So Ghandis bigest fan doesnt have an original thought in his head and is prone to plagarism? Definate shoe in to replace Blair. "Dolls head" Dave will never be prime minister of this country, most people are stupid but not THAT stupid.
September 11, 2006 at 6:18 PM
Anonymous
said...
Unless he comes down firmly against the Iraq affair in my book he just sounds too much like Bliar. We do need to see some clear water between them and I can see very little as yet. Just to move slightly away from Bush is just not enough. If he cannot see the injustice in the invasion of Iraq then it does make his judgement look shaky. Or perhaps he is afraid of upsetting the old tory brigade. Come on Dave we need some good positive statements.
September 11, 2006 at 7:03 PM
Anonymous
said...
"Im not a neo con, im not a brit con, im not a uber con, im not a wet con, in fact im not even conservative so the best description im most comfortable with is utter con"
It would serve the Conservatives well to adopt a sharper, much more critical tone on the whole Iraq fiasco. Indeed, I favour a solid Tory commitment to an independent, public enquiry on Bliar's handling of the war once we regain power...
Now that you are doing policy...[still silly season, eh?]...here goes... let me remind you that here in the US, "doing a Fukuyama" is not an adulative reflection of one...it conjures up torturous flip-flops, even dissembling.
Fukuyama was one of the original neocons, who totally denounces all that his former friends stand for, was a staunch supporter of the Iraq war but disavows such support now that the going got tough.
Not surprising, really, for a man who wrote the [in]famous "The End of History and the Last Man" at the giddy moment of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, but subsequently denied the plain meaning of the phrase when history caught up with him in the guise of the genocides and ethnic cleansings that have followed. The last I caught up with him, he claimed to have been merely asking the question (end of history?], albeit with no question mark.
So when you say that "Dave" had a Fukuyama moment, you might be right way beyond your intent.
September 11, 2006 at 8:02 PM
Anonymous
said...
Cameron's dilemna is how to admit that HM Opposition did not have the balls and the nous to challenge Blair's reasons for going to war. They bought too easily into WMD. Voters will not accept volte voce but will go along with a well argued case for getting out. On Afghanistan they should be remorseless in attacking Hoon Reid and Brown for not taking the Taliban threat seriously, for not supporting the army and for consistently underfunding. PH get used to the idea of PM Dave.
September 11, 2006 at 8:04 PM
Anonymous
said...
If you value votes avoid mentioning or visiting the US.
Not anti American, just interested in winning the next election.
September 11, 2006 at 8:06 PM
Anonymous
said...
Doesn't take long for the Tories to start appeasing does it! The US is our only true ally, we must stand by them through thick and thin. Inside David Cameron is a Neville Chamberlain trying to get out. Or has he been on the coke again?
September 11, 2006 at 8:06 PM
Anonymous
said...
Peter Hitchens - agree.
Guido - You seem to be under the impression that Mr Bush is a Neocon. He's not. Neither is Condoleezza Rice, nor Cheyney nor Rumsfeld.
Neocons are people who came over from the Dark Side, but are still pining in their achy breaky hearts for the Democrats.
Or perhaps you were cleverly pointing out Dave's ignorance of American politics? That wouldn't be hard.
Mr Crackers The "Taliban" who are currently dropping mortars on us and occasionally setting off the odd IED in-between a bit of friendly sniping are ordinary Afghans, to an Afghan this is sport, it has been for centuries, they are neither "militants" nor terrorists, they are the guy next door with a turban and an AK47 who is pissed off that foreigners are in his country and killing members of his clan and isn't afraid of death, they dont give a fuck for the opinions of sissys like bush or blair
September 11, 2006 at 9:58 PM
Anonymous
said...
Peter Hitchens, there's no such thing as an original thought.
If we are make the UK a better place we must use the best ideas from wherever we can find them.
e.g. Maybe if we used the full Austrailan version of the CSA we wouldn't have such an almightly expensive cock up on our hands.
If we built new houses to German specifications are energy bills would be lower.
Who the fuck cares where the good ideas come from?
And if I could find enough monkeys no doubt they could have typed the above sans spelling mistakes. Im in the market for a cheap source of an infinite number of monkeys with keyboard skills, so if you have some please let me know.
September 11, 2006 at 10:18 PM
Anonymous
said...
"All this political theory is getting a bit boring (particularly since everything Fukuyama says is either obvious or wrong). Can we get back to gossip please?"
Agreed, foreign policy is especially boring (although the invasion of angry lefties on the pizza delivery thread was good fun).
Still, I suppose we need some fillers before the gossip season starts again. Just a pity Millband hasn't cooked up another "consulation exercise" to keep us busy.
September 11, 2006 at 10:24 PM
Anonymous
said...
I think you'll see that the point of the story is that Cameron copied a train of analysis belonging to someone else but had to hide it (by coining new names for it) because the person who came up with that analysis was against the war...
September 11, 2006 at 10:24 PM
Anonymous
said...
Wasn't it Bush that started off this 'modern compassionate conservatism' thing?
I think Dave C is a neo-con, but he knows the liberals will be in by 2009.
September 11, 2006 at 10:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
Pure political opportunism.
Vaizey and Gove, part of Cameron’s Notting Hill Set, are paid up members of the Henry Jackson Society – the British wing of the Neoconservative Movement.
September 11, 2006 at 10:39 PM
Anonymous
said...
Verity, I know you're a strong right-winger, but surely you don't think William Kristol (Dan Quayle's Brain) is a closet lefty, do you?
Neocons are a formerly splinter, now dominant group who felt that traditional Conservatism and Republicanism was insufficiently market-based and was, in fact, altogether too squishy and warm. They think Reagan was too lefty sometimes.
Peter Hitchens do you think BMW re-invent the wheel everytime they bring out a new car?
You take what works and use it.
By the way I must apologise - there is such a ting as original thought. John Prescott has meny original thoughts..... I can shag her in my office with a load of civil servants around and it'll never make The Sun.... I know, why don't I concrete over the South East of England... I am a sexbomb...
And Gordon Brown too! The people love me! I will be next PM! The baby, I'll blame it all on the baby!
September 11, 2006 at 10:54 PM
Anonymous
said...
William Kristol’s father, Irving (the father of the NeoCon movement), was a Trotskyite.
Anon 10:54 BMW do not reinvent the wheel every few years, although for some reason they do seem to have to have put David Blunkett in charge of design, probably the same kind of mental aberration that lead the Conservative party to elect Dolls Head Dave as leader. Confiscate both their pencil cases and make them stand in the corner until mummy comes and takes them home.
September 11, 2006 at 11:19 PM
Anonymous
said...
"Second, that democracy cannot quickly be imposed from outside."
utter bollocks.
what did we do in Germany and Japan in the wake of 1945?
and look at eastern europe - in the wake of the fall of the berlin wall, did it take years and years for democracy to emerge in say Poland or Hungary? of course not.
September 11, 2006 at 11:25 PM
Anonymous
said...
Typical of Cocain Dave pops over to aAfghanistan to top up the stash then starts to spout this load of crap. Trying to please the Guardian readers, the only way to deal with ragheads nuke the b*****s
September 11, 2006 at 11:28 PM
Anonymous
said...
"nuke the b*****s "
no, a surgical cruise missile strike on Masjid al Haram in response to the next Al q attack.
will it happen? not a chance. to be honest, with the current political elite , it'll probably take a nuke with 10 million dead in NYC for it to get to that level.
and thats what saddens me - we could end this now without the 10 million being killed - thing is , i dont think any politician has the guts to do it, including Bush.
September 11, 2006 at 11:42 PM
Anonymous
said...
"Battle of Vienna" - you need to read more.
When did West Germany have its first full and free election without the need for banning parties?
September 12, 2006 at 12:01 AM
Anonymous
said...
err. thats exactly what i'm on about. we banned the Nazis, and let the Germans vote for non-Nazi parties. i have no problems with that.
so, we're in a war with Islamic fundementalism, and yet we allow Islamic fundies to gain electoral power in Iraq? does not compute - and indeed, its turning out to not be working out. the lessons of 1945 havent been learned.
Nuking all 1,500,000,000 muslims is a tall order, especially if you want anything left to live on that isn't just a bit crispy at the edges. Can I suggest a more practical alternative is to develop a genetic mutation that turns all religious zealots into athiests.
September 12, 2006 at 12:07 AM
Anonymous
said...
I'm with you towcestarian
September 12, 2006 at 12:13 AM
Anonymous
said...
Battle of Vienna - learn a bit more about history, find out when the first free eletion in Germany was (hint, about 10years after you think it is) and find out how long we had to stay in Germany to guarantee democracy.
With no intention of answering for Verity, and at the risk of going into netherworld wonkery...I reproduce below a posting I previously made on Dale's blog about the annoying catholicism with which Brits use term "neocon":
As a genuinely Anglo-American political junkie, one of my biggest pet peeves is the Brits' misuse of the term "neocon" or worse still, "neocon right"...and I mean you, emma f.
Fact: "Neocon" is not the "vituperative epithet" [for the legally inclined, Baron Bramwell's exasperated description of that strange adjective, "gross" negligence] of choice to hurl at the extreme right if one is so inclined. That would be "paleo-conservative", a la Pat Buchanan, Bill Buckley, Bob Novak, all of whom would take umbrage at being called neocons.
Fact: Neocons [Richard Perle/ex-CIA Director Jim Woolsey, et al] are actually former democrats who defected to the right as a result of the democrats' weakness in defence during cold war. The equivalent would be [name your Tory of choice...Shaun Woodward?] who defected to the the right in the 80s as a result of Labor's looniness and Maggie's seriousness in tackling issues of the day.
Fact: Most neocons are not that right wing at all. In fact, like Bill Kristol, they proudly call themselves "big government" conservatives [an equivalent of One Nation Toryism, if there is one].
Fact: People in the know would never describe Rummie/Cheney/Condi as neocons...sorry for those who hate them.
hm stanley, however Anglo-American you are, I've been involved in North American politics since before the Clinton years, worked at the Vancouver Summit (Yeltsin, Clinton, and Mulroney) and believe I'm fairly well-informed regarding the definition of neoconservatism.
While we agree that neocons and paleocons are not the same thing, you seem to have confused me for someone who called the White House Cabal neocons. I certainly didn't. True neocons' star has been fading since Jim Baker's became ascendant; he is a doctrinaire Opportunist. A lot of shit gets shoveled under that Neocon label nowadays, but Pat Buchanan and Buckley will always point it out.
And surely you know some ex-smokers. Aren't they the most fanatic nonsmokers you know? Reagan was once a Democrat.
Islamic fundamenalism has been around since the early years of the last century. It drew its energy from the lack of political and social power in colonial societies such as Egypt, but the creation of Israel gave it a further causus belli that really ramped up with the successive defeats Israel inflicted on the Arabs. It gained a further, and stronger ideological framework when the Saudis used their oil wealth to prostheletize their very particular reading of Islam (anything after 622AD bad, anything non muslim beyond the pale). If we have any hope of tackling the foreign policy issued raised by the threat of a religiously-based desire to attack the west and all its works there has to be intellectual engagement and more sophisticated understanding beyond calling for a crusade or identifying exclusively with Israel. In this sense Osama's survival may be, sadly, irrelevant to the continued energy of the fundamentalist perspective. It has gone beyond merely seeking resolution to the Israeli-Palestine issue but if we don't adopt a more intelligent tone in dealing with it, whether we have 100000 or a 1000000 soldiers in Afghanistan or anywhere else, we will not defeat it.
September 12, 2006 at 7:31 AM
Anonymous
said...
C'mon, Wahabiism has been around a lot longer than that, and it's the combination of oil riches and possession of two of the three holy sites of Islam that Saudi Arabia has leveraged into dominance. Well that and, as you point out, a dearth of leadership in other Islamic countries. They were culturally extreme, but they married that to Islam as they had to polytheism before it so that now it appears a naturally Islamic property; it's not. But it spread with the power and the money, because the Saudis financed madrassas around the world and fighting forces ditto, all of which they're being really quiet about now.
There are many other "flavours" of Islam, but this one is widespread, power-hungry, and has a very sophisticated understanding of finance. MSNBC reported that bin Laden made something like $3million dollars by shorting airlines just before 9/11.
I have the Manual of Afghani Jihad, in fact I downloaded it a couple of years ago on 9/11, and I can tell you that until the West can produce a document that gives meaning to the lives of its soldiers as eloquently as that one does, we will not win the war. Quite simply it gives them both a reason to live and a reason to die; it is a work of art, but a pernicious, evil one.
In a sense, the secularization of Western armies is a source of weakness because I do not see that they can produce a document that compelling as long as they cannot relate things to eternal values.
September 12, 2006 at 7:44 AM
Anonymous
said...
FT.com has a good pic of Mr Cameron at http://www.ft.com/home/uk.
Think Guido should tinker with it so that we can see what is behind the mask....
a man who (on foreign policy issues) will say anything, just anything to get on.
There is no shame in agreeing with others ideas, indeed that should be seen as a positive virtue...Trouble is Bush never got past number three on the list.I hope 'Dave' will have more intelectual depth.
(PS, has he washed that spot of his forehead yet?)
September 12, 2006 at 8:00 AM
Anonymous
said...
Dear Raincoaster - While it is true Wahhabism well predated the 20th century, it confined its activities to Arabia and, of course, to its lifelong marriage to the Al-Saud. The evolution of modern fundamentalism initially had its roots outside Arabia and in particular with the Ikhwan in Egypt (still with us). What the Saudis achieved was to translate a number of diverse strands of Islamic society and political opposition into their vision which is compelling for many because of the stark simplicity of its black and white view of the world -- not a million miles away from some of the ideologizing of the American Christian right. I think we are, forgive the word, in fundamental agreement. But my perspective is informed by having done my graduate thesis on Islamic fundamentalism back in the late 1970s, when I was told by all and sundry that it did not exist. Clearly I didn't believe them then. It was a pity they didn't pay attention to what I said, either. But what was interesting at that stage was that Wahhabi-influenced fundamentalism was not prominent, unlike a decade later when it grew with frightenng intensity.
September 12, 2006 at 8:05 AM
Anonymous
said...
The technology for modifying world's "faith gene" is still under development - though entirely possible within the next 5-10 years.
September 12, 2006 at 8:08 AM
Anonymous
said...
Crikey! Chameleon's read a book! How DID he squeeze it in with all the nappy-changing?
Meanwhile on home planet, we learn why the Dour One had his teeth done.
"All the better to lie through them m'dear!"
September 12, 2006 at 8:34 AM
Anonymous
said...
http://www.eleanor-abraham.com/decorative_3.html
September 12, 2006 at 8:53 AM
Anonymous
said...
vlad, we are indeed in fundamental agreement (shall we call it "progressive agreement" instead?). The timing you mention is interesting; perhaps the Saudis were unable to control the debate until they directly controlled the money flowing from the oil fields, which didn't happen until the late 70's. My own knowledge is limited to what I gathered from when my mother lived there, in the 80's.
Dear Raincoaster - don't know Ali, but thanks for the reference. I also lived in Riyadh for 8 years in the 1980s, on a Saudi, not western, compound. All of the Saudis I met and became friends with were the first generation of western-educated and influenced nationals, and were, in the main, gentle souls - perhaps academia was an influence. But outside our compound (because we travelled extensively in the country) it was pretty scary, even then, to see the hostility towards non-Saudis, non-Wahhabis (there were such people, especially in the southern Hijaz) and particularly non-Muslims. You are dead right about the money issue: the amount of money the Wahhabis were pouring in schools and clinics as the soft edge of their campaign to spread their message throughout the Muslim world was storing up problems for the future. And the curriculum in the Saudi schools themselves was as you would imagine. No surprise 19 of the 20 people involved in 9/11 were from Saudi. But their success in spreading the mantle of Wahhabism has given them the broadest possible field of further recruits.
September 12, 2006 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous
said...
To those who say we can't defeat these fundementalists, I say B******s, make it clear that if we are subjected to another atrocity we will retaliate. Put up a list of the top ten Islamic shrines(after all the Taliban were happy to destroy Buddhist religious icons). If there is a bombing caused by any of these Islamic loonies, we will start with ten, cruise missile strike working up to one 'Mecca'. They'll soon get the message. If during the cold war the a communist backed cell had been responsible for 9/11 Moscow would be a hole in the ground by now.
HM Stanley well put. I am forever pointing out to people when they vent about Neo-Cons like Cheney et al that they are getting their facts mixed up. There is no way Cameron could be a neo-con...he was never a leftie in the first place.
September 12, 2006 at 10:42 AM
Anonymous
said...
Lord Kalms hasn't said anything yet. He must have realised that he has no business trying to dictate foreign policy. Unless he was asked to clear the speech before publication.
September 12, 2006 at 10:47 AM
Anonymous
said...
Dear Senor Guido
Your North-American Supporters (eg HM Stanley/Regen=Coaster) certainly have a delightful choice of words, even at an anxious time of Computer de-fragmentation
"Paleo" seems so much gentler than the harsh Anglo-Saxon "Old"
As I struggle to modernise my Worldview from the days of Cromwell, I can now describe myself as a post pre-paleo non-neo Conservative
However, our immediate object must be humour, entertainment & ferret/rodent hunting
How can we focus these North American's language skills on this noble & gloriously anti-soviet cause
We do understand the threat we face. It's Islamofascism. We need to stop the welfare state Jizya and filter immigration and kill those who declare war on the west.
Democracy can be quickly be imposed from outside. Iraq has voting only 3 years after removing the dictator. Germany took much longer.
The strategy does go far beyond military action. That's why Afghanistan and Iraq have elections and troops removing the anti democratic forces (well massacring them), and we didn't just leave.
France made 80 billion from breaking Iraqi sanctions and trying to keep Saddam in power, why would we listen to them?
And fifth, that we must strive to act with moral authority. Which happened. It's the "fake but" media has now lost all authority.
In 20 years Fukayama will be raised in the same breath as Malthus.
anon10:10 i like that idea give them fair warning so they can ecvacuate the area then reduce mecca to rubble,although the flaw in our logic is that Islam holds no buidling sacred it is part of their faith, but on the whole its worth a go.
Then build a complex with a casino, lap dancing bars, a pork butchers and banking facilities.
September 12, 2006 at 1:43 PM
Anonymous
said...
"give them fair warning so they can ecvacuate the area then reduce mecca to rubble,although the flaw in our logic is that Islam holds no buidling sacred it is part of their faith, but on the whole its worth a go."
fair point. actually, come to think of it , demolishing mecca would be of no consequence.
it would be far far more of threat if we said we were going to occupy it with infidel troops.
then if they dont back down, we'll occupy Medina. and so on and so forth.
September 12, 2006 at 2:12 PM
Anonymous
said...
"Democracy can be quickly imposed from outside".
Technically correct - assuming you're deposing a minority dictatorship in favour of the dispossed majority. However it is not enough simply to have majority rule to qualify as a sucess.
The society in question must not resort to violent means when they disagree with the outcome of an election.
There must not be a 'tyranny of the majority' whereby the rights of the losers are trampled on.
Only in societies with a long 'liberal' tradition can democracy succeed - it's taken us 100s of years to get to where we are.
So in Iraq you have a fundamentalist Shia majority brought to power by deposing a secular Sunni minority. We will see whether they can have another election that adheres to western democratic ideals, without outside interference. I fear not.
September 12, 2006 at 2:16 PM
Anonymous
said...
Dear Lord - are these commentators for real? Or has the site been taken over by lunatics from the American right? I don't think I've read such enlightened commentary on socioreligious issues since Mein Kampf. If you want to bomb the religious sites fuelling political extremism, why stop there? Hey, there's the Vatican, selected mosques and synagogues, extreme fundamenalist Christian churches, some of the Hindu Nationalist-dominated temples and so on. Why stop there? Why not just round up all 1.5bn Muslims and shoot them all?
Under the circumstances, can I please cast a personal vote for a return to Milibranding and Blair farewell tours?
well - the Americans have just handed Abu Garaib over to the Iraqis , and more or less straight away there has been a mass execution there (27 were hung) , and real torture is now occuring again.
what bright spark thought that it would be ok to even allow fundie Islamic parties partake in the Iraqi elections? its like allowing the Nazi party to organise in the wake of 1945.
September 12, 2006 at 2:23 PM
Anonymous
said...
"If you want to bomb the religious sites fuelling political extremism, why stop there? "
how do you propose to defeat the ideology of Islamic fundementalism so? care to enlighten the rest of us?
"how do you propose to defeat the ideology of Islamic fundementalism"
The old-fashioned way was to prop up secular dictatorships giving them carte-blanche to detain, torture and execute fundamentalist dissidents.
The latest thinking is to bring them to power by insisting on free elections in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq.
September 12, 2006 at 2:34 PM
Anonymous
said...
Why is it assumed as a self-evident truth that the war in Iraq is a "fiasco." I think the anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israeli left has pulled a con. trick here. I receive e-mails every day from servicemen in Iraq who are, without exception, positive and optimistic.
September 12, 2006 at 3:02 PM
Anonymous
said...
Dear Anonymous (last post) - who are all these optimistic servicemen fighting for? I don't think its our side, mate. I wonder whether their pay is better than ours, too.
anon 3;02 welcome to the blogosphere Tony only a total fuckwit like Blair could hold such an opinon, unless secure psychiatric units have been given web access.
September 12, 2006 at 6:24 PM
Anonymous
said...
i read that headline as 'Camerons fuck your mama moment'
which was much more entertaining
September 12, 2006 at 7:05 PM
Anonymous
said...
My apologies Mr Fawkes. The mere mention of the name "Fukuyama" is enough to generate an outburst of geopolitical boring twaddle from my fellow Catholic co-conspirator self.
An awful , boring tendency, I agree. I will say 3 Hail Mary's and an act of contrition as penance.
September 12, 2006 at 7:16 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anonymous said... Why is it assumed as a self-evident truth that the war in Iraq is a "fiasco." I think the anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israeli left has pulled a con. trick here. I receive e-mails every day from servicemen in Iraq who are, without exception, positive and optimistic.3:02PM
That`s uncanny because I`ve had the complete opposite experience,not only only are they not happy,not convinced they`re there for any good reason but when this tour`s finished so are they,not going to stick around to get sent to Afghanistan and put their lives on the line,see more mates killed,for reasons only known to a few fuckwits in Westminster.These guys have served in Bosnia and Northern Ireland over the years with no complaint,general attitude apparently is "what the fuck are we supposed to be doing here?" If it`s going so well why was a young woman working in the NAAFI in Basra advised to carry a gun at all times despite never having any weapons training? She refused by the way. If Dave had stood up and said "We made a mistake supporting Blair over Iraq because we were lied to,now we want to pull out a.s.a.p." Mrs Dave could be ordering the curtains for No.10 now,shame he`s got no balls.
69 comments:
So Ghandis bigest fan doesnt have an original thought in his head and is prone to plagarism?
Definate shoe in to replace Blair.
"Dolls head" Dave will never be prime minister of this country, most people are stupid but not THAT stupid.
Unless he comes down firmly against the Iraq affair in my book he just sounds too much like Bliar.
We do need to see some clear water between them and I can see very little as yet.
Just to move slightly away from Bush is just not enough. If he cannot see the injustice in the invasion of Iraq then it does make his judgement look shaky.
Or perhaps he is afraid of upsetting the old tory brigade.
Come on Dave we need some good positive statements.
"Im not a neo con, im not a brit con, im not a uber con, im not a wet con, in fact im not even conservative so the best description im most comfortable with is utter con"
http://www.ghostofhumprey.blogspot.com
It would serve the Conservatives well to adopt a sharper, much more critical tone on the whole Iraq fiasco. Indeed, I favour a solid Tory commitment to an independent, public enquiry on Bliar's handling of the war once we regain power...
Guido
Well spotted-Cameron is kebabbed- it's plagiarism to rank with the second 'dodgy dossier' but less appalling of course.
Guido:
Now that you are doing policy...[still silly season, eh?]...here goes... let me remind you that here in the US, "doing a Fukuyama" is not an adulative reflection of one...it conjures up torturous flip-flops, even dissembling.
Fukuyama was one of the original neocons, who totally denounces all that his former friends stand for, was a staunch supporter of the Iraq war but disavows such support now that the going got tough.
Not surprising, really, for a man who wrote the [in]famous "The End of History and the Last Man" at the giddy moment of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, but subsequently denied the plain meaning of the phrase when history caught up with him in the guise of the genocides and ethnic cleansings that have followed. The last I caught up with him, he claimed to have been merely asking the question (end of history?], albeit with no question mark.
So when you say that "Dave" had a Fukuyama moment, you might be right way beyond your intent.
Cameron's dilemna is how to admit that HM Opposition did not have the balls and the nous to challenge Blair's reasons for going to war. They bought too easily into WMD. Voters will not accept volte voce but will go along with a well argued case for getting out. On Afghanistan they should be remorseless in attacking Hoon Reid and Brown for not taking the Taliban threat seriously, for not supporting the army and for consistently underfunding. PH get used to the idea of PM Dave.
If you value votes avoid mentioning or visiting the US.
Not anti American, just interested in winning the next election.
Doesn't take long for the Tories to start appeasing does it! The US is our only true ally, we must stand by them through thick and thin. Inside David Cameron is a Neville Chamberlain trying to get out. Or has he been on the coke again?
Peter Hitchens - agree.
Guido - You seem to be under the impression that Mr Bush is a Neocon. He's not. Neither is Condoleezza Rice, nor Cheyney nor Rumsfeld.
Neocons are people who came over from the Dark Side, but are still pining in their achy breaky hearts for the Democrats.
Or perhaps you were cleverly pointing out Dave's ignorance of American politics? That wouldn't be hard.
At least cameron didn't lift it and cut n'paste from the internet like NuLab
con.servative.
an unfortunate prefix.
Mr Crackers
The "Taliban" who are currently dropping mortars on us and occasionally setting off the odd IED in-between a bit of friendly sniping are ordinary Afghans, to an Afghan this is sport, it has been for centuries, they are neither "militants" nor terrorists, they are the guy next door with a turban and an AK47 who is pissed off that foreigners are in his country and killing members of his clan and isn't afraid of death, they dont give a fuck for the opinions of sissys like bush or blair
Peter Hitchens, there's no such thing as an original thought.
If we are make the UK a better place we must use the best ideas from wherever we can find them.
e.g. Maybe if we used the full Austrailan version of the CSA we wouldn't have such an almightly expensive cock up on our hands.
If we built new houses to German specifications are energy bills would be lower.
Who the fuck cares where the good ideas come from?
Anon 10;00
using your reasoning the wheel was simutaneously invented by an infinate nunber of individuauls
"we must strive to act with moral authority...
...and then beat the crap outa them.
And if I could find enough monkeys no doubt they could have typed the above sans spelling mistakes.
Im in the market for a cheap source of an infinite number of monkeys with keyboard skills, so if you have some please let me know.
"All this political theory is getting a bit boring (particularly since everything Fukuyama says is either obvious or wrong). Can we get back to gossip please?"
Agreed, foreign policy is especially boring (although the invasion of angry lefties on the pizza delivery thread was good fun).
Still, I suppose we need some fillers before the gossip season starts again. Just a pity Millband hasn't cooked up another "consulation exercise" to keep us busy.
I think you'll see that the point of the story is that Cameron copied a train of analysis belonging to someone else but had to hide it (by coining new names for it) because the person who came up with that analysis was against the war...
Wasn't it Bush that started off this 'modern compassionate conservatism' thing?
I think Dave C is a neo-con, but he knows the liberals will be in by 2009.
Pure political opportunism.
Vaizey and Gove, part of Cameron’s Notting Hill Set, are paid up members of the Henry Jackson Society – the British wing of the Neoconservative Movement.
Verity, I know you're a strong right-winger, but surely you don't think William Kristol (Dan Quayle's Brain) is a closet lefty, do you?
Neocons are a formerly splinter, now dominant group who felt that traditional Conservatism and Republicanism was insufficiently market-based and was, in fact, altogether too squishy and warm. They think Reagan was too lefty sometimes.
I suppose stealing from Fuk is just payback for Joe Biden's lifting of Neil Kinnock's speech.
Peter Hitchens do you think BMW re-invent the wheel everytime they bring out a new car?
You take what works and use it.
By the way I must apologise - there is such a ting as original thought. John Prescott has meny original thoughts..... I can shag her in my office with a load of civil servants around and it'll never make The Sun.... I know, why don't I concrete over the South East of England... I am a sexbomb...
And Gordon Brown too! The people love me! I will be next PM! The baby, I'll blame it all on the baby!
William Kristol’s father, Irving (the father of the NeoCon movement), was a Trotskyite.
Anon 10:54
BMW do not reinvent the wheel every few years, although for some reason they do seem to have to have put David Blunkett in charge of design, probably the same kind of mental aberration that lead the Conservative party to elect Dolls Head Dave as leader.
Confiscate both their pencil cases and make them stand in the corner until mummy comes and takes them home.
"Second, that democracy cannot quickly be imposed from outside."
utter bollocks.
what did we do in Germany and Japan in the wake of 1945?
and look at eastern europe - in the wake of the fall of the berlin wall, did it take years and years for democracy to emerge in say Poland or Hungary? of course not.
Typical of Cocain Dave pops over to aAfghanistan to top up the stash then starts to spout this load of crap. Trying to please the Guardian readers, the only way to deal with ragheads nuke the b*****s
"nuke the b*****s "
no, a surgical cruise missile strike on Masjid al Haram in response to the next Al q attack.
will it happen? not a chance. to be honest, with the current political elite , it'll probably take a nuke with 10 million dead in NYC for it to get to that level.
and thats what saddens me - we could end this now without the 10 million being killed - thing is , i dont think any politician has the guts to do it, including Bush.
"Battle of Vienna" - you need to read more.
When did West Germany have its first full and free election without the need for banning parties?
err. thats exactly what i'm on about. we banned the Nazis, and let the Germans vote for non-Nazi parties. i have no problems with that.
so, we're in a war with Islamic fundementalism, and yet we allow Islamic fundies to gain electoral power in Iraq? does not compute - and indeed, its turning out to not be working out. the lessons of 1945 havent been learned.
Nuking all 1,500,000,000 muslims is a tall order, especially if you want anything left to live on that isn't just a bit crispy at the edges. Can I suggest a more practical alternative is to develop a genetic mutation that turns all religious zealots into athiests.
I'm with you towcestarian
Battle of Vienna - learn a bit more about history, find out when the first free eletion in Germany was (hint, about 10years after you think it is) and find out how long we had to stay in Germany to guarantee democracy.
It took us 9 years to get out of Austria FFS!
Raincoaster:
With no intention of answering for Verity, and at the risk of going into netherworld wonkery...I reproduce below a posting I previously made on Dale's blog about the annoying catholicism with which Brits use term "neocon":
As a genuinely Anglo-American political junkie, one of my biggest pet peeves is the Brits' misuse of the term "neocon" or worse still, "neocon right"...and I mean you, emma f.
Fact: "Neocon" is not the "vituperative epithet" [for the legally inclined, Baron Bramwell's exasperated description of that strange adjective, "gross" negligence] of choice to hurl at the extreme right if one is so inclined. That would be "paleo-conservative", a la Pat Buchanan, Bill Buckley, Bob Novak, all of whom would take umbrage at being called neocons.
Fact: Neocons [Richard Perle/ex-CIA Director Jim Woolsey, et al] are actually former democrats who defected to the right as a result of the democrats' weakness in defence during cold war. The equivalent would be [name your Tory of choice...Shaun Woodward?] who defected to the the right in the 80s as a result of Labor's looniness and Maggie's seriousness in tackling issues of the day.
Fact: Most neocons are not that right wing at all. In fact, like Bill Kristol, they proudly call themselves "big government" conservatives [an equivalent of One Nation Toryism, if there is one].
Fact: People in the know would never describe Rummie/Cheney/Condi as neocons...sorry for those who hate them.
So let us get our terminolgies right.
Sorry. Had to get that off my chest!!!
Peter Hitchens
They are ordinary Pashtuns.
hm stanley, however Anglo-American you are, I've been involved in North American politics since before the Clinton years, worked at the Vancouver Summit (Yeltsin, Clinton, and Mulroney) and believe I'm fairly well-informed regarding the definition of neoconservatism.
While we agree that neocons and paleocons are not the same thing, you seem to have confused me for someone who called the White House Cabal neocons. I certainly didn't. True neocons' star has been fading since Jim Baker's became ascendant; he is a doctrinaire Opportunist. A lot of shit gets shoveled under that Neocon label nowadays, but Pat Buchanan and Buckley will always point it out.
And surely you know some ex-smokers. Aren't they the most fanatic nonsmokers you know? Reagan was once a Democrat.
Have a boring article.
Islamic fundamenalism has been around since the early years of the last century. It drew its energy from the lack of political and social power in colonial societies such as Egypt, but the creation of Israel gave it a further causus belli that really ramped up with the successive defeats Israel inflicted on the Arabs. It gained a further, and stronger ideological framework when the Saudis used their oil wealth to prostheletize their very particular reading of Islam (anything after 622AD bad, anything non muslim beyond the pale). If we have any hope of tackling the foreign policy issued raised by the threat of a religiously-based desire to attack the west and all its works there has to be intellectual engagement and more sophisticated understanding beyond calling for a crusade or identifying exclusively with Israel. In this sense Osama's survival may be, sadly, irrelevant to the continued energy of the fundamentalist perspective. It has gone beyond merely seeking resolution to the Israeli-Palestine issue but if we don't adopt a more intelligent tone in dealing with it, whether we have 100000 or a 1000000 soldiers in Afghanistan or anywhere else, we will not defeat it.
C'mon, Wahabiism has been around a lot longer than that, and it's the combination of oil riches and possession of two of the three holy sites of Islam that Saudi Arabia has leveraged into dominance. Well that and, as you point out, a dearth of leadership in other Islamic countries. They were culturally extreme, but they married that to Islam as they had to polytheism before it so that now it appears a naturally Islamic property; it's not. But it spread with the power and the money, because the Saudis financed madrassas around the world and fighting forces ditto, all of which they're being really quiet about now.
There are many other "flavours" of Islam, but this one is widespread, power-hungry, and has a very sophisticated understanding of finance. MSNBC reported that bin Laden made something like $3million dollars by shorting airlines just before 9/11.
I have the Manual of Afghani Jihad, in fact I downloaded it a couple of years ago on 9/11, and I can tell you that until the West can produce a document that gives meaning to the lives of its soldiers as eloquently as that one does, we will not win the war. Quite simply it gives them both a reason to live and a reason to die; it is a work of art, but a pernicious, evil one.
In a sense, the secularization of Western armies is a source of weakness because I do not see that they can produce a document that compelling as long as they cannot relate things to eternal values.
FT.com has a good pic of Mr Cameron at http://www.ft.com/home/uk.
Think Guido should tinker with it so that we can see what is behind the mask....
a man who (on foreign policy issues) will say anything, just anything to get on.
There is no shame in agreeing with others ideas, indeed that should be seen as a positive virtue...Trouble is Bush never got past number three on the list.I hope 'Dave' will have more intelectual depth.
(PS, has he washed that spot of his forehead yet?)
Dear Raincoaster - While it is true Wahhabism well predated the 20th century, it confined its activities to Arabia and, of course, to its lifelong marriage to the Al-Saud. The evolution of modern fundamentalism initially had its roots outside Arabia and in particular with the Ikhwan in Egypt (still with us). What the Saudis achieved was to translate a number of diverse strands of Islamic society and political opposition into their vision which is compelling for many because of the stark simplicity of its black and white view of the world -- not a million miles away from some of the ideologizing of the American Christian right. I think we are, forgive the word, in fundamental agreement. But my perspective is informed by having done my graduate thesis on Islamic fundamentalism back in the late 1970s, when I was told by all and sundry that it did not exist. Clearly I didn't believe them then. It was a pity they didn't pay attention to what I said, either. But what was interesting at that stage was that Wahhabi-influenced fundamentalism was not prominent, unlike a decade later when it grew with frightenng intensity.
The technology for modifying world's "faith gene" is still under development - though entirely possible within the next 5-10 years.
Crikey! Chameleon's read a book! How DID he squeeze it in with all the nappy-changing?
Meanwhile on home planet, we learn why the Dour One had his teeth done.
"All the better to lie through them m'dear!"
http://www.eleanor-abraham.com/decorative_3.html
vlad, we are indeed in fundamental agreement (shall we call it "progressive agreement" instead?). The timing you mention is interesting; perhaps the Saudis were unable to control the debate until they directly controlled the money flowing from the oil fields, which didn't happen until the late 70's. My own knowledge is limited to what I gathered from when my mother lived there, in the 80's.
Do you know Ali Eteraz?
Dear Raincoaster - don't know Ali, but thanks for the reference. I also lived in Riyadh for 8 years in the 1980s, on a Saudi, not western, compound. All of the Saudis I met and became friends with were the first generation of western-educated and influenced nationals, and were, in the main, gentle souls - perhaps academia was an influence. But outside our compound (because we travelled extensively in the country) it was pretty scary, even then, to see the hostility towards non-Saudis, non-Wahhabis (there were such people, especially in the southern Hijaz) and particularly non-Muslims. You are dead right about the money issue: the amount of money the Wahhabis were pouring in schools and clinics as the soft edge of their campaign to spread their message throughout the Muslim world was storing up problems for the future. And the curriculum in the Saudi schools themselves was as you would imagine. No surprise 19 of the 20 people involved in 9/11 were from Saudi. But their success in spreading the mantle of Wahhabism has given them the broadest possible field of further recruits.
To those who say we can't defeat these fundementalists, I say B******s, make it clear that if we are subjected to another atrocity we will retaliate. Put up a list of the top ten Islamic shrines(after all the Taliban were happy to destroy Buddhist religious icons). If there is a bombing caused by any of these Islamic loonies, we will start with ten, cruise missile strike working up to one 'Mecca'. They'll soon get the message. If during the cold war the a communist backed cell had been responsible for 9/11 Moscow would be a hole in the ground by now.
HM Stanley well put. I am forever pointing out to people when they vent about Neo-Cons like Cheney et al that they are getting their facts mixed up. There is no way Cameron could be a neo-con...he was never a leftie in the first place.
Lord Kalms hasn't said anything yet. He must have realised that he has no business trying to dictate foreign policy. Unless he was asked to clear the speech before publication.
Dear Senor Guido
Your North-American Supporters (eg HM Stanley/Regen=Coaster) certainly have a delightful choice of words, even at an anxious time of Computer de-fragmentation
"Paleo" seems so much gentler than the harsh Anglo-Saxon "Old"
As I struggle to modernise my Worldview from the days of Cromwell, I can now describe myself as a post pre-paleo non-neo Conservative
However, our immediate object must be humour, entertainment & ferret/rodent hunting
How can we focus these North American's language skills on this noble & gloriously anti-soviet cause
Your obedient servant etc
G Eagle
I think it's Fukayama that made the mistakes.
We do understand the threat we face. It's Islamofascism. We need to stop the welfare state Jizya and filter immigration and kill those who declare war on the west.
Democracy can be quickly be imposed from outside. Iraq has voting only 3 years after removing the dictator. Germany took much longer.
The strategy does go far beyond military action. That's why Afghanistan and Iraq have elections and troops removing the anti democratic forces (well massacring them), and we didn't just leave.
France made 80 billion from breaking Iraqi sanctions and trying to keep Saddam in power, why would we listen to them?
And fifth, that we must strive to act with moral authority. Which happened. It's the "fake but" media has now lost all authority.
In 20 years Fukayama will be raised in the same breath as Malthus.
anon10:10 i like that idea
give them fair warning so they can ecvacuate the area then reduce mecca to rubble,although the flaw in our logic is that Islam holds no buidling sacred it is part of their faith, but on the whole its worth a go.
Then build a complex with a casino, lap dancing bars, a pork butchers and banking facilities.
"give them fair warning so they can ecvacuate the area then reduce mecca to rubble,although the flaw in our logic is that Islam holds no buidling sacred it is part of their faith, but on the whole its worth a go."
fair point. actually, come to think of it , demolishing mecca would be of no consequence.
it would be far far more of threat if we said we were going to occupy it with infidel troops.
then if they dont back down, we'll occupy Medina. and so on and so forth.
"Democracy can be quickly imposed from outside".
Technically correct - assuming you're deposing a minority dictatorship in favour of the dispossed majority. However it is not enough simply to have majority rule to qualify as a sucess.
The society in question must not resort to violent means when they disagree with the outcome of an election.
There must not be a 'tyranny of the majority' whereby the rights of the losers are trampled on.
Only in societies with a long 'liberal' tradition can democracy succeed - it's taken us 100s of years to get to where we are.
So in Iraq you have a fundamentalist Shia majority brought to power by deposing a secular Sunni minority. We will see whether they can have another election that adheres to western democratic ideals, without outside interference. I fear not.
Dear Lord - are these commentators for real? Or has the site been taken over by lunatics from the American right? I don't think I've read such enlightened commentary on socioreligious issues since Mein Kampf. If you want to bomb the religious sites fuelling political extremism, why stop there? Hey, there's the Vatican, selected mosques and synagogues, extreme fundamenalist Christian churches, some of the Hindu Nationalist-dominated temples and so on. Why stop there? Why not just round up all 1.5bn Muslims and shoot them all?
Under the circumstances, can I please cast a personal vote for a return to Milibranding and Blair farewell tours?
anticitizone
Sounds like Tonys plans for the dome
well - the Americans have just handed Abu Garaib over to the Iraqis , and more or less straight away there has been a mass execution there (27 were hung) , and real torture is now occuring again.
what bright spark thought that it would be ok to even allow fundie Islamic parties partake in the Iraqi elections? its like allowing the Nazi party to organise in the wake of 1945.
"If you want to bomb the religious sites fuelling political extremism, why stop there? "
how do you propose to defeat the ideology of Islamic fundementalism so? care to enlighten the rest of us?
Hitchens, BoV and few others,
Stop boring on. You know the rules.
"how do you propose to defeat the ideology of Islamic fundementalism"
The old-fashioned way was to prop up secular dictatorships giving them carte-blanche to detain, torture and execute fundamentalist dissidents.
The latest thinking is to bring them to power by insisting on free elections in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq.
Why is it assumed as a self-evident truth that the war in Iraq is a "fiasco." I think the anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israeli left has pulled a con. trick here. I receive e-mails every day from servicemen in Iraq who are, without exception, positive and optimistic.
Dear Anonymous (last post) - who are all these optimistic servicemen fighting for? I don't think its our side, mate. I wonder whether their pay is better than ours, too.
anon 3;02
welcome to the blogosphere Tony
only a total fuckwit like Blair could hold such an opinon, unless secure psychiatric units have been given web access.
i read that headline as 'Camerons fuck your mama moment'
which was much more entertaining
My apologies Mr Fawkes. The mere mention of the name "Fukuyama" is enough to generate an outburst of geopolitical boring twaddle from my fellow Catholic co-conspirator self.
An awful , boring tendency, I agree. I will say 3 Hail Mary's and an act of contrition as penance.
Anonymous said...
Why is it assumed as a self-evident truth that the war in Iraq is a "fiasco." I think the anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israeli left has pulled a con. trick here. I receive e-mails every day from servicemen in Iraq who are, without exception, positive and optimistic.3:02PM
That`s uncanny because I`ve had the complete opposite experience,not only only are they not happy,not convinced they`re there for any good reason but when this tour`s finished so are they,not going to stick around to get sent to Afghanistan and put their lives on the line,see more mates killed,for reasons only known to a few fuckwits in Westminster.These guys have served in Bosnia and Northern Ireland over the years with no complaint,general attitude apparently is "what the fuck are we supposed to be doing here?"
If it`s going so well why was a young woman working in the NAAFI in Basra advised to carry a gun at all times despite never having any weapons training? She refused by the way.
If Dave had stood up and said "We made a mistake supporting Blair over Iraq because we were lied to,now we want to pull out a.s.a.p." Mrs Dave could be ordering the curtains for No.10 now,shame he`s got no balls.
Those 5 points are supposed to be profound?
The only one which is not a complete cliche is #4 "multilateralism" ie that it would be good to have allies.
In fact, since alliances sail at the rate of the slowest, there are occasions when you don't want them.
In fact that was the only one we semi stuck with in the War For Terror fought to help our al Quaeda allies in 1999.
how come guido coulden't have planted the barrels