While Lady Thatcher was arm in arm on the White House lawn yesterday with Dick Cheney, standing shoulder to shoulder with our American allies, her successor but four chose the fifth anniversary of September 11th to make a major speech on foreign policy.To read THIS article in today's Telegraph, you would think the whole point of the speech was for David Cameron to distance himself from what he described as the 'slavish' relationship Tony Blair enjoys with George W Bush.
Instead, David Cameron said Britain ought to be prepared to tell the truth to its leading ally. While Tories were instinctive friends of America and passionate supporters of the Atlantic Alliance Cameron called for a rebalancing of the relationship.
I have to admit that when I read the Telegraph I had a slight feeling of discomfort at the timing, if not necessarily the content, of these remarks. Surely on such an important anniversary we should be combining with our allies to send an unequivocal message to those who seek to destroy our freedoms, rather than send coded messages to our most important ally? But naturally, the Telegraph ignored the rest of the speech, which was an unashamed call to arms for both sides of the Atlantic alliance.
While at the White House, Lady Thatcher said that "the heinous attack on America was an act of barberism and an attack on us all. With America, Britain stands in the front line against Islamic fanatics who hate our beliefs, our liberties and our citizens. We must not falter, we must not fail. We are here to remember, to pray for the dead and to share their loved ones' grieving. But we also need to renew our resolve that, however bitter or lengthy the strugle, this evil shall not prevail."
David Cameron's speech can be read in full HERE. I remain troubled by the interpretation of the speech. All the pre-spin seemed to be along the lines of "I'm not a neo-con, says Cameron." This is dangerous territory and unfortunately in this case overshadowed the content of an otherwise excellent foreign policy speech.
67 comments:
Any ideas about how to sabotage Heffer? The man has far too much influence among Telegraph writers. Fog up his glasses? Get him some that actually work?
I lean Left and I thought Cameron was spot on, and the timing was right. I felt that Cameron was, just in time, dragging the all but completely shredded remains of Britain's self-respect and world reputation out of the American neo-con mincer. And, hey, wasn't yesterday the day on which Dubya admitted publicly that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center - for bad timing, that statement takes the biscuit.
I also noticed the ravings of a mad old bat who seems to think that she is still Prime Minister. I don't know why we should give her more airtime than, say, David Icke.
Blair's poodling up to Bush and the neo-cons and his unquestioning support of Israel is instinctively unpopular in Britain. The electoral beneficiaries of this have been, up to now, the Lib-Dems. It's about time the Tories started recognising the deep unease of large sections of the public and speaking up for them.
Not only is it right to question the morality and, more importantly, the effectiveness of US foreign policy, but it is also right for us to consider what benefit for us can flow from inflaming the Arab world against us.
I am delighted that DC has shown some leadership on this - not to mention the electoral benefits that will accrue from it.
Whats wrong with the Telegraph these days. They always look for the worst angle on anything Cameron does or says. They gave more coverage to the car accident in India than any other paper for instance. Its becoming the house journal of the nutters on Conservativehome.
So you're not going to mention the blatant plagiarism by DC's speech writers then...
Your inclusion of Thatcher's statement really gets you thinking.
Just imagine how she would be dealing with all this.
Fundamentally she and Cameron do stand on the pillar, it is just their manner that differs.
The most important difference is this - decisiveness and determination in public was always backed up with the same in private.
Reagan and Bush Senior always enjoyed the boldest support in public and cold British steel in private.
Cameron may just be trying to restore that, despite the Telegraph's determination to misrepresent him
On a totally different subject, Iain, why have your articles slipped half way down the page* the last couple of days?
Or is it just me?
(*Please note this is not meant to be euphemistic in any way!)
I think it was Winston Churchill who said that a true friend is one who is willing to criticise you.
As we've seen with Blair's poodle policy, the blind loyalty only resulted in "Yo Blair" as Bush tucked on a bread roll and, with his mouth full, told Blair that Condi Rice was going to the Middle-East.
Cameron will have to shoulder some criticism. The Times is laying into him too, as the likes of Brenda Maddox and Gerard Baker type out the latest orders from Murdoch.
Iain:
Well, I do take your point and it's a fair one... but did David Cameron - or anyone close to him - not read the speech, consider the date it was to be delivered on, and predict exactly the story that ended up running in the Telegraph?
If not, the Tories better hope for a long and bitter leadership row on the other side of the House.
If so, then David Cameron isn't anti-American but he's quite happy to cynically pander to them. And that's worse in my book, not least for making sure an otherwise excellent address went unreported.
Indigo: You take the Grauniad too seriously. Bush said that in 2003.
I agree with what Cameron said, but I still think it was a bit tasteless to give the speech on the anniversary of 9/11.
And, Indigo, I agree about the 'mad old bat' - couldn't have put it better myself.
Of course the US remains our closest ally. As well as a common language (Bismark once noted that "the most significant aspect of 20th centuary politics will be that the UK and the US have a common langage") we also share values and a belief in democracy. That does not and must not mean that we slavishly adhere to US policies when they are wrong.
I’m naturally a Tory but I believe the one thing Labour has got right has been its foreign policy from 2001 to now. Blair has not given unquestioning support as many charge – See Kosovo or the doomed attempt for the misnamed second resolution on Iraq for some critical disagreements.
This speech worries me because I’m beginning to doubt Cameron’s reliability. What exactly is he suggesting here that is different from what has gone before, there is no post-event u turn on Iraq or Afghanistan and Blair sought a multilateral approach so what would Cameron have changed? I don’t see it. What I see is an attempt at hitching onto the pacifist anti-America bandwagon without actually coming out and being a pacifist anti-American. The timing is also terrible.
Its a very bad football manager indead that admits defeat when 1 nil down after 5 mins, to a smaller club with less money good players history of victories and fan base.
Nobody said that this war was going to be easy or be a short one. It does not matter a toss what GB, DC, TB, HC, or MT or what any of us say, events in this war have a momentum of their own, of which our leaders are not as yet in controll,AND THEY ALL KNOW IT.
Only good thing is we have a habit of getting the message in the end. Letts hope the wests luck and nerve holds out this time.
The way many write I think it best we keep a copy of the Koran handy just in case.
Cameron know exactly how the speech would be spun and it does not take a genius to work out how the Telegraph and Thatcher would repsond. I am sure he is more than happy to be painted as Anti-American to one audience - and then able to point to other sections of his speech which say that he isn't.
What is really worrying is the content of the speech itself which is just a very long collection of sound bites - serious people have connected thoughts. If the Liberal Conservatism set out is to be the basis for our foreign policy god help us - the world is a lot more complicated than that. Why replace one set of simplistic neo-con ideas with another set which are almost as simplistic! All we need is "humility and patience" to replace the current glamourous and exciting soundbites - really!
If not, why not?
Distancing from neoconservatives is a necessary PR exercise. Cameron sounds good on facing threats - this quote from his speech.
'we and others are justified in using pre-emptive force when an attack on us is being prepared, and when all means of peaceful dissuasion and deterrence have failed.
Furthermore, I believe that we should be prepared to intervene for humanitarian purposes to rescue people from genocide.'
To Prodicus (12:11 PM), actually I read it on the Democratic Underground forum yesterday. I would provide a link to the particular thread but the DU has done something to their Discuss page which has f****d up the display on my 'puter.
permanentexpat - patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Discuss.
P.S. 'Youthful and dynamic' will do for a start.
This "mad old bat" critic is 55 but has a work-life balance (which Maggie never had). There is such a thing as knowing when to go, instead of being chummy with people who shoot their friends at extremely close range. Imagine if Ted Heath were still alive - yesterday he would have been standing on the White House lawn arm in arm with an anti-gay American Xian fundie.
I'm no fan of Cameron, but this seems to be a particularly poorly judged stunt.
Bring back Lady T.
We need her.
I think the answer lies in wether David is allowed an audience with President Bush.
My guess is that The Conservative party are out for the forseeable future and the USA will consider them to be untrustworthy.
My view of David's piece in the Telegraph is he doesn't want to be in the fight against terrorism.
His view is typically 'old Labour' and is playing to the audience.telling people what they want to hear is OK as long as you tell the right story.
If David is saying we don't want to know to America at war, then it's curtains for the time being for the Tories.
Doom.
tapestry- please learn what Neocons are before you begin flinging the word around with such crass ignorance. You don't sound smart and worldly when you're using a word 100% wrongly.
Interesting that every time David Cameron gives a speech, people have to come in and explain what he meant by it. People come in and overlay their own meanings on it, because usually, it makes no sense on its own.
If that speech meant what it may have meant, if I'm reading the runes right, it was in appalling taste on the 5th anniversary of 9/11.
Cameron's an insensitive, ignorant jerk with an inexplicably high level of self-regard. He is not a leader.
We have, it seems to me followed Bush in to many errors of judgement, when we do not appear to have said "No, not like that".
For example, not enough troops in Iraq to secure the country, Abu Grhaib etc.
However, we need not worry to much about thsi white house, which has some very arrogant people in it (Dick Cheaney and Donald Rumsfeld) but the next which with a bit of luck will have Senator John McCain in it.
I agree with Camerons speech entirely.
Dr Doom (1.48), My view of David's piece in the Telegraph is he doesn't want to be in the fight against terrorism.
That's wise, I think - no one has yet answered the question: how will we know when we've won (the so-called war on terror)? What does "victory" over terrorism look like? Does it look the same from the USA as it does from, say, Lebanon? There is no exit strategy, just endless war. From Bush's point of view, he has succeeded: as others have pointed out, since 9/11 no one has died in a terrorist attack in the US; but in the rest of the world, over 73,000 people have died as a result of the "war on terror", most of them Iraqi civilians. And 2,670 American soldiers.
Cameron's speech was well judged if ill timed. He vitally needs to create some space between himself and the poodle if the conservative party is to have a chance of reigniting a real debate about foreign policy. No-one is saying/has said we are not America's ally. But that doesn't mean our leader should be so far up Bush's fundament that all judgement, caution and perspective is abandonned. Everything bad Blair has done in foreign policy terms is because he did not have the courage to ask the right questions nor to examine the implications. Its too late now to say we had poor post-invasion planning in Iraq, or to realise that Afghanistan was one war that needed prosecution at the time with energy, care and thought rather than abandonning it mid-stream to fuel Cheney and Rumsfeld's ambitions to topple Saddam, however awful he was. We can like America as a friend, but we are not like America as a country. Its time we realised that.
Well I glad you are reassured Ian I was just thinking myself `Now you`ve gone to far Cameron`. I `ll put up with a disingenuous position on tax cuts and much else but being included as a `Liberal Conservative ` is a personal agony( For god's sake we spend all our time campaigning against Liberals in Islington ). This meretricious speech strikes many notes that will infuriate party members but the most irritating element is the way Cameron is using every opportunity to `distance himself from Margaret Thatcher` . ( See also silly comments on South Africa ). This is what is called anti marketing as practiced by Burberry ie to get rid of unwanted customers and thereby get back upmarket. Am I such an unwanted customer?
David Cameron accuses American policy of being `driven by easy sound bites` and in doing so proves himself utterly ignorant of the very different language assumptions behind US political discourse . Foreign affairs are often the arena where core principles are easiest to see having been long ago compromised domestically. Some of us have been waiting for exactly the moment when DC entered the fray to see what we have . Alarmingly what we hoped was a moderniser sounds more like a Liberal than I can cheerfully stomach.
David Cameron is clearly no Margaret Thatcher and while he may be wise advertise the fact `electorally` un chivalrous is the best possible construction I can put upon it . I suspect far worse and I dread to think what Simon Heffer will make of it as this is the first time I have felt myself to be moving onto his side
By the way I had a go at versifying recently and it seems apt
The Liberal is a puzzling creature
This journalist or bearded teacher ,
Believes in something so he says
But what it is we cannot guess
He seems as worthy as brown rice
He cooks with `whine` and says he`s nice
His colour from a certain view
Can look quite red , or look quite blue
He stands for principles that bend
And never fails to tell his friends
He cares about community
But use the schools, oh no not he
This Liberalism often means
Quite the reverse , or so it seems
With running laws both hot and cold
To make us do as we are told
Oh yes there's the environment
He say the rest of us are bent
On killing off the bio -sphere
God knows where he got that idea
But any way the lectures flow
Most freely with his weed that grows
In Asia , often farmed by slaves
Best smoked whilst talking of fair trade.
The answer's yes , now what's the question
This `intellectual abstention `
Is what we call the Liberal stance
So lets all sing
` Give Quiche a chance`
`
Liberal Conservative !!!!! Ugh , and the worst thing is I cannot believe David Cameron is either so economically illiterate or naïve as to be adopting any of these positions for other than purely expedient reasons
By the way my name is Paul Newman I just can`t work your site
Actually, I have long believed that the reason of Blair's close relationship with the Bush administration is that, with different shadings, he believes in and agrees with much of what Bush has said and done. And the times the US have tried to accomodate the UK, such as the second UN resolution for the Iraq war, things blew up in the Yanks' face.
I agree that DC's timing could have been better. The media is reporting him as an anti-American, something that when I read the rest of the article I could see he wasn't, so that's a relief.
As for the rest, well Bush is the albatross around Blair's neck, the US president is irrationally unpopular in the UK so no need for DC to step in that particular hornet's nest. Dubya won't the president PM David Cameron will have to deal with, anyway. Maybe Hillary, and the picture of Dc and Hillary Clinton dancing the White House will be a hoot!
I agree with Dr Doom. The Tories are out of office for quite some time yet - maybe forever if a new and appealing party gets started.
Dave is a June bug - very light, fidgety, blows around in the breeze ...
Philip Walling writes: "permanentexpat - patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Discuss." It's always good to have something trite to fall back on when you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to construct an argument from scratch. Do you think people tune into this blog to discuss old saws?
Paul Newman - Bravo!
BTW, the site is easy to work. Below the Comment box, where it says: Choose an identity, you get a choice of Blogger (that's if you're signed up), Other and Anonymous. Select Other and then write in Paul Newman or whatever.
DC's speech incredibly ill-timed and of course people were going to jump all over it despite the content which is NOT anti-American. Nevertheless I'd like to know who in the hell advised him on it.
It will now go the way of the 'hug a hoodie' speech which really was an excellent speech and said nothing at all about 'hugging hoodies'. For somebody who has been so media savvy these are two very worrying happenings.
Just to be pedantic, did Lady Thatcher actually describe the September 11th attacks as "an act of barberism", as in shaving heads, trimming beards and red and white striped poles? Or did she say barbarism, as in thugs who hate freedom, democracy and the West trying to lay waste to us?
Depuis quand est-ce que la Grande Bretagne est devenu un departement francais? Un etranger penserai que le chef des Tories n'est pas David Cameron mais Chirac!
***
Since when has Great Britain become a French Department? A stranger would think that the leader of the Tories wasn't DC but rather Chirac!
It is disappointing and disgusting to see what passes for conservative thought in the UK these days. What value is an Atlanticist who most prizes criticising the US on the anniversary of its most wounding attack? Of what use is a "conservative" party that doesn't believe in fighting for the shared values of Anglo civilisation? It seems like it is high time that the colonies wipe their hands of the fate of all Europe, and leave the UK to the tender mercies of France and Brussels.
We expect to be stabbed in the back by every other country in Old Europe, but not by an English Tory. If this is the way of the world, then so be it. We will leave you to your fate. No more rescues, no more invasions, no more expedtionary forces from the RCAF, RAAF, USAF, RCN, RAN, USN...
I guess it's all for the better anyways, as it seems like King Charles is likely to demand an unconditional surrender anyways. So much for the old country. Have fun obeying Abu Hamza.
"Lady Thatcher said that "the heinous attack on America was an act of barberism..."
I didn't realise the goal was a short back and sides for everyone....
I think DC was right to make the speech, and to make it on a day when it would be noticed. Wrong to plagiarise it, of course, but that seems to be normal for today's speechwriters.
The Telegraph's reporting of Cameron is quite odd. All but a handful of their regular readers will vote for him anyway, and it is inconceivable that a party that has been out of power for nearly a decade will take notice of a newspaper encouraging them to continue along the path of failure. What are they trying to achieve?
Lady Finchley writes: "For somebody who has been so media savvy these are two very worrying happenings."
Media savvy? Dave? He's pulled a lot of empty stunts, but I wouldn't classify them as "media savvy". In fact, he has yet to express one coherent thought or sentence to the media.
Chocolate oranges. Huskies and Norwegian ice floes. The place where Gandhi (a real egomaniac backwards looking thinker, by the way)was cremated which Dave seemed to think was his "tomb". (Psst! Dave! His "tomb" is the Ganges. That's a big river. Duh.) Bikes. Hoodies. Disabled kid. Windmills on roofs.
Yup. A very coherent national policy shines through.
Verity 1.54 pm.Cameron's an insensitive, ignorant jerk with an inexplicably high level of self-regard.
My God - he has got leadership qualities after all.
His majesty merely wishes to convey his support for his Government in this, a most difficult time.
He further applauds the sympathetic priciples being pursued by his Government in resolving the issues of re-training for former terrorists.
your obediant servant etc...
tapestry - Yes, the same set of qualities he shares with Tony Blair. Rank over-valuation of himself.
I am a Briton who has great admiration for George Bush. Unlike the rabid George Bush haters here, I have lived in Texas, I know the ethos and I know the penchant for understatement and cards played very close to the chest. Mr Bush is a good poker player.
There is only one man who can get us out of this islamic mess allowed to develop by Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair and that is the current President of the United States. You surely don't think Tony Blair has the resolve or intelligence to do it, do you?
Mark my words. (And if you're going to argue with me, try to speak from an informed point of view, not visceral playground excitement.)
I have read his speech. I suspect it was spun because the content, although woolly and superficial, isn't that anti-American. I suspect the spin doctors want to create a perception that Cameron is not Blair, although paradoxically he want us to think he is. Hardly the stuff of Churchill at Fulton Missouri. More like a Powerpoint policy. To take issue with some of it:
>>Muslims, like Palestine.
How many of the 9/11, Madrid or 7/7 bombers were oppressed Muslims from Palestine?
>>But true success in this endeavour, and true progress in making the world a >>safer place requires a deep understanding of what we're dealing with.
This is true but his speech seems to lack that very understanding.
>>They are driven by a wholly incorrect interpretation - an extreme distortion - >>of the Islamic faith, which holds that mass murder and terror are not only >>acceptable, but necessary.
Islam is not a monolith with a correct interpretation. Take Salafism, but one interpretation of Islam. Within that there are shades of opinion. Some support the Saudi government. Others like Bin Laden do not. But neither is particularly attractive to Western eyes.
>>As I said in a speech on this subject in August last year, "there is no list >>of demands we can accept and no group of terrorists we could meet and >>negotiate with - even if we wanted to - to stop the attacks."
Not read Usama Bin Laden's messages then? He has a clear list of demands. But a list to which the West can and must never accede.
>>Deporting those foreign nationals who threaten or directly encourage terror.
What if they are EU nationals? Or face torture when deported? I doubt that a new Conservative administration will repudiate the ECHR or the EU Treaty if it comes down to it. We have little sovereignty left here unless we want to repatriate it. Is he serious?
>>The fact is that that Britain just cannot achieve the things we want to >>achieve in the world unless we work with the world's superpower.
The lesson of Suez. Big deal.
>>We should be solid but not slavish in our friendship with America.
Does he not remember Mrs T tell George Bush snr during the first Gulf War that " No Time To Go Wobbly, George"? In fairness to Bush jnr we don't know what counsel Blair has offered. And vice versa. Cheap shot.
>>But I believe that in the last five years we have suffered from the absence of >>two crucial qualities which should always condition foreign policy-making. >>Humility, and patience. These are not warlike words.
Err. Tried that one with Iran via the EU 3 and we have got precious little from it. Iran is a growing menace whom it seems will need force of arms to stop its mad agenda.
>>The danger is that by positing a single source of terrorism - a global jihad - >>and opposing it with a single global response - American-backed force - we >>will simply fulfil our own prophecy.
Not sure I follow what he is saying here. Is he seriously saying that there was an alternative to not invading Afghanistan? Because clearly there wasn't. By 2001 it had become a vipers nest of extremism under the Taliban.
>>Our aim should be to dismantle the threat, separating its component parts, >>rather than amalgamating them into a single global jihad that simply becomes a >>call to arms.
Al Qaeda is a network not a group. Swat on bit and the rest is left in tact.
>>DEMOCRACY CANNOT QUICKLY BE IMPOSED
I found this section troubling. This seemed to be a reheat of the worst sort of Heath/Hurdism. In any case has Cameron not heard of Sierra Leone? Blair did a good job there to give the Grinner some credit.
>>There has always been scope for multilateral action that involves NATO, the >>UN, the G8, the EU and other similar institutions. But I believe we will need >>to both reform existing institutions, and develop new ones if we are to have >>the range of response mechanisms we need for the range of security challenges >>we face.
The old international institutions are ill suited to our current purposes. What we need is a new Anglo-sphere to take the lead: UK, USA, Canada, Australia and India etc. By Anglo I mean those nations that subscribe to the values which Cameron professes but which our forebears exported. Don't forget that the US Founding Fathers were British.
Finally, no speech these days would be complete without a quick swipe from the moral high ground at the bet noir Israel, hence the reference to disproportionate Israeli bombing in Lebanon. Can we please stop bashing Israel. After all the good old dictator's club, aka the UN, does such a good job.
I think of myself as a Liberal-Conservative too [not in the DC view of Liberal as Notting Hill liberal, but more Gladstonian 19th century liberal], thus my Thatcherite bent, and grudging acknowledgement that one of things that TB has largely gotten right is foreign policy...
My reading of British foreign policy:
1. There has always been a whiff of anti-Semitic snobbishness in BR. upper classes---Tory party—makes the zionist positions of Churchill/Thatcher doubly admirable.
2. Labour party, which would have been natural friend of Israeli laborite kibbutzism pre TB had, like the continentals, drifted into knee-jerk anti-zionism, pro Arabism, which TB has re-balanced.
3. Churchill famously described Br. Foreign policy as 3-legged: commonwealth (now quite moribund)—Euro—American. TB has managed to keep balance between America and Europe (well, he did as much as he could, considering that he could never replace the Chirac-Schroeder axis). Now that Sarko-Merkel present somewhat more appealing prospects for DC to increase influence in Europe (save for the EPP thing), it strikes me as foolish for DC to be “distancing” self from US. The cute “special but not slavish” Hague-ianism is just that..cute.
4. Could end result be that PM DC finds self with less influence in Washington, as also in Paris and Berlin..in an inverse of Hurd, with BR ‘punching below its weight”? Now that would be an achievement to put a smile on Heffer’s face.
The Druid - Thanks for that round-up.
Dave doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, which certainly comes as no surprise. I agree with all your comments, but would like to draw attention to this remark of Dave's in particular, because it is barking:
">>They are driven by a wholly incorrect interpretation - an extreme distortion - >>of the Islamic faith, which holds that mass murder and terror are not only >>acceptable, but necessary."
Dave has a deeper knowledge of islam than all these imams and wotnots? He has studied the koran, in the original Arabic, for how many years? He can tell the islamics what's an "incorrect interpretation" of their religion?
Sorry, Dave, but millions of islamics believe they have to conquer the West by the sword to establish islamic fascism all over the world for their diety. They can support this with passages from the koran and the surahs.
Islam is a religion - or cult - of terrorial conquest. That is why it is legal to marry little girls of 13 - so they can get started breeding warriors. That's why it's legal to have four wives - breed, breed, breed.
Yes, there are some more thoughtful sects that do not interpret the koran in this way, but frankly, most do. They believe islam has hegemony over the entire world. This is not a misreading of Islam. It is its point.
This silly, ignorant statement - with its shiver of dhimmitude which curdled my stomach - has lowered my opinion of Dave, and I didn't think that was possible. I now think he is not just dim, but dangerous.
I forgot to add, in my previous post, that he is apparently making the mistake of seeking advice from the Camel Corps. This is a dangerous mistake. It is the Camel Corps which has caused much of the present danger in Britain.
I would have hoped that the Leader of HM Opposition would have been able to see this for himself. I think William Hague, for example, wouldn't touch the FO with a barge pole.
I forgot to mention in my previous post that there were chilling clues in all this that Dave has been getting advice from the Camel Corps. Nothing could be more inappropriate or more dangerous.
He, or his advisors, should surely know better than to go scurrying off for advice from these committed islamists. They're dangerous. (He probably gave Douglas Hurd a phone call, at the same time.) Let Dave take advice from conservative British or American think tanks with an interest in Arab affairs. Not the FO!
This is probably one of the more sensible things that the Conservative Party has said recently.
A sensible, considered approach to foreign policy rather than a slavish adherence to the views of others.
Gets my vote.
Verity you're right. And in case anyone disagrees just read the excellent Islamic Imperialism - A History (Yale, 2006) by Prof Efraim Karsh at KCL.
Most people 'just don't get it' including Cameron and his crew to judge from this speech. What is deeply worrying is that these are the people who aspire to defend our nation against a most dangerous enemy. We can only hope that in power they 'wise up' to the realities of the situation - like ex CND member Blair. Frankly they seem out of their depth already.
Yes, (Cameron has) the same set of qualities he shares with Tony Blair. Rank over-valuation of himself. (Verity)
So that's to approve then?
Neoconservatives wanted to push history along, once they'd formed the view (prematurely) that it had ended. Cameron's distanced himself from the end of history, as well as levelling with Blair. He's had a good day.
Ask any Moslem if they are more interested in world domination or in making a living, and they will mostly answer the latter. Their philosphy is battling not with Christianity, not with democracy and the West, but with economics.
Economics is a damned difficult enemy to fight. Historians write of the power of the sword, and of the pen being mightier. What pisses Islamists off, is that even mightier than the pen is the can of coke. They can blow themselves up but they will not stop the march of economics.
Tapestry, please don't fling around American words you don't understand. You are clearly out of your depth trying to figure out what NeoCons are,mainly because you are not familiar with American political players. (Hint: the clue is in the prefix.)
"Ask any muslim if he is more interested in world domination or making a living ...".
They don't see the two as mutually exclusive.
And hundreds of thousands of them in Britain have already answered in surveys that they want their tribal shariah law in Britain. Getting your own laws imposed is a first step towards domination. That is why this must not be granted. As a millet (which they have requested in France) must also not be granted. Fortunately, the French are not bleeding hearts.
Once they got shariah law, which they won't, softly, softly on little cat feet, they would want some aspects ("only some aspects; where it's compatible") applied to the rest of the population.
They failed to get their shariah in Ontario - although it was close - and they failed in Michigan. They will fail in Britain and Europe as well, but it will not be for want of constant pick, pick, picking and constant appearances on TV discussion programmes talking about how universal it is and how it benefits everyone, blah blah blah; write your own script. We've heard it often enough.
Already 15% of young men surveyed in Britain said they "could understand" the motivation of the London Transport self-detonating murderers.
Don't be complacent. Islam is an aggressive religion/cult and they don't give up. They have god on their side, and they see the West as dar al-harb - the house of war. But they are gnawing away at making us dar es-Islam because that's what their diety has directed. Why? WTF knows? But for sure, Dave Cameron's statement tells me he does not know diddley about Islam.
an act of barberism ... no, no.... She was condemning it in the strongest possible terms available to her by comparing it with the economic policies followed by her predecessor's chancellor.
Yes, excellent, well-balanced speech by Cameron regardless of how the neo-con nutters in the Telegraph and above attempt to spin it.
Aha frivolity thats what I like to see. I know it was in the Mail but don`t you think .
Woman wearing Burka asks ..` Does my bomb look big in this `
.. is funny .
Just me then
David Cameron does not have to be anti-american to be anti the governments they have had over there for the past couple of decades. Most Americans are anti them also. They just don't feel inn may cases that they have anyone to vote for as the candidates of both main parties are bought and sold by massive rich lobbying interests. Incumbents are rarely displaced, whichever Party they are in, and it's heading that way over here too.
Verity - I am here for enlightenment. Please don't give HInts and riddles. enlighten those less fortunate than yourself.
It has been said that a neo-con is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. No doubt reality is lurking in the shadows ready to mug Dave.
I'm fucking screwy I am!
I've lost the plot.
But the best way to deal with this lot is to nuke everyone and everything.Nuke the fucking lot and be done.
This Government talks bollocks.]
KG.
His Majesty merely wishes to convey his good wishes to all peoples and faiths around the world, and further supports his Government in upholding decent values that have made his Country the envy of the world for it's tolerance.etc etc..
Message end reuters...
Looking at the headlines offered by google news, i couldn't believe that they were all referring to the same speech.
I was pleasantly surprised to have read the actual speech...
theking'sspokesman - oh, shut up.
Tapestry - Druid gave you a succinct explanation of a neocon in the post below yours. It's not complete, but it's all you need to know from this side of the Atlantic, given that you don't know any of the Neocon figures in American politics.
The notion that Mr Bush, Mr Cheyney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice are Neocons verges on lunacy.
I was hopoing for a more intellectual reply Verity - not a list of names.
But Verity, all of those you mention are members of the 'skull and crossbones' society.
A society so secret, that even they did not know they're members.
In order to leave, you have to die.
The initiation ceremony is quite remarkable.
Dressed in a leapordskin leotard, they have to dive through a giant flaming rabbits mouth shouting banzai!!!! with a knife in hand.
All presidents are members of the freemasons and the skull and crossbones society.
All oil magnates of the world are compelled to be members.
Verity's simple questioning of simple titles is quite understandable and I'm sure she'll doubt this story.
But it is very true, having first hand knowledge of such an event.
Doom.
tapestry - I have a suggestion. Do your own work.
Doom - you forgot to mention the Bilderberg Society. What have you got against them? It it TOP SEKRIT! They rule the world behind closed doors. All the (Western) world leaders are secret members. Maybe this is what all these islamic attacks are about: They want to be members of the Bilderberg society and the Free Masons and all that other neat stuff that white males do. They want to go on that secret retreat (can't remember what it's called, but all the world leaders go; in fact, they're so busy going to all these retreats and secret meetings that they have clones operating in Paris, Brussels, DC, etc to lull the populations into a false sense of security.)
That Dave Cameron's a member. I seen 'im once.
The amount of fuss over 9/11 is bloody ridiculous. Think of the thousands dying everyday from the effects of poverty and hunger.
When do they get speeches from Bush et al, and a minutes silence.
I thought Auntie Beeb covered it well. A yank realised that they were hitting back at the wrong people. There were figures from IraqBodyCount. It was balanced with coverage of the violence in Iraq, to show we aren't winnning Bush' nonsensical 'war on terror'.
Thank goodness for the BBC.
anonymous 9:30 - and your confused,ill-iterated post meant what, exactly?
You're an American who loves the BBC?
British understanding of the Neocons might only be partial. American understanding of Cameronism is non-existant. Two cultures divided by a common language once more.
Tapestry - Why on earth would the Americans spend time understanding Cameron? They're canny people who surround the President. They know they'll never have to deal with him.
why are we wasting our time on this website then? if there's no chance for Cameron, don't waste your keystrokes.
Post a Comment