This one makes life interesting, Obama is already under investigation for corruption. As they say, it's not just the cream that floats to the top.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blot ... ory?id=4204413&page=1
http://www.rense.com/general80/short.htm

The filing says when Auchi was unable to obtain a visa to visit the United States in 2005, Rezko intervened and "asked certain Illinois government officials" to appeal the State Department's ruling.

The officials who Rezko approached are not specified. Sen. Obama had just taken office as a U.S. senator in 2005, the same year he sought Rezko's help in the purchase of his home.

The senator has said he was unable to afford both the home and an empty lot next to it which were effectively being sold as a package. Rezko's wife ultimately bought the empty lot, closing the same day as Obama did on his home.


The Chicago Tribune weighed in with a Feb. 10 story by John Kass, which warned that top Illinois Republicans were also in bed with Rezko. On Obama, Kass was deadly: "There are a few who don't consider Obama to be inevitable. They'll be paying close attention to the upcoming federal political corruption trial in Chicago of Obama's personal real estate fairy, indicted political fixer Tony Rezko. You'll be hearing a lot more about `Operation Board Games,' but don't make the mistake of thinking that it's all about Democrats. It involves Republicans too. Rezko is a pal of the Democratic Gov. Rod `The Unreformer' Blagojevich. Rezko became involved in the questionable purchase of Obama's home, while under federal investigation. Every politician in Illinois--except for Obama--figured Rezko to be leprous with federal subpoenas. By dancing with Rezko, Obama impeaches his own judgment, and raises questions as to whether he has the presidential stuff. Rezko stands accused of using his Illinois political connections to extort kickbacks and political money from investment firms seeking billions of dollars worth of state business in the investing of state pension funds."

Does anyone remember what it means to be a democrat or a republican any more? I've got a feeling that most Americans would find themselves to be republicans.

Us republicans always used to be the fiscally tighter group who wanted to stay out of the public's lives. This war crap bugs me as it is not a partisan thing. Hell, FDR, a dem, helped America into WW2, and JFK had a large hand in helping the French out of Vietnam. Much of the other issues are really a choice between having a candidate would would like changes on a federal level, or leaving things up to individual states.

Used to be fiscally tighter. Used to is the key phrase here. The Reps also used to be all about small government! Tell that to Homeland Security and all the other layers of federal beauracracy that the Bush II regime has slapped on top of everything else. They also, ostensibly at least, used to be about keeping the government out of private affairs - tell that to the telcos/ISPs that are about to be granted retroactive immunity for illegally spying on US citizens in their millions.

The sad thing is there's not really much difference between the GOP and the Dems right now: both seem pretty happy to talk about giving Iran what-for and "spreading democracy" (as has been done so successfully before in thriving, free nations like their allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and any other number of repressive, regressive medieval religious dictatorships). Both are all about "security" (both forgetting that the best way to prevent terrorism is to stop participating in it). Neither seem too concerned with discussing actual things like sane foreign policy, healthcare, war veteran's rights or any number of other important topics. It's no surprise though: as usual, it's a popularity contest and it's about who's more 'electable', not who who deserves to be elected. It's about who you like, not about what they stand for. It's a bunch of goddam stage-managed sound-bites designed to confirm what a candidate's supporters already think they know. With the glitz and ribbons and events in stadiums it bears more similarity to American Idol than an actual election. And the cash they blow! Such expense for (at best) a 50% voter turnout. Imagine what these spoiled rich kids would spend if they had the entire eligible voting populace to appeal to?

I used to rant a lot about Bush on these pages. Sure, he's a dangerous, clueless fundie halfwit who's lied, cheated and snaked his way to the top (with Daddy's help) and has made the entire planet more dangerous for everyone living on it, but (barring some catastrophe which forces the Whitehouse to declare martial law) his reign ends in 10 months (praise Jeebers). That got me thinking, though - what will change, even if a Dem gets elected? Will poor people get a living wage? Will they be able to afford hospital bills? Will social security still exist if they fall on hard times? Will the US stop its near-annual bombing of any country it pleases for any reason it can make plausible? I came to the conclusion "no". Regardless which side of the US political coin they've been on, US presidents since WW2 invariably end up making war on somebody (overtly or covertly), the poor & middle class always pay for it in blood or taxes and the top 1% - those who can afford the best lobbyists - lap up the profits. I think the only thing that will change with a Democrat president is that FOX Noise will actually start criticising the government. My problem (I guess it's always been there under the surface) is a political system that encourages non-participation by the people who are meant to own it by making running as a candidate cost-prohibitive for anyone who isn't a self-funded, old-money multi-millionaire. A system that rewards cronyism, nepotism and punishes anyone who dares deviate from the narrow far-right/centre-right pathway. A system that basically discourages voting, especially in recent years with all the Florida/Ohio voting machine shenanigans (seriously America, use paper and pencils - they're cheap unhackable...but of course, that's why they're not used), but more generally by making the result of a Presidential election largely unconsequential to normal people. The last two certainly had serious consequences, but only because that clueless daddy's boy got elected and re-elected. Bah, I'm tired. Carry on, Kiwi cousin.

Quote from PAracer :

Does anyone remember what it means to be a democrat or a republican any more? I've got a feeling that most Americans would find themselves to be republicans.

Us republicans always used to be the fiscally tighter group who wanted to stay out of the public's lives. This war crap bugs me as it is not a partisan thing. Hell, FDR, a dem, helped America into WW2, and JFK had a large hand in helping the French out of Vietnam. Much of the other issues are really a choice between having a candidate would would like changes on a federal level, or leaving things up to individual states.

I come from a family of "yellow dog" democrats all the way from Reconstruction after the Civil War. As for me, I was kinda like what Reagan was... He didn't leave the party, the party left him. Now it's the same with the Republicans - or at least the leadership.

I think that's what the problem is - The democratic Party alienated alot of voters - generations worth since the Carter Administration. and when you have one party in control of both houses of congress AND the Whitehouse, they don't really need to worry about the common voter as much.

Great rant Hankstar,

After reading the posts and thinking hard ( well, drinking a lot ) the whole US seems to me to be just like the WWF ( or whatever it's called this week )

You know it's all posed and fake but there really are people out there who absolutely believe it to be true.

There's no substance behind the bullshit and it's only about money and power ( and money )

Like the wrestling, you know who's going to win, ( The Neocons ) because it's all just smoke and mirrors, designed to fool the plebs and convince them that the Great American Dream is still real.

Both Democrat candidates are trained poodles who bark on command and do just what their handlers tell them to.
As for McCain, even the Republicans don't want him because he's too liberal.

Normally I don't comment on other countries politics but the US seems to feel it has the right f@#k with everyone on the planet, murder ( collateral damage ) as many people as they like and I really wish the bloody US population would wake up to how their being jerked around by the 'Ruling Elite' and take their country back.

My real fear is that with the ever increasing police state mentality thats overtaken Britain and the US people may be too apathetic to resist being herded into the gulags.

1984 is well and truly alive.

I wish they'd introduce the negative vote. That way I can vote specifically against one candidate. Of the three candidates, I really wouldn't mind having Obama or Mccain at the helm. If I could post a negative one vote for the lady, that would be swell.

I've come the the conclusion that there will never be a candidate to represents me exactly. No need for me to vote unless I get really pissed off, but by then it will be too late anyway since I haven't registered. Also, voting takes a couple hours out of my busy TV time.

Either way, it won't be my fault.

I'm curious, what kind of issues are European liberals fighting for? I've gathered from several posts hear that Americans as a whole are more conservative than you guys.

What the US needs is a second Revolution - one by those leftist militant fundamentalist atheist pacifists that FOX News seems to hate. Then they can round up all those halfwits/psychopaths like Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, every Republican in the White House and every Republican except Ron Paul (who'll naturally need to be de-converted from Creationism and, hey, throw in fscking Michael Moore too - John Pilger, there's a guy who can make a documentary) and make them live in Guantanamo forever

*removes tongue from cheek

Quote from Hankstar :

Used to be fiscally tighter. Used to is the key phrase here. The Reps also used to be all about small government! Tell that to Homeland Security and all the other layers of federal beauracracy that the Bush II regime has slapped on top of everything else. They also, ostensibly at least, used to be about keeping the government out of private affairs - tell that to the telcos/ISPs that are about to be granted retroactive immunity for illegally spying on US citizens in their millions.

The sad thing is there's not really much difference between the GOP and the Dems right now: both seem pretty happy to talk about giving Iran what-for and "spreading democracy" (as has been done so successfully before in thriving, free nations like their allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and any other number of repressive, regressive medieval religious dictatorships). Both are all about "security" (both forgetting that the best way to prevent terrorism is to stop participating in it). Neither seem too concerned with discussing actual things like sane foreign policy, healthcare, war veteran's rights or any number of other important topics. It's no surprise though: as usual, it's a popularity contest and it's about who's more 'electable', not who who deserves to be elected. It's about who you like, not about what they stand for. It's a bunch of goddam stage-managed sound-bites designed to confirm what a candidate's supporters already think they know. With the glitz and ribbons and events in stadiums it bears more similarity to American Idol than an actual election. And the cash they blow! Such expense for (at best) a 50% voter turnout. Imagine what these spoiled rich kids would spend if they had the entire eligible voting populace to appeal to?

I used to rant a lot about Bush on these pages. Sure, he's a dangerous, clueless fundie halfwit who's lied, cheated and snaked his way to the top (with Daddy's help) and has made the entire planet more dangerous for everyone living on it, but (barring some catastrophe which forces the Whitehouse to declare martial law) his reign ends in 10 months (praise Jeebers). That got me thinking, though - what will change, even if a Dem gets elected? Will poor people get a living wage? Will they be able to afford hospital bills? Will social security still exist if they fall on hard times? Will the US stop its near-annual bombing of any country it pleases for any reason it can make plausible? I came to the conclusion "no". Regardless which side of the US political coin they've been on, US presidents since WW2 invariably end up making war on somebody (overtly or covertly), the poor & middle class always pay for it in blood or taxes and the top 1% - those who can afford the best lobbyists - lap up the profits. I think the only thing that will change with a Democrat president is that FOX Noise will actually start criticising the government. My problem (I guess it's always been there under the surface) is a political system that encourages non-participation by the people who are meant to own it by making running as a candidate cost-prohibitive for anyone who isn't a self-funded, old-money multi-millionaire. A system that rewards cronyism, nepotism and punishes anyone who dares deviate from the narrow far-right/centre-right pathway. A system that basically discourages voting, especially in recent years with all the Florida/Ohio voting machine shenanigans (seriously America, use paper and pencils - they're cheap unhackable...but of course, that's why they're not used), but more generally by making the result of a Presidential election largely unconsequential to normal people. The last two certainly had serious consequences, but only because that clueless daddy's boy got elected and re-elected. Bah, I'm tired. Carry on, Kiwi cousin.

Wow, you're so cynical. You know what you need? You need some Obama ! Yes we can! (teasing)

If it's stupid wars and bombings you don't like then Obama is the only candidate who voted against this (not war) occupation. He's the least likely to go and start a new one.

McCain will almost certainly bomb Iran and perpetuate the policies of fear and paranoia. He may just start a world war.

Hillary will go to war just so she doesn't look weak. She'll have a big chip on her shoulder. One big negative with Hillary is she said she'll start pulling x number of troops 60 days after she takes office. Who wants a president who makes political promises using numbers she just pulled out of the air to make military decisions?

The choice is clear.

I'm sorry to post again so soon but please watch this YouTube video of Cheney explaining in '94 why it would be a bad idea to topple Saddam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

I was always scratching my head trying to understand why we got in this mess in the first place. Even an ordinary citizen like me knows that Iraq would be a quagmire. I would expect those brilliant minds in the CIA would know that too.

Well, I guess they did know. So, why did they invade?

Quote from somasleep :

I'm sorry to post again so soon but please watch this YouTube video of Cheney explaining in '94 why it would be a bad idea to topple Saddam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

I was always scratching my head trying to understand why we got in this mess in the first place. Even an ordinary citizen like me knows that Iraq would be a quagmire. I would expect those brilliant minds in the CIA would know that too.

Well, I guess they did know. So, why did they invade?

I've been wondering something lately.What will history say of Bush?
Think about it. Like Iraq, for instance, I think the insanity level is past the halfway point now. You can also see the beginnings of various factions if not unifying, at least heading in the same direction. Sure. there's still bombings and kidnappings , but they ARE on the decline. Sooner or later this country will get it's act together and everyone can go home. when that happens, will Bush still be considered negatively or will he be considered positive?
What we should of done in Iraq is got a few of those professional starcraft players to run things. They could have done better IMO. I honestly think that Bush thought we'd be in and out of there in time for re-election. I also think that the prospect of giving Iran the squeeze was so tempting that it clouded judgement.

Hmmm... So when Iran builds a bomb and uses it, will that be the USA's fault too? I don't think they would detonate any more than one just to show off, but they will use it to intimidate the region.
And seriously, when you're slapping together that many centerfuges together that fast, you're not trying to light a lightbulb.

What do you think Iraq is all about - Operation Iraqi Liberation, or OIL.

The US is/has built five permanent bases in Iraq and guess what they control.
Sure, the green zone is needed at the moment but as soon as the bases are finished then ......
Oh, and check out the contracts and privatisation of the oil resources, and I'll let you do that yourselves.

The US will ' pull out ' but like Cuba, they'll still have a presence
and control over the oil.

The following article may help explain why Obama has had such a sudden rise, Hillary is global elite darling but can she really be trusted to support the local elite ?


Since 9/11 America has certainly turned into a top-down police state, but true post-modern fascism requires a popular movement to usher it into power. Bush has created a dictatorship out of the Presidency, now the next step towards fascism is being marketed to exploit the desire for change. The depressed national mood, due to the war and economic recession/depression has compromised sane reasoning and courageous opposition needed now more than ever. This has created the conditions for a newcomer to magically appear with a message of hope, using the mantra 'Change', wrapped in a swooning fever that has infected the young and left liberal excuse machines, such as 'Move On' who were never serious about stopping Bush/ Cheney and the war.

Since he passed his audition at the Democratic convention in 2004, Senator Obama has been taken over by George Soros and other hedge fund millionaires to launch a campaign out of nowhere, based on nothing but rhetoric and Wall Street millions. As darling of the rich elitist Kennedy/Kerry/Dean wing of the Democratic Party, Obama's pseudo-Camelot will deliver Wall Street and the Anglo-American financiers the goods while disguised in a patina of racial teflon and faux populism from the upper crust. For substance ask, where is the bill in the Senate by Kennedy/Kerry/Obama calling for a freeze on all foreclosures? Where's their filibuster against the war? Where is a real minimumn wage in the form of a living wage? Where is impeachment of Bush-Cheney? Why did Senator Obama move against raising heating oil assistance to the poor in the recent spending bill?

The answer to this last question, besides Rohatyn, is Obama's top economics controller, Austan Goolsbee, a sinister Skull & Bones, Friedmanite Chicago School free trade/free market economist who has delivered the real answer to the question of the difference between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Goolsbee stated on CNBC that Obama is more market friendly more in the pocket of Wall Street. This is precisely the establishment's secret fear of Hillary Clinton that she might act as her heroine Eleanor Roosevelt, to implement a post modern New Deal that would oppose austerity measures against programs that help the poor. That she would fund essential public services, like hospitals and schools, and provide universal health care available to all. The greatest fear is that she might act like FDR to now start regulating the markets starting with a 1% Tobin tax which could eliminate the income tax burden for everyone earning less than $125,000 year with plenty of money to fund the basic social programs of a civilized and truly decent society.

Now Obama, with economic advisers such as David Cutler, who believes that rising health care prices are good for the economy, and Jeffrey Liebman, who wants to partially privatize social security, you see that Obama's MBAs will be quite good at implementing the vision of the Democratic godfather Felix Rohatyn (ex-Lazard Freres) and Republican Warren Rudman, an proponent of savage austerity and the wrecking of entitlements.. Their obsession with balanced budgets, privatization, and asset stripping will be given new cover as the United States is dissolved into one great corporatist PPP.

http://www.rense.com/general80/sor.htm

Do you think Al-Qaeda would have a harder time convincing new recruits to hate American if the president of the U.S. is black?

Think about it. The image of America as a evil imperialist monster is easier to sell when the president is a white male because whites or europeans have always played the role of oppressor in the 3rd world.

If the face of America is brown skin like them then it's really hard for them to inspire hatred and recruit new members. And don't forget his name Barack Hussein Obama.

I suspect that simply electing Obama may decrease the chances of a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda. It's just far easier to hate someone like McCain or a Clinton or G.W. Bush than Barack Hussein Obama.

Is there any truth to what I'm saying?

Doubt it.

You're attributing too much (or the wrong kind of) logic to the terrorist mindset.

Quote from somasleep :

Do you think Al-Qaeda would have a harder time convincing new recruits to hate American if the president of the U.S. is black?

Think about it. The image of America as a evil imperialist monster is easier to sell when the president is a white male because whites or europeans have always played the role of oppressor in the 3rd world.

If the face of America is brown skin like them then it's really hard for them to inspire hatred and recruit new members. And don't forget his name Barack Hussein Obama.

I suspect that simply electing Obama may decrease the chances of a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda. It's just far easier to hate someone like McCain or a Clinton or G.W. Bush than Barack Hussein Obama.

Is there any truth to what I'm saying?

If you remember that the name Al Qaeda means ' The Database ' ( or "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". A very common and widespread use of the word "Al-Qaeda" in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. ) and was originally a list of USA mugahaddin assets in the war against Russian in Afghanistan.

( Shortly before his untimely ( now there's a surprise !! ) death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. )

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3836

If you also remember the fact that the Bush and the Bin Laden families run several companies together.

If you also note the control the Pakistani ISI have over Al Qaeda and the fact that they in turn are controlled by the CIA ( or similar )

If you note that the only non Afghanistan or Iraq 'Al Qaeda' agents ever arrested anywhere in the world were in fact Mossad agents arrested by the Palestinians.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2949idf_qaeda.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j120902.html
http://www.propagandamatrix.co ... rest_al_qaeda_poseurs.htm

Or the bastards trying it on in NZ, or were we the only ones to catch them ???
http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/2004/07/nzisrael_dustup.php
(Mind you, we caught the French at it too, Rainbow Warrier people, French frogmen with inflatables is still an NZ joke !
Watch the movie Water ! )

Then I'd say it will make no difference, you could have Bambi as the US president and the same ' War On Terror tm ' will continue.

If there's noone to be afraid of, there's no justification for the incredible $400+ billion military budgets which provide enormous wins for defence contractors and their subsidiary industries (who all have the best lobbyists money can buy, which enables them to pressurise congressmen to quash or beneficially modify any legislation which has the potential to reduce profits or increase accountability). That's the nutshell. Anyone who tells you it's actually about preventing terror is deluded, lying or just gullible (i.e. someone who watches FOX). Before the War On Terror it was the War On Drugs. Before that the War On Commies and before that was the second World War. WW2, though it was fought for the right reasons, proved so lucrative for some businesses that they didn't want the government contracts and subsidies to stop. Ever. They didn't. Since the end of WW2 there has always been something for the Whitehouse to scare America with and basically every president since then has done exactly that. The threat of the USSR was vastly inflated, as were the threats of its supposed cronies Cuba, Laos, North Vietnam et al. The threat of Iraq was grossly inflated in 1991 (conveniently as the Cold War wound down) and again in 2002. Now we see Iran as the next "evil empire" poster-boy. If that "threat" fails to materialise (i.e. no justification can be made or made-up to invade/bomb the place) I wonder who would be next? Not China or North Korea - too able to defend themselves and not rich enough in resources. Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina? Possibly - noone annoys Washington DC more than a country doing its own thing, taking control of its own resources and telling the US and its multinationals, the IMF and the World Bank to shove it.

The point is, whoever's at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave will always be beholden to the wishes of US multinationals, oil companies & defence contractors to name just three areas of pressure (the rest of the world often underestimates the power US lobby groups have on government). Black guy, white lady, yet another old white guy, won't matter that much who's president (a largely ceremonial title). The average American will get sold the same fear-mongering crap and told to shut up and do what he's told and buy some more consumer goods.

Gosh gee, after posting about Obama's upcoming fraud trial guess what.

Now it's Hillary's turn !

Will there actually be a US president who isn't up for fraud or corruption charges - even before they get in power ?

And who said that the US doesn't have free elections - ROFL:monkey:

While While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clintons' longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/i ... AGE.view&pageId=56868

Trifecta time - Having bagged the Democrats ( and more to come on Obama ! ) it's now the time for the only Republican left in the race.

Is it actually compulsary to be a criminal to stand for Pressy of the 'free' world or is it just a major advantage ?

Please answer in less than a thousand words. - Winner gets a virtual chocolate fish.:woohoo:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/i ... AGE.view&pageId=56868

In a bombshell article that is already roiling the presidential race, the New York Times reports that Sen. John McCain has a long-running entanglement with a lobbyist, a series of "potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest" and a "self-contradictory" fundraising operation that he ran through the nonprofit Reform Institute. According to two former McCain associates who became "disillusioned" with the Senator, McCain admitted to "behaving inappropriately" with telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The Times reports that McCain denied allegations of a romantic relationship, and he "declined repeated interview requests, beginning in December. He also would not comment about the assertions that he had been confronted about Ms. Iseman." The article raises several other allegations about McCain's acceptance of corporate favors, private jet rides, corporate contributions, and conflicts of interests with companies that he oversaw as a U.S. Senator.

Quote from Lateralus :

Where does the Constitution give the President the power to make war without consent?

congress passed the war unanimously. learn yer shit. I love how other countries show our election coverage on tv. An election in any country except UK is 5th page news if its even mentioned at all.

Quote from Hankstar :

The threat of the USSR was vastly inflated, as were the threats of its supposed cronies Cuba

We came within a phone call from nuclear holocaust and that is "suposed" threat from Cuba and USSR? Well you're in Australia so maybe you just don't feel the heat down under.

Oh and racer X your New Zealand gov isn't blameless. remember when your government covered up all those people who were being poisoned by chemical plants near new plymouth? Your gov ignores that there are more retarded children now than ever before. Before you bash a country thats far away from you, look inward. http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/01-05-16c.htm<-----you don't think im right? Also NZ fought in vietnam in very high numbers. don't give that holier than thou shit.

Quote from flymike91 :

congress passed the war unanimously. learn yer shit. I love how other countries show our election coverage on tv. An election in any country except UK is 5th page news if its even mentioned at all.

Other countries aren't as warmongering or want to control the whole world

Your right there Mike and it is still a major issue here.

One point you missed though was that this was done whilst NZ was in ANZUS and still your ally.

An issue we have since rectified.

And the chemical concerned was Agent Orange, being manufactured for the good old USA to spray over Vietnam and Laos.

At least we can ( far too slowly I fully accept ) agree that dioxins are incredibly poisonous and this should never have happened.

What's the US doing for the Vietnamese who were poisoned by the same chemical ?

Oh, and our very high number of troops in Vietnam were, in 1969 at our highest level of commitment -

545 troops, comprising of the 161st Battery, V & W companies 1st NZ battalion, and No 4 troop SAS, an all up combat strength of approx 326 troops and 130 in the Battery.
The remainder being support, medical etc.

And yet you still managed to lose the war !

Quote from flymike91 :

We came within a phone call from nuclear holocaust and that is "suposed" threat from Cuba and USSR? Well you're in Australia so maybe you just don't feel the heat down under.

Oh and racer X your New Zealand gov isn't blameless. remember when your government covered up all those people who were being poisoned by chemical plants near new plymouth? Your gov ignores that there are more retarded children now than ever before. Before you bash a country thats far away from you, look inward. http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/01-05-16c.htm<-----you don't think im right? Also NZ fought in vietnam in very high numbers. don't give that holier than thou shit.

Might (or might not) interest you to know that one year before Kruschev opened up a missile base in Cuba, Washington made a phone call to the CIA and tried to mount a proxy invasion of Cuba using US-backed Cuban exiles to oust Castro (the infamous Bay of Pigs inavsion - look it up, it was a complete farce), so if you want to play the "who started it" game, start at square one.

Being "Down Under" (or anywhere other than the US, really) gives us a unique perspective of looking at history, unsullied by the flag-happy, nationalist US mainstream media that's so laughably labelled "liberal" by the very people & institutions it unquestioningly supports. Trust me, if the US media was anywhere near as "liberal" as FOX news etc. say it is, most of what the Bush team have got away with in the last 8 years would never have happened, or at least would been held up to something resembling close scrutiny (and arseclowns like Bill O'Reilly - even "moderates" like Katie Couric and Larry King - would be collecting welfare). Don't worry about us feeling the heat - we felt it when we got dragged into the disaster of Vietnam and we've been feeling it ever since.

The very reason people around the world are so interested in & concerned about US elections is because the actions of the US government directly affect the rest of the world like no other. A change in leadership in the most powerful nation in the world, the nation with the longest & most dubious record of overseas military interventions (both overt & covert) in modern history, is naturally going to attract some attention. The World is rightly concerned about who gains control of the most potentially destructive military on the planet.

You said "before you bash a country that's far away from you, look inward". Quite! If only Washington DC had pinned that motto up in the halls of Congress & the Whitehouse in about 1946. There'd be far fewer of these alleged "anti-Americans" lurking around.

What's an "anti-American" anyway? Someone who disagrees with aspects of US foreign policy? Well, that same logic would make me completely "anti-Vatican" and would have made me "anti-Australian" from 1996-2007 ...

Quote from Hankstar :

Might (or might not) interest you to know that one year before Kruschev opened up a missile base in Cuba, Washington made a phone call to the CIA and tried to mount a proxy invasion of Cuba using US-backed Cuban exiles to oust Castro (the infamous Bay of Pigs inavsion - look it up, it was a complete farce), so if you want to play the "who started it" game, start at square one.

Being "Down Under" (or anywhere other than the US, really) gives us a unique perspective of looking at history, unsullied by the flag-happy, nationalist US mainstream media that's so laughably labelled "liberal" by the very people & institutions it unquestioningly supports. Trust me, if the US media was anywhere near as "liberal" as FOX news etc. say it is, most of what the Bush team have got away with in the last 8 years would never have happened, or at least would been held up to something resembling close scrutiny (and arseclowns like Bill O'Reilly - even "moderates" like Katie Couric and Larry King - would be collecting welfare). Don't worry about us feeling the heat - we felt it when we got dragged into the disaster of Vietnam and we've been feeling it ever since.

The very reason people around the world are so interested in & concerned about US elections is because the actions of the US government directly affect the rest of the world like no other. A change in leadership in the most powerful nation in the world, the nation with the longest & most dubious record of overseas military interventions (both overt & covert) in modern history, is naturally going to attract some attention. The World is rightly concerned about who gains control of the most potentially destructive military on the planet.

You said "before you bash a country that's far away from you, look inward". Quite! If only Washington DC had pinned that motto up in the halls of Congress & the Whitehouse in about 1946. There'd be far fewer of these alleged "anti-Americans" lurking around.

What's an "anti-American" anyway? Someone who disagrees with aspects of US foreign policy? Well, that same logic would make me completely "anti-Vatican" and would have made me "anti-Australian" from 1996-2007 ...

Just what is a liberal to the rest of the world anyways? I posted somewhere a while back What a Liberal, a Conservative and a Moderate is in the US. I mean are these descriptions of political dispositions even close to anyone elses?
I see things like "Liberal Christian Party" and "Social Conservative Party" in the politics of other governments. in the US, those names are considered oxymorons and very confusing.
LOL there was a political discussion with three drunks at a bar. the first guy says," I vote republican". The second guy says, "I vote democratic". the third guy proudly states, "I'm a libertarian". The other two reply, "Look dumbass, we don't care what you do for a living, tell us who you vote for". (hey, i just made it up on the fly. ok?)