this an issue larger than “personal tax cuts” etc that the media keeps on polling people about!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We should be in Afghanistan and we should also be in Iraq, it is highly embarrassing that we are prepared to sit back and let others do the work for us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Do the work for us BB??? Have Afghanistan or Iraq ever done to threaten the freedom or livelihood of Kiwis?
War should be an absolute last resort when all other options for conflict resolution fail – not the pre-emptive option of the Shrub, which was really just a grab for the last oil he could see himself getting his hands on to avoid having to tell Americans their lifestyle may have to change because demand was starting to exceed supply.
In case you don’t get it, BB, people who think like Bush (rather than the late and somewhat silly Saddam, tyrant as he was) are actually the real enemy of freedom, democracy, and prosperity.
Obama and McCain both seem more sensible, but time will tell whether whomever of them is elected will end up just as synchophantic to the oil and arms industries as Bush has been.
Bush cannot see a future without unlimited oil, but that is something we all must see, and adapt to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Do the work for us BB??? Have Afghanistan or Iraq ever done to threaten the freedom or livelihood of Kiwis?”
Ahh..so we are not part of the western world Toad?, have you not heard of Osama bin laden?..or is he OK in your eyes given that he hates the Yanks?
It is simple, the Yanks are our mates, and mates help each other out, and by the way, I do get it Toad, you chaps on the hard left have a simple hatred of democracy and a natural hared of anything American.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
please post my comments
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ahh…I give up, if you chaps do not want to hear other points of view then I guess that is your right.
Have fun and I hope that all your MP’s manage to find work after the election, as I have said before it is a pity that you did not manage to do something about animal cruelty while you were there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro,
Um I don’t know how to tell you this but there are a few problems with regards to Osama bin Laden and the official “Conspiracy theory”.
For starters he is not on the FBI most wanted list for 911 because they have absolutely no proof of his involvement. Also a third building collapsed that day in the late afternoon, in 6.5 seconds (that is free fall speed). A 47 floor skyscraper in the same complex not damaged by an airplane with minor damage and small fires.
If you did not know this you can watch the collapse here:
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=WTC+7+collapse+italian&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
For more information as to why the only three steel framed building to ever collapse due to fire, all in free fall speed and all in the same city all on the same day visit: http://www.ae911truth.org/
How this relates to this threat? It is now become clear that Pearl Harbour was provoked, the golf of Tonkin incident never happened, The Pantagon tried to organise a false flag incident (Northwoods) to get the USA to attack Cuba and it appears that the liquification (for want of a better word) of the three buildings into pyroclastic flows into the streets of New York would have been utterly impossible without the use of thermate. This means that for the umpht time the USA leadership lied to the world and to it’s friends to get us to follow them into another misbegotten adventure. We should not be in Afghanistan, and we should not have about 300 ex-military in Iraq.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big bro,
Did you actually watch the video link I gave you?
I think that mates should not lie their mates into unnecessary wars.
Why is it easier for you to believe something that is scientifically impossible just because it fits with your ideas about “mad” Arabs, then to use your brain and start doing the research. Go on proof me wrong.
I’m not the one who is mad mate it’s the mad men in Washington who are.
And you are a sucker for believing them.
And no I have no problem with Americans, but I do with their fascist leadership.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
trav
So the Yanks blew up their own people, destroyed their own buildings all so they could start a war with the Islamofacists?
Yeah Right!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Never thought I would say this big bro. you have finally got it. The vested interests in the US are capable of anything. Glad to see we are finally getting through to you.
It takes quite a bit of guts to admit that the main terrorists in this world wear the uniforms of the US.
Well done again BB
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ha ha..thank god you guys will never be the govt
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually Scott…what would YOu do if you were PM?
Would you cut all ties with the USA?, attack Israel?
I would really like to know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB: Consider a whole range of options. Don’t jump when the US wants us to for anything. Be ourselves. Be very sure of our actions before we act. Serving Us interests is not serving our own interests or the interests of others generally.
We stood up to them over Nuclear ships. Why so cowardly now? They would only support us if we suffered agression if it was in their interests. The US didn’t really care about ANZUS. Close Waihopai and you would soon see action.
I wouldn’t attack Israel. I would publicly admonish the US for supporting the Israelis and turing a blind eye to Palestine instead of the interminable silence. Yes the Holocaust was real. Why is another slower Holocaust being allowed to be acted on Palestine. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB
Yes they did. In fact they blew up a lot of people from around the world including two Kiwis. Just to get the world crazy enough to go to two illegal wars of aggression with them. So they could get their filthy claws on the biggest oil reserves in the world. Over a million Iraqis died already and more than 4000 American soldiers. Google “winter soldiers” and find out what American soldiers think about what they are doing there.
The Islamofascists is a therm invented by the American corporate controlled media. Al Qaeda is a CIA controlled group. Don’t believe me but use your broadband for something other than gaming and porn and find out for yourself. Dammit
The idea is to stop attacking other people just because you don’t like them or because your mates tell you to. The Israel US alliance is a bad one and based on unsound reasoning. In fact many practising Jews think Israel was a bad idea. Google: Jews against Zionism and find out.
For those of you lurking here (I have found out that Kiwis are a great nation of internet lurkers) following this thread we have a forum just started up discussing the events of 911. You can find it here: http://911truthaotearoa.myfreeforum.org/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
travellred,
The biggest problems unaddressed by the 911 conspiracy theorists is the scle of the operation the US covert operations teams wod hav ehd to carry out.
To bring down a building like you are suggesting (in a controlled implosion) requires the placing of numerous charges throughout the building. These charges (if in concrete columns ) require drilling multiple holes. Do you think this would have gone unnoticed by the building users?
You can imagine the scenario, excuse me sir, just going to move your desk from this column as I’m going to drill a few holes. Cant tell you what they are for but every column on every floor is going to get drilled.
Dont you think it would raise just a tiny speck of suspision and a few discussions around the water cooler?
Then off cource you would need to set the charges and string firing cabling throughout the building. All while its occupenats are blissfully unaware. remember it was a Tuesday morning so the workers were all at the desks.
There is a Tui billbord in there somewhere me thinks.
Even a steel framed building requires the same scenario. Instead of drilling holes in concrete you need to set shaped charges that will cut the steel. An even harder and more time consuming effort then required for concrete columns.
Another issue not addressed is the huge number of people required to drill the holes and set the charges. You would need to be absolutely certain that not a single one would ever not have a conscience and speak out.
Somehow I dont think that is plausable.
So while it might be strange that a building collapsed into its own footprint, (something not possible by a large central explosion) the chances of it having been done by covert operations would be almost impossible.
For the simple reason that too many people are involved, too many at the workface for the installation of the charges, plus a person without a conscience to set the charges off.
So while covert operations involvement is plausable, it is highly unlikely.
Because if convert operations were involved, it would not have been just for this building. They needed to hijack the planes and fly them into the twin towers, to have an excuse to let off the charges in the building you talk about.
Again more peole involved (count would be about a thousands by now) and more risk of someone spilling the beans.
Pressure on those people, after the horrific death toll, would be huge.
Such secrecy is just not pausible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit,
Your comment is one of those typical standard reactions to people like us of what I would loosely call the 911 truth seekers. It also shows the sort of rabid prejudice about who we actually are so let me try to set you straight on a few issues, although judging by your general demeanour on this site I won’t hold my breath.
Let’s start with the mutilation of my moniker Travellerev to travellred. From this I have to assume that to you believe that just because we ask critical questions we must be left wing loonies but a surprising number of 911 truth seekers are actually livelong republicans, ex US military and religious people all of whom are not known for a leftwing attitude.
Second; The biggest problems unaddressed by the 911 conspiracy theorists is the scle of the operation the US covert operations teams wod hav ehd to carry out. (Perhaps a spell check wouldn’t go amiss)
Contrary to you assumption that we as a movement have to address all the issues arising from our questioning the official “Conspiracy theory? we don’t have to do so at all.
What we did was provide proof that a crime has been committed and that 19 young Arab men would have been unable to have carried it out.
This was not done by one or two conspiracy loonies but by the collaboration of thousands of people for several years and from around the globe.
Physicists, Chemists, Architects, Engineers, Ex military, Ex police, Pilots, Ex defence ministers, Politicians, Journalists to name a few.
Four independent laboratories have now confirmed that chemicals consistent with the profile of thermate (a military incendiary used for the demolition of buildings) were abundantly present in the dust samples from the Twin towers. Demolition experts have testified to the fact that building 7 was a controlled demolition. Military personnel working in the Pentagon have gone on record as stating that they did not see a plane wreck on the 911 in the Pentagon and they smelled cordite instead of kerosene.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Mathematicians and engineers have calculated the amount of energy needed to pulverise the buildings into fine dust and it is simply scientifically impossible for the amount of kerosene and the impact of the two planes to have caused the freefall speed implosion.
No plane hit the third building yet it imploded into its own footprint in free fall speed as well. This building housed local headquarters of the CIA, the bunker of Giuliani and a multitude of other squirrelly secretive organisations, in other words; a secure building with no entrance to maniacal Arab terrorists.
If this had been an official police and CSI investigation, which was never allowed to happen by the way, it would have been reason enough to start looking for who had the means, the motive and the opportunity. I put it to you that it could not have been 19 Arab young men with a mad mullah leader however much they might have liked to.
On the amount of people needed to perpetrate this crime which would be prepared to do this, we have some ideas but that’s all they are, Ideas.
We do know that that project Manhattan was able to stay secret for several years even though roughly 100.000 people were involved in the development of the Atom bomb.
We also know that several Trillion dollars was missing from the Pentagon books. Some of that could have gone to buying some silence perhaps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU
We do know that the part of the Pentagon which got hit was a newly fortified office area which housed the book keeping department and only those people who worked in that area died.
By the way; Hani Hanjour who was unable to rent a Cessna because of his bad flying skills performed a mindboggingly difficult manoeuvre to get to this area instead of flying the plane straight into the site which housed Rumsfeld et al.
It took a pilot who was a flight instructor for these planes 10 attempts in a flight simulator to manage it and none of his students could do it. Makes you wonder eh?
This is their site. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
You should also watch this movie made by them, it makes you hair stand up:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&q=&hl=en
Kind regards
Travellerev
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
travellrev,
apologies for getting your moniker incorrect.
Was not done on purpose.
Atom bomb project was kept secret because the people knew it was for the war effort. Saving GI lives. The atom bomb was not intended for internal use within the USA and on US citizens.
911 is a totally different kettle of fish. Here we are expected to presume that thousands of Americans are keeping mum (through the payment of money – bribes) that killed 4 odd thousand Americans.
Not entirely plausable.
Please address the question regarding the placement of exlosive charges in buildings without the occupiers and owners being aware. Or are you saying that a team of operators slipped into the building and overnight placed demolition charges to implode the building in such a perfect manner that the office workers did not see any trace of nocternal activity?
Again not entirely plausable.
Reminds of the people that said that the moon landings were fabricated in hollywood.
Sure it is plausable, but you have the scale of the operation (building sets, film crews, actors, film editors, etc) with maybe a couple of hundred people involved. And not one has spoken out and said the moon landings were faked.
While all these conspiracy theories make good reading, they fail the common sense test. Common sense tells you that the shear volume of people who would have needed to be involved is so large that their silence is deafening.
That Bush and his cohorts took advantage of the aftermath is without doubt. What is doubtful if the vast 911 conspiracy, you subscribe to, holds water.
Must say that if there was a consiracy they choose the date well. 911 has a certain ring to it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Gerrit,
Apology accepted. Especially since you write my moniker incorrect again.Lol.
I would like to invite you to become a member of our 911 forum were I will be happy to respond to your questions about how it could have been done.
There are some good indications, but I feel bad about hijacking this thread. It was after all about the respect due to the Vietnam veterans and not 911.
This invitation extends to every one interested in this subject. We have a special debunking forum to discuss these issues.
I especially would also like to invite eredwen and Scott to join the forum as they seem already somewhat up and running with the 911 subject.
http://911truthaotearoa.myfreeforum.org/
Also, if any of you live in Auckland, I and some other 911 truth seekers will be handing out information and we will be open to, hopefully intelligent, debate on the 11th of June in Aotearoa square from 11 o’clock until 2 o’clock in the afternoon. We hope that this will be a monthly event until we get justice for the victims and their families.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
By the way my blog also has a comment section, so if you want to continue this threat there, that’s also fine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad says “Geoff Fischer, I agree that there were some appalling things done and said by some of our Vietnam vets, as you have quoted. But I do not agree that means they do not seserve an apoogy”.
Let me be clear: I believe that the Vietnam war veterans are deserving of an apology from the crown – for their exposure to Agent Orange, and for having been led into participation in an unjust war which left them brutalized and broken. But the context is critical. Parliament gave an apology to the veterans alone, in the context of a general campaign to obscure the reality of the Vietnam war (i.e. “Tribute 08″ and a flood of press articles which falsely portray the war as justified and necessary). In this context the apology was unworthy of the people of New Zealand and arguably offensive to the people of Vietnam.
The Green Parliamentarians had the opportunity to insist on a proper context which would have been an inclusive crown apology to the government’s war veterans, to the people of Vietnam, and the people of New Zealand for the decision to go to war in the first place. And at the same time one could reasonably expect some expression of regret from at least some of the war veterans for their own personal misconduct in the war. You can say that “military culture? caused New Zealand soldiers to commit racist atrocities in Vietnam, but soldiers still need to be accountable for their actions. Presumably you would expect no less in civil society, so why not expect personal moral responsibility from soldiers?
The Greens had it in their power to insist on a proper apology for the entire conduct of the Vietnam war based on the principle of truth and reconciliation. Instead they opted to go along with a NZ government and media campaign which aims to misrepresent the true causes of the Vietnam war, to obscure the misconduct of US and New Zealand forces, and by implication, to justify New Zealand involvement in other genocidal imperial wars. That opportunity having been irretrievably lost, all one can do is condemn the way in which the Green Parliamentarians have mishandled the matter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)