Trump expanding Afghan war he had denounced

Candidate Trump last year denounced US involvement in the Aghan war.

President Trump has just announced an expansion of the longest running war that the US has been involved in.

Fox News:  Trump the unconventional president proposes a conventional response for Afghanistan — more US soldiers

President Donald Trump has now officially embraced and expanded the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan which Candidate Trump denounced as a waste of American blood and treasure. In his first major foreign policy speech in prime time, Mr. Trump unveiled what he called a new strategy for Afghanistan and South Asia, which he called “principled realism.”

But many of its key components remain infuriatingly vague, such as the number of additional troops he intends to deploy in Afghanistan and how much more money he intends to spend there. Moreover, some of the goals he espoused Monday night seemed inherently contradictory.

Mr. Trump did explain why he had abandoned his initial “instinct” to withdraw the 8,500 American forces deployed in Afghanistan immediately.

He said that after listening to the generals whose wisdom and views he had denigrated as a candidate, he had become convinced that an abrupt withdrawal would create a vacuum that the Islamic State, the Taliban, and other terrorists would fill.

That, in turn, he said, would enable America’s Islamist foes to strike America and its allies, as Al Qaeda had done on September 11th from Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

While Mr. Trump said his administration would no longer engage in “nation-building,” he also said that the Afghan government in Kabul would have to do more to ensure that Afghans do the bulk of the fighting.

While he vowed to stay in the region to kill terrorists and defeat the Taliban who support the Islamists until “victory” was achieved, he also said that America’s commitment to Afghanistan was not “open-ended.”

He did not define what “obliterating ISIS” or “victory” meant, or specifically what conditions on the ground would enable an eventual withdrawal of American forces.

That cartoon is from the start of US involvement in Afghanistan 16 years aago.

North Korean nuclear threat ‘is real’

After the Iraq debacle the world should be very sceptical of claims that crappy regimes have weapons that demand urgent military action.

But nuclear risks are so large, potentially threatening the well being of the whole plant, that any nuclear threat is a major concern. As are the increasing rhetoric and tensions over North Korea.

Nuclear weapons can be used as a threat. They can also be used as a deterrence to being attacked.

So far that has more or less worked for those countries that have acquired them, but there is always a very real concern that a mad or irresponsible leader will use nuclear weapons pre-emptively, or just out of spite, or under pressure, or to play to a domestic audience, or for any number of reasons.

A nuclear attack is most likely when, not if. The timing, and the degree of escalation and destruction, are probably all that is in doubt, along with who pushes the button.

Vox: North Korea’s growing nuclear threat, in one statistic

Here is the most frightening thing you’ll read all day: Growing numbers of US intelligence officials believe North Korea can produce a new nuclear bomb every six or seven weeks.

That’s one of the most jarring takeaways in an exhaustive New York Times story about North Korea’s rapidly expanding nuclear program — and the decades of US efforts that have tried, and failed, to slow it. The Trump administration plans to detail its own approach Wednesday when it brings the entire US Senate to the White House for a highly unusual briefing on the North Korean threat.

The threat is real. Here are a few more details, courtesy of the Times’s David Sanger and William Broad. North Korea is on pace to have 50 nuclear weapons by 2020. It already knows how to miniaturize those weapons so they can fit into missiles capable of hitting Japan, South Korea, and the tens of thousands of US troops stationed in those two countries. And a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of hitting the US — while not yet in Pyongyang’s arsenal — is now seen as a genuine possibility.

The reclusive country’s steady efforts to develop that type of missile, the Times reports, “have resulted in North Korean warheads that in a few years could reach Seattle.”

That’s not all. As Alex Ward wrote for Vox, South Korea’s capital of Seoul is well within range of the thousands of conventional weapons in North Korea’s enormous arsenal. Pyongyang could devastate the city of 25 million people without needing to use a nuclear weapon.

The threat to South Korea from conventional attack has been well known for decades.

All of that means President Trump faces the same hard question that bedeviled George W. Bush and Barack Obama before him: whether to risk war to prevent one of the world’s most unstable governments from building more of the world’s most dangerous weapons — including some capable of one day hitting the US.

This is, without doubt, a genuinely scary moment, with Washington and Pyongyang both making increasingly explicit threats against each other.

The Trump administration has specifically talked about a preemptive strike against North Korea and has a large US Navy carrier strike group steaming toward the region (yes, the same one that Trump had falsely said was heading there last week). And a US submarine docked in South Korea Tuesday as part of an explicit show of force.

North Korea has responded with threats to sink a US aircraft carrier and destroy American military bases in Japan (it’s far from clear the country could pull off either one). On Tuesday, it test-fired huge numbers of its artillery pieces (which are basically large guns capable of hitting distant targets), including many of the ones capable of striking South Korea. Many observers expect North Korea to conduct a nuclear test — its sixth in the past 11 years — as soon as the end of this week.

Still, none of this means that war is inevitable — or likely.

I’m not so sure about the likely bit. North Korea is being put under increasing pressure, and Donald Trump hasn’t exactly earned the world’s trust yet by any means.

Philly.com: Two bad options on North Korea: Acceptance or war

The Trump administration’s approach to the deadly serious problem of North Korea is the worst of all possible formulations. It is Teddy Roosevelt, turned upside down – “Speak loudly, and pretend to carry a big stick.”

What the administration wants is absolutely the ideal objective, to prevent North Korea from acquiring the capability to launch nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missiles at the United States.
But the means being discussed, such as putting North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism (“sticks and stones may break my bones…”), banning the North Korean airline from flying places it will never fly anyway, and banning the import of North Korean seafood (seriously?), are almost comically insufficient to the problem. Then there’s the “armada,” 3,500 miles away, but, maybe, on the way. These things, and other non-military options which might be considered, all pale by comparison to both the carrots and sticks that have already been used by prior presidents.

The hope that President Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson can persuade China to exercise maximum leverage against North Korea — perhaps shutting off energy supplies, or stopping the regime  from reaching nuclear ICBM capability through sanctions-backed diplomacy, while also preventing it from “going out with a bang” if it thought it would be stopped — is almost certainly a mirage. Likewise, even the best offensive cyber-wafare operations can do little more than slow down the march toward nuclear capability against us.

Even limited preemptive military action won’t work. How could merely wounding and cornering a fierce animal not lead to a rageful last gasp of dreadful retaliation?

There is a good reason none of these are viable options. It’s because, from the North Korean point of view, only achieving that most fearsome military capability can provide reasonable assurance of this regime’s long-term existence.

So here is the truly horrible truth about North Korea. There are only two choices.

The first is that we acknowledge and accept, as we have done with Russian and Chinese ICBM capabilities for decades, and then try to deter and contain, and to defend against, a North Korea able to strike us with nuclear weapons.

…the alternative, the only alternative, is war. War waged to victory, not stalemate. War waged and won before the North Koreans achieve their weapons development goal. War waged with both sufficient force and tactical surprise, so as to not leave the opponent wounded, cornered, and still able to lash out.

This means the WWII notion of war, one aimed at toppling the enemy regime and destroying its capacity for harm, not limited “surgical strikes” aimed to send messages or merely degrade the other side. In the case of North Korea, limited war would almost certainly lead to total war, which would likely include the North’s use of nuclear weapons. So if any use of force will very probably lead to total war, it needs to be total war from the outset, on the most advantageous terms from our perspective.

Frightful though it surely is, there is a clock ticking on this decision, and sound judgments cannot be made on the basis of false premises. Our choices are both bad and difficult. Our choices are acceptance or war.

It’s hard to see any alternatives to those two options.

 

Conservatives pick very poor fight

The Conservative Party need to try to attract attention, but using war and Anzac Day to do it very poor.

ConservativesAnzacDisgrace

Leighton, this is crappy. Some will see it as disrespectful, even disgraceful.

Conservative Party Leader Leighton Baker, an ANZAC message to New Zealand.

“The Conservative Party is still here, and we are still continuing the fight. People ask what we are fighting for, well we are actually fighting for exactly the same things that our soldiers fought for in WW1 and WW2 and other wars.  We are fighting for our families, we are fighting for our freedom, and we are fighting for democracy.

Years ago in WW1 and 2, our soldiers went offshore and they fought for freedom, democracy and their families. There is another war and that’s going on right here in New Zealand, right now.  We are losing our democracy.  In all the citizens initiated referenda we’ve had, no Government, on either side – left or right, had ever listened to or ever acted on the results.

Life is important to all New Zealanders. From birth, through to the grave, we’ve got to value life. That’s part of who we are as New Zealanders.  We have always done that and that’s what we fought for.

Our families are being destroyed.  We are seeing more and more crime,  suicides and addictions. And why is that? Because there is a disconnect within our families.  That’s where we believe, as the Conservative Party, we need to focus.  We have to focus on families survival.

I would encourage you to get behind the Conservative Party, because our policies are practical, they’re addressing the real issues, and they are real solutions that are not just ‘throw money at it’.

The Conservative Party is a party for all people that want to see a decent society, where we can bring up our children, and our grandchildren, now and into the future”.

War and remembrance of those who have died through Anzac Day should be off limits to tacky political promoters.

The Conservative Party needs support. This is more likely to lose it.

Claims of chemical attack in Syria

The war in Syria that began in 2011 has been destructive and dirty, with a number of groups within the country and a number of countries involved in fighting with and against the Syrian government.

The war has created millions of refugees and hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Bombing shit out of cities and civilians is bad enough, but there have been claims over the course of the war of even dirtier tactics that are forbidden by international law – the use 0f chemical weapons.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has just called for an investigation into suspected chemical attacks.

BBC: Syria conflict: ‘Chemical attack’ in Idlib kills 58

At least 58 people have been killed and dozens wounded in a suspected chemical attack on a rebel-held town in north-western Syria, a monitoring group says.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that strikes on Khan Sheikhoun by Syrian government or Russian jets had caused many people to choke.

Later, aircraft fired rockets at local clinics treating survivors, medics and activists said.

A Syrian military source denied the government had used any such weapons.

Russia’s defence ministry meanwhile insisted it had not carried out any air strikes in the vicinity.

If confirmed, it would be one of the deadliest chemical attacks in Syria’s civil war.

But not the only one.

The warplanes are reported to have attacked Khan Sheikhoun, about 50km (30 miles) south of the city of Idlib, early on Tuesday, when many people were asleep.

Hussein Kayal, a photographer for the pro-opposition Edlib Media Center (EMC), told the Associated Press that he was awoken by the sound of an explosion at about 06:30 (03:30 GMT).

When he reached the scene, there was no smell, he said. He found people lying on the floor, unable to move and with constricted pupils, he added.

Mohammed Rasoul, the head of a charity ambulance service in Idlib, told the BBC that his medics had found people, many of them children, choking in the street.

The Syrian Observatory (SOHR) quoted medics as saying that they had been treating people with symptoms including fainting, vomiting and foaming at the mouth.

An AFP news agency journalist saw a young girl, a woman and two elderly people dead at a hospital, all with foam still visible around their mouths.

The journalist also reported that the same facility was hit by a rocket on Tuesday afternoon, bringing down rubble on top of doctors treating the injured.

One aid agency, the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organisations (UOSSM), put the death toll at more than 100 and said that the figure was likely to rise.

Do the allegations and assertions about an attack in Afghanistan using conventional weapons in 2011 pale into insignificance?

The SOHR said it was unable to say what exactly was dropped.

However, the EMC and LCC said it was believed to be the nerve agent Sarin, which is highly toxic and considered 20 times as deadly as cyanide.

Chemical weapons expert Dan Kaszeta said that determining whether Sarin was involved simply by examining video clips is problematic.

He added that Tuesday’s attack could have been the result of one of any number of chemical agents as they tend to “behave the same in terms of their physiological effects on the human body”.

War is dirty. The war in Syria seems to be very dirty.  Claims of the use of chemical weapons is not new.

The government was accused by Western powers of firing rockets filled with Sarin at several rebel-held suburbs of the capital Damascus in August 2013, killing hundreds of people.

President Bashar al-Assad denied the charge, blaming rebel fighters, but he did subsequently agree to destroy Syria’s chemical arsenal.

Despite that, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has continued to document the use of toxic chemicals in attacks in Syria.

In January 2016, it said blood samples taken from the victims of one unspecified attack showed victims had been exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance.

BBC:

From Wikipedia:

Advanced weaponry and tactics

That doesn’t sound very advanced to me. The technology may have ‘improved’ but the barbarity hasn’t, in fact in the hands of depraved people it is just dangerous and awful.

Total killed:
321,358–451,358 (March 2017 SOHR estimate)[65]
470,000 (February 2016 SCPR estimate)[83]


Over 7,600,000 internally displaced (July 2015 UNHCR estimate)

Over 4,800,000 refugees (August 2016 estimate NRC Handelsblad)[84]; over 4,000,000(July 2015 UNHCR estimate)[85][86][87]

BBC:

A very good question.

Korea, USA, nukes

South Korea and Japan in particular are likely to be increasingly nervous about what two unpredictable leaders might do as North Korea ramps up provocations against the US.

Stuff: ‘Inching to the brink of a nuclear war’: North Korea says missile launch was training for attack on US’s Japan bases

North Korea has warned that US-South Korean military exercises are driving the Korean Peninsula and northeast Asia toward “nuclear disaster”.

The reclusive state fired four ballistic missiles into the sea off Japan’s northwest on Monday (NZT), angering South Korea and Japan.

Kim Jong Un supervised the test launches which were by an army unit commissioned with attacking US military bases in Japan, the country’s state media said on Tuesday (NZT).

The launches were a training exercise for a strike on those bases, it said.

The North Korean ambassador to the United Nations, Ja Song Nam, said in a letter to the UN Security Council hours after the missiles were launched that the US-South Korea exercises were the “the most undisguised nuclear war manoeuvres”.

“It may go over to an actual war,” Ja warned of the military drills, “and, consequently, the situation on the Korean Peninsula is again inching to the brink of a nuclear war”.

How will Donald Trump respond to provocations like this?

Hopefully he will stick to pushing buttons on his Twitter rather than anywhere else.

Sweden sees Russian threat

It has been reported that Sweden has become increasingly anxious about a possible threat of Russian attack.

This alongside rising tensions between the US and Russia over allegations of interference in the recent election could be cause for some concern.

The Telegraph: Swedish towns told to ‘make preparations regarding the threat of war and conflict’ with Russia

Sweden’s towns and villages have been ordered to make preparations for a possible military attack in the latest sign of the country’s growing anxiety at its newly belligerent Russian neighbour.

The country’s Civil Contingency Agency (MSB) last week sent a letter to local authorities across the country asking them to maintain operations centres in underground bunkers, ensure that a system of emergency sirens is in place, and to be open to cooperating on war exercises with the Swedish Armed Forces.

“In a state of war,  civil defence for municipalities is no different from any of the other services they should provide,” the letter read, instructing local governments to “ensure their ability to maintain their functions during disturbed situations, and at the most extreme, in a war scenario.”

The dramatic call comes as Sweden returns to the Total Defence Strategy it maintained during the Cold War, reconstituting its old coastal anti-ship missile system, placing an armoured division on the exposed Baltic island of Gotland, and making plans to restart compulsory conscription as early as 2018.

“This strategy is not new. We used it during the Cold War and we are going to now strengthen coordination regarding civil defence,” Magnus Dyberg-Ek, who is leading the civil defence operation for MSB, told the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper.

“What is new is that the security situation in our neighbourhood has worsened, and that we must therefore make preparations regarding the threat of war and conflict.”

This must be quite concerning for people in Sweden and Scandinavia.

“There is nothing to suggest that war is likely, but we have been given an order from the government to plan for it,” Svante Werger, the press officer for MSB, told the Sydsvenskan newspaper.

That sounds a bit contradictory.

In 2013, the Russian air force conducted a mock nuclear strike against Sweden during war games which saw a contingent of Russian aircraft approach Swedish airspace after crossing the Gulf of Finland.

This was one of several examples of dummy nuclear attacks against Nato and its allies in recent years, according to a Nato report.

During the election Trump suggested the US under his rule may not support NATO countries if they became involved in conflict.

Does Russia see an opportunities in expanding it’s influence with Donald Trump’s rise to power in the US? Maybe there is no threat to Sweden there could be a few countries in eastern Europe with increasing apprehension.

After the US election Time asked Can NATO Survive a Donald Trump Presidency?

Throughout his campaign for the presidency, Trump has suggested that the world’s most powerful military alliance should be run like an insurance scheme or a protection racket. In a typical remark on the issue this summer, he said allies that don’t “reasonably reimburse” the U.S. for the costs of defense should expect to be told, “Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.”

An emerging consensus in Europe has called Trump’s remarks the beginning of the end of the global order that has kept the West united since World War II. At best they mark the start of a bruising renegotiation of the transatlantic friendship. But it’s hard to tell which is closer to Trump’s true intention, because like so many of his policy positions, the statements he has made on NATO have come with plenty of caveats and room for retreat.

During the primary race this spring, he repeatedly called the alliance “obsolete.” But after winning the Republican nomination, he told the New York Times in July that he would like to preserve it, adding that only “fools and haters” would suggest Trump does not want to protect U.S. allies.

The ambiguity has left some room for optimism, at least among the defense experts who are willing to discount Trump’s apparent disdain for the idea of mutual defense. “I think this was politicking,” says Lord David Richards, the former head of the British Armed Forces. “I have every confidence that he will be as resolute on this issue as all U.S. presidents have since the formation of NATO,” he tells TIME.

I think that it’s too soon to have confidence in what Trump may or may not do.

Perhaps more importantly, what Putin may do, taking advantage of Trump’s ambiguity and possible lack of resolve in helping allies in NATO.

If Russia made any more military moves in Europe it’s difficult to guess whether Trump would try to stay uninvolved, or play tough guy and risk escalation, or shock the world with strong, principled and careful standing up to any Russian aggression.

If Trump continues to push the notion that NATO is a commercial enterprise – reliant less on the mutual trust and commitment of its members than on the question of who is picking up the check – he could alienate his European partners so completely that they will have no alliance left to defend. “Everybody will be so frustrated and disappointed with the other side that they will not feel a desire to continue,” says Shapiro. “NATO will become a hollow shell, because nobody will be contributing.”

A lot of that frustration has already begun to show. Even Europe’s typically cautious and understated officials have begun warning that NATO could split down the middle. “It might be that [Trump’s] policy priorities will lead America far away from some of the European basic principles or interests,” Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s top official for foreign and security policy, said in an interview televised last week.

International relations are complex and difficult enough in better times. Superpower uncertainty under Trump’s presidency may be opportunistically exploited, and history has proven, escalations can quickly get out of hand.

Especially perhaps when you have egos like Putin’s and Trump’s involved.

Back to Sweden versus Russia – war between them may seem unlikely in the modern world, but in the last Millennium there have been twelve major conflicts between Sweden and Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_between_Russia_and_Sweden

War for Auckland

The Spinoff has announced ‘the war for Auckland’ (they now have a separate ‘Auckland’ menu):

War?! We know, we know. But what else would you call the vastly differing visions for Auckland presented by Auckland 2040 and Generation Zero? We feel like the next few months will define this city’s future, and will thus cover the Unitary Plan and the subsequent election with a rare fury. Read on to hear our justification – and to find out how you can help.

Today The Spinoff launches a new pop-up section. For the next three months, alongside Television, Sports, Politics and all that, we will also have an unashamedly campaigning new part of the site called The War For Auckland.

The name is a little provocative, sure. But we think it’s what we’re living through.

Today Auckland Council will receive a final set of recommendations from its Independent Hearings Panel on the Unitary Plan. That sounds like a wonky, impenetrable thing. But we think it happens to be a pivotal moment for the Unitary Plan – the single most important publication for this city in our lifetime. Potentially the most important it will ever know.

What I’m saying is: if we lose this fight, we might as well all leave. We think that’s a deeply depressing thought. We don’t want it, and won’t give up the city without a fight. That’s why we’re getting worked up and belligerent in naming the section.

They are also seeking funds to run finance the war.

So this post is to announce our intention. But it’s also to say that, if you believe this is important too, then we’d love your help. We’ve funded every part of our coverage of this election and the housing crisis ourselves to this point – from satirical takes to deeply reported features. It’s part of how we give back to the community which raised us. But it’s also exhausting, and expensive.

So for the first time we’re opening up the opportunity to contribute to The Spinoff financially via our PledgeMe campaign. We’re asking for money for this specific project, from both businesses and individuals, to chip in either publicly or anonymously. What we’re saying is: if you think it’s important that we live in a modern city which is fit for purpose into the future, then we would love your help to cover this election with that in mind.

The money we get will be ploughed into paying contributors, increasing the social reach of election-specific posts, creating collateral, developing election-specific parts of the site, paying fact-checkers, creating video – basically anything we can think of to make the young and the interested care more about the election, and get them voting.

But someone has tried to bomb the war effort.

SpinoffVersusBomber

Chloe King is right, Bradbury and The Daily Blog have long had a reputation for censoring comments that don’t fit their narratives and for banning people they don’t like, so that’s very ironic.

And yes, Bomber’s tweets are unavailable to me as well as The Spinoff and probably a lot of others that are seen as in the wrong army to the far left revolutionary’s.

The Spinoff ‘war for Auckland’ seems to have sparked a war on online fund seekers and attention seekers.

We remember, but what can we do?

Thanks in part to ANZAC Day New Zealand does a good job of remembering the horrors and the stupidity of war.

Sometimes war is unavoidable, if someone is intent on waging war.

But World War I is best known for the stupidity and futility involved in what result in the killing of many millions of people and difficult to quantify damage to many others.

The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was more than 38 million: there were over 17 million deaths and 20 million wounded, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history. The total number of deaths includes about 11 million military personnel and about 7 million civilians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

And WW1 and it’s aftermath contributed significantly to the reasons for and the conditions under which World War II started. There has been endless debate about whether anything could have prevented Germany and Japan from launching multiple invasions, but regardless, it happened, with dire consequences.

World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history in absolute terms of total dead. Over 60 million people were killed, which was about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

There hasn’t been anything on either scale since, in part because of a determination not to let anything like it happen again, in part due to the nuclear deterrent, but there have been many smaller conflicts. There has also been a move to more asymmetric warfare.

Is the war in Ukraine still going? I don’t even know what the outcome of that conflict is.

Can we do anything about large scale conflict from New Zealand?

We have a small but respected peacekeeping force that operates in a number of countries – but we are currently helping Iraq wage war better.

Unfortunately sometimes fighting back is the only realistic option to prevent death and destruction.

New Zealand can play a part in trying to reduce armed conflict, especially while a member of the United Nations Security Council.

Promoting Helen Clark for the role of UN Secretary General will help promote significant future Kiwi input.

But is there anything we as individuals can do about war?

The Edmund Burke quote comes to mind.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Perhaps that’s an over simplification, but it does make a good point.

Homs in ruin

Drone footage of the devastation of Homs as a result of the Syrian civil war has been getting some attention.

Homs was the third largest city in Syria with a population of about 700,000.

Before:

homs_collage

During:

onotkil

After:

Man wreaking terrible destruction on man, women and child.

This is far from the first time this sort of ruin has been self inflicted.

Key, TPPA, riots, Waitangi and civil war

Rhetoric about John Key, the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreeement, and the Treaty of Waitangi and Waitangi Day is rising to absurd levels.

Are some left wing activists seriously trying to talk up riots, civil wart the revolution? Or is it just nutters going nuttier than usual?

It’s not unusual to see Martyn Bradbury going over the top.

Dear NZ Police – about the TPPA 4th February protest

Dear NZ Police.

You suffer as much as we all do from this Government’s lack of social funding. You pick up the failures of our mental health system, education system, social welfare system, prison system and alcohol culture.

You do it all with ever decreasing budgets.

The TPPA will act as an upper house of our Parliament and with the growth of corporate monsters like SERCO, it’s only a matter of time before their failed social experiments get forced upon us here citing the TPPA as their entrance point, and you as a Police force will be left to clean up the ever expanding societal meltdowns.

So if your commanders give you the order to attack on 4th February remember two things.

One, you are as impacted as the rest of us by signing this TPPA.

and Two, the world will be watching.

Which side are you on boys?

It’s a bit alarming to see Chris Trotter getting involved (although this is also at The Daily Blog):

Let’s Not Lose Our Tempers: If Key wants a riot outside Sky City – don’t give him one

I’m suspicious. Because John Key is not prone to making tactical blunders. Which raises the worrying possibility that the readily predictable consequences of his decision – mass protest action outside Sky City, with a high probability of violence and property damage – may be exactly what he wants to happen.

And then there’s more extremes like this from :

John Key Wants War Between Maori And Pakeha. Are You Going To Let Him?

On the 4th of February 2016 two days before Waitangi day. John Key intends to sign the TPPA. The treaty will allow international corporations to usurp most of New Zealand’s sovereignty. It will deregulate the financial industry, allow corporations to sue our government for loss of profit if we don’t let them run rough shod over what is left of our fragile ecological systems and destroy what is left of our social support systems.

It will also destroy one of the most important social documents and contracts of this country: the Treaty of Waitangi.

And John Key knows this. The ruling elite knows this and they like the idea! What is more, most Pakeha who identify with the ruling elite rather than face reality and realise they are part of the 99%, like that idea too!

And it’s an easy fault line for the 1% to aggravate the 99% into an all out civil war between Maori and Pakeha and here is what is being done to make sure they get what they want.

  • The signing of the TPPA in Auckland two days before Waitangi dayguaranteed to incite a heated emotional response.
  • John Key intending to attend the Commemorations at Waitangi Marae which is the mother of all shit stirring exercises.
  • Opinion Pieces in major news papers inciting racial division and Mike Hosking pandering to the basest of prejudices as ususal!
  • Releasing information about riot police being trained to deal with political unrest to inflame emotions.
  • People inciting violence in comments on political blogs to make sure the people who own those blogs can be arrested or made redundant as part of the aggressive political fringe loonies when they try to inform people.
  • Putting up the rag touted as the new flag to inflame emotions.

And here is what is traditionally done to make sure unrest will arise even if the people keep their cool:

So if anything gets stirred up it’s going to be all John Key’s fault along with a compliant police force.

It would be frightening to see this sort of thing openly posted and promoted if any of these loons could be taken seriously.

This NZ Herald report has fed the fanatics.

TPP: Police undertake riot training

New Zealand Police have been undertaking mass riot training ahead of the signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Auckland next month.

The trade agreement, that has sparked widespread controversy due to its closed-door negotiations, will be signed by international diplomats on February 4.

Dozens of large-scale protests have been held across the country as the five years of negotiations for the deal came to a close in the US last year.

The Herald understands that increased riot training – officially known as public order training – has been taking place ahead of the signing, as police prepare for more possible civil unrest.

Police Association vice-president Senior Sergeant Luke Shadbolt said that the TPP signing was the focus of annual public order training.

The Herald understands that the training goes over and above previous annual training, and involved more staff on a “mass” scale.

Bryan Bruce at it too:

Is Divide And Conquer The New TPPA Strategy?

Almost seems like they are trying to talk up some sort of Springbok Tour uprising.