Project update: the Petrolia & Erie

That's arguable. The late leader of the opposition National Party, Don Brash, was involved in some very shonky deals with an extremist Christian group, the "Exclusive Brethren". Sad to say, the same ratbags seem to have the ear of some Australian politicians.

If you're allowing any US combat ships into your ports the chances are that they're bringing nukes in with them any, to hell with treaties. Let me give you some details. I was in the US Navy in the early 1970s. I was on the nuclear weapons handling team for my ship. Japan also prohibited any nuclear-powered ships or nuclear weapons to be brought into any port. When my ship went to Yokosuka we did *not* offload our nukes first. Instead, extra lead shielding was placed around each warhead to prevent any stray radiation from being picked up by Japanese inspectors on the pier with highly sensitive radiation detection equipment. (They were prohibited from coming on board for a visual inspection.) The shields weren't something that we rigged up out of spare parts. They were standard issue to any ship carrying these warheads made just for this purpose. The US Navy intentionally and repeatedly violated our treaty with Japan, just as we have violated treaties with the Indians and other nations through the decades.

So far the USa has "refused to confirm or deny ..." the existance so they have not come to our ports. The problem is the USA's.

Obviously there has to be a degree of trust for obvious reasons - you are telling us that the US doesn't deserve any trust - I can't say I find that in any way surprising.

Meanwhile, this is a model railway ng so perhaps we should stay with that topic.

Regards, Greg.P.

I don't see much risk. Doesn't New Zealand have any nuclear generating plants? As Al Gore says; they're carbon neutral :-) The answer to the "why" is.........we industrialized 1st world nations need to stick together, like we did in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq and Afganistan, for mutual protection, and to spread democracy, freeedom and a better standard of living for everyone. I think there is a good chance that a day will come in the not too distant future when we, western civilization, will suffer such a devastating attack from the muslims and/or communists that only nukes, and lots of them, will beat them back into submission to the ground rules of the civilized cultures. Will New Zealand stand up and do it's part, as Australia and so many other counties have in the past?

That's fine for you - we find the risk unacceptable.

No.

Are you kidding?

Why would we stand up and beat other countries back into the stoneage??? What evidence have you got that suggests Muslim and communist countries are intending to make devistating attacks on anyone???

Well, I *did* suggest he was some variety of troll...

Yes, you have missed something, quite a lot of somethings as it happens, but we'll address only the most recent. When did Iraq attack you?

Irrelevant - it doesn't support your idiot contention that Australia is a socialist country.

Don't know, don't care. She's another irrelevancy.

So? In the end it's just protein. The Japs were probably hungry, the others no doubt had their own cultural reasons for practicing cannibalism. Who appointed you the arbiter on this?

Again, so? Puppies are also protein. You appear to be making the case that it's okay to eat lobster, but not dog. Why not? Ever tried it? It's not bad at all, neither is cat. If you're hungry, you eat what's on offer.

Yet even more bullshit. Only today I was reading about the 40 or so unarmed civilians killed by your Marines after they were attacked with an IED. They panicked, and the result was a number of children killed or maimed - *not* by accident. Another story that flatly constradicts you is the court-martial and criminal proceedings currently underway involving a group of US soldiers for the premeditated rape and murder a teenage Iragi girl and other members of her family. That was also no accident, so spare me the sanctimonious bullshit and outright lies about accidents.

Spare me that bullshit as well. I recall the constant refrain of the Vietnam apologists, that the US couldn't possibly win because of the rules of engagement. Now you're going to try to play that card. It won't wash. The rules are set by your government, your leaders no-one else, so lobby them for a change if you're unhappy with them.

FWIW, I don't for a moment think it would make any difference what the rules are - I don't think your troops are all that competent to begin with.

Well, that's tough s*it for them. You join the military, that's the chance you take. Or do you think war is like the movies, and only the "baddies" get killed?

And neither shoould they. If there was an invading army roaring around my country, I'd do the same. So would you - if you had any balls.

What a load of complete and utter bullshit. These woodchippers, they were kept in the same lock-up as the fabled WMD's, were they? Identified as such on Colin Powell's slideshow to the UN? Available for deployment at 45 minutes notice?

Are you really *that* gullible?

Who? Your moral outrage would be a lot more convincing if you were to get the bloke's name right. I don't condone beheading journos, but then again I don't condone putting yourself at unneccessary risk, either.

Brave? I wouldn't know, I've never decapitated anyone intentionally. Savvy about getting their message out? Yes. But to me it's not much different from the US military distributing footage of aerial bombing attacks on Iraq. Are the blokes dropping 500lb bombs on civilian homes brave in your considered opinion?

It's not difficult when presented with such an prime example as yourself.

Really? I'm so glad you think so... You're obviously an astute judge of these matters.

You're dreaming! You reckon the US alone saved France in both world wars?

LOL!

Yes, Tom Thumb, you missed something: the actual history of your country. It seems you know only the semi-mythological narratives of your high school history books.

No one should believe the history they were taught in school. Around the world, school histories are taught to, um, encourage uncritical patriotism. That's the worst kind. If you truly love your country, you'll love her warts and all. And you will want to know whatever crimes have been committed in her name, and why, so that you can help prevent similar evils in the future.

One example that refutes Tome Thumb's claim: The War of 1812 was started by the USA. Some misguided yobbos thought that if they marched into Upper Canad, the locals would welcome them as liberators from the British Yoke of Oppression. They were rather surprised to discover that Canadians didn't want to be Americans.

Not wanting to have anything to do with a Thumb so obviousy reeking from having been up its owner's fundamental orifice, but I believe British impressment of American seamen seized from American ships hauled up at gupoint on the high seas did pre-date the deluded adventurists heading off to Canada.

I'll repeat the question - when did the nation of Iraq attack the US?

And there's the rub. When those Australians were killed, we didn't charge madly off and invade some country that wasn't connected with that crime. We sent AFP officers to Bali, and they, working in cooperation with the Indonesian police, tracked down the actual criminals responsible. They were charged, tried and convicted for the crime.

You Yanks ought to try that approach some time, for a change.

Context is everything, d*****ad. The so-called "Battle of Broken Hill" had nothing to do with "terrorism". Don't, especially as you're an ignorant, ill-educated Yank, quote arrant nonsense from wikipedia to an Australian with an intimate knowledge of his country's history.

OK, I'll go through it again. We have a mutual protection pact with Kuwait. Iraq attached Kuwait. The multinational force composed of military from dozens of countries drove Sadams 4th largest army in the world out of Kuwait, after his military ignited all of the oil wells and pumps millions of gallons into the sea creataing an intentional environmental disaster. There was a cease fire agreement with Iraqi in which they agreed to a whole lot of conditions. They repeated violated those conditions for a decade and kept testing the will of the U. N.. including bragging about and convincing a lot of governments that they were working on weapons of mass destruction, along with funding terrorists agains Israel andother countries, as Iran is still doing. So, after years of patience and monitoring, the cease fire was lifted because of Iraq's hundreds if not thousands of violations of the agreement they signed.

You do understand the the west is never going to allow any country to destroy the world economy by shutting off the petroleum supply, don't you? Billions of people would stave to death.

Thankyou Steve

Then please enlighten me about Broken Hill, and why Muslim Turks were there murdering innocent civilians?

The fact that these countries are percieved as the least corrupt does not mean that they are entirely free from corruption, it just means that corruption is not as great a problem as elsewhere. All of these countries have their histories of corruption and scandals.

Sure, but our corruptions and scandals tend to be of the level of the current one where our minister of immigration granted residence to a foreign worker whose "job" turned out to be painting and odd jobs on the minister's investment properties. How would that rate in the US? Anywhere humans get some responsibility and power there is always the chance of corruption - office managers taking home paper clips, fruit pickers eating fruit - stuff like that. The opposition leader being involved with the Christian Brethren at no time crossed the line into illegal activity. The "corruption" was that when asked if he had any dealings with them he denied that he did. When it became clear that he had lied his party offloaded him.

Regards, Greg.P.

The drive-by media could turn it into a major event if they chose. Roger Aultman

"How revealing that the nomination [by G W Bush] of Bernard Kerik as Homeland Security chief should be derailed not by the former New York City police commissioner's alleged violations of conflict-of-interest laws, mob connections and post-9/11 security industry profiteering, but rather by his rueful admission that he paid no taxes for his "illegal immigrant" baby-sitter."

Also, Clinton had Zoe Baird's nomination for Attorney General derailed for the same sort of thing. But in light of Heckuva Job Gonzo's recent testimony she's not looking too bad.

I boned up on Broken Hill. It's all about Muslim's murdering innocent non-Muslims; call it what you want.