War does not love British PM back

UK Prime Minister David Cameron certainly loves war.

But events in Iran, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, show that war does not love Cameron back, making him look rather like a dull schoolyard bully, oblivious to how he has actively contributed to global chaos.

Cameron actively supported the 2011 military operation in Libya. Back in 2011, Cameron visited Tripoli with France’s then-President Nicolas Sarkozy to declare victory over Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in what turned out to be premature celebrations with the “rebels”, now known as ISIS.

In a recent interview however, he declared that Libya shouldn’t become a “safe haven for terrorists”, something that Libya clearly has now achieved with Britain’s meddling.

Cameron was left rather red-faced after ISIS attacks killed Coptic Christians in Libya last week.

In Syria, Cameron also supported arming “rebels” in order to attempt to oust President Bashar Assad.

Cameron, while advocating British attacks against the Syrian government, admitted he was not “100 percent certain” that Assad was behind a recent chemical attack, but that it was “highly likely.”

“This is not like Iraq, what we are seeing in Syria is fundamentally different … We are not invading a country,” he insisted. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq.

Cameron had been calling for an international rubberstamp from the UN to aid the Syrian “rebels” – aka ISIS – from the early stages of the conflict.

“Every effort should be made to secure a [UN] Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken,” Cameron said in the speech to the House of Commons in 2013.

But his attempts proved futile, as British MPs effectively ruled out direct involvement in a military campaign in Syria. The Libyan fiasco was apparently still fresh in everyone’s mind.

“Throughout this coalition government, the Conservatives have adopted a less forthright approach to the Middle East conflict, in a way which I believe risks decreasing British influence in the region,” Liberal-Dem coalition partner Nick Clegg then lamented.

Back in 2010, Cameron stated that Iran has a “nuclear weapon,” when asked about why he was backing Turkey’s bid to join the EU. The Mossad, no less, has publicly denied intelligence proving the existence of such a weapon.

Cameron then attempted to pressure the American Congress over sanctions on Iran right ahead of his visit to the US, but Republicans called it an unproductive move.

He responded that Turkey’s accession could “help solve the world’s problems, like the Middle East peace process, like the fact that Iran has got a nuclear weapon.” Perhaps no one had sent him the memo.

With an ugly conflict brewing in Ukraine, Cameron has announced that UK troops will support Kiev with tactical intelligence, training and logistics. The UK will also “be developing infantry program with Ukraine to improve the pure ability of the forces.”

The PM’s most recent warmongering comments come after the Minsk peace talks, in which a ceasefire was agreed upon by the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine.

On top of that, Cameron hawkishly called for more sanctions against Russia, in addition to those implemented during the past year.

He is said to be upset by French and German leaders Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel, who are trying to push for a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the conflict.

“We should keep up the pressure [on Russia],” Cameron said, noting that “in this respect the interests of the United Kingdom and democracy do go together.” Vladimir Putin, the most popular president Russia has had in more than a century, was democratically elected, but perhaps Cameron believes “democracy” has several meanings not included in most dictionaries.

  • Craig

    British Commander Land Forces Lieutenant General Sir Adrian Bradshaw says NATO is preparing to attack on Russian borders as Russia is “an obvious existential threat to our whole being”.

    Analyzing his statement from the perspective of Jungian Psychology I would say that he is animated by the unconscious self. He unconsciously says this by describing the threat as “existential” and to “our whole being”. His projection of evil onto the object is therefore more than out of his personal unconscious. His projection is animated by the negative side of the self, i.e., archetypal absolute evil. Another way to say this is that he is projecting the negative side of God.

    Since he is projecting absolute evil he is therefore capable of absolute evil in his actions against the object of his projection. Here I cannot over emphasize how dangerous this is: he is not only capable of committing acts of absolute evil but should be expected to do so.

    I have been listening carefully for several years to the statements of western leaders as to what the unconscious are saying out of their mouths. Again and again I hear the same message: they are animated by absolute evil. Their words betray their intentions. What they see in the object is what they themselves will do.

    I hope that the East (the SCO, the BRICS, Eurasia) consciously understand what they are facing in the West. So far I have to say that Putin and Xi have shown themselves to be capable and have avoided falling into traps set by western demonization. So far we have been fortunate to avoid the worst but the future is on a razor edge.

    What if the East draws a line that the West should not cross? Will the West, animated and inflated by the negative side of God, still cross that line?

    • Rooikop

      I think most of the western leaders have lost their minds. They have a war agenda to bolster their flagging economies which they damaged by shipping all the manufacturing to the east.

  • Rooikop

    UK driven colonisation of the world has not stopped, just changed in method.

  • Lynette Ackermann

    I wonder if the fact that David Cameron is of German-Jewish lineage has anything to do with his love of war?

    • Craig

      According to defector Viktor Suvorov NATO officers could never solve his puzzle: You have four battalions, three attacking and one in reserve; the battalion on the left has broken through easily, the one in the middle can break through with a little more effort, the one on the right is stopped. Which one do you reinforce with your reserve battalion? NATO officers have no idea. Yet they are directed by Neocons to fight the side which has solved this puzzle very well. The hawks are really clueless. The Israeli historian Martin van Crefeld says pretty much the same: “I regard a total Israeli defeat as unavoidable. That will mean the collapse of the Israeli state and society. We’ll destroy ourselves.” He goes on to say from a military standpoint Israel’s attitude to war is very stupid. “Half the Israeli population is guarding the other half. Unbelievable. Aside from the fantastic waste, it’s almost totally useless.” They will continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. They have hundreds of atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at any target. Most European capitals are targets.

      • Craig

        BTW the correct answer is forget the middle and right battalions, reinforce success; the fourth battalion goes to help the lefthand one and, furthermore, you take away the artillery support from the other two and give it to the battalion on the left. Soviet war-fighting doctrine divided their forces into echelons, or waves. In the case above, not only would the fourth battalion go to support the lefthand battalion but the followup regiments would be sent there too. Breakthroughs are reinforced. Light-hearted people in NATO or elsewhere should never forget that it’s a war-fighting doctrine that does not require absolute air superiority to succeed.

  • Engelsman

    How anyone could advocate admitting Turkey into the EU is beyond me. The Muslim Turks nearly overran Europe and were only defeated at the Gates of Vienna in 1783 – after first massacring the inhabitants of towns who were foolish enough to surrender to them.

    The Turks genocided 1 million Armenians in WWI and still refuse to apologise for this.

    Actually, come to think of it, the Turks will fit right in to the EU – Britains war crimes of burning to death 600 000 men, women and children in the bombing raids of Hamburg and Dresden in March 1945 when the war was already over, spring to mind.