Conservative Home's debate blogs

My Photo

Conservative blogs

About Conservative Home


  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Jonathan Isaby's twitterings

      follow me on Twitter

      Tim Montgomerie's Twitterings

        follow me on Twitter

        « Blair shows no r-e-s-p-e-c-t to parents | Main | So where is Mr not-Davis? »


        Simon C

        Quite right to take this up in the Blog. Karimov must go. Those of us who agree with neo-con principles must keep up whatever pressure we can to ensure they are consistently applied.


        I hate to rain on this parade but I'm sure that most of those who use this board are well aware that U.S .foreign policy is dictated by national interest rather than morality.Therefore the U.S. will do sweet f.a. about Karimov unless it's in their interests to do so,at the moment it isn't so they won't.I'm quite suprised to find that anyone who supports the neo-Con agenda would be naive enough not to recognise this.

        Simon C

        The point is though, that to date, the Bush line has been that it is no longer in the long-term US national interest to foster oppression - it creates worse problems down the line.

        Passing through

        Rather like Robespierre's notion of the "virtuous society", more folks are likely to agree that the "war on terror" is a "good thing" than are likely to agree on what either entails.

        Besides that, I don't see many American economists, or even Alan Greenspan, saying that the soaring budget deficits of the Bush administration are a "good thing". At the very least, the deficits hardly reflect a commitment to "small government". Btw Bush collected 51% of the total vote in the US Presidential last year, which hardly demonstrates landslide support for the Bush administration on the part of America's electorate.

        Just how much credibility will Tony Blair have with G8 leaders when they meet at Gleneagles this July after he assured the G8 leaders at the Evian summit in June 2003 that he stood "100%" by the evidence shown to the public about Iraq's alleged weapons programmes and it turned out that Iraq didn't have any WMD?

        Naturally, the BBC report is "biased", of course. ROFL.

        Malcolm Shykles

        Anyone wishing a serious debate on the "War on Terror" should read the excellently researched book “Terror Inc” by Loretta Napoleoni”.

        What is (nothing to do with the above book) evident in the London 7/7 atrocity is that it seems to be a measured attack. Some who have more knowledge of what could have happened are thankful that it was not a nuclear or chemical assault.

        It has also exposed London’s vulnerability to serious terrorism. Only four 10lb devices were needed to cripple the city for two days.

        The whole idea of a war on terror needs revising. We have seen at first hand what the citizens of Baghdad have to suffer every day.

        One might argue that Blair and Bush are now the prime proponents of global terrorism. It is my view (and I accept that I may be alone in this) is that the “War on Terror” is actually spreading terror.

        The comments to this entry are closed.