Cameron Threatens War Against Iran – Again

Our idiot Prime Minister, David Cameron, is quoted in the Jewish Chronicle as threatening Iran with war if Iran does not stop its nuclear programme – which Iran insists is for peaceful energy purposes. Speaking at a Jewish fundraising dinner, Cameron said:

“…nothing – and I mean nothing – is off the table if Iran makes the wrong choice.”

Someone should tell the posh prick that the colonial era is long over and people around the world do not need to take insulting orders from London anymore. Just imagine if the tables were reversed and a Muslim group said that if the UK bombed Iran then “nothing, and we mean nothing would be off the table” – how do you think they would be described? As terrorists, right? Yet, we are told to accept the thinly-veiled threats from idiot Cameron  as the wise words of a statesman.

I have blogged previously about the UK’s very blatant double standards when it comes to nuclear technology in the Middle East. The UK remains silent about Israel’s well-known stockpile of nuclear weapons but when it comes to Iran, it is sanctions, more sanctions and threats of war all the way.

Let’s hope someone teaches Cameron and this bullying government some lessons in manners.

This entry was posted in Extremism, Government and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Cameron Threatens War Against Iran – Again

  1. Brendan says:

    Inayat, a small but very important matter you may have overlooked; Iran have signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement making themselves accountable to the world in regard to their nuclear activities, they have not, and are not being completely transparent for reasons known to themselves. Israel on the other hand has never signed this agreement, also for reasons known to themselves . On a positive note it seems sanctions are working quite well against the Iranian regime, thier currency is in freefall. When the next round of ‘elections’ come round shortly the Supreme Leader will no doubt cast the blame for the debacle on his tub thumping PM Mr Ahmadinejad. Let’s hope the SL uses better judgement when selecting his next puppet.

    • Brendan: If we followed your logic then all Iran has to do to shut Cameron up is to pull out of the NPT so that it becomes a non-signatory, just like Israel. Do you really think Cameron would then remain silent as he does about Israel?

      • Brendan says:

        Inayat, noted. I’m not sure the SL or PM in Tehran are not too concerned about a bit of Cameron hyperbole to a few Jews in the UK, whether they are in the NPT or not, they will hear it for what it is. I feel your wider is point is really about who are our friends and foes in the world and why, which is a pretty big question. For the record I’ve met so many wonderfully cultured, sophisticated, and creative Iranian people. I’ve never been there but would love to visit and tour its rich heritage and history, maybe one day. Sadly the 1979 revolution has in the main delivered little but anguish, conflict, and misery to the people and to many of her neighbours as well. Those in power blame everyone else for their woes, but ordinary Iranians on the receiving end of their reckless policies deserve better.

      • Stephen Savva says:

        Don’t know why you call David Cameron a ‘posh prick’. What’s wrong with being posh? I’m posh. Better then being common.

  2. Asim says:

    Britain will never be participating in any military action against Iran. As Jack Straw once said it’d be “complete nuts”. If Obama wins the American election the possibility of an Israeli strike is (in my opinion) unlikely. If Romney wins, who knows?

  3. Thoughtshuffler says:

    Inayat, you miss the point. It is acceptable for Israel to have nuclear arms because they are a civilised nation, can be trusted and remain our allies. Iran cannot be trusted. They remain a threat in their region.

  4. Jack Holt says:

    Inayat, Iran is a theocracy which shoots its own people when they campaign for democracy, which sponsors sectarian massacres in neighbouring Iraq, which calls repeatedly for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth. You’re defending a pariah nation, a tyranny.

    The UN is the world’s policeman, Cameron would need its blessing in order to take military action against Iran. Are you seriously saying that the ‘posh prick’ would be acting in a ‘colonial’ fashion if he supported a UN authorised military response? You appear to be siding with a rogue nation and against the world’s governing body! Do you think that Muslim regimes, no matter how despicable, should be outside international law?

    • You mean that the UK would never ever ignore the UN? Less than a decade ago, this law abiding country ignored the UN when it could not secure a majority in the UN Security Council and launched the invasion of Iraq. To many of the people around the world it was we who were the ‘rogue nation’.

      • Jack Holt says:

        The UK government didn’t ignore the UN when embarking on the second war in Iraq, it spent a great deal of time drawing up the legal case for war under UN Resolution 1441. We might think its arguments were spurious, but they do show the UK’s determination to keep within the law.

        The UK wouldn’t be able to take military action without either an explicit Resolution from the UN, or (as with 1441) a final ultimatum, in which case it would be doing so with the broad support of the rest of the world.

        “To many people around the world it was we who were the ‘rogue nation'”.

        To many people around the world the US probably blew up the twin towers, aliens abduct people to give them a physical examination before returning them to earth, and shooting little girls who speak up against the Taliban is tickety-boo. I’m not sure these are very interesting observations.

        Rightly or wrongly the UK involved itself in the second Iraq war. In doing so it deposed a bloody dictator who was reviled by his people. The few thousand who died during the invasion pale into insignificance against the death toll of over 100,000 in terrorist atrocities since the war finished: a huge number of those deaths have been sponsored by Iran.

        You seem to have a blind spot: you complain against the second war in Iraq but seem heedless about Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship; you complain about bullying Iran, but remain silent about its despotism and the huge lose of life it has supported through terrorism. In going against tyrannies the UK is not acting as a ‘bully’, these are regimes which oppress their own people as much as they threaten their neighbours.

        • Jack Holt: You are tying yourself up in knots. First you said that the UK respected the United Nations and would not act outside of it. When I pointed out that the UK had done just exactly that in Iraq you said :

          “The UK government didn’t ignore the UN when embarking on the second war in Iraq, it spent a great deal of time drawing up the legal case for war under UN Resolution 1441.”

          But the whole point is that when it became clear that the UN Security Council would not vote in favour of Resolution 1441, the UK went ahead with war anyway. So, the UN was to be used merely as a figleaf. That is why we are hearing persistent calls for Blair to be tried as a war criminal.

          You also seem to have a very selective recall about the reasons for going to war. We were told – despite repeated denials from Iraq – that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and that these posed a danger to the world. Of course, no such weapons were found. It turned out that the Iraqi government was telling the truth and that the liars were rather closer to home.

          Finally, you are quite correct in saying that Saddam’s regime was a very cruel one. However, it was also a very cruel regime when it launched its eight-year war against Iran
          in 1980-88: throughout that time our government happily supported Saddam.

          • Jack Holt says:

            “So, the UN was to be used merely as a figleaf. That is why we are hearing persistent calls for Blair to be tried as a war criminal.”

            Calls which I agree with, but you undermine your whole argument by admitting that the UK used 1441 as a fig leaf – the important bit is that it felt the need for that fig leaf. It is clear that the UK could not go ahead with military action without UN sanction: the UK may have twisted the interpretation of 1441, but it went to great lengths to establish the case for war based on it. There is no such resolution against the Iranian regime (i.e. an ultimatum specifying a ‘last chance’), therefore there are no grounds for the UK to take military action against Iran.

            “You also seem to have a very selective recall about the reasons for going to war.”

            Not so, you seem to have misread between the lines.

            “However, it was also a very cruel regime when it launched its eight-year war against Iran”

            If I were a Muslim I hope I’d have more concern for the plight of my co-religionists living under these appalling regimes, and less concern about the West’s patchy record towards them. Iran is an appalling regime which tyrannises its own people and those of its neighbour(s). Ditto the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. I’m surprised you spend so much time concentrating on the West’s failures and so little time highlighting appalling Muslim regimes: whether Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria. Surely it is under these regimes that most Muslims experience suffering, not at the hands of Western foreign policy.

  5. Jack Holt: “It is clear that the UK could not go ahead with military action without UN sanction:”

    As I have said a few times now on this thread – the UK did exactly that in Iraq ie it went ahead with war even though it could not get enough support in the UN Security Council to authorise a resolution for war. So, what makes you think that the UK would hesitate to support illegal attacks on Iran too?

    Jack Holt: “I’m surprised you spend so much time concentrating on the West’s failures and so little time highlighting appalling Muslim regimes:”

    Remember that I am a UK citizen – so naturally the focus for my attention are usually the actions of my own government. Hope that makes sense.

    • Jack Holt says:

      “Remember that I am a UK citizen – so naturally the focus for my attention are usually the actions of my own government. Hope that makes sense.”

      It sounds like a cop out: you’re obviously very interested in Muslim issues around the world, but you’re not willing to address the problems Muslims face day-to-day: the ‘Arab’ Spring in Tunisia, Egypt. Libya, Syria, Iran and Bahrain wasn’t concerned with Western interference, but the corruption and lack of accountability of their governments. That’s the issue which is the number one priority for most Muslims around the world – especially the reformists. Write about the abuses in these regimes and you might lend strength to the reformists, moan about Western interference and you simply reinforce the rhetoric of their retrograde governments. The Iranian regime is using the controversy over nuclear development to deflect attention from its internal problems.

      • It’s quite funny. After first starting out talking nonsense about how the UK would never take part in an attack on Iran because the UK respects international law, you now want me to instead focus on criticising the many corrupt Muslim regimes around the world. I agree that many of them are indeed very corrupt – not least those of the Gulf region. Funnily though, the UK is not very keen on democracy in those regions such as Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. I did write about this a few months back:

        https://inayatscorner.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/pm-cameron-silent-about-muscular-liberalism-on-visit-to-saudi-arabia/

        • Jack Holt says:

          I said that the UK needed to justify the war using 1441, no more. It’s a matter of record that the Blair government went to great lengths to justify the legality of the war. Your inability to accept this is strange considering the amount of coverage given to the Attorney General’s changing advice to the Blair government, e.g.

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8481759.stm

          Pressed about whether UN resolution 1441… He said his initial view, held until February 2002, was that getting a further resolution would be “safer” as it would put the “matter beyond doubt and nobody could have challenged the legality”…. But after discussions with US and UK diplomats, Lord Goldsmith said the “true meaning” of resolution 1441 became clear and he said that he was confident that Iraqi non-compliance with this agreement would “revive” the authority to use force inherent in existing UN agreements.

        • Jack Holt says:

          “Funnily though, the UK is not very keen on democracy in those regions such as Saudi Arabia or Bahrain”

          Why do you say that? The UK has supported the popular uprisings in every country in the Arab spring. In Bahrain there was no popular uprising,only the Shia minority of the population rose up, and the UK government was very critical of the Bahrain government’s reaction to the uprising.

  6. Jack Holt says:

    Inayat: “The Shi’a actually constitute the majority of the population of Bahrain”

    According to Wiki 81.2% of the population is Muslim and 66-70% is Shia, so the Shia proportion of the population is around 50%. But I will allow that they are not the minority of the population as I’d stated.

    “Have you seen any condemnation by the UK of the Saudi army which was sent in to Bahrain to crush the democracy movement last year? Do you think Cameron made any public statement criticising the Saudis? Take a look at the link I posted above at 1.54pm today.”

    And that proves what, exactly? It certainly doesn’t prove that the UK ‘isn’t keen on democracy in the Gulf’ as you have previously claimed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s