Majority of New Zealanders back military support for US: poll

,,, on the basis of your predictions your job will be safe then? Helen will continue her trail of disasters until November 2002 and finance minister Cullen will have to try finding money for any quick fixes or even to budget - we know about the shortfalls though. As for polls, it's a case of who's doing the polling and where. Helen will have to start buying off newspaper people - things are looking remarkably honest in the dailys right now.

,,, what do I think you do? I think you adhere. But you certainly try to offer diligent answers in line with your tired sympathies.

What do you think a good exit strategy for our boys in East Timor would be? I'm not aware of one being in place.

See #53.

When 10,000 Chinese shock troops come screaming out of trojan horse container ships in Auckland and Christchurch, just whistle.

Your men will serve them tea and crumpets while your women "entertain" them.

"What an absurd and impossible idea! Just as ridiculous as the idiotic idea that someone might crash jets into skyscrapers!"

Beat the rush, order your Chinese language tapes today, you might be kept around as a translator for the PLA occupation troops.

Don't you have the equivalent of the NRA there, which has been rolling back your gun control?

,,, we have a "Minister for disarmourment" but I'm unclear what that's about. I suspect it's a position to keep the Green Party happy - scale down the armed forces etc. As for rifles, pistols etc. there's an anti gun lobby which has a has been TV presenter as it's mouhpiece. The ownership of personal firearms has never been as easy exercise to go thru here. The vast amount of the population aren't interested in owning guns but we also have avid hunters/sports people who would defend their right to own firearms as in the US. We don't have it written into any constitutional rights though.

It is almost unbelievable to read all the comments on here. While you are all slagging off New Zealand and what it has or hasn't done with it's troups perhaps you would care for a bit of realism.

New Zealand is a country with the population of just a little more than Manhattan where the World Trade Center buildings were hit.

Where is Manhattan's army? Why are not Manhattan people pledging their air force, their SAS, their ships and carrier planes and helicopters? Because it's just a city with only about 2.5 million people.

New Zealand is still expected to retain a full parliament with international responsibilities; an air force, army and navy and all the equipment required; it pays benifits to the aged, to those unable to work and to those out of work; it must protect one of the largest coastlines of any country in the world for it's size; it supports a full agriculture border protection; and contains several international airports.

Yet You people are ready to call us all sorts of names because we didn't offer our forces quick enough - never mind that we did (let's not let facts get in the way of a good bout of hate).

When France bombed a ship in our harbour and Australia had the opportunity to hold the terrorists, both the USA and Britian placed pressure on Australia to let the terrorists leave the island where they were refuelling. That is like Britian holding Osama Bin Ladin and letting him go because they would rather be friends with the Telabin than with America.

"This is different" I hear you yelling. Sad though it is and personally tragic as we ourselves lost friends in that attack, it is not too different from our own attack except that we had, at that time a binding ANZUS treaty and that attack came from another country that we had helped to liberate during WWII.

That treaty states that an attack on one partner is considered an attack on all (er... except when it's New Zealand cause we don't count unless we are expected to help other countries).

We have a beautiful country here but are taxed to the hilt to pay for the things required by a full country. We are also a proud country who have engaged in almost every conflict this century and have contributed more than our fair share to international concerns.

It is sad, and perhaps a touch on the more extreme points of your country that you participate in pure hate for a country and people that have shown nothing but friendship and support.

This french terrorist thing has been brought up a number of times, primarily on the original thread (which is gone now, I'm sorry to say). There are a number of extremely significant differences between that attack and the present attacks.

1. The attack was on Greenpeace, an international organisation that was actively protesting France's nuclear tests in the South Pacific. Greenpeace's flagship, the Rainbow Warrior, was in port at Auckland which, conveniently, was a major city of the only country in the world with a nuclear ban. Despite the added bonus of attacking it in such a port, the attack was still on the organisation and not on our country.

2. No-one was supposed to die. The attack was planned to avoid human casualties. Unexpectedly, the Greenpeace photographer at the time went back on board after everyone had left to get his camera. By then, the two French operatives were under water and could not have known what had happened.

3. There WAS international condemnation of what had occurred. Despite the fact that everyone, especially the US, was pretty pissed at NZ for its nuclear-free stance, the French had over-stepped the mark. However, there is no way they had done anything near as shocking as what we have just seen in the US. The world has just been shown the new kind of war. A passenger jet plane can now be used as a weapon of mass destruction. We have to learn now a new way of addressing international issues in the face of such attacks. Obviously, with such an extensive terrorist network, simple extradition of the primary offenders (those that are still alive, given they were suicide attacks) is not sufficient.

4. Which brings me to my next point - extradition and why Australia did not hold the French spies. I refer to my earlier statements and repeat that the attack on the Rainbow Warrior was nowhere near on the same scale as the attacks on the WTC. No-one, except Greenpeace and NZ, felt a significant urgency to deal with the terrorists quickly and mercilessly. We have international laws and treaties governing such situations. As with any law there are varying interpretations of the whens whys and hows of holding the French accountable for what they had done. All-out revenge was not appropriate. It took time to figure out what was appropriate. We had a nation, with a responsible government, that we could hold diplomatic discussions with, make our displeasure and disappointment known to. The US have no such luxury. There is no way that anything done subsequent to the Rainbow Warrior bombing can be likened to the Taleban (please note the correct spelling of this word) harbouring bin Laden. We were dealing with civilised nations who were prepared to adhere to their international obligations, although perhaps not as hastily as we would have liked (remember they were still angry about the anti-nuke stance). The Taleban are interested in no such niceties.

As to your comments about Manhatten's population being the same as ours and where is their army. Two points:

1. Our Government's offer of help was vague and grudging, with an undercurrent of vague smugness that America now found itself humbled somewhat; a sense of invincibility, much like that of a teenage boy-racer, that "it will never happen to me"; and a delay explicable only by way of the public polling that had to take place to make sure they wouldn't lose the next election by offering support. Even then, doubts were expressed that any combat assistance would be provided, until they played the SAS card. It is no so much the extent of our assistance that has left a bitter taste in Americans' mouths, but the attitude accompanying that assistance, propagated by people such as yourself on websites such as this.

2. Manhatten did send its army in, and many of them perished on the day. Hundreds of fire-fighters were crushed under the WTC. How DARE you suggest otherwise!

With all this talk about a 39% tax rate, remember that NZ (like/unlike other countries?) uses a tiered interest rate system - so only money earned over the $65,000 level is taxed at 39%. (I think it is 65k).

For the bit between 19k-65k it's at 33%. And for the 0-19k portion it is charged at 19%.
The idea of China invading New Zealand... why would they? NZ is not exactly a "tactical" place to have... And before you say "Why would people throw planes into big buildings in the US", just have a think about the foreign policy that brought about the dislike of the States in Afghanistan... (Namely supplying arms/training to Bin Laden, in order to defeat the "Commies")
And on the topic of NZ's defense: if we were invaded, we could have every single person in the country in the forces, and other countries could still get in - if Indonesia wanted NZ, it could have it. Same as if China, India, and most likely the US, wanted us.

And besides remember, if you want money for the forces, you have to take it away from: Health, Education, the Justice System, Welfare (specifically parts like CYF, and ACC).

Just my 2c (= approximately 0.82 american cents)

Were you actually around when the French blew up the Rainbow Warrior? Your take on events is naive, to say the least.
1.Firstly, I cant believe you are trying to justify French actions. France was conducting nuclear weapons tests 10,000 miles from French soil, in a colonial backwater whose people had no say in the matter. The Rainbow Warrior had not broken any laws at the time of the bombing, and if the French were worried abotu casualties, why didnt they wait a few hours - there were 12 people on board when the first (of two) mines exploded

2.Greenpeace at the time had huge public support in NZ at the time, its upper ranks were stocked with NZers, and for these reasons (let alone that it happened in Auckland))most NZers certainly saw it as an attack on NZ AND on our beliefs and way of life. While in no way wishing to compare the scale of the physical tragedy, the Rainbow Warrior bombing had a huge psychological effect on a small, isolated, peaceful country which thought it had no enemies. Fer crying out loud, we are still talking about the Crewe machine-gun murders and that happened decades ago. With regards to what should be done with terrorists; put em up before the International Court of Justice - If its good enough for Slobo, its good enough for the minions of al Quaeda

4.Excuse me, but are you suggesting the DSG agents/France had nothing to answer for, that we were blessed because we could make our "disappointment" known to the "responsible" French Govt? WTF?? Can I suggest you get a clue? In most other circumstances what the Frogs did would be an act of war. The international laws and treaties you speak of meant nothing to the French government, who denied, denied, denied involvement in the face of mounting evidence, until their own media started crying foul and they had no choice to cop to it, and even then, their Defence Minister resigned, they payed NZ $16mill and that was it. France in no way "adhered" to its obligations, to the point that they returned Marfat and Prieur to France and a heroes welcome/promotions after a few months in a tropical island prison.
Bbr> 5.Our governments initial offers of assistance came as soon as Helen Clarke was back in the country, and about as concrete as could be expected given that she needed to consult with the MoDefence and her parliamentary colleagues, and ascertain the current status of the armed forces needed to be canvassed (Given as how such a large number of them are scatted through out the world at the moment tryig to clear up other peoples troubles); This country is not a dictatorship where the leader can act unilaterally (despite what you may hear from some whingers who wouldnt know a dictatorship if it came up behind them and gave them a boot up the bum).

6.Regarding Manhattans army, your comments are a disengenuous squink of the worst proportions; noone denies the bravery and the sacrifices of the NYC emergency services on 9/11 but that has nothing to do with the point K1W1 was making.

Please forgive the formatting/spelling mistakes above. Accidentally hit 'post' too soon but I am sure you get the point. If NZ's rep gets damaged internationally, the fault lies with local morons spinning a line of partisan crap with no regard for the facts, but thats ok and just what you would expect from ACT and National supporters (Not that Labour/Alliance in opposition were any better or more honest).

I think you mistake the point of my comments. I was not defending the French. What they did was disgusting. KIWI was using it as a justification for us to be a bit grudging about lending our support to the US. I was making the point that there is no comparison. I was defending the actions of other countries who are being collectively blamed by people on this thread and others for harbouring the French Terrorists by pointing out that the situation was completely different. We all know the effect on NZ, it was devastating to a country that had previously thought it was immune to such things - it is a pity Helen Clark with her "it'll never happen to us" attitude hasn't learnt!

And the French reaction was outrageous. Of course it was. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that they'd done it. But again, I was not defending the French. I was defending the other countries involved. By calling the French govt a "responsible government" I was using the descriptive term for a representative govt. They are democratic and responsible to their people. We recognise responsible government as a hallmark of civilised society. "Responsible" in that sense is a noun, not an adjective. Obviously you have never done law or politics, sorry you misunderstood my meaning. I was not at all suggesting they had nothing to answer for. I was suggesting that there were procedures for dealing with it and it took a while for those procedures to take place. There was no concern that it was going to happen again. They had made their point and they weren't nutters. Well, not in the sense that bin Laden is a nutter.

I am sorry you think that I think the Rainbow Warrior was a trifle in our history. I suggest you read my post again, this time from the angle that I wrote it:

1. As a defence of Australia, the US and the UK for their failure to act immediately, and

2. As putting it into perspective as regards the WTC.

I think that my point on the firefighters is related to KIWI's point. KIWI was putting our contribution into perspective. However, this comment:

Where is Manhattan's army? Why are not Manhattan people pledging their air force, their SAS, their ships and carrier planes and helicopters? Because it's just a city with only about 2.5 million people.

implies that Manhatten has not supplied anything. I corrected the position. Of course, it goes without saying that Manhatten also does not have the infrastructure of a small country, which we do.

To you, TheKiwiGuyPersonThing, I would correct your tax rates. The description of the way in which taxes are calculated is correct. But your rates are wrong. The correct tax rates are:

<$38,000 = 19.5%

$38,001-$60,000 = 33%

>$60,000 = 39%

There is also an earner premium (for ACC) of about 1.1% on top of those rates. The result of our tiered system is that on a salary of $100,000 you would not be taxed $39,000 (as a straight application of those figures would suggest) but rather about $30,270, being 19.5% on your first $38,000, 33% on the next $22,000 and then 39% on the remainder.

,,, "pure hate" is something to be found in Islamic extremists. On all FreeRepublic threads concerning New Zealand and it's relationship with the US, I've seen no evidence of "pure hate". You're an embarrassment - get back to your Nintendo.

Nah. I'm glad to see the people support us. If you could just dump that socialist running your country, I'd consider visiting when things calm down a bit.