Table of Contents
Politicians on the left are so predictable with their timing and their utterances – popping up to mouth self-righteous platitudes and arrant nonsense. For past politicians, it is a desperate attempt to try and stay relevant. In reality, it is a stark reminder of just how awful they were and a reminder not to vote for their ilk. Think of Blair, Hillary Clinton, Obama and our own Helen Clark, the Eden Park entertainment denier. These people are sanctimonious hypocrites who don’t live in the real world.
Helen is a perfect case: she is so wedded to the United Nations that there ought to be a statue of her outside the main entrance. This hapless, helpless, organisation, the world’s greatest talkfest, is central to developing, codifying and maintaining international law, defined by the UN charter to promote peace, human rights and justice among the 193 member states. Is central? Was central is more appropriate. As Trump says, the United Nations has plenty of potential but has lost its way. To put it more accurately, it has been taken over by the left and many of its actions are testament to that.
The United Nations oversees over 500 multilateral treaties and utilises bodies like the International Court of Justice to settle disputes. It’s all a complete and utter waste of time and money. The ICJ supposedly helped to solve the Cambodia/Thailand border crisis but Trump’s threat of imposing tariffs on both countries was a quicker and more effective way than a bench full of wigged leftist judges. The world is now a vastly different place and has moved on from where the UN and the ICJ might have served a useful purpose.
We are now in an era where leaders and politicians take matters into their own hands. Putin invading Ukraine is one example. Trump bombing Iran is another. Trump, as with Venezuela, went into Iran to eliminate a dictator: a man who has wreaked havoc on an entire region with the ultimate aim of inflicting that havoc on the rest of the world.
Ayatollah Khamenei did not respect any laws apart from the fanatical Muslim ones. Which brings us back to Helen Clark and the rest of the left. This self-righteous biddy, like her comrades, considers the observance of international law as of importance above all else. To refresh Helen’s fading memory, in both world wars international law was violated on many occasions. War does not respect international laws and it is ludicrous to suggest it should.
The inevitable conclusion is that you can have international law or war, but not both at the same time. If international law were to be respected, and in a perfect world it should, there would be no wars. The reality is this is not a perfect world, never was and never will be, and so we have wars.
What they are really saying is that international law, words written on paper, is more important than people suffering under evil dictators and illegal regimes. This, for example, ignores the plight of the well-educated Iranian people. Iran has the potential to make a useful contribution to the world but has been unable to do so due to being ruled by religious terrorists. This doesn’t seem to matter to likes of Helen and her cohorts. If international law was continuously observed, Hamas, Hezbollah and others would probably have wiped Israel off the face of the earth while America sat idly by constrained by rules that Helen says should be followed.
Helen et al. need to understand terrorists don’t observe international laws. It is unreasonable to have just one side observing them, as it gives the terrorists free rein. You can’t stop evil with one hand tied behind your back. These pacifists are, in effect, supporting the bad guys. While appearing to be ‘holier than thou’, Clark and her misguided band of zealots are not. This approach to the world’s problems solves nothing. Terrorists need to be stood up to and stopped.
In the case of both Venezuela and Iran, Trump has invoked conflicts for good reason: to go after dictators who were causing chaos for their peoples and their countries. In Iran’s case, it was also the chaos caused to the wider Middle East. The word from the White House is Cuba will be next.
Trump has had enough. Helen Clark can rail against it and the UN can talk about it but nothing will change.
You can argue and discuss the matter till the cows come home but you’re indulging in nothing more than time wasting. Wars are not fought on the views of the right or left of politics: they are fought between good and evil. That is the basis on which Trump is initiating military action – to root out the evil. This is where Peters and Luxon are correct: they are not being drawn into the rights and wrongs of the action taken: they are simply recognising the need for it. That is, at the very least, tacit support.
Sorry Helen. Just like you didn’t win the Eden Park argument, you’re not going to win this one either. Sod off.
