That does not mean there won’t be any or they are unavoidable. What it does mean is they should always be a last resort after diplomacy has been tried. Donald Trump understands this and it is the principle he both advocates and adheres to. He has said many times that had he won the 2020 rigged election the current wars would not have started. I say “rigged” with a certain amount of confidence as evidence is being discovered by Tulsi Gabbard, director of National Intelligence, proving this to be the case. We must remember there were no wars during Trump’s first term in office.
This principle of war as a last resort is one that has not been without repercussions for the American president. He has borne criticism of his handling of the current conflicts taking place in the Middle East and Ukraine. He has been accused of cuddling up to Putin – of being led by him. While on the surface it looks like that, Trump in reality was giving Putin every chance to come to the negotiating table. He gave Iran 60 days to do the same then took action.
Those who were criticising him were those who don’t like him; namely those on the left. Tulsi Gabbard left the Democratic Party, describing them as a party of warmongers, something I have long suspected. And the Guardian newspaper confirmed it in an article with a headline that says, “Democrats have become the party of war. Americans are sick of it.” This is a surprising but welcome truth from a publication on the political left.
The reality is the Guardian is right, for once. The Democrats are a party of warmongers and there have been Republican politicians who have joined them for that very reason. Democrats see war as a first resort, not a last. The Guardian subheading says, “In defending the militarist status quo, Democrats ceded the anti-war lane to Republicans. As they enter the political wilderness, it’s time to reckon with what they got so wrong.” That’s some admission but I can answer them.
They replaced Biden – ‘got rid of’ is a more appropriate term. He was of no further use to them as he didn’t know the time of day. He was incapable of winning an election they were convinced was theirs for the taking. They replaced him with the easily manipulated Kamala Harris, whose campaign featured Hollywood elites. These lefty celebrities, who were as far removed from reality as she was, were paid handsomely for cameo appearances and left her campaign $20 million in debt.
This didn’t bother the Democrat hierarchy, as they now had someone who, as Tulsi Gabbard said, “would do what the Democrat elites told her to do”. A bonus was she also had her marbles. Well, sort of. Again, from Tulsi, “She would drop bombs on other countries simply so she could look tough.” The Democrats can easily get into a war as in Iraq but, as Afghanistan proved, they have little idea how to exit one.
I said in my last article I would write subsequent articles linking the subject matter to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Here is the link: the Democrats are warmongers both foreign and domestic and woe betide anyone who disagrees with them. That means verbal warfare or worse. There are now warring factions in the Democrat Party itself: the moderates v the radicals.
The radical left, who are becoming more powerful in the Democratic Party, absolutely abhor everything that Charlie and his organisation stand for. That is debating the issues and expounding on the ideas of conservatism and society being built around what we know as the ‘nuclear family’. These things are an anathema to the Democrat radicals who prefer a society immersed in chaos. Why? Because then the plebeians are much easier to control. Think Ardern and Covid.
Tulsi Gabbard has drawn an analogy between the Charlie Kirk assassination and 9/11. The anniversary of the 9/11 catastrophe was the day after the Utah event. Tulsi says there is a marked similarity in the motives behind what Al Qaeda did and Kirk’s radicalised assassin. They were both trying to silence the views of those who disagreed with them. Tulsi correctly labels Al Qaeda as an example of religious fanatics and the Kirk assassin as an example of a political fanatic. Both use violence.
It could well be that we are on the cusp of the next global conflict, brought about by the world reaching a point where war is the inevitable outcome. The causes of war are hate and the desire for dominance brought about by the actions of tyrants, dictators and terrorists. These types of people have always existed and they must be stopped. Unless that happens any talk of peace is futile.
It appears from remarks made by David Seymour, much to the foreign minister’s angst, that our government is not prepared to recognise a Palestinian state until Hamas has been taken out of the equation which is the correct decision. The reason for Winston Peters’ annoyance is because he is due to make an announcement at the United Nations next week. Seymour appears awake to his error on such a sensitive topic. I guess our globalist PM was railroaded into it.
Germany has disturbed the peace of the world twice and now Putin is threatening to do the same with his invasion of Ukraine. Hamas is on its own mission, along with similar entities, in the Middle East. These types must not be allowed to succeed and Europe must ensure, along with America, that they don’t. A global conflict could well ensue, but, as in earlier wars, it is a price we pay to root out evil.
If that happens, I have a message for the leftists’ HQ United Nations – what is happening now are casualties, women and children amongst them, caused by both sides. You have already accused Israel of genocide, are you then going to accuse the world of genocide or just the side you don’t like. What an abomination of an organisation. It’s as useless as the League of Nations was before it.
