Guido highlighted the pizzaidf service earlier today. I am proud to say that I have purchased pizza and soft drinks for the brave soldiers of the IDF. I believe it is the least we can do to support our friends in
Show your support now:
Everyone is familiar with the phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. It will come as no surprise therefore to hear that the new darling of the British media is Al-Qaeda. Since the very start of
“We cannot just watch these shells as they pour wrath on our brothers in
If Labour is so desperate to cut obesity levels in the UK why don’t they lead by example and dethrone the Fat Fella? Something tells me though, given their recent track record, that they are much more likely to appoint him as the country’s ‘chief fat-fighter’ than they are to trim their waistline.
The Lib Dem’s greatest embarrassment (greater even that Ming the Meaningless), Mark Oaten, has decided to stand down at the next election. He apparently intends to “focus on human rights and third world development issues”; although I am sure he will manage to fit in some of his ‘other’ interests as well. Indeed one can only imagine the vigour with which he will pursue said ‘interests’ now that the glare of the media is off him.
Ever ready to jump on the bandwagon Ming the Meaningless has called on Tony Blair to “suspend any further arms exports to Israel”. Just as one of our greatest friends is under attack from Islamic extremism Ming the Meaningless seeks to take his sword away from him. His reason for this is the so-called disproportionate force being used by Israel against Hizbullah (although the liberal media would have us believe the action is against Lebanon). As I have said before I question the ability of anyone to judge the proportionality of Israel’s action against Hizbullah given the nature of Hizbullah’s tactics and the manner in which they hide themselves. The utilisation of civilians as human shields should not provide blanket protection to Islamic extremists and allow them to attack innocent civilians with impunity.
Israel is acting, legitimately, in defence of its citizens. We should be standing shoulder to shoulder with them, not seeking to undermine them.
The ever failing John Reid in a blatant attempt to deflect attention from his consistent ineptitude has announce plans for a uniformed border control force. Not satisfied with wreaking destruction on things already in existence in would seem our ever eager Home Secretary wants something new to mess-up. That said I am not opposed to the idea of an effective border control force, well equipped and with the mandate to do the job. However something tells me John Reid’s border force will fall someway short of this noble target.
That said, John Reid’s proposal raises an age-old question that is never addressed in public. Given the UK’s geographic location the number of asylum seekers who arrive directly on our doorstep from whatever state they are fleeing is minimal. The vast majority of asylum seekers have to pass through several other highly developed liberal democracies (eg France, Germany) before they arrive in the UK. Why then is it that rather than seeking asylum in the first safe state they arrive in do they pass through several more before asking for our help? This surely raises questions about the validity of their asylum claim, and more importantly the extent to which the UK, under the Labour government, is seen as a soft touch.
Liberals never cease to amaze with their anti-Israel rhetoric. Numerous marches are taking place across the
Perhaps though taking a stand against Islamic extremism is politically incorrect; we wouldn’t after all want to offend Hizbullah’s civil liberties.
In my first article for Conservative Home's platform I argued that we conservatives need to ensure that the possibility of military action being utilised to resolve the current Iranian crisis remain in play. If we accept this charge then I submit there is a further question that we must resolve ourselves to answer: if we believe that the use of armed force may be necessary, are we prepared to countenance the possibility that the level of force so required may extend to nuclear action?
We are after all facing a potential nuclear threat; that being so surely the possibility of nuclear action on our part, or our allies part, would not prima facie seem de facto disproportionate. Accordingly I contend that a case may be made for the use of nuclear force against Iran.
However one hard truth must be faced about such action. Any nuclear strike(s) against Iran would have to take place before nuclear weapons, developed by Iran, were handed over to terrorists, and accordingly may even have to take place before any such weapons have been manufactured. This being so we must be mindful that the basis for our use of nuclear force would be intelligence indicating the possibility that Iran is developing nuclear weapons of its own that may in turn be handed over to said terrorists.
Just as I argued in my previous article that we must not let the failures with regard to Iraq preclude our advocacy for the use of force against Iran so too do I submit that we must not allow past intelligence failures in general to prevent us ab initio from advocating the potential need to use nuclear force. Our action in the future must not be dictated by mistakes in the past; we must learn from those mistakes but not be subjugated by them. Instead we must be driven by our overriding desire to protect our nation and its allies.
The US has already indicated that nuclear force would provide the only 100% guarantee that Iran would be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, and by extension prevented from handing over such weapons to terrorists for use against the West. Of course jus
t because nuclear weapons provide such a guarantee does not mean we should use them. To draw an analogy if Mr X believes Mr Y is planning to assault him he could, by murdering Mr Y, guarantee that that assault never takes place. Obviously any reasonable person would point out that such an extreme response should not be used given that Mr X can also prevent the assault through the use of any number of other less excessive means. Likewise it goes without saying that if less destructive measures can resolve the situation in Iran then they must be used. My point is simply that given the high stakes game being played by Iran we should not dismiss any military option out of hand. The nuclear option may not be palatable, but its effects are certain and if we face a situation where nothing else can ensure our complete protection then it should be used.
On a related note it is of fundamental importance that we do not allow the current crisis in the Middle East, which has prompted Israel to defend itself, to distract us from the potential nuclear threat posed by Iran, indeed as Israel has pointed out that is exactly what Iran wants. Moreover the Hizbullah attacks against Israel should serve to reinforce our understanding of the potential threat Iran poses. The rocket attacks (well over 1000 of them) serve as a constant reminder of Iran’s willingness to supply terrorists with weapons to attack the West and its allies. It is precisely this possibility, in the nuclear theatre, that we wish to prevent.
