Clark's Iraq comments 'reprehensible and immoral'

In response to #77

"And that commitment meant diverting units away from regions more in line with US interests. In hindsight probably not necessary, but we were certainly prepared to have young Americans die to defend us. "

Im sorry but the 1st Marine Division may of been equipped as combat ready but really it was mearly just a token force. I mean anyone who has studied WWII would recognise this and realise that America was simply making a political statement advising that it would defend New Zealand if attacked by Japan. This is also shown by the token force left to defend Phillipines, The americans believed the western front and Hitler was more of a threat and knew that once that was over they would eventually be able to beat back the Japanese and take places like the philipines and if it had to New Zealand and Australia, but it also had a pretty good idea that Japan would not invade Australia, but it was a nice gesture, dont get me wrong i have a lot of thanks for the Americans in the pacific theater and a lot of respect for the men and woman who fought in WWII, hell im only 24 years old and im pretty sure i know more about the war than most people under 50. (that kinda answers your other question on politics, meh i only know i would prefer a prime minister with Balls, which Helen Clarke has and John Key doesnt, but yeah again NZ politics not my forte :P)

In response to #80

Did you even read my post old man? I never said Japan stated they never planned on invading New Zealand, i said "they never intended". Japan NEVER inteded on invading New Zealand or Australia. This is not hear say or a discussion, this is WWII FACT. It was of no strategic importance to invade, they just wanted to keep us isolated and attack the convoys as much as possible as their real interests lay in the pacific and the eventual conquest of America. Sure once that was complete they would of but until then their was no need. If you cant understand this then dont comment on matters you cant comprehend. If you dont believe me then feel free to search google / wikipedia. infact i have a good website by a great WWII writer from the American Army who sent time in New Zealand with operation deep freese, his name is David H Lippmann and his site is located here http://usswashington.com/worldwar2plus55/index.htm

Murray,

You may have to forgive my philosophical perspective, but this is largely where my political opinion stems from, and so frequently finds its way into any political discussion I have.

It is probably true that uner FPP the parties stuck to a single core identity, which would generally result n a single core following with a few transints. MMP has probably changed the political landscape here. I feel it is for the better personally, but it does lead to a more complex democratic process.

In general, there are 2 aspects of a party's campaign that one will appraise when deveiding their vote: 1. what do they propose and 2. do I trust them? It seems you hold particular interest in the second point, providing historical evidence to refute the integrity of National.

I feel that every politcian (being human) will bend the political process as much as allowed. And every media agency (being more interested in entertainment than information) will subjectify the facts as much as possible. I feel this has lead to a situation where parties wait until the lead-up to elections, and then begin the mudfight (which the media commmunicate selectively). We can blame the parties, or the media for this circus, or even the public for playing along, but in truth it is the democratic process that allows it to be successful. This is why I feel that revisiting our democratic process (like we did with MMP) may bring the whole thing a bit closer to what we were aiming for.

I'm not saying I know what needs to change, just that the existing system has turned democracy into marketing. I have pondered whether we could allow people to change their vote at any time rather than every three years; so that parliament has to answer to the people every day, rather than in triannual windows. If the majority party handles an issue poorly on monday, they might have less seats by thursday. It has severe practical limitations, but it would be difficult for a dishonest MP to maintain their facade every day.

Dylan,

I am sorry. I did interpret your comment as being that our democracy was shattered and that by "revolution" you meant a different political system.

By far, most of my life as a voter has been under FPP. I think traditionally, parties adhered much more to a distinguishable, core philosophy and voters would align with this philosophy. It might have varied as to how policy affected the individual, but you would take it all as a "package" and vote on the basis of what was the core philosophy. Hence, you were sort of either one side or the other.

I suppose this still largely happens as regards the Green Party. Despite smacking laws, or whatever, the Greens have always defined themselves in a broader sense. A professional commentator recently suggested that perhaps all the parties had now become "Green".

I think this might be the aspect of debate which you are refuting. It might be the questions that are not "issue based" and are repeated over and over, such as,

"Who are you and for what is it you stand?"

Surely, it is relevant, but it is more philosophical, involving permanence, loyalty and trust. It is less to do with the policies of the day and transcience.

It is my opinion that the National Party has, ostensibly, completely lost its identity. In itself, this promotes suspicion and a loss of "trust". This "ambiguity" as it has been termed is able to occur so gradually that it might well escape our notice. That is probably why I try to repetitively draw attention to what I feel is a vote garnering superficiality.

I also feel it is necessary to elaborate and refer to "messages" frequently because I think they are "filtered" so much by the media.

As an example, Dr Cullen did not state something as ridiculous as "the worldwide collapse of Merrill Lynch was the fault of John Key". But in some cases this was the "filtered" message from professional political reporters. Dr Cullen's "message" was that John Key had been promoting his experience with Merrill Lynch. Dr Cullen was making what I feel is a very valid point, that within the culture of management in which John Key had experience there was an intrinsic certainty of failure; implicitly resulting in some very big winners and many, many losers. Dr Cullen suggested that experience within this managerial culture, which was now exposed as a proven disaster, could no longer be promoted as helpful to John Key's aspirations to be prime minister and govern New Zealand.

I think it is all valid election campaign debate, Dylan?

Murray,

I am not entirely sure why your response has been so caustic. It was wrong of you to assume that I am a national supporter (I assume you were referring to me there?) as I do not cling strongly to any political party. Following the sentiment of my last post, my vote will go to whoever has the best ideas. I feel that blind loyalty is politically dangerous.

I don't particularly feel the need to comment on Schools plus, or the compulsory training scheme here. I do have opinions about those, but the point I was addressing was democratic process, and I would like to stick to that for now rather than get off track.

I am also surprised that you considered my concern over our democratic process as anarchic. Perhaps the term "revolution" was emotionally charged due to the infamous "bolshevik revolution" and the "french revolution". I do agree with you that romanticising about such movements is a bad idea, but that was the exact opposite of what I was saying. By revolution I was simply meaning "change" much like the "industrial revolution", or the "internet revolution".

I would like to see "political campaigns" having less to do with "advertising" and "spin" (which are really deceptive measure)and more to do with communicating the party's ideas to an informed and empowered populace, who can then give their opinion through a vote. If each citizen truly understands every party's intentions and then votes accordingly, the parliamentary demographic will be truly representative of public opinion. At present I fear that parliamtentary demographic is more a representation of who who had the best campaign, and convinced the most people to back their team.

I can understand you being defensive here Murray, as your opinion has been criticised unfairly in previous posts. But your cannons are pointing in the wrong direction if they are pointing at me.

Woops - in response to my own post. Japan attacked America in 1942, and not '41 as I stated.

I agree that sending troops to Iraq was and still is a stupid move. The US may have saved us in World War 2, but that doesnt mean that we blindly follow them into every gun-ho battle they chose to engage in!

In Response to #67 - Scott

Scotty my boy, thank's for the History top up. Indeed Japan stated that they never intended to invade NZ or OZ - phew!! If you want to check back a wee bit further than 1993, you'll also find thay they 'never intended' to invade/attack America. Ahhhh, Hawaii for Christmas '41 anybody? Any thoughts on that little pearl there? Guess we'll just have to take their word for it. Go on, you take your buckets full of naivety and VOTE LABOUR, Can't say I'll be with though.

It strikes me that whenever John Key, Bill English and so many National supporters are losing an argument, or are shown up with something uncomfortable or embarrassing, they brush it off with these platitudes:

"She should be concentrating on the issues"

"NZers are not interested in this when their household budgets are under pressure"

"She should be concerned with the things that matter to NZers"

And yet they, themselves, are endlessly diverting to trivia and sideshows.

For instance, the Governor-General's driver was stopped for speeding when overtaking; it was in the news and that was the end of the matter. But when the Prime Minister's driver was speeding the chorus goes on and on..... How many years ago was it now? Paintergate, speedgate... Don Brash tried to use it to show we had the most corrupt government in our history.... and it all still lives on.

The present chorus, with John Key singing loudest, is "She's donkey deep in it, known about it for six months". Concerning even the person at the centre of it all, Winston Peters, voters are thinking about wider issues. In recent polls, one had 3% for him as preferred prime minister. Yesterday's had NZ First over the 5% threshold.

It is warranted that New Zealanders make an holistic appraisal concerning an individual putting forward to be Prime Minister - selecting a leader is about more than analysing various policies. John Key is such a newcomer, that people have to clutch at whatever is available upon which they might form opinions.

Perhaps your next post will be detailed comment on Schools Plus and compulsory training for under 18s, Dylan? But I don't think it would be a good idea to talk about anarchy and revolution.

It deeply concerns me that many people here, and throughout the media are treating the democratic process much like American Idol: Contestants doing whatever it takes to garner popularity, so they can win the prize.

If this is truly what has happened to democracy we are in desparate need of a revolution.

I hope that in truth both Labour and National are populated with people who have ideas. Genuine, but differing ideas about how to run this nation, and improve the lives of everyone whithin it. We, as the stakeholders then listen to these ideas and voice our opinion as to who we think is on the right track.

This marketing, and competition speak that is so rampant is plainly antidemocratic. If a party gains political power because of their ADVERTISING, then the people have not really been given a voice.

Secondly, achieving parliamentary influence should not be treated like a prize. It should be considered a solemn responsibility. Upon gaining a seat in parliament, an MP should not be thinking of limousines, or power. They should be thinking that for the next few years, they have joint stewardship over the lives of 4 million people.

Leave competition to the corporations and game shows.

Re: #67

Actually, I would (generally) agree with you on points (1) and (2) (dial back the hyperbole). On (3), you belittle the contributions allied US and NZ forces made in the campaign in the S Pacific. The facts remain that in 1942 when the US and Commonwealth was getting spanked by the Japanese in the Pacific, the US undertook to protect NZ. That commitment meant sending the (combat-ready, not R&R) 1st Marine Division here. And that commitment meant diverting units away from regions more in line with US interests. In hindsight probably not necessary, but we were certainly prepared to have young Americans die to defend us.

The side note is more appropriate. Please explain the attractions of the following: (1) Labour productivity growth halving, despite policies to lift it. (2) Wage gap widening with Australia, partly as a result of (1) (3) Record emigration numbers from NZ to Australia of skilled workers. (4) A blow-out in our trade deficits, leading to worst current-account results since the 1980s. (5) Highest interest rates (usually) in the OECD. If Labour intends to enrich the overseas investors who fund our trade deficits, then shouldn't we be told? (6) Worsening export growth. Typical of this being the 1st post-war Government to achieve net deforestation in our commercial forests. (7) A failed national biodiversity strategy (launched in 1999-2000) that still has 3/4 of our most endangered species without recovery plans and only 2-3% of the DoC estate receiving optimal pest management.