BBF, just want to pull you up on a point you made about Cameron being less interventionist, hence the need to re-jig (but still keep the Carriers..).
Frankly. I don't believe a word of it. True Conservatives would have voted against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but this set of Conservative MPs voted like sheep, to go along with the Prime Ministerial spin and lies because they were too afraid to rock the establishment boat. (Intelligence Community, Govt etc). This Conservative party also voted to support US involvement in Afg in 2001, (I had no prob with that one) and again voted to fight a war on two fronts by supporting a poorly thought out and extremely costly deployment to Helmand in 2006. Support was also given for the Kosovo war and other Balkan actions.
Why should we believe a word Cameron says about being less interventionist when on every occasion he was personally given to display his anti-interventionist beliefs he did exactly the opposite?
Worse still, (for his credibility), he is an Atlanticist and he is surrounded by Atlanticists. Fox, Osborne, Gove, Hague to name a few. On his recent visit to America his servile, unquestioning approach was on display when he stated that Great Britain was the junior party to America in the first two years of the war. During this period, an American citizen who wanted to come here and fight Nazis had to give up his American citizenship!
Sorry, I don't believe a word anything Cameron is saying. This review is entirely Treasury led and the next time America shouts jump, I see absolutely nothing in Cameron to suggest his response will be anything other than how high..When Hillary Clinton expressed concern about the depth of British defence cuts the Tories immediately looked to sooth and reassure. Might be an idea to remain useful to the Americans in the process..
Lt Cdr Ward, was quite right to launch a verbal assault on Cameron, a well chosen target in my view.
Last edited by nigegilb; 23rd Oct 2010 at 15:50.