Reading a book about G W Bush, it struck me as obvious that Bush's New Conservatism is Cameron's New Conservatism in most details. This makes sense particularly of Cameron's obscure "Big Society" concept - it is just what Bush argued in favour of allowing faith communities to usurp the role of the secular state in providing social welfare - while slashing support from the state.
Of course in Foreign Policy Bush had no time for the UN, the Court of Justice, or any legal restraints on the use of force - he pronounced that the US was capable of defeating any and every rival so would become the World's policeman, while always acting in the interests of the US (which is NOT the interests of anyone else). No surprise then to find Cameron so blithe about renouncing any claim for Britain to great power status. In the Bush text book, 5% of the World's population (the US) gets to dictate to everyone else and Cameron has to accommodate that chapter to his own otherwise incoherent agenda.
So the UK presumably is a playground for Bush politics during the Obama intermission?
Originally posted by finneganMaybe Britain will now volunteer to completely take over the nation-building operations in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Reading a book about G W Bush, it struck me as obvious that Bush's New Conservatism is Cameron's New Conservatism in most details. This makes sense particularly of Cameron's obscure "Big Society" concept - it is just what Bush argued in favour of allowing faith communities to usurp the role of the secular state in providing social welfare - while slashing s
So the UK presumably is a playground for Bush politics during the Obama intermission?
this would allow the US to bring all of its troops home, cut its defense spending, and reduce it's budget deficit.
The post that was quoted here has been removedThatcher and Reagan, Cameron and Bush.
I hesitate to credit Bush with actual word shaped thoughts as such. It's just that the things he was saying when elected about Compassionate Conservativism et al sound just like Cameron. It is always educational to read about the enemy and try to figure out just how the £$%^& they ever get elected.
Originally posted by MelanerpesDon't you remember changing "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" cos the French argued that the UN should be supported in following a legal process in respect of Iraq? You Americans were all in favour of policing the world back then and Blair suckered Britain into joining.
Maybe Britain will now volunteer to completely take over the nation-building operations in Afghanistan and Iraq?
this would allow the US to bring all of its troops home, cut its defense spending, and reduce it's budget deficit.
Originally posted by finneganThe French,,, they'd be speaking German now without the USA,,PHOOEY
Don't you remember changing "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" cos the French argued that the UN should be supported in following a legal process in respect of Iraq? You Americans were all in favour of policing the world back then and Blair suckered Britain into joining.
Originally posted by Hugh GlassThey would without FD Roosevelt certainly who discreetly prepared the USA for entry to the war, starting the construction of aircraft carriers for example years before Pearl Harbour, leasing destroyers to the isolated British, generally making a major contribution without the backing of Congress and while most Americans were hiding under their isolationist stone. In addition he saved the USA from both fascist and communist forces that were powerful in the depression. He is one man I would NOT wish to see removed from history (separate thread). He saved the USA from itself.
The French,,, they'd be speaking German now without the USA,,PHOOEY
