Friday, 13 October 2006

"Give the bomb to Iran" says senior UK Tory

"Give the bomb to Iran." That's the call of the UK Tory's Shadow Minister for Higher Education Boris Johnson, who's been described as a porky funster in a urine-coloured wig; the male equivalent of a blonde with big tits; a plummy-voiced nincompoop; the only dumb blonde in Westminster village; a man who has only just learned to dress himself; and a shrewd and calculating prick.

Having such a man as Shadow Minister for Higher Education is clear and present proof that Conservatives do have a sense of humour. And Johnson's call to "give the bomb to Iran" shows once again that the natural state of a conservative is on his knees. Neville Chamberlain is not dead, he's just wearing a urine-coloured wig and representing Henley in the House.

Shrewd and calculating he may be (let's give him the benefit of the doubt) but his latest calculated clarion call for crawling appeasement is the dumbest idea since leaving the US Pacific Fleet out there at Pearl Harbor with everything but a big 'Kick Me' sign pasted to their bows.

"Give Iran the nuclear bomb," he says, and as we see he does quite literally mean "give."
Perhaps the Americans could actually assist with the technology, as they assist the United Kingdom, in return for certain conditions: that the Iranian leadership stops raving about attacking Israel, for instance, and that progress is made towards democracy and so on. The Iranian public might feel grateful, and engaged, and not demonised.
If you feel like issuing a warning about a tridal wave of wetness. now is the time. Because it's all-engulfing.
The tragedy of growing up is that human beings acquire the means of killing themselves and others. The human race now collectively has that power. The Iranians will join in soon enough. It might be sensible if they did so in an atmosphere of co-operation and understanding, and not amid intensifying threats and hysteria...
Woosh. There it goes. I shall now leave you some space to ponder those words of wisdom (but not perhaps as much space as Iran's near neighbours might like to leave between them and Tehran's missile launch sites).
So what do you think. Does it seem any more sensible after some thought? No? Bear in mind, now that this is not Keith Locke or Chris Trotter or Oliver Stone saying this, it's offered by a senior British Conservative as a serious piece of RealPolitik.

And speaking of Oliver Stone, his own advice that "we" should just learn to live with terrorism is not just well-skewered by the cartoon above, as a colleague of mine said it is also "proof that common sense is something else you can't get out of a Stone."

It's bloody hard getting it out of a Tory as well.

UPDATE: It's an anti-Democrat ad timed for US mid-term elections, but this Madeleine Albright video spoof mocks the same 'let's just be nice' appeasement that Johnson is calling for, and that Madeleine was in her time as Secretary of State all but ready to acquiesce to. See Madeleine sing Kumaya with Jim Jong Il. See her change a flat for Al Qaeda. See it now. "Nice' is not enough.

LINKS: Give Iran the nuclear bomb - Boris Johnson, Gulf News
The only dumb blonde in Westminster village - Daily Torygraph
Boris gaffe as he says 'Give nuclear bomb to Iran' - This London
Stone cold - cartoon by Cox and Forkum
The David Zucker Albright ad - You Tube

RELATED: War, Politics-World, Cartoons


  1. Indeed, give them the bomb!

    Delivered by a Trident missile...

  2. I guess the "High Education" portfolio is where they shuffle the out-of-touch retarded-but-loyal politicians in the UK, considering Brit universities are more independent of central government than NZ examples.

  3. Har! I agree with Mr. Bastable.

  4. Mr. Bastable?

    That's an awfully formal appelation for a chap who skins possums in the bath. :-)

  5. Actually I thought he made a number of good points, none of which you touched on. But then most of them are "not pc" from a Libertarianz point of view, aren't they?

    Also, the usual calls for mass murder against a country that's never so much as looked at us funny. You libertarians are such principled and moral people!

  6. "Also, the usual calls for mass murder against a country that's never so much as looked at us funny."
    Riight--so your plan is to wait until they get a nuclear bomb and carry out what they've repeatedly promised to do?
    Great plan.
    And I didn't see PC advocating that on behalf of libertarians either, btw.

  7. kg,

    Pc may not advocate it, but plenty of the people on this blog do and he dosen't appear to object.

    And just what have Iran repeatedly promised to do to New Zealand?

  8. "...but plenty of the people on this blog do and he dosen't appear to object."
    Yeah, it's that inconvenient child of liberty and courage, eh?
    Free speech.
    And you think because they haven't threatened NZ specifically, that's ok? Nice line in isolationism you have there.

  9. You've never heard the Iranian leader repeatedly call for Israel's demise, then, dangermouse?

    Ah, but they're only a bunch of Jews, eh. Who gives a shit.

  10. Two wrongs usually don't make a right, they usually just make more wrongs.

  11. Yes Sus, of course I've heard it. My point is: what has it got to do with us? What do you suggest NZ do? Declare war on Iran and send our three or so frigates over there to teach them a lesson?

    And don't you think Israels nuclear arsenal might make Iran think twice?

    Why don't you address what I actually wrote next time?

    You and kg can call it isolationism if you want. Personally I call it common sense.

    And kg, yes I realise that people have a right to their opinion. My point is that neither PC nor any of the usual suspects have expressed the slightest disapproval about the posts basically calling for Muslims and Arabs to be wiped out.

    And yet at the same time you point out, rightfully by the way, about the frequent failure of leftists or Muslims to condemn or even mildly critique the extremists in their midst. You can't have it both ways.

  12. Gee, do we have 3 frigates? :)

    DM, I don't think it's 'common sense' to ignore any blatant nuclear threat, from any region, when it comes from a madman.

    History has shown the danger of appeasement to similar madmen.

    The material point being that not everybody plays by the same rules.

  13. You're still not answering my question.
    Given that Iran has neither the capability nor the stated intention to attack NZ (and I'm talking about an inability to project force across that sort of distance, which makes whatever weapons they might possess largely irrelevant), what difference does it make to us whether or not they have the bomb?

    In response to your other point, I'm not advocating appeasement, rather deterence. Iran's leadership (and whatever else they might be, I doubt they're stupid)must know that any use of nukes against the US or Israel would provoke a literally apocalyptic retaliation. Is it so unreasonable to suppose that an approach which contained both Stalin and Mao might possibly work with Iran?

    And yes, I know about the 70 virgins awaiting martyrs in paradise etc.This may motivate individual jihadists, but does it apply to a state? Could it be that Iran's politicians are like ours in the respect that their main consideration is preserving their own position?

    Sorry to ramble on, I kind of got on a roll...

    Incidentally, I don't know how many frigates we have, but you get my point...?

  14. danger mouse said...
    [Is it so unreasonable to suppose that an approach which contained both Stalin and Mao might possibly work with Iran?]

    The difference between Iran's head of state madman and Stalin & Mao, are that the 2 communist dictators loved life exactly as their foes were. They (Stalin & Mao) would never used those nuclear weapons as a first strike, as they knew if they were to do so, they themselves would also be anhilated in a retaliation from the US. That was the main reason , why those dictators were afraid to use nuclear weapons as a frst strike.

    Mad people as Aytolas in Iran don't love life. They want to die. In wishing to die for their God, they wouldn't mind firing a few nukes towards Israel or any US interests in the middle east, even knowing that they will be wiped out from the face of the earth by a US retaliation. Those Ayatolas don't give a damn if they (Iranian People) all die in this massive US nuclear retaliation.

    Now, you can add 1 + 2 = 4, perhaps you can see the logic presented above.

  15. Actually Falafulu I'd say the Ayatollahs would certainly give a damn if they were to die in a nuclear explosion. You're right that they probably wouldn't give a damn if the Iranian people did, which is precisely my point.

    If the Ayatollahs are so keen on dying for their god then why weren't they leading the suicide brigades in the Iran-Iraq war? Why aren't they blowing thenmslves up in the streets of Bagdhad? Why aren't they in South Lebanon with their Hezbollah clients? And frankly, what makes you think that they are immune to the temptations to maintain their power and the lifestyle it bestows?

    We know that neither Stalin or Mao gave a damn about their people, and certainly Mao never believed in socialism. Yet both were eager to posture as though they did. Why do you assume the Iranian leadership takes its own Islamic rhetoric seriously? Could it be you're crediting them with an integrity they don't possess? even if they do believe it, how strong is that belief? Would they really have the "faith" to go all the way?
    Frankly, for people who "want to die", Iran's leadership is remarkably cautious. Their beliefs (again, assuming that they do believe it)may seem bizarre to you but that dosen't make them mad per se. To pretend that they're madmen who can't be negotiated with or deterred is usually just an excuse on the part of the war party(s) to break off any constructive attempts to resolve a situation like this and proceed directly to the saber rattling.

  16. Hi DM .. sorry to prolong this, but there's a couple of quick points to which I want to respond.

    Firstly though, I do hear what you're saying. It may surprise you to know that I'm no great fan of the Bush2 administration for several reasons. The point being that I'm not blindly pro-US with regard to everything it does.

    Having said that, I have no patience for those who would throw the US into the same category as Iran & Hezbollah, etc - and many do. 'They're all terrorists!' is the cry.

    The likes of Iran & Hezbollah *are* madmen, for the reasons FF provides. You cannot seriously make excuses or try to rationalise their bizarre behaviour.

    I go back to the last point I made: Not everybody plays by the same rules.

    To try to apply any sort of 'reason' to their irrational beliefs ... (just look at how they treat women in the 21st century for God's sake!) ... is to ignore the reality of Islamofascism.

    These bastards *loathe* the west. And the greatest irony of all is that they detest secular, bleeding heart liberals, (the very ones who cry for 'understanding' and 'tolerance'), even more than they do Jews and Christians.

    Make excuses or justify their actions all you like, but the Islamification of the world is happening under our very noses.

    And it is 'the world'. *That's* why I worry about the likes of Iran. It might not be close to NZ, but Indonesia is.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.