+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Help, I can't find any links (/thread-11732.html)
Help, I can't find any links - Growler - 04-01-2003
I thought the fate of 5 American soldiers of the 507th Maintenance battalion was the issue. Quite clearly they were executed, as the Iraqi video showed the bullet holes in their heads.
Help, I can't find any links - whyBish - 04-01-2003
Occhidiangela,Apr 1 2003, 11:56 AM Wrote:A real shame, from my perspective, since I know many US sailors would have loved to have visited New Zealand, but the sovereign right of NZ is honored. As well it should be, I might add. It's your turf, as they say. :).. but not the sovereign right of Iraq :P
Yeah I know, but with all this work & study, I only have time for cheap digs ;)
Help, I can't find any links - whyBish - 04-01-2003
Pete,Apr 1 2003, 12:24 PM Wrote:Let's hope that the test will never come. But I fear that if an enemy wanted to make NZ a *nuked* zone, it will take more than harsh words to stop it. So, that policy is akin to pissing yourself in a dark suit. You get a warm feeling, no one else notices.The nuke free stance is not a defence policy... not that NZs defence policy is anything more than spartan. I think Warblade has already highlighted that is more of a marketing ploy with exonomic benefits and a political background. Foreigners generally take it as NZers mis-estimate the probability of nuclear accidents, but it is more that we have a higher cost in the event of such an event... and what is the benefit of allowing nuclear powered vehicles here?
Help, I can't find any links - whyBish - 04-01-2003
Occhidiangela,Mar 29 2003, 09:31 AM Wrote:some weeds need to come out of the garden for it to bloomUnfortunately, as my parents taught me, what you call a weed depends on what you are trying to grow.
Help, I can't find any links - ShadowHM - 04-01-2003
Growler,Apr 1 2003, 12:40 AM Wrote:I thought the fate of 5 American soldiers of the 507th Maintenance battalion was the issue. Quite clearly they were executed, as the Iraqi video showed the bullet holes in their heads.They may well have been executed.
But we do not know by who. The Iraqi government pays $12,500 for a dead invader soldier and $25,000 for a live one delivered to them.*
Given the fear that many citizens are bound to have for such soldiers, and the fact that no matter how you cut it, the lower figure is still a rather nice amount, it could easily have been a civilian who did the shooting.
*Claimed in Macleans magazine (the Cdn. equivalent of Time Magazine), from Alexandre Trudeau in Baghdad.
Help, I can't find any links - Occhidiangela - 04-01-2003
Dear Bishy:
At such time as the Iraqi government is a member in good standing . . . never mind, comparing your government, as you just did, to Iraq's is an insult to your government. You really must be tired. More caffeine, suggests the rogue! :D
On the other hand, best of luck on the studies, I hope you ace the tests! :)
As for nuclear powered vehicles . . . if you choose to ignore the safety record of US and UK navies in maintaining their powerplants sans accident, by all means, stay reserved. It still boils down to this: it is your nation's territorial waters that your government considers in such matters, and if they want to adopt a zero risk policy, so be it, that is sort of what they get paid to do: set policy. :)
Help, I can't find any links - WarBlade - 04-01-2003
Occhidiangela,Apr 2 2003, 07:01 AM Wrote:As for nuclear powered vehicles . . . if you choose to ignore the safety record of US and UK navies in maintaining their powerplants sans accident, by all means, stay reserved. It still boils down to this: it is your nation's territorial waters that your government considers in such matters, and if they want to adopt a zero risk policy, so be it, that is sort of what they get paid to do: set policy. :)*Scratches head*
I'll re-read whyBish's post to see how that one came about I think . . .
Foreigners generally take it as NZers mis-estimate the probability of nuclear accidents, but it is more that we have a higher cost in the event of such an event... and what is the benefit of allowing nuclear powered vehicles here?
It looks like a speculation of foreigners' perceptions that kiwis overestimate the likelihood of accidents. ;)
But you are right about the "zero risk" aspect, although system failure accidents, no matter how unlikely, are only one of the many reasons to take a zero risk stand on. My perception as someone who grew up around 10 - 15 minutes drive away from the naval base where these ships/boats would dock is probably a little different from that of whyBish . . . I'll have a crack at outlining some of the reasoning why allowing nuclear powered vessels here was a bad idea.
First the facts: The Devonport Naval Base is basically right next to a residential area on Auckland's North Shore. Auckland itself happens to hold 26% of the entire country's population (it was a smaller percentage back then) ie the economic hub of the country. Auckland is also known as "The City of Sails" in reference to the mass of white triangles one can see out on the water every weekend, which is a fair description although fails to account for a similar number of powered boats. New Zealanders as you know are fiercely anti-nuke :) .
Now putting that mess together, you have a situation where an American vessel (teh world's juiciest targets these days) used to find port in the country's largest metropolis. Personally, that starts looking like a bad idea for a number of reasons. If something were to happen whether it be accidental or something more sinister it could potentially have some very serious implications, depending on the scale of the incident, quite beyond what most people would expect.
Now consider how kiwis feel and the fact that 1 in 4 Aucklanders have a boat of some kind . . . The word "accident" could well be changed to. "an . . . 'accident'" *nudge nudge wink wink*
I've sailed a 7 metre boat in the middle of a spectator fleet as the Round the World race boats came barreling through and let me just say that the idea of bouncing around on a cork in a washing machine springs to mind. From what I recall of the protest fleet the last time an American submarine came into port, those people faced a similar chaotic scene. In fact one man was arrested when he physically assaulted the submarine with his hands. :lol: Ignoring consideration of his mental well-being at the time, I can only assume that the guy was simply expressing rage over the situation. So policing the 'incursion' of the submarine was a nightmare for police as well.
I could go on and on about this stuff, but history is history.
If you thought you were puzzled by your government's stand, take it on faith that I am equally puzzled. The only reasoning that made any kind of sense was something along the the lines of "America cannot protect a nation that it has restricted access to" (which only really begs for more questions). Which is kind of weird considering New Zealand doesn't appear to need any protecting in the current world political climate and the economic spinoff is actually detrimental for both countries. :huh: What's more puzzling is the repeated attempts to get NZ to remove the nuke free policy over the last couple of decades. Only recently have I seen the words "agree to disagree" added to the issue, so maybe at last those attempts will end.
Who knows? :huh:
Help, I can't find any links - Occhidiangela - 04-01-2003
San Diego, CA. Big population. Lots of beach. Lots of sail boats, hosted America's Cup now and again.
Big Nuclear Submarine (fast attack boats, not Nuke Missile Boats) Base there at Point Loma.
Peaceful coexistence. :)
Different strokes for different folks. Works for me. I just find my government's position as odd as the NZ govt, since we do have new policies in re tactical nukes since the mid 1980's when the issue came to a head.
Why the continued ill will over a very solvable issue? Again, I see 'blue helmet operations' as a very lucrative way to keep interoperability strong and vital. (Blue Helmet as in UN peacekeeping and humanitarian ops.)
Help, I can't find any links - WarBlade - 04-02-2003
Occhidiangela,Apr 2 2003, 09:05 AM Wrote:San Diego, CA. Big population. Lots of beach. Lots of sail boats, hosted America's Cup now and again. Hehe. Well there was that time where an aircraft carrier wandered onto the America's Cup course. :D
Big Nuclear Submarine (fast attack boats, not Nuke Missile Boats) Base there at Point Loma.
Peaceful coexistence. :)
I think you missed my point though.
Re. San Diego
"Big population" = not quarter of the US and not the primary economic hub either.
"Lots of sail boats" Well yeah, but unlikely to form a 1000-boat protest fleet with understrength police presence. ;)