Our Foreign Minister has come right out and made NZ’s position clear ><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/peace-needed-now-more-than-ever-winston-peters-speaks-out-at-remarks-by-israeli-prime-minister/CJIDTEJIJFAP3PXL4UJQDVR2UA/>.
His Xeet says
New Zealand is deeply concerned at recent comments by members of
the Israeli Government that fuel tensions & imperil the two state
solution.
New Zealand has always supported a two state solution - and has
consistently engaged w/Israel & the Palestinians on that basis.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Horseshit political rhetoric - a product of your imagination.
Our Foreign Minister has come right out and made NZ’s position clear >><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/peace-needed-now-more-than-ever-winston-peters-speaks-out-at-remarks-by-israeli-prime-minister/CJIDTEJIJFAP3PXL4UJQDVR2UA/>.
His Xeet says
New Zealand is deeply concerned at recent comments by members of
the Israeli Government that fuel tensions & imperil the two state
solution.
New Zealand has always supported a two state solution - and has
consistently engaged w/Israel & the Palestinians on that basis.
That is excellent - it had appeared that New Zealand was going to
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA; this is
much more sensible and consistent with the more balanced policies of
past NZ governments. Earlier "trade-is-all-that-matters" comments from
the Trade Minister had been disappointing.
Winston has had good previous experience as Foreign Minister - he is >realistic, listens to his Ministry, and does not have to "feed the
chooks" as is expected domestically to retain some of the fringe
thinking people who he managed to get to vote for him. He will
understand that there is little point in spending time on a free trade >agreement with India which appeared to have been dreamed up by Luxon
for the election campaign, but a more difficult issue will be
retaining our trade position with China as that country's relationship
with the USA gets more difficult for a variety of reasons.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Our Foreign Minister has come right out and made NZ’s position clear >><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/peace-needed-now-more-than-ever-winston-peters-speaks-out-at-remarks-by-israeli-prime-minister/CJIDTEJIJFAP3PXL4UJQDVR2UA/>.
His Xeet says
New Zealand is deeply concerned at recent comments by members of
the Israeli Government that fuel tensions & imperil the two state
solution.
New Zealand has always supported a two state solution - and has
consistently engaged w/Israel & the Palestinians on that basis.
That is excellent - it had appeared that New Zealand was going to
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA;
this is
much more sensible and consistent with the more balanced policies of
past NZ governments. Earlier "trade-is-all-that-matters" comments from
the Trade Minister had been disappointing.
Winston has had good previous experience as Foreign Minister - he is >realistic, listens to his Ministry, and does not have to "feed the
chooks" as is expected domestically to retain some of the fringe
thinking people who he managed to get to vote for him. He will
understand that there is little point in spending time on a free trade >agreement with India which appeared to have been dreamed up by Luxon
for the election campaign, but a more difficult issue will be
retaining our trade position with China as that country's relationship
with the USA gets more difficult for a variety of reasons.
... it had appeared that New Zealand was going to
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA ...
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>I agree, Winston never intended that, but Judith Collins did - we are
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Our Foreign Minister has come right out and made NZ’s position clear >>><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/peace-needed-now-more-than-ever-winston-peters-speaks-out-at-remarks-by-israeli-prime-minister/CJIDTEJIJFAP3PXL4UJQDVR2UA/>.
His Xeet says
New Zealand is deeply concerned at recent comments by members of
the Israeli Government that fuel tensions & imperil the two state
solution.
New Zealand has always supported a two state solution - and has
consistently engaged w/Israel & the Palestinians on that basis.
That is excellent - it had appeared that New Zealand was going to
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA;
cite please. Winston clearly never intended to do this.
The previous government expressed dismay at all sides of the conflictthis is
much more sensible and consistent with the more balanced policies of
past NZ governments. Earlier "trade-is-all-that-matters" comments from
the Trade Minister had been disappointing.
Winston has had good previous experience as Foreign Minister - he is >>realistic, listens to his Ministry, and does not have to "feed the
chooks" as is expected domestically to retain some of the fringe
thinking people who he managed to get to vote for him. He will
understand that there is little point in spending time on a free trade >>agreement with India which appeared to have been dreamed up by Luxon
for the election campaign, but a more difficult issue will be
retaining our trade position with China as that country's relationship
with the USA gets more difficult for a variety of reasons.
On the Middle-East issues he stands clearly in the middle - unlike
Minister Nania Mahuta who refused to condemn Hamas.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... it had appeared that New Zealand was going to
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA ...
Unfortunately, it looks like we are, on another point: the Government is >sending 6 NZDF personnel into offensive duties in the Red Sea. Crusher
says they won’t be going into Yemen, but they will be involved in
launching those airstrikes on sites in Yemen--the ones that Genocide Joe >himself has admitted are not discouraging the Houthis’ attacks on Red Sea >shipping one bit.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:41:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too. Geez you do get excited very quickly don't you little boy.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... it had appeared that New Zealand was going to
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA ...
Unfortunately, it looks like we are, on another point: the Government is >>sending 6 NZDF personnel into offensive duties in the Red Sea. Crusher
says they won’t be going into Yemen, but they will be involved in
launching those airstrikes on sites in Yemen--the ones that Genocide Joe >>himself has admitted are not discouraging the Houthis’ attacks on Red Sea >>shipping one bit.
At the time I had not heard that, but it was indeed Collins that had
been saber-rattling. I guess they take turns setting foreign policy .
. .
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:58:58 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>More lies - we are not sending troops to assist the USA - we are sending them to assist the free world to allow shipping to pass safely through the red sea. The USA is ony one of several nations involved - a just cause.
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:I agree, Winston never intended that, but Judith Collins did - we are
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Our Foreign Minister has come right out and made NZ’s position clear >>>><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/peace-needed-now-more-than-ever-winston-peters-speaks-out-at-remarks-by-israeli-prime-minister/CJIDTEJIJFAP3PXL4UJQDVR2UA/>.
His Xeet says
New Zealand is deeply concerned at recent comments by members of
the Israeli Government that fuel tensions & imperil the two state
solution.
New Zealand has always supported a two state solution - and has
consistently engaged w/Israel & the Palestinians on that basis.
That is excellent - it had appeared that New Zealand was going to
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA;
cite please. Winston clearly never intended to do this.
now sending troops (albeit only a small number) to assist the USA;
which Winston carefully avoided commenting on. It is another
confirmation that the coalition is not also coherent - some are
concerned that they do not appear to be working together . . .
Rhetoric.The previous government expressed dismay at all sides of the conflict
this is
much more sensible and consistent with the more balanced policies of
past NZ governments. Earlier "trade-is-all-that-matters" comments from >>>the Trade Minister had been disappointing.
Winston has had good previous experience as Foreign Minister - he is >>>realistic, listens to his Ministry, and does not have to "feed the >>>chooks" as is expected domestically to retain some of the fringe
thinking people who he managed to get to vote for him. He will >>>understand that there is little point in spending time on a free trade >>>agreement with India which appeared to have been dreamed up by Luxon
for the election campaign, but a more difficult issue will be
retaining our trade position with China as that country's relationship >>>with the USA gets more difficult for a variety of reasons.
On the Middle-East issues he stands clearly in the middle - unlike
Minister Nania Mahuta who refused to condemn Hamas.
- but at various stages entreated each side to desist.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 19:40:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I doubt that our people have arrived yet, and such actions take time.
Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too.
A pretty pointless one, judging from the (lack of) results so far.
Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too.
On 2024-01-23, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Yes, correct on both points. We have an obligation to contribute to peace keeping, and that is what this is. There is no saber rattling by this government despite Rich's ludicrous lies.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:41:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too. Geez you do >>get
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... it had appeared that New Zealand was going to
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA ...
Unfortunately, it looks like we are, on another point: the Government is >>>>sending 6 NZDF personnel into offensive duties in the Red Sea. Crusher >>>>says they wonÂ’t be going into Yemen, but they will be involved in >>>>launching those airstrikes on sites in Yemen--the ones that Genocide Joe >>>>himself has admitted are not discouraging the HouthisÂ’ attacks on Red Sea >>>>shipping one bit.
At the time I had not heard that, but it was indeed Collins that had
been saber-rattling. I guess they take turns setting foreign policy .
. .
excited very quickly don't you little boy.
The point here is that ships are being attacked while sailing in >international waters carrying out a peaceful mission.
In cases such as this the rest of the world needs to respond to the attacks. >The most effective way is of course not always obvious.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:41:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too. Geez you do get excited very quickly don't you little boy.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... it had appeared that New Zealand was going to
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA ...
Unfortunately, it looks like we are, on another point: the Government is >>>sending 6 NZDF personnel into offensive duties in the Red Sea. Crusher >>>says they wonÂ’t be going into Yemen, but they will be involved in >>>launching those airstrikes on sites in Yemen--the ones that Genocide Joe >>>himself has admitted are not discouraging the HouthisÂ’ attacks on Red Sea >>>shipping one bit.
At the time I had not heard that, but it was indeed Collins that had
been saber-rattling. I guess they take turns setting foreign policy .
. .
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:58:58 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:I agree, Winston never intended that, but Judith Collins did - we are
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Our Foreign Minister has come right out and made NZÂ’s position clear >>>><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/peace-needed-now-more-than-ever-winston-peters-speaks-out-at-remarks-by-israeli-prime-minister/CJIDTEJIJFAP3PXL4UJQDVR2UA/>.
His Xeet says
New Zealand is deeply concerned at recent comments by members of
the Israeli Government that fuel tensions & imperil the two state
solution.
New Zealand has always supported a two state solution - and has
consistently engaged w/Israel & the Palestinians on that basis.
That is excellent - it had appeared that New Zealand was going to
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA;
cite please. Winston clearly never intended to do this.
now sending troops (albeit only a small number) to assist the USA;
which Winston carefully avoided commenting on. It is another
confirmation that the coalition is not also coherent - some are
concerned that they do not appear to be working together . . .
The previous government expressed dismay at all sides of the conflict
this is
much more sensible and consistent with the more balanced policies of
past NZ governments. Earlier "trade-is-all-that-matters" comments from >>>the Trade Minister had been disappointing.
Winston has had good previous experience as Foreign Minister - he is >>>realistic, listens to his Ministry, and does not have to "feed the >>>chooks" as is expected domestically to retain some of the fringe
thinking people who he managed to get to vote for him. He will >>>understand that there is little point in spending time on a free trade >>>agreement with India which appeared to have been dreamed up by Luxon
for the election campaign, but a more difficult issue will be
retaining our trade position with China as that country's relationship >>>with the USA gets more difficult for a variety of reasons.
On the Middle-East issues he stands clearly in the middle - unlike
Minister Nania Mahuta who refused to condemn Hamas.
- but at various stages entreated each side to desist.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 19:40:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too.
A pretty pointless one, judging from the (lack of) results so far.
I doubt that our people have arrived yet, and such actions take time.
Perhaps we should allow anybody to just attack ships any time they
want ...
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:58:58 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:More lies - we are not sending troops to assist the USA - we are sending them to assist the free world to allow shipping to pass safely through the red sea.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:I agree, Winston never intended that, but Judith Collins did - we are
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Our Foreign Minister has come right out and made NZÂ’s position clear >>>>><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/peace-needed-now-more-than-ever-winston-peters-speaks-out-at-remarks-by-israeli-prime-minister/CJIDTEJIJFAP3PXL4UJQDVR2UA/>.
His Xeet says
New Zealand is deeply concerned at recent comments by members of
the Israeli Government that fuel tensions & imperil the two state >>>>> solution.
New Zealand has always supported a two state solution - and has
consistently engaged w/Israel & the Palestinians on that basis.
That is excellent - it had appeared that New Zealand was going to >>>>follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA;
cite please. Winston clearly never intended to do this.
now sending troops (albeit only a small number) to assist the USA;
which Winston carefully avoided commenting on. It is another
confirmation that the coalition is not also coherent - some are
concerned that they do not appear to be working together . . .
The USA is ony one of several nations involved - a just cause.
It confirms we are prepared to do our bit.
Rhetoric.
The previous government expressed dismay at all sides of the conflict
this is
much more sensible and consistent with the more balanced policies of >>>>past NZ governments. Earlier "trade-is-all-that-matters" comments from >>>>the Trade Minister had been disappointing.
Winston has had good previous experience as Foreign Minister - he is >>>>realistic, listens to his Ministry, and does not have to "feed the >>>>chooks" as is expected domestically to retain some of the fringe >>>>thinking people who he managed to get to vote for him. He will >>>>understand that there is little point in spending time on a free trade >>>>agreement with India which appeared to have been dreamed up by Luxon >>>>for the election campaign, but a more difficult issue will be
retaining our trade position with China as that country's relationship >>>>with the USA gets more difficult for a variety of reasons.
On the Middle-East issues he stands clearly in the middle - unlike >>>Minister Nania Mahuta who refused to condemn Hamas.
- but at various stages entreated each side to desist.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 22:14:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:It may or not make a great difference but that is irrelevant - we are helping and that matters.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 19:40:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too.
A pretty pointless one, judging from the (lack of) results so far.
I doubt that our people have arrived yet, and such actions take time.
Because our 6 additional personnel are going to make a great difference to
an operation which has already been running for some weeks.
Not sure what that has to do with anything, it is certainly not what I wrote or believe. Do you believe in that mantra?Perhaps we should allow anybody to just attack ships any time they
want ...
“We must do something!”
“This is something.”
“Let’s do it!”
It may or not make a great difference but that is irrelevant - we are
helping and that matters.
Cooperation with like minded countries matters.
“We must do something!”
“This is something.”
“Let’s do it!”
Not sure what that has to do with anything, it is certainly not what I
wrote or believe.
Having several countries involved gives a show of strength
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:53:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:We are inflaming nothing, we are assisting in the enfoprcing the legal right of passage through an internation waterway. It would be just the same if somebody was shelling ships in the cook strait.
It may or not make a great difference but that is irrelevant - we are
helping and that matters.
“Helping” by possibly inflaming the situation even more. Not typical of >how NZ has contributed in the past.
The incursion is by Yemeny supported pirates/terrorists or whatever they want to be called. There is no supporting of any incursion by NZ, not in any imaginary or real sense.Cooperation with like minded countries matters.
We are prepared to respect whatever verdict the International Court of >Justice comes up with, the primary instigator of this incursion into the
Red Sea is not. Is that your idea of “like minded”?
No my little friend it is not me. How dare you be so rude. And your homily is plain silly and quite insulting. It couldn't be politically driven by any chance, could it? Because by view on this action is completely without any political influence, I would support it whoever was in power. It is simply a justified policing action, regrettable of course, but essential. The alternative is chaos.“We must do something!”
“This is something.”
“Let’s do it!”
Not sure what that has to do with anything, it is certainly not what I
wrote or believe.
Say one thing, do another. A reflex belief that an action involving
shooting, bombing or launching rockets is automatically going to be >effective, somehow. That’s you.
The incursion is by Yemeny supported pirates/terrorists or whatever they
want to be called.
On 23 Jan 2024 23:47:14 GMT, Gordon wrote:
Having several countries involved gives a show of strength
It’s “air of legitimacy” that they are after. This should have gone
through the UN Security Council. Like the Iraq War, it didn’t. And like
the Iraq War, we should stay out of it for that reason.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 01:33:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Whose? The Houthi rebels? I don't think so, they are not the government of Yemen and have no legal rights over the red sea. The countries that I know have red sea marine waters interest are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Eritrea and Djibouti. None of them officially or publicly support the Houthi rebels.
The incursion is by Yemeny supported pirates/terrorists or whatever they
want to be called.
Remember, it is their territorial waters.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:48:57 +1300, Crash wrote:Not worth the cost, all those idiotic vetoes and even if there were no vetoes - no teeth. A Total waste of money and time.
The reason is that the Security Council is worthless. Anything
worthwhile gets vetoed.
Until we replace it with something better, it’s all we’ve got.
The reason is that the Security Council is worthless. Anything
worthwhile gets vetoed.
Not worth the cost, all those idiotic vetoes and even if there were no
vetoes -
no teeth. A Total waste of money and time.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Remember, it is their territorial waters.
Whose? The Houthi rebels? I don't think so, they are not the government
of Yemen ...
The countries that I know have red sea marine waters interest are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Eritrea and Djibouti.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 03:14:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Cite or evidence?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Remember, it is their territorial waters.
Whose? The Houthi rebels? I don't think so, they are not the government
of Yemen ...
The majority of Yemenis agree with their stand on this point. As do most
of the Arab/Muslim world.
That is a strait, a waterway not land.The countries that I know have red sea marine waters interest are Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Eritrea and Djibouti.
You forgot the Bab El-Mandeb. Whose land is that?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 03:14:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:That is a straight, a waterway, very important but not land.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Remember, it is their territorial waters.
Whose? The Houthi rebels? I don't think so, they are not the government
of Yemen ...
The majority of Yemenis agree with their stand on this point. As do most
of the Arab/Muslim world.
The countries that I know have red sea marine waters interest are Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Eritrea and Djibouti.
You forgot the Bab El-Mandeb. Whose land is that?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 04:53:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:No thanks, it is irrelevant and entirely off the subject of the thread.
Not worth the cost, all those idiotic vetoes and even if there were no
vetoes -
no teeth. A Total waste of money and time.
Guess who are the biggest offenders in ignoring Security Council
resolutions?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Oops, sorry about the typo but I am sure you know what I mean.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 03:14:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:That is a straight, a waterway, very important but not land.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Remember, it is their territorial waters.
Whose? The Houthi rebels? I don't think so, they are not the government
of Yemen ...
The majority of Yemenis agree with their stand on this point. As do most
of the Arab/Muslim world.
The countries that I know have red sea marine waters interest are Egypt, >>> Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Eritrea and Djibouti.
You forgot the Bab El-Mandeb. Whose land is that?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
You forgot the Bab El-Mandeb. Whose land is that?
That is a strait, a waterway not land.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 04:53:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:No thanks, it is irrelevant and entirely off the subject of the thread.
Not worth the cost, all those idiotic vetoes and even if there were no
vetoes -
no teeth. A Total waste of money and time.
Guess who are the biggest offenders in ignoring Security Council >>resolutions?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 05:40:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I didn't bring up the security council, you did. Please check back.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 04:53:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Not worth the cost, all those idiotic vetoes and even if there were no >>>> vetoes -
no teeth. A Total waste of money and time.
Guess who are the biggest offenders in ignoring Security Council >>>resolutions?
No thanks, it is irrelevant and entirely off the subject of the thread.
Why did you bring it up, then? Suddenly want to backpedal, do you?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 05:43:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Not land - so I did not forget it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
You forgot the Bab El-Mandeb. Whose land is that?
That is a strait, a waterway not land.
Just 26 kilometres across. That makes it very much territorial waters all
the way.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 05:40:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not change the subject you cretin. Buzz off to your little wasp nest..
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 04:53:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:No thanks, it is irrelevant and entirely off the subject of the thread.
Not worth the cost, all those idiotic vetoes and even if there were no >>>> vetoes -
no teeth. A Total waste of money and time.
Guess who are the biggest offenders in ignoring Security Council >>>resolutions?
Indeed, as you have just pointed out, your comment about vetoes
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 05:40:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I didn't bring up the security council, you did. Please check back.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 04:53:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Not worth the cost, all those idiotic vetoes and even if there were no >>>>> vetoes -
no teeth. A Total waste of money and time.
Guess who are the biggest offenders in ignoring Security Council >>>>resolutions?
No thanks, it is irrelevant and entirely off the subject of the thread.
Why did you bring it up, then? Suddenly want to backpedal, do you?
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-01-23, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Yes, correct on both points. We have an obligation to contribute to peace >keeping, and that is what this is. There is no saber rattling by this >government despite Rich's ludicrous lies.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:41:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too. Geez you do >>>get
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... it had appeared that New Zealand was going to
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA ...
Unfortunately, it looks like we are, on another point: the Government is >>>>>sending 6 NZDF personnel into offensive duties in the Red Sea. Crusher >>>>>says they wonÂ’t be going into Yemen, but they will be involved in >>>>>launching those airstrikes on sites in Yemen--the ones that Genocide Joe >>>>>himself has admitted are not discouraging the HouthisÂ’ attacks on Red Sea >>>>>shipping one bit.
At the time I had not heard that, but it was indeed Collins that had >>>>been saber-rattling. I guess they take turns setting foreign policy .
. .
excited very quickly don't you little boy.
The point here is that ships are being attacked while sailing in >>international waters carrying out a peaceful mission.
In cases such as this the rest of the world needs to respond to the attacks. >>The most effective way is of course not always obvious.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 18:48:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyGee you are stupid - it was raised by the OP (as I said) here is the quote "It’s “air of legitimacy” that they are after. This should have gone through the UN Security Council. Like the Iraq War, it didn’t. And like
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 05:40:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I didn't bring up the security council, you did. Please check back.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Why did you bring it up, then? Suddenly want to backpedal, do you?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 04:53:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Not worth the cost, all those idiotic vetoes and even if there were no >>>>>> vetoes -
no teeth. A Total waste of money and time.
Guess who are the biggest offenders in ignoring Security Council >>>>>resolutions?
No thanks, it is irrelevant and entirely off the subject of the thread. >>>
The Security Council was raised by the poster that said:
"Not worth the cost, all those idiotic vetoes and even if there were
no vetoes - no teeth. A Total waste of money and time."
If you take your own advice to look back you would see that the posterYou should apologise you prize prick - it was not me, Do you have any standards of behaviour at all - or are you simply dumb?
was you, Tony.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-01-23, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Yes, correct on both points. We have an obligation to contribute to peace >>keeping, and that is what this is. There is no saber rattling by this >>government despite Rich's ludicrous lies.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:41:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too. Geez you do >>>>get
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... it had appeared that New Zealand was going to
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA ...
Unfortunately, it looks like we are, on another point: the Government is >>>>>>sending 6 NZDF personnel into offensive duties in the Red Sea. Crusher >>>>>>says they wonÂ’t be going into Yemen, but they will be involved in >>>>>>launching those airstrikes on sites in Yemen--the ones that Genocide Joe >>>>>>himself has admitted are not discouraging the HouthisÂ’ attacks on Red >>>>>>Sea
shipping one bit.
At the time I had not heard that, but it was indeed Collins that had >>>>>been saber-rattling. I guess they take turns setting foreign policy . >>>>>. .
excited very quickly don't you little boy.
The point here is that ships are being attacked while sailing in >>>international waters carrying out a peaceful mission.
In cases such as this the rest of the world needs to respond to the attacks. >>>The most effective way is of course not always obvious.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:14:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyLies removed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-01-23, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Yes, correct on both points. We have an obligation to contribute to peace >>>keeping, and that is what this is. There is no saber rattling by this >>>government despite Rich's ludicrous lies.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:41:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too. Geez you do >>>>>get
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... it had appeared that New Zealand was going toUnfortunately, it looks like we are, on another point: the Government is >>>>>>>sending 6 NZDF personnel into offensive duties in the Red Sea. Crusher >>>>>>>says they wonÂ’t be going into Yemen, but they will be involved in >>>>>>>launching those airstrikes on sites in Yemen--the ones that Genocide Joe >>>>>>>himself has admitted are not discouraging the HouthisÂ’ attacks on Red >>>>>>>Sea
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA ... >>>>>>>
shipping one bit.
At the time I had not heard that, but it was indeed Collins that had >>>>>>been saber-rattling. I guess they take turns setting foreign policy . >>>>>>. .
excited very quickly don't you little boy.
The point here is that ships are being attacked while sailing in >>>>international waters carrying out a peaceful mission.
In cases such as this the rest of the world needs to respond to the attacks.
The most effective way is of course not always obvious.
We are obliged to help with policing actions - and that is what we are doing. >All else is political rhetoric.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you couldn't find any - just as I thought . . .
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 01:16:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyAnd missed them....deliberately.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Lies removed.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-01-23, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Yes, correct on both points. We have an obligation to contribute to peace >>>>>keeping, and that is what this is. There is no saber rattling by this >>>>>government despite Rich's ludicrous lies.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:41:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too. Geez you >>>>>>>do
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... it had appeared that New Zealand was going toUnfortunately, it looks like we are, on another point: the Government >>>>>>>>>is
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA ... >>>>>>>>>
sending 6 NZDF personnel into offensive duties in the Red Sea. Crusher >>>>>>>>>says they wonÂ’t be going into Yemen, but they will be involved in >>>>>>>>>launching those airstrikes on sites in Yemen--the ones that Genocide >>>>>>>>>Joe
himself has admitted are not discouraging the HouthisÂ’ attacks on Red >>>>>>>>>Sea
shipping one bit.
At the time I had not heard that, but it was indeed Collins that had >>>>>>>>been saber-rattling. I guess they take turns setting foreign policy . >>>>>>>>. .
get
excited very quickly don't you little boy.
The point here is that ships are being attacked while sailing in >>>>>>international waters carrying out a peaceful mission.
In cases such as this the rest of the world needs to respond to the >>>>>>attacks.
The most effective way is of course not always obvious.
I looked back to see what lies you were referring to
Yes you do appear to be keen on political rhetoric - I prefer truth
We are obliged to help with policing actions - and that is what we are doing.
All else is political rhetoric.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 05:36:46 -0000 (UTC), TonyNope - you couldn't because you believe the lies you post.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you couldn't find any - just as I thought . . .
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 01:16:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyAnd missed them....deliberately.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Lies removed.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-01-23, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Yes, correct on both points. We have an obligation to contribute to peace >>>>>>keeping, and that is what this is. There is no saber rattling by this >>>>>>government despite Rich's ludicrous lies.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:41:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too. Geez you >>>>>>>>do
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... it had appeared that New Zealand was going toUnfortunately, it looks like we are, on another point: the Government >>>>>>>>>>is
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA ... >>>>>>>>>>
sending 6 NZDF personnel into offensive duties in the Red Sea. >>>>>>>>>>Crusher
says they wonÂ’t be going into Yemen, but they will be involved in >>>>>>>>>>launching those airstrikes on sites in Yemen--the ones that Genocide >>>>>>>>>>Joe
himself has admitted are not discouraging the HouthisÂ’ attacks on >>>>>>>>>>Red
Sea
shipping one bit.
At the time I had not heard that, but it was indeed Collins that had >>>>>>>>>been saber-rattling. I guess they take turns setting foreign policy . >>>>>>>>>. .
get
excited very quickly don't you little boy.
The point here is that ships are being attacked while sailing in >>>>>>>international waters carrying out a peaceful mission.
In cases such as this the rest of the world needs to respond to the >>>>>>>attacks.
The most effective way is of course not always obvious.
I looked back to see what lies you were referring to
Sarcasm removed. The lowest form of wity - especially from a half wit.
We are obliged to help with policing actions - and that is what we are >>>>doing.
All else is political rhetoric.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Why do you believe that we were obliged to send 6
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 05:36:46 -0000 (UTC), TonyNope - you couldn't because you believe the lies you post.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you couldn't find any - just as I thought . . .
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 01:16:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:And missed them....deliberately.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Lies removed.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-01-23, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Yes, correct on both points. We have an obligation to contribute to peace
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:41:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too. Geez you
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... it had appeared that New Zealand was going toUnfortunately, it looks like we are, on another point: the Government
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA ... >>>>>>>>>>>
is
sending 6 NZDF personnel into offensive duties in the Red Sea. >>>>>>>>>>>Crusher
says they wonÂ’t be going into Yemen, but they will be involved in >>>>>>>>>>>launching those airstrikes on sites in Yemen--the ones that Genocide >>>>>>>>>>>Joe
himself has admitted are not discouraging the HouthisÂ’ attacks on >>>>>>>>>>>Red
Sea
shipping one bit.
At the time I had not heard that, but it was indeed Collins that had >>>>>>>>>>been saber-rattling. I guess they take turns setting foreign policy . >>>>>>>>>>. .
do
get
excited very quickly don't you little boy.
The point here is that ships are being attacked while sailing in >>>>>>>>international waters carrying out a peaceful mission.
In cases such as this the rest of the world needs to respond to the >>>>>>>>attacks.
The most effective way is of course not always obvious.
keeping, and that is what this is. There is no saber rattling by this >>>>>>>government despite Rich's ludicrous lies.
I looked back to see what lies you were referring to
Sarcasm removed. The lowest form of wity - especially from a half wit.
We are obliged to help with policing actions - and that is what we are >>>>>doing.
All else is political rhetoric.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 05:47:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyAlready explained, read the thread.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Why do you believe that we were obliged to send 6
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 05:36:46 -0000 (UTC), TonyNope - you couldn't because you believe the lies you post.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you couldn't find any - just as I thought . . .
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 01:16:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:And missed them....deliberately.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Lies removed.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-01-23, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Yes, correct on both points. We have an obligation to contribute to >>>>>>>>peace
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:41:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too. Geez >>>>>>>>>>you
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... it had appeared that New Zealand was going toUnfortunately, it looks like we are, on another point: the >>>>>>>>>>>>Government
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA ... >>>>>>>>>>>>
is
sending 6 NZDF personnel into offensive duties in the Red Sea. >>>>>>>>>>>>Crusher
says they wonÂ’t be going into Yemen, but they will be involved in >>>>>>>>>>>>launching those airstrikes on sites in Yemen--the ones that >>>>>>>>>>>>Genocide
Joe
himself has admitted are not discouraging the HouthisÂ’ attacks on >>>>>>>>>>>>Red
Sea
shipping one bit.
At the time I had not heard that, but it was indeed Collins that had >>>>>>>>>>>been saber-rattling. I guess they take turns setting foreign policy .
. .
do
get
excited very quickly don't you little boy.
The point here is that ships are being attacked while sailing in >>>>>>>>>international waters carrying out a peaceful mission.
In cases such as this the rest of the world needs to respond to the >>>>>>>>>attacks.
The most effective way is of course not always obvious.
keeping, and that is what this is. There is no saber rattling by this >>>>>>>>government despite Rich's ludicrous lies.
I looked back to see what lies you were referring to
Sarcasm removed. The lowest form of wity - especially from a half wit.
We are obliged to help with policing actions - and that is what we are >>>>>>doing.
All else is political rhetoric.
Defence staff to assist the USA until the end of July, Tony?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 01:16:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyAnd missed them....deliberately.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:14:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyLies removed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-01-23, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Yes, correct on both points. We have an obligation to contribute to peace >>>>keeping, and that is what this is. There is no saber rattling by this >>>>government despite Rich's ludicrous lies.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:41:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Not saber rattling - a policing action and a correct one too. Geez you >>>>>>do
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:23:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... it had appeared that New Zealand was going toUnfortunately, it looks like we are, on another point: the Government >>>>>>>>is
follow the USA pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim stance of the USA ... >>>>>>>>
sending 6 NZDF personnel into offensive duties in the Red Sea. Crusher >>>>>>>>says they wonÂ’t be going into Yemen, but they will be involved in >>>>>>>>launching those airstrikes on sites in Yemen--the ones that Genocide >>>>>>>>Joe
himself has admitted are not discouraging the HouthisÂ’ attacks on Red >>>>>>>>Sea
shipping one bit.
At the time I had not heard that, but it was indeed Collins that had >>>>>>>been saber-rattling. I guess they take turns setting foreign policy . >>>>>>>. .
get
excited very quickly don't you little boy.
The point here is that ships are being attacked while sailing in >>>>>international waters carrying out a peaceful mission.
In cases such as this the rest of the world needs to respond to the >>>>>attacks.
The most effective way is of course not always obvious.
I looked back to see what lies you were referring to
We are obliged to help with policing actions - and that is what we are doing. >>All else is political rhetoric.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 05:43:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Not land - so I did not forget it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
You forgot the Bab El-Mandeb. Whose land is that?
That is a strait, a waterway not land.
Just 26 kilometres across. That makes it very much territorial waters
all the way.
Safe passage is guaranteed by the countries that own it - that safe
passage needs protecting against idiots like tghe Houthis.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 18:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Simplistic and devoid of evidence. For example - what international agreements are there, who signed them, what right do they have to shell innocent seafarers etc, etc. Nah - they do not get to say anything without consulation and agreement - civilisation has seemingly passed them by. We are entitled and obligated to police this mess.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 05:43:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Not land - so I did not forget it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
You forgot the Bab El-Mandeb. Whose land is that?
That is a strait, a waterway not land.
Just 26 kilometres across. That makes it very much territorial waters
all the way.
Safe passage is guaranteed by the countries that own it - that safe
passage needs protecting against idiots like tghe Houthis.
They own their bit, they get to say who uses it.
For example - what international agreements are there ...
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Irrelevant - the UN has zero authority and almost zero credibility - irrelevant.
We have an obligation to contribute to peace keeping ...
Peace-keeping operations are ordered by the UN. There was no such order in >this case.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 21:13:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
For example - what international agreements are there ...
The one that grants every country their 12-nautical-mile territorial
limit. Not relevant because they have freely given approval for decades
to shipping in the red sea.
Or those that allow free passage through the red sea?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 21:13:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Or those that allow free passage through the red sea? And promise not to shell innocent sailros? Which one don't you like?
For example - what international agreements are there ...
The one that grants every country their 12-nautical-mile territorial
limit. Not relevant because they have freely given approval for decades to >shipping in the red sea.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
We have an obligation to contribute to peace keeping ...
Peace-keeping operations are ordered by the UN. There was no such order
in this case.
Irrelevant - the UN has zero authority and almost zero credibility - irrelevant.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:50:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:If I hate what?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
We have an obligation to contribute to peace keeping ...
Peace-keeping operations are ordered by the UN. There was no such order >>>in this case.
Irrelevant - the UN has zero authority and almost zero credibility -
irrelevant.
If you hate it so much, why don’t you leave?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:53:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I don't know, if you care you could research it but there is a clue or two - they have allowed it for decades, the Yemenis do not object to the presence of shipping and they benefit from it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 21:13:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
For example - what international agreements are there ...
The one that grants every country their 12-nautical-mile territorial >>>limit. Not relevant because they have freely given approval for decades >>>to shipping in the red sea.
Or those that allow free passage through the red sea?
Where is that guaranteed by any international agreement?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:52:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:You raised the UN, not me. I merely responded to your comment.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:50:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
We have an obligation to contribute to peace keeping ...
Peace-keeping operations are ordered by the UN. There was no such >>>>>order in this case.
Irrelevant - the UN has zero authority and almost zero credibility -
irrelevant.
If you hate it so much, why don’t you leave?
If I hate what?
I am nothing to do with the UN ...
Then why do you feel the need to talk about them at all?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:55:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:No thanks. I don't need to. I asked what agreements exist that allowed them to shell seafarers etc (can't remember the exact words but that is close).
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:53:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Or those that allow free passage through the red sea?
Where is that guaranteed by any international agreement?
I don't know, if you care you could research it ...
You were the one that claimed there was such an agreement, you go and >research it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:50:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
We have an obligation to contribute to peace keeping ...
Peace-keeping operations are ordered by the UN. There was no such
order in this case.
Irrelevant - the UN has zero authority and almost zero credibility -
irrelevant.
If you hate it so much, why don’t you leave?
If I hate what?
I am nothing to do with the UN ...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:53:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Or those that allow free passage through the red sea?
Where is that guaranteed by any international agreement?
I don't know, if you care you could research it ...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
You were the one that claimed there was such an agreement, you go and >>research it.
I don't need to.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 01:53:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:You have demonnstrated prior to this that you tend to have defective logic - that is another example.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
You were the one that claimed there was such an agreement, you go and >>>research it.
I don't need to.
You do if you want to prove your point. Otherwise you are just conceding
it.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 01:48:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Because you appeared to think that the fact that the UN was not involved is important information.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:52:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:50:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
We have an obligation to contribute to peace keeping ...
Peace-keeping operations are ordered by the UN. There was no such >>>>>>>order in this case.
Irrelevant - the UN has zero authority and almost zero credibility - >>>>>> irrelevant.
If you hate it so much, why don’t you leave?
If I hate what?
I am nothing to do with the UN ...
Then why do you feel the need to talk about them at all?
You raised the UN, not me.
So I did.
I merely responded to your comment.
Why?
Not proving a point is not, in a million years, the same as conceding
it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 01:48:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
I merely responded to your comment.
Why?
Because you appeared to think that the fact that the UN was not involved
is important information.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 03:34:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Just trying to educate you - have you been taking lessons from rich80105 in sarcasm? If so you learned well - that really was sarcastic. You do know that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit do you not?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 01:48:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
I merely responded to your comment.
Why?
Because you appeared to think that the fact that the UN was not involved
is important information.
So you wanted to prove how unimportant it was, by making a fuss over it. Please don't put words into my mouth and please don't assume you know me -you don't. although we have crossed paths before some years ago.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 03:35:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:It is self evidently true, at least for English speaking educated folk.
Not proving a point is not, in a million years, the same as conceding
it.
Keep saying that until you’re blue in the face.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 03:34:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 01:48:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
I merely responded to your comment.
Why?
Because you appeared to think that the fact that the UN was not
involved is important information.
So you wanted to prove how unimportant it was, by making a fuss over it.
Please don't put words into my mouth ...
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 07:39:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Nonsense.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 03:35:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Not proving a point is not, in a million years, the same as conceding
it.
Keep saying that until you’re blue in the face.
It is self evidently true, at least for English speaking educated folk.
Says somebody who doesn’t know what “self evident” means ...
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 07:37:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Do you ever actually read what people write?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 03:34:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 01:48:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
I merely responded to your comment.
Why?
Because you appeared to think that the fact that the UN was not
involved is important information.
So you wanted to prove how unimportant it was, by making a fuss over it.
Please don't put words into my mouth ...
I didn’t put any words in your mouth. I didn’t need to put any words in >your mouth. I couldn’t even find space to put them in if I wanted to. Your >mouth was already overfull of them spilling out, like worms from a spilled >bait bucket.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 07:37:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Do you ever actually read what people write?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 03:34:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Please don't put words into my mouth ...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 01:48:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
I merely responded to your comment.
Why?
Because you appeared to think that the fact that the UN was not
involved is important information.
So you wanted to prove how unimportant it was, by making a fuss over it. >>>
I didn’t put any words in your mouth. I didn’t need to put any words in >>your mouth. I couldn’t even find space to put them in if I wanted to. Your >>mouth was already overfull of them spilling out, like worms from a spilled >>bait bucket.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Says somebody who doesn’t know what “self evident” means ...
Nonsense.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 06:17:23 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is obvious that you are a marxist.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 07:37:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Do you ever actually read what people write?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 03:34:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Please don't put words into my mouth ...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 01:48:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
I merely responded to your comment.
Why?
Because you appeared to think that the fact that the UN was not
involved is important information.
So you wanted to prove how unimportant it was, by making a fuss over it. >>>>
I didn’t put any words in your mouth. I didn’t need to put any words in >>>your mouth. I couldn’t even find space to put them in if I wanted to. Your >>>mouth was already overfull of them spilling out, like worms from a spilled >>>bait bucket.
It is fairly obvious that he read what you wrote, Tony.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 06:18:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:No, you prove that I don't - it is you that made the allegation so prove it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Says somebody who doesn’t know what “self evident” means ...
Nonsense.
Go on, then; prove you know what it means.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 06:18:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Says somebody who doesn’t know what “self evident” means ...
Nonsense.
Go on, then; prove you know what it means.
No, you prove that I don't ...
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:15:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Nice to see that you have finally learned the meaning of the phrase, so well done. You can be content in knowing that your error is a common one, many people personify the phrase out of brute ignorance.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 06:18:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Says somebody who doesn’t know what “self evident” means ...
Nonsense.
Go on, then; prove you know what it means.
No, you prove that I don't ...
From your (lack of coherent) arguments so far, the proof is self-evident.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 120:18:54 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,422 |