Bronwen Maddox in today's Times online has a vomit inducing puff piece for the ridiculous Jimmy Carter. In an article entitled "Jimmy Carter is right to say the unsayable" she goes on to say how Jimmy Carter has just reiterated what every left wing liberal progressive fruit bat has been saying about Israel for decades - that the Middle East conflict is all their fault.
I don't know why she thinks that is so unsayable - the left have been saying it ever since Israel took it's first tentative steps in 1948 - but Bronwen Maddox has a talent for selective memory.
On the basis of Carter’s speeches in Britain this week, many Europeans would embrace the 83-year-old former President as their ideal occupant of the White House.
Er, no - on the basis of his record most of us would embrace Carter with a strait jacket.
Maddox goes on to say that electoral victory somehow gives legitimacy to the concept of the destruction of a sovereign state.
“We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction,” Obama said after Carter’s Hamas trip, skating round the fact of Hamas’s legitimacy, through electoral success, and its senior roles in Palestinian government.
Right on, Bronwen! If only we'd thought of that during Hitler's time! Oh, we did - and it didn't work. Shucks - still, maybe it will work this time, eh? After all, the Nazis were a crazy ideological bunch intent on the destruction of the Jews while Iran and Hamas are ..... damn.
Finally, having made several references to South Africa's apartheid regime during her Carter idolatry, Maddox misses the biggest point about South Africa.
Although no one has the answer to Hamas, or Iran, Carter is entirely right to point out that they are not going away, and that the tactic of shunning them has not worked.
Funny how the "tactic of shunning" worked fine for South Africa, but has no effect on Hamas or Iran. Anyone want to guess why? (Clue: millions of dollars in aid every year from the EU and South Africa had no oil)
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Missing the target
It is sometimes difficult to understand how the liberal mindset works. On the one hand you have the situation where the journalist Mark Steyn is being prosecuted for "Islamophobia" by the courts of British Columbia for having the effrontery to criticise the RoP while here we have the Independent criticising the British government for not allowing all homosexual refugees from Iran instant access to the welfare gravy train.
Action should be taken immediately to declare that those fleeing Iran, and certain other countries, on grounds of sexual persecution will not be forced to return to their homelands. Not to do so would be tantamount to Britain endorsing state-sanctioned murder on grounds of sexuality. The Government should announce a change in the application of the rules at once.
Hmmm, what would those "certain other countries" be? Would they also be nations who just happen to be, coincidentally, Moslem nations? And isn't that "state-sanctioned murder" actually inspired by the ideology of the state - which happens to be Islam?
This is also a nation which the liberals are always telling us we should be talking to about Iraq. Why, exactly?
What we need, if anything, is for publications like the Independent to stop giving Islam a free pass. Left wing newspapers like the Independent and Grauniad are famously uncritical of Islam - often providing plenty of column inches to supporters of this ideology to vent their anger at our western values. It is time the Independent started being less critical of Britain's asylum policy and started being more critical of the Islamic faith that drove those people to flee their home nation in the first place
We need to be telling Islamic nations like Iran AND Saudi Arabia that their ideology is unacceptable to us - and that ideology is Islam. The best way to send that message is not to make is to make it harder for Islam to progress in the west. We must stop giving in to their demands and start making a few more of our own - and we must back those demands up with real sanctions.
The obvious place to start is with sanctions which are easy to enforce - such as banning the building of new mosques, madrassas, Moslem schools and so on and closing down those which have been proven to incite animosity towards western values as recently demonstrated in the "Undercover Mosque" documentary. We can do that today and it will send a simple and effective message to Iran and Saudi Arabia - we will not accept ANY of your values unless you begin accepting ours. We can also stop pandering to demands to shut down any voice that dares to criticise Islam like Steyn or the famous cartoons.
Islam will NOT reform unless it has an incentive to do so - even then it is uncertain whether it is possible to reform it. One thing is sure, though, giving in to their demands and is not an incentive to reform.
Action should be taken immediately to declare that those fleeing Iran, and certain other countries, on grounds of sexual persecution will not be forced to return to their homelands. Not to do so would be tantamount to Britain endorsing state-sanctioned murder on grounds of sexuality. The Government should announce a change in the application of the rules at once.
Hmmm, what would those "certain other countries" be? Would they also be nations who just happen to be, coincidentally, Moslem nations? And isn't that "state-sanctioned murder" actually inspired by the ideology of the state - which happens to be Islam?
This is also a nation which the liberals are always telling us we should be talking to about Iraq. Why, exactly?
What we need, if anything, is for publications like the Independent to stop giving Islam a free pass. Left wing newspapers like the Independent and Grauniad are famously uncritical of Islam - often providing plenty of column inches to supporters of this ideology to vent their anger at our western values. It is time the Independent started being less critical of Britain's asylum policy and started being more critical of the Islamic faith that drove those people to flee their home nation in the first place
We need to be telling Islamic nations like Iran AND Saudi Arabia that their ideology is unacceptable to us - and that ideology is Islam. The best way to send that message is not to make is to make it harder for Islam to progress in the west. We must stop giving in to their demands and start making a few more of our own - and we must back those demands up with real sanctions.
The obvious place to start is with sanctions which are easy to enforce - such as banning the building of new mosques, madrassas, Moslem schools and so on and closing down those which have been proven to incite animosity towards western values as recently demonstrated in the "Undercover Mosque" documentary. We can do that today and it will send a simple and effective message to Iran and Saudi Arabia - we will not accept ANY of your values unless you begin accepting ours. We can also stop pandering to demands to shut down any voice that dares to criticise Islam like Steyn or the famous cartoons.
Islam will NOT reform unless it has an incentive to do so - even then it is uncertain whether it is possible to reform it. One thing is sure, though, giving in to their demands and is not an incentive to reform.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Why I now think it is right to talk to Iran, Syria
Yes, I know I've poo-pooed the idea of involving Iran and Syria in talks about Iraq, but I've now changed my mind. After listening to the coverage about it on the radio today whilst driving back from oop north I've come to the conclusion that we really should be talking to Iran and Syria.
We should get them around a table and open the talks by telling them slowly and clearly that they must stop fomenting the insurgency immediately, they must desist from sending munitions to the insurgency and they must secure their borders and withdraw all support for the insurgency.
We should tell them that this is their one and only warning - and then we should get up from the table and leave the room.
We should get them around a table and open the talks by telling them slowly and clearly that they must stop fomenting the insurgency immediately, they must desist from sending munitions to the insurgency and they must secure their borders and withdraw all support for the insurgency.
We should tell them that this is their one and only warning - and then we should get up from the table and leave the room.
Monday, April 02, 2007
History lessons
There's something ironic about the fact that, as we mark 25 years since the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, we find ourselves once more in a situation where a belligerent and fascistic regime has acted with aggression against us.
In 1982, just as now, there were those who had urged diplomatic caution - appeasement, by another name - rather than risk "upsetting" the aggressors. The result was an all out war involving land, sea and air forces.
People forget that the Falklands War actually began in 1976 - while Britain was under a Labour government - when Argentina invaded and occupied another British territory, Southern Thule in the South Sandwich Islands. The response of the Labour government - when they eventually found out a month later - was to protest, but rule out sending military forces to retake the island. Instead, a small force was sent to The Falklands to discourage the Argentinians from immediately invading those.
It was this failure to act decisively on the issue of South Thule - sovereign British territory, albeit uninhabited - that was to lead eventually to the Argentinians later invading and occupying South Georgia and The Falklands. By the time they did, as we all know, there had been a change of government and in place of the craven appeasers of the Callaghan government, we were led by a woman of decisive action, Margaret Thatcher. South Thule was retaken 6 days after the Argentinian surrender on The Falklands - and almost 6 years after it had been invaded and occupied.
It is the nature of history that we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past if we refuse to learn from them. Appeasement does not and will not work with certain regimes. Worse still, failure to act decisively usually encourages the aggressor. That was the lesson of the Falklands which all the appeasers forget (conveniently - just as they forget the lesson of WW2).
What is needed is a swift and decisive response that sends a clear message to the aggressors that we will not tolerate this. It should be delivered in the form of an ultimatum with a hard and fast deadline and must be backed up with the capability to enforce that ultimatum. It's no good just stating publicly that so and so must do something immediately - and then repeating it a week later. You have to tell the aggressor - do this by this time or we will take action. If they fail to respond, then you act. And that action should not be just to repeat the same demand, but extend the deadline by another week!
In 2004 - the last time this happened - Britain adopted the appeasement line and claimed "success" for that approach when the soldiers were released after 3 days. The current situation confirms that the appeasement - the diplomatic - approach had actually failed and that, if anything, the aggressors have been even more bold in their contempt for Britain and that their attitudes have hardened rather than been "appeased".
In 2004 it was eight sailors, released after 3 days. This time it is fifteen sailors, their boats and equipment captured and held, so far, for over a week. What will it be next - a frigate and her crew?
In 1982, just as now, there were those who had urged diplomatic caution - appeasement, by another name - rather than risk "upsetting" the aggressors. The result was an all out war involving land, sea and air forces.
People forget that the Falklands War actually began in 1976 - while Britain was under a Labour government - when Argentina invaded and occupied another British territory, Southern Thule in the South Sandwich Islands. The response of the Labour government - when they eventually found out a month later - was to protest, but rule out sending military forces to retake the island. Instead, a small force was sent to The Falklands to discourage the Argentinians from immediately invading those.
It was this failure to act decisively on the issue of South Thule - sovereign British territory, albeit uninhabited - that was to lead eventually to the Argentinians later invading and occupying South Georgia and The Falklands. By the time they did, as we all know, there had been a change of government and in place of the craven appeasers of the Callaghan government, we were led by a woman of decisive action, Margaret Thatcher. South Thule was retaken 6 days after the Argentinian surrender on The Falklands - and almost 6 years after it had been invaded and occupied.
It is the nature of history that we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past if we refuse to learn from them. Appeasement does not and will not work with certain regimes. Worse still, failure to act decisively usually encourages the aggressor. That was the lesson of the Falklands which all the appeasers forget (conveniently - just as they forget the lesson of WW2).
What is needed is a swift and decisive response that sends a clear message to the aggressors that we will not tolerate this. It should be delivered in the form of an ultimatum with a hard and fast deadline and must be backed up with the capability to enforce that ultimatum. It's no good just stating publicly that so and so must do something immediately - and then repeating it a week later. You have to tell the aggressor - do this by this time or we will take action. If they fail to respond, then you act. And that action should not be just to repeat the same demand, but extend the deadline by another week!
In 2004 - the last time this happened - Britain adopted the appeasement line and claimed "success" for that approach when the soldiers were released after 3 days. The current situation confirms that the appeasement - the diplomatic - approach had actually failed and that, if anything, the aggressors have been even more bold in their contempt for Britain and that their attitudes have hardened rather than been "appeased".
In 2004 it was eight sailors, released after 3 days. This time it is fifteen sailors, their boats and equipment captured and held, so far, for over a week. What will it be next - a frigate and her crew?
Sunday, April 01, 2007
The final humiliation for Britain
The Telegraph reports that British ministers are planning to offer Iran a "face-saving" deal for the safe return of the kidnapped British sailors.
Ministers are preparing a compromise deal to allow Iran to save face and release its 15 British military captives by promising that the Royal Navy will never knowingly enter Iranian waters without permission.
I can not believe that this can be considered acceptable by Britain? The idea that Britain must humiliate itself - having already been humiliated by Iran - simply in order to allow a bunch of raving, apocalypse loving scum to save face is beyond reason. Who cares if Iran are humiliated - does anyone seriously believe they worry about us in the same way?
The one promise we should make Iran is that if the British sailors are not released within 24 hours then the Royal Navy will be entering Iranian waters in force.
Ministers are preparing a compromise deal to allow Iran to save face and release its 15 British military captives by promising that the Royal Navy will never knowingly enter Iranian waters without permission.
I can not believe that this can be considered acceptable by Britain? The idea that Britain must humiliate itself - having already been humiliated by Iran - simply in order to allow a bunch of raving, apocalypse loving scum to save face is beyond reason. Who cares if Iran are humiliated - does anyone seriously believe they worry about us in the same way?
The one promise we should make Iran is that if the British sailors are not released within 24 hours then the Royal Navy will be entering Iranian waters in force.
With friends like these ....
Courtesy of ATW, it appears that the EU's "solidarity" in support for the return of Britain's kidnapped servicemen does not extend to anything other than mouthing platitudes.
EU foreign ministers meeting in Germany called for the sailors to be freed but RULED OUT any tightening of lucrative export credit rules. The EU is Iran’s biggest trading partner. British officials are understood to have taken soundings on economic sanctions before the meeting but found few takers. France, Iran’s second-largest EU trading partner, cautioned that further confrontation should be avoided. The Dutch said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.
Why we bother with this useless bunch - the same can be said of the UN, too - is beyond me. If ever there was an instance when the EU could prove it's worth to the British people, it was now. But they don't - and the reason why?
Because the EU has never been about anything other than protecting the interests of France and Germany.
EU foreign ministers meeting in Germany called for the sailors to be freed but RULED OUT any tightening of lucrative export credit rules. The EU is Iran’s biggest trading partner. British officials are understood to have taken soundings on economic sanctions before the meeting but found few takers. France, Iran’s second-largest EU trading partner, cautioned that further confrontation should be avoided. The Dutch said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.
Why we bother with this useless bunch - the same can be said of the UN, too - is beyond me. If ever there was an instance when the EU could prove it's worth to the British people, it was now. But they don't - and the reason why?
Because the EU has never been about anything other than protecting the interests of France and Germany.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Iran un-phased
Tony Blair has warned Iran that Britain will move to a "different phase" if our sailors release is not forthcoming.
That'll do it, I'm sure. Actually, I'm not sure because I expect the Iranians, like me, are wondering what exactly that "different phase" will be. So far it's been a case of Britain and Iran arguing over what exactly happened and where. As far as negotiations are concerned, this is a very early "direct negotiation phase". Next will come the "EU phase" with, perhaps, EU foreign minister, Javier Solano adding his voice to the call for the captives "early" release.
After the "EU phase" will come the "UN phase". This is where it starts to get complicated as, before the UN actually does anything, Britain will have to make representations calling for a resolution. The resolution will have to be debated and the wording agreed before the UN Security Council vote on it. Then, when it's vetoed by France, Russia and China we'll go through more horse-trading until they can find a wording to agree on - something along the lines of "please release the British sailors or we'll be very, very cross and will talk to you very sternly. No offence."
Eventually the resolution may be passed and then Iran will have to respond - not!
After the "UN phase" we'll be back to the "direct negotiation phase". This is where our foreign secretary - who may not be Margaret Beckett, by then - will insist in the strongest possible diplomatic terms that our men and women are released tout- suite - or we'll be moving to a new phase.
This will be followed by the "behind the scenes phase" where the government will assure us that they haven't been forgotten about and that officials are working around the clock "behind the scenes" to secure their release.
Next comes the "combined phase" where the British government, EU and UN will tell us how they are all working together to obtain the freedom of the British service men and woman. This will be quickly followed by the "no stone unturned phase" and then the "every conceivable means phase".
At some point, our leaders may start to realise that "soft power" needs to be backed up with "hard action" - but I don't believe, as the Telegraph appears to be hinting at, that that is going to be any time soon.
That'll do it, I'm sure. Actually, I'm not sure because I expect the Iranians, like me, are wondering what exactly that "different phase" will be. So far it's been a case of Britain and Iran arguing over what exactly happened and where. As far as negotiations are concerned, this is a very early "direct negotiation phase". Next will come the "EU phase" with, perhaps, EU foreign minister, Javier Solano adding his voice to the call for the captives "early" release.
After the "EU phase" will come the "UN phase". This is where it starts to get complicated as, before the UN actually does anything, Britain will have to make representations calling for a resolution. The resolution will have to be debated and the wording agreed before the UN Security Council vote on it. Then, when it's vetoed by France, Russia and China we'll go through more horse-trading until they can find a wording to agree on - something along the lines of "please release the British sailors or we'll be very, very cross and will talk to you very sternly. No offence."
Eventually the resolution may be passed and then Iran will have to respond - not!
After the "UN phase" we'll be back to the "direct negotiation phase". This is where our foreign secretary - who may not be Margaret Beckett, by then - will insist in the strongest possible diplomatic terms that our men and women are released tout- suite - or we'll be moving to a new phase.
This will be followed by the "behind the scenes phase" where the government will assure us that they haven't been forgotten about and that officials are working around the clock "behind the scenes" to secure their release.
Next comes the "combined phase" where the British government, EU and UN will tell us how they are all working together to obtain the freedom of the British service men and woman. This will be quickly followed by the "no stone unturned phase" and then the "every conceivable means phase".
At some point, our leaders may start to realise that "soft power" needs to be backed up with "hard action" - but I don't believe, as the Telegraph appears to be hinting at, that that is going to be any time soon.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Is the EU on the brink of war?
The Telegraph is claiming that the Prime Minister has warned Iran that it only has a few days to find a "diplomatic solution" in regard to the kidnapped British sailors.
Then what?
Forgive me for sounding cynical, but if a "diplomatic solution" in that time is not reached, what will Tony Blair do about it? Refer it to the UN? That's also a "diplomatic solution", though, isn't it? Perhaps the colleagues of the EU will lend their weight to demands for their immediate return? Oh, wait - they already are and that is also a diplomatic solution.
The only way I can read the Telegraph's claim is that Blair is rattling his sabre and warning Iran that they need to hand the sailors back soon or risk war with Britain. As far as I can see, that is the only alternative to a diplomatic solution.
The trouble is, such sabre rattling is not exactly going to leave Ahmadanimbad quaking in his boots. Britain, alone, is incapable of waging war on Iran. That's not a sabre Blair's rattling - it's a penknife. And a rather rusty blunt old thing at that.
But, Blair has an ace up his sleeve because, as we are all aware, any attack on any of the EU member states interests constitutes an act of aggression against the EU and Chirac appears to support this.
Britain's position received support from other European Union countries yesterday. President Jacques Chirac of France said Britain had the "complete solidarity" of all EU leaders over the sailors.
So it seems that the EU is finally going to prove it's worth.
As I write, the French have no doubt instructed the nuclear powered aircraft carrier "Charles De Gaulle" to steam(do nuclear powered ships still "steam"?) towards the Gulf.
The Germans are mobilising the Bundeswehr (are they still called that?) to dispatch a couple of panzer divisions to Iraq and ordering several front line Luftwaffe (are they still called that?) squadrons to join Britain's threadbare RAF presence in the region.
Spain has pledged 30,000 troops, Italy 40,000, Holland 12000, Belgium 5000 and Luxembourg have promised to send their elite dog handling team backed by 5000 accountants.
I wish! As if any of that is ever likely to happen. What Chirac means by complete solidarity is that they fully back Britain's efforts to find a diplomatic solution - after that, well it's up to us.
Of course, it isn't going to go that far. Blair's "few days" is deliberately vague. What he means is "as many days as is necessary for the Iran regime to milk this for all it's propaganda worth". That could be two days or 12 days - who knows? Eventually, once the Iran thugs have extracted the "confessions", paraded them on TV and generally humiliated dear old Blighty as much as they can, they'll be handed back. We'll see them in their yellow jumpsuits - blindfolded and chained together - being marched to an aircraft or ship before their return and it will all be over.
Till next time.
Then what?
Forgive me for sounding cynical, but if a "diplomatic solution" in that time is not reached, what will Tony Blair do about it? Refer it to the UN? That's also a "diplomatic solution", though, isn't it? Perhaps the colleagues of the EU will lend their weight to demands for their immediate return? Oh, wait - they already are and that is also a diplomatic solution.
The only way I can read the Telegraph's claim is that Blair is rattling his sabre and warning Iran that they need to hand the sailors back soon or risk war with Britain. As far as I can see, that is the only alternative to a diplomatic solution.
The trouble is, such sabre rattling is not exactly going to leave Ahmadanimbad quaking in his boots. Britain, alone, is incapable of waging war on Iran. That's not a sabre Blair's rattling - it's a penknife. And a rather rusty blunt old thing at that.
But, Blair has an ace up his sleeve because, as we are all aware, any attack on any of the EU member states interests constitutes an act of aggression against the EU and Chirac appears to support this.
Britain's position received support from other European Union countries yesterday. President Jacques Chirac of France said Britain had the "complete solidarity" of all EU leaders over the sailors.
So it seems that the EU is finally going to prove it's worth.
As I write, the French have no doubt instructed the nuclear powered aircraft carrier "Charles De Gaulle" to steam(do nuclear powered ships still "steam"?) towards the Gulf.
The Germans are mobilising the Bundeswehr (are they still called that?) to dispatch a couple of panzer divisions to Iraq and ordering several front line Luftwaffe (are they still called that?) squadrons to join Britain's threadbare RAF presence in the region.
Spain has pledged 30,000 troops, Italy 40,000, Holland 12000, Belgium 5000 and Luxembourg have promised to send their elite dog handling team backed by 5000 accountants.
I wish! As if any of that is ever likely to happen. What Chirac means by complete solidarity is that they fully back Britain's efforts to find a diplomatic solution - after that, well it's up to us.
Of course, it isn't going to go that far. Blair's "few days" is deliberately vague. What he means is "as many days as is necessary for the Iran regime to milk this for all it's propaganda worth". That could be two days or 12 days - who knows? Eventually, once the Iran thugs have extracted the "confessions", paraded them on TV and generally humiliated dear old Blighty as much as they can, they'll be handed back. We'll see them in their yellow jumpsuits - blindfolded and chained together - being marched to an aircraft or ship before their return and it will all be over.
Till next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)