Will we be treble-crossed?

Tweeting today

There is no conceivable British interests threatened by Iran. But vast profits beckon for the international war profiteers. Ever thus.

179 British lives lost in Iraq after Commons was bribed, baffled and bamboozled with lies on on non-existent WMDs. New Iran lie is being spread

Afghan and Iraq war sacrificed the lives of 575 British soldiers and achieved nothing. Corrupt regimes still rule. Iran war would be worse.

Lying to war AGAIN? Clegg says Iranian WMD missiles threaten UK and USA. Another war planned with unimaginable costs in blood and treasure.

 

Simon Jenkins said today:

Unlike most European countries, sucked into the Afghan vortex by Nato blackmail, Britain and the US were willing warriors, with belligerence in their cultural genes. Discussing "what must be done" to order the rest of the world is second nature to their political class. Successive British governments bought into the lies and scaremongering of George Bush's war on terror. Gordon Brown and David Cameron alike claimed that the killing fields of Helmand were integral to safety on the streets of London, and indeed to the security of the British state. People believed them. War induced a cockeyed credulity.

The Afghan war has not made the west one jot safer, almost certainly the reverse. Islamist terrorism and its obverse, panicky security, is polluting this year's Olympic Games in London. Yet the war clearly responded to a yearning in many Britons to see the world as still their ancestral responsibility. To them a war that turns out right, such as in Libya, "proves" Britain's manifest destiny.

Which is why this is not the endgame. Britain is even now rattling sabres and dicing with disaster alongside the US against Iran. Such a war would be as catastrophic as could be imagined, and against a country that poses no conceivable threat to western security. The sole reason for going to war against Iran is to go to war against Iran. That is how we went to war against Afghanistan and Iraq. Clearly, nothing has been learned.

 

On the 8th December I raised the issue at the Commons Business Questions.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): A total of 179 gallant British soldiers died in Iraq as a result of a decision of this House that was based on a deception. Some 383 died in Helmand as a result of a decision that was based on the hope that not a shot would be fired. When can we debate early-day motion 2515, in order to discuss the dreadful threat of a potential war in Iran?

[That this House is alarmed that the UK is stumbling towards a war in Iran that would have dreadful, unforeseeable consequences; recalls that in the past the momentum of preparations for war has frequently led to major wars; and urges the Government to seek to reduce tension, pursue conflict resolution and cease war preparations.]

The current war of words might become a war of weapons.

Sir George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about those who lost their lives in conflict. We had a debate in Government time relatively recently on a range of countries that included Iran—I am not sure whether he was able to take part in that debate—so I cannot promise another early debate on the middle east and related areas. As I said earlier in response to another question, he may want to put in for the pre-Christmas recess Adjournment debate or apply for a debate in Westminster Hall.

 

Comments

[HuwOS]

"To them a war that turns out right, such as in Libya, "proves" Britain's manifest destiny."

By right, we of course mean, when news of it gets displaced quickly from their little brains with some other random something while the fallout from their "war that turned out right" falls on other heads.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9059989/Libyan-militia-accused-of-torturing-to-death-ambassador-to-France.html

http://www.zcommunications.org/on-the-wrong-side-by-ted-snider

"The most recent regime change is Libya. Qaddafi is gone. But who is the third force with whom we allied and with whom the Libyan people are now governed? According to information provided by leading humanitarian organizations, they are being governed by a regime that looks a lot like the old one. Last week, Doctors Without Borders, who set up in Libya in August of 2011 to treat people who had been wounded in the war, pulled stakes in Libya because they found that they were treating victims of torture instead. Having refused, on ethical grounds, to treat people during interrogation, Doctors Without Borders found themselves treating people who were being brought to them after having been tortured only so that the detainees could be made “fit for further interrogation”. Doctors Without Borders says they have treated 115 people with torture inflicted injuries.

Amnesty International says that several of these torture victims—most of them suspected Qaddafi loyalists—have died. According to both organizations, the torture is being carried out, not only by rogue militias outside of the law, but by “officially recognized military and security entities”. Amnesty International says that detainees have been tortured in “officially recognized detention centres”, including “in an interrogation centre run by the National Military Security”."

[Ad]

'Yet the war clearly responded to a yearning in many Britons to see the world as still their ancestral responsibility.'

I think this is true. Britain responds to a blood lust. War is fundemental to the national mentality.

I wonder does our political leadership face a responsibility to try and give back for that which has been destroyed by the modern imperialist actions of the USA and Britain.

It seems only fair to accept reponsibility for those who have been subjected to 'regime change'. 'We' set things on fire, kill the young men who resist and kill children and pregnant women.

[HuwOS]

"It seems only fair to accept reponsibility for those who have been subjected to 'regime change'."

Be careful of those words, they tend to be interpreted to mean that we must continue our occupations and killings until everyone is happy.

[Paul Flynn]

The choice was to intervene or condone Gaddafi's plan to go from door to door slaughtering his own people. There are no harm-free decisions. Some are less damaging than others.

[DG]

It's beyond belief that we're back in this situation so soon. There are no words.

[HuwOS]

"The choice was to intervene or condone Gaddafi's plan to go from door to door slaughtering his own people"

I've never understood why us killing a nation's people is always the better option.

As for Ghadaffi's threat,
"those leading the protesters would be hunted down door to door and executed"

A nasty and vicious threat for sure,but vastly more limited a threat than people like to make out.
The way you put it Paul makes it sound like he was planning a door by door genocide, rather than reacting badly to a limited violent uprising in part of his country.

Of course it would have been better if he had copied Cameron's attitude to his own people
"You will pay for what you have done. We will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you and we will punish you."

On the other hand while Cameron does not threaten to murder the leaders of the rioters he quite happily authorises the murder of Libyans for many months.

Explain to me, why us killing people is always the preferable option to situations where perhaps they might kill each other?