No war tax or draft?? WTF?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The USSR was a much larger threat than Iraq. We won there - and we didn't need to invade.

And that being true, the USSR wasn't a threat in 1981. They were so busy with Afghanistan and enjoying our grain that we would have had to goad them into war.

[kallend 1,853]

Quote

John
The military is meeting it's recruitment goals however the forces are strtched thin by the constant deployments of one, two and three tours and the reserves are also stretched thin.

This is exactly what a retired USA General told Sen Cornyn 4 years ago whe I was in Cornyn's office.

Chris

There's more to it than that:

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89702118

Although I understand the Bush recession has increased recruiting this year.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[d16842 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In a declared state of war, military assets can be consolidated under a 5-star.

That five star would merely be one of 2001-2009's four star generals who. If they are unable to accomplish their mission with only four stars, a promotion won't magically give them new insight into better military strategy.

I disagree. A "General of the Armies" per se, can direct action in a declared state of war without consult to the legislative branch. It also would have delayed action, if any, into Iraq at that time.

We already have a single commander in the role you describe. The "military assets" are already consolidated.

Central Command, is a theater-level Unified Combatant Command, and directs all US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as the other theater commands do in their areas. On 23 April 2008, General David Petraeus was appointed by the President and confirmed by the US senate for a five year term in this command. Because of this, the theater commanders have somewhat more "safety" in disagreeing with their bosses.

The number of stars Petraeus wears changes nothing whatsoever. We fought WWII with over ten million men under arms until late 1944, with no five star officers.

And a declared state of war, really changes nothing either, except perhaps silence the Congress a bit. But there was never the slightest chance of getting it passed by them, so the point is moot. And Presidents obviously have taken us to several wars without declarations. The lack or presence of one doesn't seem to slow or speed anything.

Petraeus remains accountable to the President, and by extension, to the Congress for his actions, either way.

Tom B

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

In a declared state of war, military assets can be consolidated under a 5-star.

That five star would merely be one of 2001-2009's four star generals who. If they are unable to accomplish their mission with only four stars, a promotion won't magically give them new insight into better military strategy.

I disagree. A "General of the Armies" per se, can direct action in a declared state of war without consult to the legislative branch. It also would have delayed action, if any, into Iraq at that time.

We already have a single commander in the role you describe. The "military assets" are already consolidated.

Central Command, is a theater-level Unified Combatant Command, and directs all US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as the other theater commands do in their areas. On 23 April 2008, General David Petraeus was appointed by the President and confirmed by the US senate for a five year term in this command. Because of this, the theater commanders have somewhat more "safety" in disagreeing with their bosses.

I think you're overlooking an important part here. A General of the Army is designed to be used when a military commander must be higher in rank to those of the military of another nation. NATO opted to follow its obligation to its treaty. The US was there to take the lead, and the use of all assets should have been directed from that point on. Not through liaison, or attache, or diplomatic channel as has been happening in some cases. Now, even the enchanting President Obama cannot persuade increased NATO involvement.

Quote

And a declared state of war, really changes nothing either, except perhaps silence the Congress a bit. But there was never the slightest chance of getting it passed by them, so the point is moot. And Presidents obviously have taken us to several wars without declarations. The lack or presence of one doesn't seem to slow or speed anything.

Emphasis mine.

In many practical applications, what you and jcd are saying is valid. However, the perception of power is a critical intangible that people underestimate.

The power to perceive.

Now, I don't fully agree with your assessments, but I do tend to simplify things.

A declared state of war would have figuratively taken the gloves off. 3000 people from over 30 countries were killed. If that's not a wake-up call, I don't know what is. Now, we have people practically apologizing for the taliban. We have Senators stating that the "war is lost" (which I think is treasonous).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

We have Senators stating that the "war is lost" (which I think is treasonous).

Why do you think that is treasonous? Is it because of what they are saying, or because they are Senators?

I'm of the opinion that one cannot simultaneously be a cheerleader for the USA and be objective in one's analysis. Sometimes the latter requires criticizing US policy or acknowledging US failures.

It has been said that an honest historian has no country.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Providing a temporary reduction of a tax-rate does not eliminate the tax. My statement was, "However, every tax, fee, ad infinitum that Congress assesses, never goes away." The tax does, indeed, remain. In fact, where there used to be three brackets, there are now five. Congress does not let go.

If you're claiming that Congress will continually tax people at a rate that may change over time, then I agree. If you are claiming that specific taxes never expire and are never otherwise ended, then that is simply wrong.

Which tax has been repealed then? I don't know of any. In fact, Congress just voted to keep the f**king estate tax, which was due to expire soon...

Quote

Quote

An attack on our Pentagon wasn't an act of war? Two attacks on critical civilian/financial centers within 8 years wasn't an act of war?

Again, against which state should we have retaliated? Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were behind the attacks, so we should not have invaded and occupied either of those sovereign nations. What state should have been on the receiving end of our military vengeance? If we were seeking to capture specific individuals, that lends itself to police work, not military invasions and occupations.

The reason I believed that we should not have retaliated militarily is because I believed such retaliation would prove to be expensive in terms of innocent lives and money and would ultimately prove to be unsuccessful at best, and worsen the problem at worst.

Quote

Attacks by an entity, harbored by a ruling government of a sovereign nation was not an act of war?

Being within the borders of Afghanistan does not equate to being harbored by the government of Afghanistan. International (and domestic) terrorists have been known to reside within the borders of the United States. Would you advocate other countries invading and occupying the US because someone who committed an act of terrorism against one of those countries was believed to be on US soil? Do you believe we should have launched a full scale military attack against North Carolina in order to capture Eric Rudolph? If not, how do you justify the double standard?

Remember, Afghanistan and USA did not have an extradition treaty in place in 2001. Afghanistan were under no legal obligation to turn UBL over to USA, even if they did have knowledge of his whereabouts.

Dude, how can you compare the an organization that is given unfettered access, movement, and funding versus the US which was not providing any kind of materiel support. Why don't you just apologize for the Taliban...

Quote

It was USA's foreign policy under Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush that significantly contributed to creating an environment in Afghanistan that allowed al Qaeda to be able to operate from there, with or without knowledge of the Afghan government. After setting Afghanistan up for failure, can we be morally justified violently punishing the Afghani people for the repercussions of that failure?

First, it was not the US that installed the Taliban. It was Pakistan's ISI. Second, we can all look back with 20/20 and see the errors of our Cold War context, and say, "Why?". But it's for naught. al-Qaeda is not the fault of the US. It is the principle inspired by a mujaheddin who was snubbed by his country, disowned by his family and felt that having infidels defend the Saudi kingdom, instead of his righteous fighters, was unforgivable.

Quote

Quote

Quote

. By going off half cocked and invading Afghanistan, we served to start cutting the heads of the Lernaean Hydra that is made up of the insurgent groups.

Independent cells of operation does not a hydra make. bin-Laden is not revered so much because he is merely one of "many" heads. He is an inspirational center to "the base". Our ability to remove other "heads" in Iraq has withered al-Qaeda's abilities there.

You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. Let me try a different approach of explanation, quoting General McChrystal:

There is another complexity that people do not understand and which the military have to learn: I call it ‘COIN mathematics’. Intelligence will normally tell us how many insurgents are operating in an area. Let us say that there are 10 in a certain area. Following a military operation, two are killed. How many insurgents are left? Traditional mathematics would say that eight would be left, but there may only be two, because six of the living eight may have said, ‘This business of insurgency is becoming dangerous so I am going to do something else.’

There are more likely to be as many as 20, because each one you killed has a brother, father, son and friends, who do not necessarily think that they were killed because they were doing something wrong. It does not matter – you killed them. Suddenly, then, there may be 20, making the calculus of military operations very different.

What Gen. McCrystal refers to as "COIN mathematics" is what I was referencing with my hydra metaphor. Our war on terror has served to strengthen support for terrorism against the US and our allies and has provided better recruiting propaganda for insurgent groups than the finest marketing agencies could have hoped to achieve. Those new member offer no shortage of potential new leaders from which to draw.

Okay, I better understand your meaning. I don't think either of us are seeing a complete picture. Having said that, knowing what I know, comparing places like Ramadi, Iraq was when I was there, to how it is now, is beyond night and day. Some of my buddies went back to see the places they were wounded and it can't be described. So, in looking at that, it's easy to see Gen. McChrystal's reference to "20" and overlook "2". I'm not saying it's wrong, but if Iraq is any indicator...

Quote

Al Qaeda has no reason to launch a terrorist attack against us as long as we're stuck in a quagmire in the graveyard of empires.

If we were an empire, I might be worried. However, this is not something we face alone, and it is something we cannot let up with. How no one thought this was not going to last decades is beyond me. From Morocco to Pakistan is a civilization in disarray, been in decline for at least a thousand years, and somehow, it's magically our fault for the mess that it is. How we've remained willing to let this go on for so long escapes me.

Quote

War bonds are but another way to accumulate government debt. They don't make wars cheaper. Treasury bonds provide the same opportunities for the government to borrow and for citizens to invest.

What would you suggest that we ration? (Note that a declaration of war is not required in order for the government to ration a good, e.g., gasoline in the 70's, water today).

Better to sell the bonds to the American people than to sell worthless paper to China, don't you agree? War bonds pay for the war. Not for medicare, or social security, or transportation. As for rationing, we ration whatever is needed at a given time to expedite to maximum efficiency.

Let me share a brief reality: HMMWVs (humvees as we call them). This platform is serving in ways never imagined. As many issues there may be with it, it is performing pretty damn well. We've all seen the stories about up-armor this, and up-armor that, etc. Many of the up-armor-kits, or frag-kits are incremental in their improvements. Not very innovative. I met with a defense contractor who was telling me about all the new whiz-bang armor on the side of the model he was showing me. I asked, "What about armor underneath the chassis?" Response, "Well, we haven't enhanced that." My reply, while looking down at my leg, "Well that wouldn't have fared too well where I was at." Response, "Well this is to deal with the EFPs." My reply, "But you just got done telling me that this would only withstand up to a direct from an armor-piercing-RPG." Response, "Well, yeah, but this kit is an incremental improvement to get there." Me: "How many kits have your fielded so far, previous editions I mean?" --"Most of them." Me: "So, where's the leap to change the game then?" Response, "We're working on it, but our capacity is limited." Me: "Maybe you should align yourselves with some partners to bring it to the end-zone."

This kind of mentality permeates the "unaligned" defense contractors. The Pentagon knew this and was going to use mine, and a few other guys stories to bring it home to these "Captains of Industry", and bring the message that they have to link arms and pump up the volume. The incremental improvements were good, but they saw an opportunity to do better. The technology was there, and the talent was too, just not all in the same spot. The plan got scrubbed when the Walter Reed story broke though. They ended up doing something similar a while later, but not with the soldiers as planned.

I was so pissed I couldn't see straight. But the concern, that three soldiers, from different circumstances were going to be "used" by the military to advance an "agenda" shut the whole thing to shit. See was perception alone can do?

If we're in this together, then let's be in it together. Pass a war tax? Sure, pass it, and force the Congress to swear a blood-oath to lift it as soon as the war is over. Promote the shit out of War Bonds, don't sell the debt to countries that do not have our interests at heart. Promote more conservation to keep commodities reasonably priced so that petroleum products don't jack the shit out of fuel, or tires, or any of the thousands of things used that are rooted in basic petroleum applications. Have a propaganda campaign to encourage service in the military, keep it voluntary, men and women that make the choice, make a difference.

A virtual mobilization of every man, woman and child. No way it would not have made a big difference. A wave of support to squash the politics and get the job done.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Which tax has been repealed then?

Fitting for this discussion, the Victory Tax was repealed in 1944.

Quote

Why don't you just apologize for the Taliban.

I don't apologize for the Taliban. But, I also don't consider them a significant threat to our national security interests, at least I didn't before we invaded Afghanistan. (Now they pose a threat only to the extent of our troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan.)

Quote

First, it was not the US that installed the Taliban.

I didn't say we did. I said that our foreign policy allowed mujahideen groups to grow strong enough to take control of Afghanistan's government.

Quote

It was Pakistan's ISI.

The CIA worked closely with ISI during and after the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

Quote

Second, we can all look back with 20/20 and see the errors of our Cold War context, and say, "Why?". But it's for naught. al-Qaeda is not the fault of the US.

In a very real sense, they are.

Quote

If we were an empire, I might be worried.

Be careful not to miss the wisdom of the expression because of semantics.

Quote

However, this is not something we face alone, and it is something we cannot let up with.

It is something that we never should have undertaken militarily, IMO.

Quote

Better to sell the bonds to the American people than to sell worthless paper to China, don't you agree?

Future tax revenue is future tax revenue. It doesn't matter who buys the bonds; either the government will make good on the debt or they won't.

Quote

War bonds pay for the war. Not for medicare, or social security, or transportation.

That's all accounting magic, and makes no real difference. Revenue for transportation, etc. has to come from somewhere. If we had war bonds earmarked only for military spending, other sources of military revenue would be cut if the funds are needed elsewhere.

Our problems with our current military endeavors are not due to insufficient funding.

Quote

Promote the shit out of War Bonds, don't sell the debt to countries that do not have our interests at heart.

Again, there is no significant difference between a war bond and a Treasury bond. The debt must be sold to those with the money to invest. Buying our debt puts our best interests in their best interest.

Quote

A virtual mobilization of every man, woman and child. No way it would not have made a big difference. A wave of support to squash the politics and get the job done.

I'm not sure what you mean by "virtual mobilization of every man, woman, and child."

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Bolas 5]

Quote

If we're in this together, then let's be in it together.

Agreed. This half ass shit we do has gotta stop. Decide to do something, commit to it, and fully fund it until we decide to stop.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

I don't believe a draft will be implemented unless or until a foreign country initiates a large invasion in the US...

There are at least 7 million illegal immigrants from Mexico alone in the USA and they are here largely with the blessings of the Mexican government. If that isn't a "large invasion" I don't know what is.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

The taliban were essentially your allies when in the soviet- afghan war.

Imagine what the place might be like if you had not propped up the Islamic Mujahideen only a few decades ago.

Go read some history and see how fucked up you r foreing policy is.

I'm not sure I understand your choice of pronouns here.

When has Australia ever not gone along with a decision that the USA has made when it comes to the military? Australia supported the USA militarily in Vietnam and then again in Iraq--both unpopular wars with limited international support.

I think the pronoun you are looking for is "we"/"our".

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I don't believe a draft will be implemented unless or until a foreign country initiates a large invasion in the US...

There are at least 7 million illegal immigrants from Mexico alone in the USA and they are here largely with the blessings of the Mexican government. If that isn't a "large invasion" I don't know what is.

With the exception of the drug dealers, those 7 million aren't here to fight or do anything but try to quietly blend into the country. Unless you want to argue that they are the biggest army of sleeper cells ever, it isn't an invasion.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

With the exception of the drug dealers, those 7 million aren't here to fight or do anything but try to quietly blend into the country. Unless you want to argue that they are the biggest army of sleeper cells ever, it isn't an invasion.

True, not all burglars intend violence against the lawful occupants of the home they burglarize.

But all burglars are, by definition, burglars.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[billvon 2,772]

>But all burglars are, by definition, burglars.

Agreed. But if you see that burglar, just sitting there minding his own business, and hire him to water your plants, and pay him for a year or so to come by and do that, and then one day scream "HEY! He's a burglar! Someone arrest him and cart him off! I had NOTHING TO DO with his being here!" - then the fault is as much yours as it is his.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

With the exception of the drug dealers, those 7 million aren't here to fight or do anything but try to quietly blend into the country. Unless you want to argue that they are the biggest army of sleeper cells ever, it isn't an invasion.

True, not all burglars intend violence against the lawful occupants of the home they burglarize.

But all burglars are, by definition, burglars.

I oppose uncontrolled immigration and have little pity for stories of people being deported, but they're not burglars.

In any event, it's not relevant to the question of the draft or the country being at war. We can have yet another discussion on illegal immigration in a separate thread.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

In any event, it's not relevant to the question of the draft or the country being at war...

But it is relevant. The original justification for going into Afghanistan 8+ years ago was that the 9/11 terrorists--believed to be associated with al Qaeda elements operating in Afghanistan--had obtained US visas under false pretenses and then committed terrorist acts.

Thus, for national security reasons alone, even leaving aside economic concerns, the illegal immigration problem is something that should have been solved by now. The fact that it hasn't been is further evidence--along with the absence of a war tax or draft--that the country isn't really ready to make the painful choices needed to be truly secure. The war in Afghanistan can offer only limited additional security to us when we lack the political will to secure our own borders.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

In any event, it's not relevant to the question of the draft or the country being at war...

But it is relevant. The original justification for going into Afghanistan 8+ years ago was that the 9/11 terrorists--believed to be associated with al Qaeda elements operating in Afghanistan--had obtained US visas under false pretenses and then committed terrorist acts.

You brought in illegal immigration when someone wrote: "I don't believe a draft will be implemented unless or until a foreign country initiates a large invasion in the US..." Has nothing to do with Afghanistan.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

You brought in illegal immigration when someone wrote: "I don't believe a draft will be implemented unless or until a foreign country initiates a large invasion in the US..." Has nothing to do with Afghanistan.

Well, that is where I guess I disagree. In the early days after 9/11, it was clearly understood that straightening out the immigration mess and going to war in Afghanistan were closely related issues--two different fronts in a single war on terror.

However, that has now changed. I believe the sea change happened after a series of marches by illegal aliens in early 2006, but for whatever reason, these two issues--illegal immigration and the war in Afghanistan--seem to have become decoupled in public policy where they were previously understood to be closely related.

It is true that there are many aspects of illegal immigration--especially when you consider a typical illegal immigrant who breaks the law only for the immediate economic betterment of him/herself and his/her family--that are not closely connected to the war on terror.

However, given that there is a small minority of illegal immigrants whose goals are terroristic, and not economic, addressing the war on terror requires that we fully address the larger problem of illegal immigration.

Decoupling these issues--whether into different bills or different threads--has been a big policy mistake IMHO.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

However, that has now changed. I believe the sea change happened after a series of marches by illegal aliens in early 2006, but for whatever reason, these two issues--illegal immigration and the war in Afghanistan--seem to have become decoupled in public policy where they were previously understood to be closely related.

They were never coupled. The issues with illegal immigration gets more prominent during poor economies, and less so when things are doing well. Hardly a surprise. It's a cycle that dates back decades, and well likely back to the early 19th century.

[d16842 0]

Quote

Quote

However, that has now changed. I believe the sea change happened after a series of marches by illegal aliens in early 2006, but for whatever reason, these two issues--illegal immigration and the war in Afghanistan--seem to have become decoupled in public policy where they were previously understood to be closely related.

Well I will jump in on several levels. I believe our policy on illegal immigration really sucks. We openly make it economically rewarding for huge numbers of people to cross our borders illegally, and are unwilling to attack that root cause, that Americans keep hiring them. Yet we apply border enforcement efforts at great expense, which forces many crossing the border to literally risk their lives to get here. Anyone see a problem with encouraging them to come by waving dollars, then making it risky?

And all this time, we literally have people who have applied to enter the US, many well educated and with money, and who have waited for a visa for twenty years, and won't let them in.

I think we need to absolutely lock the southern border down, if for no other reason than to save lives. Then greatly increase our legal immigration quotas to all nations of the world, in fair amounts each, for it is very unfair to ignore illegal immigration from a few nations who can walk here, and enforce very small quotas on the rest of the world.

Tom B

• Quote

[d16842 0]

Quote

>Prior to the first Gulf War, Iraqi oil exports were in excess of 3M bbls per day.

And of those we got about 175 million barrels a day out of 22,000 million barrels a day we use. That's .8%. Pretty small in my book.

True, but throw in Iran's, which he tried to get by force, Kuwait's, which he took by force, and Saudi Arabia, which he planned to take by force, but was dumb enough to pause. Getting the picture of Saddam yet? And the price of oil is set by the world at the margin. 3 million barrels per day has real impact on price, a LOT more than just its percentage of production.

Quote

>The farce that was "Oil for Food" was compliance?

No. His eventual cooperation with arms inspectors, after we threatened war, was compliance.

And just how long would continued threats without action have worked? Tried that approach with your kids lately? But the point is the threats were based on non-compliance to UN sanctions. Saddam had paid off UN officials and those of several key nations. The sanctions were soon to be lifted. Then what? Back to the old Saddam?

Quote

>But several tons of radio active materials were found, likely legacy
>from the "old" nuclear program, some dating back to pre-Israeli
>strikes.

Agreed. The IAEA had found them and sealed them in a vault. We invaded, opened the vault and discovered them still there. Doesn't sound like a big threat to me.

Not so fast. It was 550 tons, not several And why was it still there? It sure as hell was not fuel for his blown up reactor as many claim. Fuel rod bundles would be. Instead, this was 550 tons still in the yellow cake stage. The French had previously retaken possession of the planned reactor fuel. So why did Saddam keep the yellowcake, instead of shipping it out during his compliance phase. What use would he have for yellowcake after sanctions were lifted? The same peaceful purposes as Iran?

Tom B

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

They were never coupled. The issues with illegal immigration gets more prominent during poor economies, and less so when things are doing well. Hardly a surprise. It's a cycle that dates back decades, and well likely back to the early 19th century.

Over a time scale of the last 100+ years you are generally correct. But over the shorter time scale of the last 10 years there was another factor in play. Immigration was moved out of the Department of Justice and into the Department of Homeland Security in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. This was done because it was understood that immigration was now a national security issue.

In general, yes, crackdowns on illegal immigration have been more prevalent in weak economic times. But the reorganization of immigration into DHS was done for national security reasons, not economic reasons, and it happened at the same time and for the same reasons as we sent troops to Afghanistan.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[rhys 0]

Quote

:
In Reply To
The taliban were essentially your allies when in the soviet- afghan war.

Imagine what the place might be like if you had not propped up the Islamic Mujahideen only a few decades ago.

Go read some history and see how fucked up you r foreing policy is.

I'm not sure I understand your choice of pronouns here.

When has Australia ever not gone along with a decision that the USA has made when it comes to the military? Australia supported the USA militarily in Vietnam and then again in Iraq--both unpopular wars with limited international support.

I think the pronoun you are looking for is "we"/"our".

I'm sure you assumtion that i am australian is becaue my avitar says 'australia'.

i am from New Zealand and we have not bowed down to the USA and its questionable foreigh policy for decades.

We refused you entry to our shores with any nuclear powered or capable item, 'You' dodn't like that and tried to get heavy handed. we stood our ground.

When it comes to Iraq war etc. we also refused to participate because it sets a precedent to anyone to attack anyone they dissaprove of.

Our Prime minister was also was quoted in saying that the Iraq war "would not have happened if Gore had have been presedent" and that "Iraq was not a haven for terrorists before the war but certainly is now!".

Our prime minister david Lange a few dacade ago stood firm against us foriegn policy and was quoted saying "I can smell the uranium on your breath from here".

You are right, what a bunch of pushovers!!

Up until this day, USA's or 'any' countries vessels that are Nuclear powered or capable, are not allowed in New Zealand.


And I hope it stays that way forever!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix