NZDF General discussion thread

[KiwiRob]

So who is to blame over Israel being a state in a neighborhood of Arab communities that have been against it from day one is not altogether an American problem, the British, French, UN and even Europe with strong sympathies towards the Jews because of the Nazi death camps all played a part that shaped Israel. I would hazard a guess and say that NZ and Australia also voted for a Jewish state as well, much to the dismay and protest of arabs and palestinians alike.

I've always wondered if the people back then responsible for the creation is Israel would feel responsible for all the misery and death that the making of this country has created. I really don't believe that Israel should have been created and personally believe that it is the source of all conflict between the Muslim and Western Worlds, had the Israel not been created the world would be a much more peacefull place.

I strongly object to any NZ armed forces presance in the Middle East, we really shouldn't go anywhere near this area, let the big boys throw their toys around in that sandpit.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I've always wondered if the people back then responsible for the creation is Israel would feel responsible for all the misery and death that the making of this country has created. I really don't believe that Israel should have been created and personally believe that it is the source of all conflict between the Muslim and Western Worlds, had the Israel not been created the world would be a much more peacefull place.

I strongly object to any NZ armed forces presance in the Middle East, we really shouldn't go anywhere near this area, let the big boys throw their toys around in that sandpit.

No, there was never any conflict in the Middle East prior to 1948...

Was Israel to blame for the violence between the Serbs and Bosnian Muslims in the 90's?

Is Israel to blame for the conflict between the pre-dominant Muslim Pakistan and predominantly non-Muslim India?

The problem is not Israel, but rather Fundamentalism. Fanatics who wish to kill as an insane method of following their faith, or at least use as an excuse to conduct murderous acts...

NZ is no more immune to a terrorist threat than anyone else. It's geographical location again helps to keep it safer than any isolationist political policies in my opinion and yet NZ chose to deploy to Bosnia in the 90's, the scene of one set of troubles involving Muslim people and Afghanistan recently, the HOME of Al Qaeda... NZ PRT's though not actually fighting, are definitely working against the Taliban and Al Qaeda and are doing as much as Australia ever had prior to the Bali Bombings.

NZ special forces have actively been engaged in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda as evidenced by your recent VC award winner.

The logisitical issues involved however, much like a conventional military attack, again make it unlikely NZ could be attacked significantly. NZ as a reasonably affluent, technologically advanvced Country has a moral obligation to assist as it can in International affairs.

The current limitations on it's forces exist only because of political ideology, not lack of a capacity to do more...

 

[Navor86]

Well in general I must say an Air Combat Wing is atm not necessary.
I really would like to see an increase of NZDF. I mean look at Norway. They have nearly the same Population as NZ and have a quite big Military.
Considering the Enviroment the NZDF would have to fight I really see no need for Heavy Tanks ,SPA and other Army Equipment that the Norwegians have.
But in case structure a Full Brigade would be the minimum/maximun for NZDF.
3 Infantry Bn a 3-4 Infantry Coy+Support Coy
An Arty Rgt with 3 Gun Batteries+ 1Air Defence Batters
1 Recon Squadron
1 Engineer Bn
and as plus a Commando Company with 4-6 Platoons
(+ A Support Unit with Medic,Transportation etc)

As for the Air Force
6 Transporters
6 Patrol Aircraft
14 Transport Helos
20 LUH

TheNavy has all its shit together but 2 more Frigates and OPV are a must.

The Ops are already mentioned.
Peacekeeping in the Region
Regional Stabilazation along with the Aussies

You have to look at all this as that the ANZACS are the "Western Outpost" and "Save Haven" in a Region which will see some trouble in the times to come
(Asian Arms Race)

 

[steve33]

I think you are wrong here, I see a Maori activist going off the deep end and blowing up some government building in NZ as a far bigger and more realistic threat to us than any Muslim.

As for another world war could anyone realistically see it happening, I can't see it. WW1 was brewing for a long time before Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, it was just the spark that ignited it, WW2 was a direct result of WW1. I sure as hell wouldn't want NZ to get involved in any fight for Israel's survival in the Middle East if that ever brewed up into something significant. I can't see any major conflict arising in Asia except china retaking Taiwan, I couldn't see us getting involved in that.

So all in all I really believe that NZ is probably one of the safest countries for anyone to live in the world today, we are not important enough for a terrorist to target, it wouldn't make enough column inches, our isolation is our greatest defence.

Well we will have to agree to disagree on the Maori,Muslim situation but our isolation is no defence at all America thought the ocean protected them and they found out on Sep11 it doesn,t.

We are a western country and what determines the headlines is how much destruction is wreaked and how big is the death toll.

Back to our military we live in a world that runs on greed and self interest and the worlds resources are going to be placed under increasing strain they say by 2050 the worlds population will go from six billion to nine billion and that can bring troubles.

It is foolish in the world we live in to put ourselves in a postion where we have no security agreements with bigger countries but also have no means to defend ourselves and take the attitude that we will build a reputation as a peace loving nation and that will protect us.

And you can,t predict from one year to the next what is going to happen in our world look at Sep11 no one thought that was going to happen,we need a well equipped defence force.

It is better to have the tools and not need them than to need the tools and not have them.

 

[steve33]

No, there was never any conflict in the Middle East prior to 1948...

Was Israel to blame for the violence between the Serbs and Bosnian Muslims in the 90's?

Is Israel to blame for the conflict between the pre-dominant Muslim Pakistan and predominantly non-Muslim India?

The problem is not Israel, but rather Fundamentalism. Fanatics who wish to kill as an insane method of following their faith, or at least use as an excuse to conduct murderous acts...

NZ is no more immune to a terrorist threat than anyone else. It's geographical location again helps to keep it safer than any isolationist political policies in my opinion and yet NZ chose to deploy to Bosnia in the 90's, the scene of one set of troubles involving Muslim people and Afghanistan recently, the HOME of Al Qaeda... NZ PRT's though not actually fighting, are definitely working against the Taliban and Al Qaeda and are doing as much as Australia ever had prior to the Bali Bombings.

NZ special forces have actively been engaged in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda as evidenced by your recent VC award winner.

The logisitical issues involved however, much like a conventional military attack, again make it unlikely NZ could be attacked significantly. NZ as a reasonably affluent, technologically advanvced Country has a moral obligation to assist as it can in International affairs.

The current limitations on it's forces exist only because of political ideology, not lack of a capacity to do more...

I couldn,t agree more about the lack of political will,every year the government has a billion plus dollers surplus and there is no reason they couldn,t afford a strike wing or third frigate in stead of the defenceless multi role ship they brought that no doubt the government sees being used for cyclone relief and evacuations of New Zealanders around the pacific and the other boats they brought were purchased with not much else in mind than fisheries patrol they were not purchased with any offensive capability.

New Zealand is asleep.

 

[recce.k1]

I've always wondered if the people back then responsible for the creation is Israel would feel responsible for all the misery and death that the making of this country has created. I really don't believe that Israel should have been created and personally believe that it is the source of all conflict between the Muslim and Western Worlds, had the Israel not been created the world would be a much more peacefull place.

I strongly object to any NZ armed forces presance in the Middle East, we really shouldn't go anywhere near this area, let the big boys throw their toys around in that sandpit.

Why do you "strongly object to any NZ armed forces presance in the Middle East"? (For example because of muslim sensitivities to "armed outsiders" of other religious (or atheist) beliefs? Or because of writers like Bob Fisk for example who denounce western interventions in the region etc? Or for more practical reasons)?

What about NZ's PRT efforts in Afghanistan, sanctioned by the UN in an international effort to rebuild a country devastated by previous conflicts (and years of meddling by the intelligence services of its nearest neighbours)?

How important is it to ensure stable oil production and exports to the wider world community since alot of countries rely on middle eastern oil for economic wellbeing (and thus ensuring the funds to pay for social services etc)? Should NZ being playing its small part to ensure world economic stability and prosperity? Or is there a better way to support the world's economies by relying less on oil etc? (If you can solve this one, you'd be a saviour to the entire world)!

Conflict between people (and tribes) living in the middle east has been a way of life for centuries, if not thousands of years. The conflict is more to do with those wanting to preserve their more traditional ways of life according to their religious beliefs v those that want to adopt more modern attitudes, tribal loyalties that may override governmental policy, mistrust between neighbouring tribes, communities, countries etc, western empire building in recent times (the collapse of the Ottoman empire on the other hand), governments suppressing the people they govern, governments funding radical religous schools to keep the imans out of the way, many many reasons which cannot simply be blamed on the creation of Israel despite the views of some prominent journalists etc (granted I acknowledge that Israel's heavyhandedness on segments of it's own people have not helped them, nor any real attempt to address loss of land or compensation for the inhabitants they displaced which has fueled inter-generational grievences and anger etc). The current wave of fundamentalists can see propaganda value in linking Israel into their cause but this was never in their early intentions (apart from those groups that actually lived in Israel or next door in neigbouring countries, but these are not the people that established Al Qaeda etc. Al Qaeda's aims are more of self interest, to promote a new muslim caliphate and to expell all infidels (nonbelievers) or have them convert. Nowadays at the point of a gun. Empire building at its most sinsiter and evil. A hark back to the ancient past whereby the rule of law, democracy, freedom & women's rights are non existant. (And no, I'm no cheerleader for the Cheney administration they have played up the threat of terrorism and have played into Al Qaeda's hands. AQ must be happy with their thousands of new recruits and sympathisers, all made possible of course with good ol' infidel western technology such as guns, videocameras and the internet and international banking system. FText-deleted'N hypocrites!).

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

They already have a formidable geographic isolation as a defence and failing which, they have formidable infantry troops.

The problem is not that we need to keep up with anyone per se, just that NZ forces cannot operate at all anywhere without assistance, and thats not goodenough for an independent nation that can do it if it wants to with out bankrupting the economy. Those formidable infantry you talk of, we cannot send them anywhere, nor supply them, nor are they well equipped for medium to high intensity warfare.

Its also needs to be noted that our standard of living, indeed our way of life is bound up with geographic area's far beyond ours, which is why we invested so heavily in Singapore before WW2, had a battalion stationed there for so long,plus fighting in Europe and Africa in two World Wars.
As for Antartica, NZ is a dagger pointed at its heart, and the Pengiun's know it.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I have relatives who have fought in just about all the conflicts NZ has ever been involved in from the Maori Land Wars, Boer War, WW1 & WW2, we missed Korea but made up for it in Malayia, Suez and Vietnam, my grandfather had the most action fighting in Greece, Crete, Africa and was a member of the Long Range Desert Group. So apart from having a family with a pretty good military background I still don't believe that NZ will ever be in any danger,

Not of invasion, we never have been, but its attitudes like yours that encourage the very dictators that can, and have, imperiled our trade and way of life, and potentially our political independence as a result, but if you dont think thats worth defending, then just say so.
Danger comes in forms other than mere threat of invasion.

we are not a threat to any terrorist groups (maybe some mad Maoris will have a go at blowing something up one day) and I strongly believe America brought 9/11 on themselves so we probably shouldn't have been a part of that, although I am pretty proud of what our guys have done over there.

Yeah, maybe they did bring it on themselves, but when I look at the nature of what is being fought in Afghanistan, its a fight that would have happned sooner or later.

I also can't see there ever being a global conflict like WW1 & WW2, we are a lot more sane now, besides what country would want to start a big war like that or even have the ability to do so.

Same thing was said before world war one. Oh and by the way, have you looked at what China and others are up to? makes for very interesting reading.

 

[Tasman]

Same thing was said before world war one.

I have to agree with you on this. It was also the belief well after WW1. It was probably 1937/38 before people really began to believe it could 'happen again' Even then, many refused to believe it was possible until bombs actually started falling! As for us being 'a lot more sane now', look at what happened in the former Yugoslavia.

Tas

 

[Markus40]

I would say more of a false sense of security. Its well known that project protector (God knows where that came from) is nothing more than fisheries patrolling and customs duties at best. Sorry , there is no Maritime ability here.

I couldn,t agree more about the lack of political will,every year the government has a billion plus dollers surplus and there is no reason they couldn,t afford a strike wing or third frigate in stead of the defenceless multi role ship they brought that no doubt the government sees being used for cyclone relief and evacuations of New Zealanders around the pacific and the other boats they brought were purchased with not much else in mind than fisheries patrol they were not purchased with any offensive capability.

New Zealand is asleep.

 

[KiwiRob]

I couldn,t agree more about the lack of political will,every year the government has a billion plus dollers surplus and there is no reason they couldn,t afford a strike wing or third frigate in stead of the defenceless multi role ship they brought that no doubt the government sees being used for cyclone relief and evacuations of New Zealanders around the pacific and the other boats they brought were purchased with not much else in mind than fisheries patrol they were not purchased with any offensive capability.

New Zealand is asleep.

I would rather they spent that million plus surplus repaying our national debt, and creating industry and jobs in NZ which will lead to bigger (hopefully) surplus every year.

The Navy wanted a multi role, and they gotit, NZ also needed fisheries patrol ships which they got, they are not offensive weapons and don't need to be armed as such, they are fisheries patrol boats.

I do think a third frigate would be useful, but we might as well wait until the ANZAC replacement programme starts, as I can't see the Aussies selling us one of theirs.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[KiwiRob]

No, there was never any conflict in the Middle East prior to 1948...

Was Israel to blame for the violence between the Serbs and Bosnian Muslims in the 90's?

Is Israel to blame for the conflict between the pre-dominant Muslim Pakistan and predominantly non-Muslim India?

The problem is not Israel, but rather Fundamentalism. Fanatics who wish to kill as an insane method of following their faith, or at least use as an excuse to conduct murderous acts...

NZ is no more immune to a terrorist threat than anyone else. It's geographical location again helps to keep it safer than any isolationist political policies in my opinion and yet NZ chose to deploy to Bosnia in the 90's, the scene of one set of troubles involving Muslim people and Afghanistan recently, the HOME of Al Qaeda... NZ PRT's though not actually fighting, are definitely working against the Taliban and Al Qaeda and are doing as much as Australia ever had prior to the Bali Bombings.

NZ special forces have actively been engaged in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda as evidenced by your recent VC award winner.

The logisitical issues involved however, much like a conventional military attack, again make it unlikely NZ could be attacked significantly. NZ as a reasonably affluent, technologically advanvced Country has a moral obligation to assist as it can in International affairs.

The current limitations on it's forces exist only because of political ideology, not lack of a capacity to do more...

You're taking this out of context, violence in the middle east today is a direct result of the creation of Israel, it cannot be denied, one would be foolish to do that. The violence in the middle east prior to 1948 was mainly WW1, WW2 and the colonial powers flexing their might and a few jewish terrorists.

The problems in the Balkans have been going on for hundreds of years as has the problem between Muslim and Hindus on the Indian sub-continent, these issues have nothing to do with Israel and the middle east.

Al Qaeda is a result of the creation of Israel and the constant US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, had Israel not been created Al Qaeda would not exist today and 9/11 would not have happened, I know it's a simplistic view.

I was always under the impression that one of the reason for the rise in Islamic fundalmentalism is that the west forced a jewish state onto a region where the jews hadn't lived (in large numbers) for over a thousand years all in the name of the guilt they were feeling over WW2. I always wondered why the Romany weren't given a homeland, they suffered as much as the jews did, they just didn't have a load of rich Romany in the US.

I agree with you that we have a moral obligation to pull our weight, it's just were we deploy of boys, the middle east is not somewhere we should be, nor the Balkans, I fully support any ops in the Pacific as we can do something here. I believe the needs at home far outweigh the needs of people suffering in other countries.

 

[KiwiRob]

Well in general I must say an Air Combat Wing is atm not necessary.
I really would like to see an increase of NZDF. I mean look at Norway. They have nearly the same Population as NZ and have a quite big Military.
Considering the Enviroment the NZDF would have to fight I really see no need for Heavy Tanks ,SPA and other Army Equipment that the Norwegians have.

That's a bit of a stretch, I live in Norway, just because the populations are about the same size does not mean the countries can be compared. For starters Norway is one of the richest countries in the world, they have no foreign debt and more money than they know what to do with, we don't have the luxury of great wealth.

Norway also has national service so they have to have enough equipment for the boys to play with, otherwise they would spend 12 months playing cards and watching movies. That brings me to the Royal Norwegian Navy which are getting 5 Nansen class frigates and 6 Skjold missile boats, they don't have enough manpower to crew them all and they didn't want the 6 Skjolds, they were built as a political decision to keep a shipyard open, the decision to build them wasn't popular.

Norway also lived under the shadow of the Russian Bear so had to have a strong military like the rest of Europe, New Zealand does not live under the shadow of anyone except Australia, who are hardly likely to get upset with us (unless we win the World Cup or beat them in Cricket) enough to invade. I am probably one of the few kiwi's who has often thought we would have been better off if we had joined the Commonwealth of Australia, now if that had happened we would happily be discussing the new AWD and LPH's on order.

 

[Markus40]

I know i am getting off the subject of NZ Defence issues here but Israel is in the front line in the Islamo-fascist global war against freedom. These are the real facts.

Arab and Iranian dictators oppress their subjects, sponsor half of the world’s major terror groups and imperil Israel, the Middle East’s sole democracy. 360 million people in Arab states and Iran are entitled to the same freedom and prosperity enjoyed by Europeans, Americans and Israelis.

The Middle East includes 7 out of 19 of the most repressive regimes in the world and their weapons of mass destruction. It is also the hotbed of Jihad (Holy War), an ideology of world domination. The scourge of international terrorism now reaches far beyond the United States and Israel. Half of the world’s major terror groups are Arab and Iranian. 5 out of the world's
7 state-sponsors of terrorism are Arab and Iranian.

In Arab and Iranian dictators' propaganda there is almost no problem that is not caused by the existence of Israel, the Middle East’s sole democracy. Most of the Arab and Muslim states do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

The freest Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East live in Israel. The Israeli government is the only one in the Middle East that is elected by free citizens -- including Arabs and Muslims.

Israel is a free, Western country, which recognizes the individual rights of its citizens (such as their right to liberty and freedom of speech). It uses military force only in self-defense. The enemies of Israel, by contrast, are state sponsored terrorist organizations and dictatorships. They do not recognize the individual rights of their own subjects, much less those of the citizens of Israel. They initiate force indiscriminately in order to retain and expand their power.

Israel's achievements are vast and have no parallel in any other country of comparable size or age. They have been reached against an unremitting threat of violence, war, terror and delegitimation that might have defeated any lesser people. In almost every sphere – economic development, technology, integration of immigrants and the maintenance of democracy –
Israel should today be internationally heralded as a model for others to emulate.

Above all, Israel has pursued peace. In a mere 10 years it made a cognitive leap for which it would be hard to find a precedent. The "peace process" whose main watchword is "territories for peace", involves a paradox whereby a minuscule democracy is being forced to provide its totalitarian enemies - scores of times its size - the only thing it lacks: territory.

In exchange, the surrounding tyrannies are being asked to provide the one and only thing that they lack: peace. In 1990 Arafat's PLO was a proscribed terrorist organization. By 2000 the Israeli prime minister had offered a Palestinian state in the whole of Gaza and 97 per cent of the West Bank, with east Jerusalem as its capital. Students of international politics
hail the European Union as a triumph of peace over war. How many are aware that the attitudinal changes that took France and Germany centuries, were achieved in Israel in a single decade?

The case for Israel should be apparent even to thoroughgoing supporters of the Palestinians. Who else has offered them a genuine future? Egypt? Jordan? Syria? Lebanon? The Gulf States? It takes only a cursory glance at the history of the Middle East to realize that for the most part, neighboring dictatorships have ruthlessly exploited the Palestinians for their own
ends with callous indifference to the consequences. Israel, alone in the Middle East, has attempted to construct, with and for the Palestinians, a viable and peaceful future.

Israel's strategy of winning Palestinian hearts and minds failed because Israeli carrots could never overcome the intimidation applied by Palestinian terrorist regime's sticks. Cheers.

You're taking this out of context, violence in the middle east today is a direct result of the creation of Israel, it cannot be denied, one would be foolish to do that. The violence in the middle east prior to 1948 was mainly WW1, WW2 and the colonial powers flexing their might and a few jewish terrorists.

The problems in the Balkans have been going on for hundreds of years as has the problem between Muslim and Hindus on the Indian sub-continent, these issues have nothing to do with Israel and the middle east.

Al Qaeda is a result of the creation of Israel and the constant US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, had Israel not been created Al Qaeda would not exist today and 9/11 would not have happened, I know it's a simplistic view.

I was always under the impression that one of the reason for the rise in Islamic fundalmentalism is that the west forced a jewish state onto a region where the jews hadn't lived (in large numbers) for over a thousand years all in the name of the guilt they were feeling over WW2. I always wondered why the Romany weren't given a homeland, they suffered as much as the jews did, they just didn't have a load of rich Romany in the US.

I agree with you that we have a moral obligation to pull our weight, it's just were we deploy of boys, the middle east is not somewhere we should be, nor the Balkans, I fully support any ops in the Pacific as we can do something here. I believe the needs at home far outweigh the needs of people suffering in other countries.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Rob, you can sleep easily knowing that not only are you in a majority of NZers who share your views but that every $ spent on something other than military expenditure may be more beneficial to NZers than on the military. I'm mainly thinking of health expenditure.

This is the seconed time you have posted this claim of majority opinions, and I want to see evidence to sustain it, please, at your earliest oppertunity.

As you do, I personally believe that a third frigate would be beneficial. I'm happy to pay more in tax to pay for the extra frigate (should Aust be willing to sell one of theirs and our being able to crew it). That would support out committment to overseas deployment where absolutely necessary and contribute to securing our trade routes - which actually increases to the success of NZ.

To suggest that additional tax is required is nothing more than a strawman argument, as there is no evidence I have seen from you or elseware that such would be required.
Are you seriously suggesting that three frigates can possibly secure our trade routes, routes that span more than half the globe?

Be pleased you are not a self hating New Zealander who would rather criticise NZ than praise it (as there are plenty of foreigners here who take over the hating NZ bandwagon - without "our" help).

Ahh, I get it, any person who does not agree with your opinion is self hating, eh? I do beleive this is the first blatant Ad Hominem.

Bearing in mind that the only possible opposition government is National (this thread?) and they are only going to make cosmetic changes, you may share the views of 3/4 of the population.

Please provide evidence for this.

Not that it includes the pseudo "New Zealanders" who post on this forum (hey, I hear australia has nice weather - perhaps anyone who hates us so much - can move to australia and cease to ever return).

Another ad hominem. So opinion is only allowed if its the same as yours and those who disgree are not to be honoured with the status of New Zealander and should move to Australia, eh?

If we were under such threat then after the US turned her back on us 20 years ago (despite our interventions in Vietnam and Korea) we should have been invaded by now!

Evidence please.

Anyone whinging about our military expenditure over the last 60 years would have wasted their breath - as well as the tax dollars of those of us who actually work for a living.

So those who would have us spend more on defence are unemployed bludgers huh? Thats another ad hominem.

If we had spent a hundred million a year extra on the military over what we spent on the universal health care system then we would have caused the deaths of thousands of us in that period of time.

Please provide evidence.

Sorry to bring a note of reality to this w**k fest but there is a cost to military expenditure. It is what a country could have spent the money on if they had not spent it on something else. It is pretty to have an extra ship or 20 extra planes or 100 extra tanks but they actually have a cost. If you think an extra billion will save more lives than an extra 20,000 treatments at $50,000 each then in NZ's history you have been on the wrong side and you would have caused the deaths or suffering of thousands.

And again, the the claims without supporting evidence.

Is it becoming clear yet? Only in a handful of countries (none of which have members who post on this forum) does the increase in military expenditure actually save lives. For the rest of us it costs lives.

Evidence of claims please.

Please feel free to talk about how an extra 10 NH90s or 1 Australian AWD or 3 French FREEMS would help your country. It wont change anything in your country or this world. It is email.

Cheers

Feel free provide evidence for your claims next time you post, because I have seen nothing from you except a startling degree of intellectual dishonesty and insults.

 

[Aussie Digger]

You're taking this out of context, violence in the middle east today is a direct result of the creation of Israel, it cannot be denied, one would be foolish to do that. The violence in the middle east prior to 1948 was mainly WW1, WW2 and the colonial powers flexing their might and a few jewish terrorists.

Strange, I thought the Shia and Shite arms of Islam had been fighting each other for hundreds of years. The same hundreds of years that Islam has existed actually...

The problems in the Balkans have been going on for hundreds of years as has the problem between Muslim and Hindus on the Indian sub-continent, these issues have nothing to do with Israel and the middle east.

I agree. Why state that all Islam fundamentalism is a direct result of the creation of Israel? That statement is plainly wrong.

Al Qaeda is a result of the creation of Israel and the constant US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, had Israel not been created Al Qaeda would not exist today and 9/11 would not have happened, I know it's a simplistic view.

No, Al Qaeda is a direct result of the Cold War. The United States supporting Islamic fundamentalism as part of the "war" against the USSR allowed it to become a "player".

How much Al Qaeda activity has been directed at Israel and how much at the traditional "West"?

I was always under the impression that one of the reason for the rise in Islamic fundalmentalism is that the west forced a jewish state onto a region where the jews hadn't lived (in large numbers) for over a thousand years all in the name of the guilt they were feeling over WW2. I always wondered why the Romany weren't given a homeland, they suffered as much as the jews did, they just didn't have a load of rich Romany in the US.

From my understanding Jewish people have ALWAYS resided there, there simply wasn't a Jewish State there.

I agree with you that we have a moral obligation to pull our weight, it's just were we deploy of boys, the middle east is not somewhere we should be, nor the Balkans, I fully support any ops in the Pacific as we can do something here. I believe the needs at home far outweigh the needs of people suffering in other countries.

How charitable...

 

[fob]

I think you are wrong here, I see a Maori activist going off the deep end and blowing up some government building in NZ as a far bigger and more realistic threat to us than any Muslim.

As for another world war could anyone realistically see it happening, I can't see it. WW1 was brewing for a long time before Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, it was just the spark that ignited it, WW2 was a direct result of WW1. I sure as hell wouldn't want NZ to get involved in any fight for Israel's survival in the Middle East if that ever brewed up into something significant. I can't see any major conflict arising in Asia except china retaking Taiwan, I couldn't see us getting involved in that.

So all in all I really believe that NZ is probably one of the safest countries for anyone to live in the world today, we are not important enough for a terrorist to target, it wouldn't make enough column inches, our isolation is our greatest defence.

So you are saying for terrorism defend ourselves against Maori activists? No prospect of any major wars and if any, do not get involved? Isolation is our greatest defence?



You must mean we live in some utopia type world in NZ. We all would love to live in some safe country but unfortunately last time I checked we all lived on planet earth.

If war broke out in our region using your example China taking Taiwan the repercussions would be significant to say the least. If you looked at most of the cheap products you buy today it would be made by China or Taiwan or any one of the many asian countries in the immediate vicinity of the conflict many of the trade deals we have with China and Taiwan are worth millions.

Thats just one example, what if other asian countries got drawn in do you or any of your family drive an asian made vehicle, the point is there are so many variables to a conflict, safe or not it impacts on our way of life, rising cost of goods, petrol, stockmarket disruptions, mortgages rising, companies going broke, lost jobs, lost revenue, etc, people still think that we are self independant to producing everything we need without having to import anything to the point of self reliance.

Which is utopic thinking which kiwis need to mature past and face the realities of the type of economy NZ is, we are a trading nation. NZ actively gets involved because it wants to avoid these conflicts which are detrimental to our economy and security of kiwis abroad and our allies, sure we might be safe physically but dont forget our way of life is important too, sitting in NZ while the region is in turmoil and doing nothing about things that have an adverse impact on our life is about the most ignorant attitude ever. We all need to wake up from this isolation myth.

As for the muslim terrorist threat, it must mean your okay with anyone with connections to muslim terrorist groups not be screened or scrutinised, and check every person that might have Maori descent or sympathetic to Maori causes or connections to land protest groups etc, that would equate to 25% or more of the kiwi population, that i must say is down right pathetic, why would the native people of NZ do this? Do you have any recent evidence for this drastic measure?

Lets hope your right, next time you board an airline lets get all the terrorist muslims on your flight and I will be happy to ride with all the Maoris on my flight!

 

[kato]

The violence in the middle east prior to 1948 was mainly WW1, WW2 and the colonial powers flexing their might and a few jewish terrorists.

Ermm, no.

Throughout the 19th century, Saudi-Arabia experienced warfare not unlike Darfur today.
In the early 19th century, there was an uprising in Egypt against the Ottoman Empire, taking control of Palestine and Syria.
Turn of the 18th/19th century, Napoleon conquered Egypt and Syria.
Mid-18th century, the Ottoman Empire warred against Persia in modern-day Iraq.
Mid-17th century, the Ottoman Empire initially acquired Mesopotamia, as well as Hamadan and Tabriz in north-western Iran.

Could go on from here (or flesh it out), but i'm a bit too lazy for that right now. Above for the Ottoman Empire.

edit: centuries, duh

 

[swerve]

Ermm, no.

Throughout the 18th century, Saudi-Arabia experienced warfare not unlike Darfur today.
In the early 18th century, there was an uprising in Egypt against the Ottoman Empire, taking control of Palestine and Syria.
Turn of the 17th/18th century, Napoleon conquered Egypt and Syria.
Mid-17th century, the Ottoman Empire warred against Persia in modern-day Iraq.
Mid-16th century, the Ottoman Empire initially acquired Mesopotamia, as well as Hamadan and Tabriz in north-western Iran.

Could go on from here (or flesh it out), but i'm a bit too lazy for that right now. Above for the Ottoman Empire.

Correction: Napoleon invaded Egypt late 1790s - turn of the 18th/19th centuries.

but apart from that, one instance . . .

The sheikdom of Dariya expanded mightily from its eponymous capital near modern Riyadh, after the ruling Al-Saud family adopted the teachings of the preacher Abdul Wahhab, & the ruling sheik married one of his children to one of Wahhabs, about 1750. Dariya eventually conquered Mecca & Medina, & provoked a reaction by the Ottomans, who were infuriated by the Dariyan attempt to ban non-Wahhabis from the Haj.

In the 1810s, Egyptian soldiers acting on Ottoman orders swept the Dariyans out of Hejaz. The Nejdi tribesmen of Dariyas armies had never encountered well-drilled infantry squares backed up by artillery firing grape & canister, & their massed cavalry charges suffered crushing losses. The Egyptians eventually occupied Dariya, & razed it to the ground. After they withdrew in the 1830s, the Saudis established a new capital nearby, & called it Riyadh, & settled back to being one of many Nejdi sheikdoms.

Let us consider, for a moment, the factors involved in these 18th & early-19th century wars: religious intolerance, the Saud family, Wahhabism, a confrontation between the modern world (represented by Turkey & Egypt) & old tribal ways. Hmm. Obviously, any superficial similarity between these wars & modern events is purely coincidental, since all the violence in the Middle East is due to Israel & the West.