Wednesday, September 13, 2006

David Cameron and Britain's Conservatives go dhimmi , isolationist and soft on the War on Jihad


In reaction to Tony Blair's meltdown, the leader of the opposition Conservative Party, David Cameron made a speech in which he appeared to come out decidedly against Israel and the US, especially when it comes to the current War Against Jihad.

While couched in reasonable sounding language, reading between the lines left no doubt that if the Tories come to power, Britain's policies and their alliance with the US will be very different.

In the speech, made at the annual JP Morgan British American lecture, Cameron said that while he encouraged the `special relationship' be the US and Britain, his government would not be "America's unconditional associate in every endeavor."

And his government would pursue a foreign policy guided by "liberal conservative" values which would "not turn a blind eye to the excesses of our allies - abuses of human rights in some Arab countries, or disproportionate Israeli bombing in Lebanon."

He referred to the notion of "axis of evil" in the world as simplistic, and said "foreign policy decisions are not black and white."

"We are not engaged in a clash of civilizations" but in a series of discrete conflicts that require "us to be a little smarter in how we handle those connections" between conflicts, he said.

Cameron said that the key to defeating terrorism was to "cut off their life support systems." This meant "winning the trust of the majority Muslim community," resolving issues "of crucial concern to Muslims, like Palestine," and winnowing it away from a "deformed vision of Islam."

Needless to say, the Guardian and the Daily Mail lapped it up,with the Guardian describing it as "moderate, sensible and liberal" while the Daily Mail found it "significant and statesmanlike" and hoped Cameron would distance himself from the "warmongers who surround Mr. Bush."

What's more, Cameron appears to be riding a trend.

Some interesting numbers: a Populus poll published in the London Times on September 6 found that 73 percent of those surveyed believe Blair's "foreign policy, especially its support for the invasion of Iraq and refusal to demand an immediate cease-fire by Israel in the recent war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, has significantly increased the risk of terrorist attacks on Britain."

More than 62% believe that to "reduce the risk of future terrorist attacks on Britain the government should change its foreign policy, in particular by distancing itself from America, being more critical of Israel and declaring a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq."

In contrast, on the same day, speaking at the White House, ex-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said:"With America, Britain stands in the front line against Islamist fanatics who hate our beliefs, our liberties and our citizens....America and Britain must not falter. We must not fail. We need to renew our resolve that, however bitter or lengthy the struggle, this evil shall not prevail."

Ah, I miss the Iron Lady. Do they make leaders in Britain like that anymore?

5 comments:

louielouie said...

one of the fundamentals of being a jacksonian is to believe that if someone is telling you that something is very complicated they either don't understand the situation or are lieing.
couch sounds a fool.
if the relationship with america is going to change, then the relationship with britain will change as well.
now watch the saudi lap dog come out and play dhimmi to couch.
what we need is a president.
we need a president that will take this fool at his word.

nazar said...

Aw, come on, louie, why are you so hard on Bush, he ain't all that bad. Would your rather have Kerry, basically a reincarnation of Jimmy Carter?

You're probably a fan of Reagan, how do you think he would have handled this?

With what he has, Bush hasn't done a half-bad job thus far.

louielouie said...

hi nazar,
i am.
the only thing reagan didn't do is realize/recognize the islamic/muslim threat.
my mom said it best.
when reagan soiled the White House by inviting some of the mujuhadeen(sp) and calling them freedom fighters my mom said he should have been helping the russians instead.
but i digress.
while i fully agree with your comments about kerry and jimmah cautah, this man is the president, there is no such thing as half bad, as opposed to half good. he is a successor to thomas jefferson and james madison. what if they had done not half bad on their watch, where would we be?
and finally, if the left would fight the right fight instead of fighting bush, i would asy that most blogs would not have the content that they have.
for the record, andrew jackson would be my president of choice.

nazar said...

Funny what you say bout the russians, since my dad fought in the Soviet Army in Afghanistan back in the eighties. If you look at all the other presidents that you mentioned, you'll find they fucked up a lot too, they didn't have perfect records. Just look at Truman, to give a more recent example. He was like Bush in many ways, inexperienced in foreign policy and widely berated as an ignoramus, but he pulled through, didn't he?

Rosey said...

The Brits need a real wake up call, like a subway bombing or a multiple airline hijacking...Then they'll realize...