Air Force 3? 4? 5?

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:17:56 +1200, "Richard" rlmccannathotmail.com wrote:

Don't need guns to rebuild. Perhaps that's where other countries get
confused.
NZ Defence Forces news:
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/archived...-releases.html
Current deployments:
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/operations/current-missions.html


http://www.army.mil.nz/?CHANNEL=OPER...Iraq+-+UNMOVIC
Engineers departed NZ 14/11/02. Note references to UN.
http://www.navy.mil.nz/rnzn/article.cfm?Article_ID=1409
Note words such as peacekeeping, peace talks, evacuation. Also note frequent
references to UN. NZ has found other ways to help world peace rather than
blowing everyone/thing up.


They simply hide behind Australia's skirts. Sad, really, NZ once had some
backbone. NZ is not "rebuilding" Iraq, and neither is the UN.

72 "troops" is a joke.

Al Minyard

They simply hide behind Australia's skirts. Sad, really, NZ once had some backbone.

They love to admit huge numbers of the most radical of Muslim
"Refugees" too. 'Can't wait to watch the soft, spineless, pudgy
little white things getting thoroughly reamed when the balloon goes
up. What a pleasure.

G

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...

They simply hide behind Australia's skirts. Sad, really, NZ once had some
backbone. NZ is not "rebuilding" Iraq, and neither is the UN.

72 "troops" is a joke.

Al Minyard

They have been restoring water supply systems. Why is that not rebuilding?
What is the minimum number to have an effect?
Or is this more "If you are not with us, then you are against us" crap.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 22:27:24 +1200, "Richard" rlmccannathotmail.com wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .

They simply hide behind Australia's skirts. Sad, really, NZ once had some
backbone. NZ is not "rebuilding" Iraq, and neither is the UN.

72 "troops" is a joke.

Al Minyard

They have been restoring water supply systems. Why is that not rebuilding?
What is the minimum number to have an effect?
Or is this more "If you are not with us, then you are against us" crap.

I was merely pointing out that 1. The UN is not involved in rebuilding Iraq and
2. NZ is incapable of making a significant contribution to the rebuilding that
the US has undertaken. Politically, NZ has acted appropriately by sending
a token force.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...

I was merely pointing out that 1. The UN is not involved in rebuilding
Iraq and
2. NZ is incapable of making a significant contribution to the rebuilding
that
the US has undertaken. Politically, NZ has acted appropriately by sending
a token force.

NZ responded to UN Security Council resolution 1483 which called upon member
states to help meet the humanitarian and other needs of the Iraqi people by
providing food, medical supplies, and resources necessary for the
reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq's economic infrastructure. We are
a member of the UN doing work requested by the UN. The UN is therefore in
Iraq.
Our rebuilding is being done to help, at our cost. We are a small country
doing what we can. We are not involved in the looting of the country's
resources.

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 07:33:50 +1200, "Richard" rlmccannathotmail.com wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .

I was merely pointing out that 1. The UN is not involved in rebuilding
Iraq and
2. NZ is incapable of making a significant contribution to the rebuilding
that
the US has undertaken. Politically, NZ has acted appropriately by sending
a token force.

NZ responded to UN Security Council resolution 1483 which called upon member
states to help meet the humanitarian and other needs of the Iraqi people by
providing food, medical supplies, and resources necessary for the
reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq's economic infrastructure. We are
a member of the UN doing work requested by the UN. The UN is therefore in
Iraq.
Our rebuilding is being done to help, at our cost. We are a small country
doing what we can. We are not involved in the looting of the country's
resources.

The UN is not in Iraq. What part of that do you not understand??

It is not that NZ is a small country, it is that NZ has decided to abandon
their own defense. Don't **** off the Aussies or you will have no
defense at all.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 07:33:50 +1200, "Richard" rlmccannathotmail.com
wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .

I was merely pointing out that 1. The UN is not involved in rebuilding
Iraq and
2. NZ is incapable of making a significant contribution to the
rebuilding
that
the US has undertaken. Politically, NZ has acted appropriately by
sending
a token force.

NZ responded to UN Security Council resolution 1483 which called upon
member
states to help meet the humanitarian and other needs of the Iraqi people
by
providing food, medical supplies, and resources necessary for the
reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq's economic infrastructure. We
are
a member of the UN doing work requested by the UN. The UN is therefore in
Iraq.
Our rebuilding is being done to help, at our cost. We are a small
country
doing what we can. We are not involved in the looting of the country's
resources.

The UN is not in Iraq. What part of that do you not understand??

It is not that NZ is a small country, it is that NZ has decided to abandon
their own defense. Don't **** off the Aussies or you will have no
defense at all.

Al Minyard

http://www.uniraq.org/

Richard wrote:
"Alan Minyard" wrote in message


The UN is not in Iraq. What part of that do you not understand??
...

Al Minyard


http://www.uniraq.org/



Yep, according to their website, the UN forward team for Iraq is
in Jordan - not Iraq.

Mike

"Mike Williamson" wrote in message
...

Yep, according to their website, the UN forward team for Iraq is
in Jordan - not Iraq.

Mike


http://www.uniraq.org/aboutus/corefunctions.asp

C&P
"Liaison with the UN Agencies operating in Iraq, as well as with UN Agency
'Iraq focal points' in Jordan, Kuwait and Cyprus."