I am pretty sure that if rebels took to arms to unseat Cameron, Cameron’s moral argument would be that it is wrong to submit to violence. After all, wasn’t that the official angle during the London Riots: that regardless of whether the riots had a reason behind them, violence is never acceptable? But it’s another country with an enemy in charge. And suddenly it makes sense to say that ‘the people’ must be allowed to forcibly take over.
I am disgusted with the UK and the US for making out that this is such an obvious situation - as if peaceful talks aren’t an option right now. Remember the bombs dropped at the end of World War II? Japan was ready to negotiate surrender, but it was decided that it was better to humiliate them.
“During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…”
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
Now watch Libyan Information Minister Moussa Ibrahim explain that Libya is quite ready for a peaceful resolution: Video
Cameron and Obama, you pathetic fools.