After Libya: where should Cameron strike next? | James Delingpole

August 28, 2011

Rockall: the obvious choice

Rockall: the obvious choice

Some readers may have woken up today wondering whether they have been transported into a parallel universe. In this parallel universe – let us call it Moronica – it is considered wise and statesmanlike when your country is falling to bits and £4.8 trillion in debt to borrow money you can’t possibly afford in order to finance your crumbling military to fire missiles at a million pounds a pop at a ramshackle army in a far off country in order to replace the insane despot who was formerly in charge with a newer, likely more dangerous regime.

Assuming, for a moment, that this really is Moronica that we now all inhabit, let us consider the options as to where Our Glorious Leader Dave should strike next in order further to demonstrate his international statesmanship:


Pros: on the verge of taking over the world and enslaving us all; mines evil rare earth minerals in environmentally unfriendly fashion which Sam Cam, like, totally, like hates, even though it’s OK really because they go towards the wind farms which make Daddy nearly £1000 a day on his estates; a big, juicy target that would impress David Cameron’s Notting Hill friends way more than poxy Libya.

Cons: We’d lose

Sierra Leone:

Pros: We’ve done it before so we can (probably) do it again; would strike the right Heir to Blair note.

Cons: Sierra Leone people mainly black – might raise difficult race issues in these fraught, post-Starkey times.


Pros: Would be hugely popular with the home crowd and guarantee re-election in 2015

Cons: Victory would depend, crucially, on whose turn it is to use the aircraft carrier.


Pros: see France

Cons: Our airforce likely to be decimated in low-level attacks by the massive preponderance of wind farms on the Hun’s territory.


Pros: Small, potentially do-able target in keeping with Britain’s new look, post-cuts military.

Cons: They still might beat us, if France has got the aircraft carrier (see France)


Pros: Would send a clear signal to Guardianistas that Britain is not going to be “America’s poodle”; might well result in a sexy-sexy congratulatory tete a tete with Christine Lagarde; would make the Lib Dem element of the Coalition feel more at home than ever.

Cons: Our record of beating America in wars is not good. Then again, with a President as lame-duck as Obama in charge this could yet be our best hope.


Pros: technically feasible; unlikely to offer too much resistance; could probably sustain assault by at least £10 billion worth of Storm Shadow, King Dong, Mighty Whopper, Streak Megalodon Boomibang, Whackamole, Deliberator XI, and Whooshiwhoosh missiles before giving up the ghost in a haze of satisfying black powdery stuff; a perfect opportunity to waste truly stupendous quantities of borrowed/taxpayers’ money, to no purpose whatsoever, and at no risk to UK military personnel thus avoiding any unhelpful images of Union Flag-draped coffins which might derail this project of unutterable pointlessness and stupidity. Another Libya then….

Cons: NONE. Rockall, we are go!

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: Obama’s boot boys strike back
  2. 10 Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Be In Libya
  3. Cameron’s first stupid mistake
  4. Margaret Thatcher dies; Dave basks in the limelight

2 thoughts on “After Libya: where should Cameron strike next?”

  1. K Gallowglaich says:4th September 2011 at 5:36 pmDear Mr Delingpole,

    I see that you are stretching out into areas even more outlandish than usual in order to increase your exposure and blog traffic. Well, we all have to make a living I suppose.

    I see that it has recently been announced that one of your favourite climate change skeptics papers has been exposed (the Spencer and Bradwell rubbish) as dubious in the extreme and caused the resignation of a fringe journal’s editor. Would that there was more of this sort of decent behaviour in response to such dangerous nonesense.

    My belief is that your stance on climate change will be seen ultimately to have been dangerously wrong. It is something I fail to understand in the light of all the evidence to hand and I can only assume that the somewhat manic right-wing posturing “stance” is to bring in the bacon. KG

  2. Nige Cook says:7th September 2011 at 12:05 pmCameron has already “insulted” the Chinese dictators by “pointing fingers” at them over their human rights abuse record during and before Premier Wen Jiabao’s 3 day visit in June.

    1. Britain secured $4.3 billion trade deals with China in June 2011.

    2. France secured $19.1 billion trade deals with China in November 2010 (see )

    3. Germany secured $15 billion trade deals with China on 29 June 2011.

    The point was made that Cameron’s “firm stance” on human rights has no effect whatsoever on Wen Jiabao, other than leading him to make bigger trade deals with other countries which don’t try to preach human rights morality.

    British “moral posturing” has gone a long way since 14 May 1938 when Prime Minister Chamberlain (proudly acting as “his own Foreign Secretary”) ordered the Foreign Office to ensure that British footballers gave the Nazi salute in Berlin’s Olympic Stadium to appease and cuddle up to fascism.

    Cameron should resolve the problem of China’s human rights record and British-Chinese trade relations by doing what is paid to do, i.e. deciding whether or not Britain is serious about human rights abuses in China. If Britain is serious, then trade imports from China should be banned. (Goodbye to all excellent electronics manufactured cheaply in China.) Then conscription, ultimatums to China, military mobilization, etc. In other words, he should come up with a definite plan and mechanism whereby complaining to China about its human rights abuses will resolve the problem, and if he cannot do that, he should admit that the hot air is not sorting out the problem (just as Nazi salutes in by British footballers did not sort out the problem with Hitler).

    The error is the arm-waving vague assumption that there is some kind of benefit to gestures which cannot solve the problem. The gesture of Nazi salutes, instead of resolving problems, made them worse just as wallpapering over the cracks makes problems worse. Cameron’s vocal BS on Chinese human rights is hypocrisy because he’s preventing any referendum on our EUSSR membership, which takes away our human rights here because most laws we’re subjected to are coming from the EUSSR which Britain has no control over. It’s effectively a dictatorship. Until he gives us a referendum on EUSSR membership, maybe he should be consistent and try to cultivate pure friendship with the uneChinese dictators for trade.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation