iran has shot down an american drone , in its own sovereign airspace
a clear violation of international law by the usa ( not for the 1st time )

how can new zealand claim to support the rule of law , when it supports a nation that violates that very law ?

im wondering , does anyone here believe new zealand should send its sas to fight american enemies , who have done nothing at all to new zealand

NZ is a small country. History has taught us that if you "rock the boat" you will be sunk by larger craft, i.e. we rely heavily on NATO countries for trade.

Remember the "Rainbow Warrior" and the "French agents" who were caught (practically "red handed") and then NZ was blackmailed into sending them back to France? OK, if you don't personally remember it, you may have read about it. If not, do some research.

This is why NZ will send the SAS to fight US enemies regardless of the morality or otherwise of the situation. NZ cannot afford to take a moral stand with regard to anything.

Like the old Ronnie Barker/Ronnie Corbett/John Cleese sketch: "NZ: I know my place".

i remember the rainbow warrior , and the fate of the 2 who were caught

but as for the sas , imo , this was simply clark selling her soul , for a future after politics

i completely agree with you that the pressure applied behind closed doors was great
but so was the pressure applied to lange ( remember his " nuclear weapons are morally indefensible speech , at the oxford union debate ?)

yet he still managed to resist that pressure ( although it had consequences )

in the grand scheme of things , our sas is a very small piece
of much more importance , is the selling of our assets , the 90 day law , and many other things , which will change our society , much to the detriment of most new zealanders

as for my question , i will assume you disagree with the decision to have our men fighting another war
although it does seem you defend this decision based on " what else can we do , but do as we are told "

I'm not really defending the position NZ is in, I'm just pointing out reality.

As for "Clark selling her soul for a future after politics". That is very true, but also we have to realise that she did not own OWN the SAS personally (even though she had definite delusions of grandeur and believed very strongly that she did, and that they - along with all NZers - were slaves that she could personally do anything she liked with). Sure Helen Clark has a cushy "job" with the UN now, but all NZers paid dearly for it. Clark sold every NZer to the UN in order to get them to accept her, and her assistant (H2, otherwise known as Heather Simpson). Yes, just like the European aristocracy, she "took her staff with her".

We are owned "lock, stock and barrel" by the UN. That is where MOST of the unpopular policies of successive NZ governments have come from (examples are: The UN demanded that all countries have a "digi-photo driving licence". So sure enough, we were tricked, lied to and Doug Graham (the AG at the time) literally used SLEIGHT OF HAND to foist one on us, AGAINST OVERWHELMING PUBLIC OPPOSITION. Another example is the "anti-smacking Bill", the UN demanded that all countries have an "anti-smacking Bill, so AGAINST OVERWHELMING PUBLIC OPPOSITION, it was foisted on us). It really had nothing to do with Sue Bradford, she was just the only one dumb enough to sign the Bill as hers before it became a "government Bill". However, as she is practically illiterate (although she her literacy has improved no-end since she became an MP), how could she have written such a document?

I don't know why Lange seemed to "get away" with a nuclear free policy, but I applaud him for it. I don't know what price we truly paid for it though.

I am totally baffled by the "UN thing" as well. That was always a conversation stopper when discussing the "anti-smacking Bill", as soon as you said it was a "un demand", people would clam up. Puzzling, but it was admitted to in writing several times throughout the 10 year long debate.

However, of course you have to consider that UK supports any American attack on Iran, and as we are part of "the empire", we have to do what UK wants too.

we didnt " get away with it "
there were diplomatic repercussions ( downgrading of status from " allay " to " friend " , the practical nullification of the anzus treaty , etc )
as these were the only real methods available to the usa at the time

Another example of NZ doing "what we are told" has come up recently.

The "Kim Dotcom case". I can't believe that NZ is being so dumb as to do exactly as the American FBI tells us to do and has "confiscated" (read stolen) the assets of someone who has not even be found guilty of anything at all - and not only that, but there is no chance that he would be convicted in a fair court. And that is why the American FBI is demanding that NZ "extradite" him to the US. As we see examples all time, "justice" in the US means what the police or the prosecutor or the judge at the time, wants it to mean and there is incredible corruption.

The NZ government (against a lot of public protest and absolutely no trying to get public agreement) "brought in a law" that makes it possible for the government to steal (err ... I mean "confiscate") the assets of CONVICTED criminals, but there is no law that says it is OK to take everything off someone who has not even been convicted of anything.

This is another case of NZ giving in to US bullying, if John Key had any backbone at all he would tell the FBI to "go and take a running jump".