Greybeard Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 I doubt any of Cameron's silliness is all his own work. His most highly paid advisor (£140k/year) is the former editor of the sleaze-digging, crap-stirring weekly rag known as the 'News of the World'. Now instead of raking muck, Andy Coulson can create his own at the highest international level.....with the witless Cameron as his mouthpiece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Everyone KNOWS he's right, but NOT right to say it. Which is very odd. We've been complaining for years that all of our politicians are liars, and now we're crucifying the one that has told the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Which is very odd. We've been complaining for years that all of our politicians are liars, and now we're crucifying the one that has told the truth. Telling the truth in most things should be the norm but in that volatile, powder keg situation he was foolish to say it, especially from India. Bit like a foreign PM criticising the UK from France! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Was he basing this latest assertion about Pakistan on MI5(home)/MI6(overseas) evidence, though? (about which we'd never know, of course). In which case, in diplomatical terms, a call to s*** or get off the pot. All this anti-terror watch is costing us a few quids as a nation, so in that (hypothetical) case, can't really blame him for calling it how it is. The timing and place could have been better chosen, for sure. Then again, maybe there was a purpose to it. Telling the truth in most things should be the norm but in that volatile, powder keg situation he was foolish to say it, especially from India. Bit like a foreign PM criticising the UK from France!I can't quite remember the last time the UK and French were at each other's throat for a bad look or a bad word, never mind with underlying threats of nuclear oblivion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Was he basing this latest assertion about Pakistan on MI5(home)/MI6(overseas) evidence, though? (about which we'd never know, of course). In which case, in diplomatical terms, a call to s*** or get off the pot. All this anti-terror watch is costing us a few quids as a nation, so in that (hypothetical) case, can't really blame him for calling it how it is. The timing and place could have been better chosen, for sure. Then again, maybe there was a purpose to it. I'd agree with all that. High level politicians never say anything in a public speech that isn't highly crafted for whatever effect it's intended to have. It could explode in his face, of course, but I'm quite certain that he intended to say what he said. Similarly his so-called 'gaffe' in the USA would have had some purpose to it. Sadly I doubt I'll be around for the big reveal when he publishes his diaries in however many years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Was he basing this latest assertion about Pakistan on MI5(home)/MI6(overseas) evidence, though? (about which we'd never know, of course). In which case, in diplomatical terms, a call to s*** or get off the pot. All this anti-terror watch is costing us a few quids as a nation, so in that (hypothetical) case, can't really blame him for calling it how it is. The timing and place could have been better chosen, for sure. Then again, maybe there was a purpose to it. I can't quite remember the last time the UK and French were at each other's throat for a bad look or a bad word, never mind with underlying threats of nuclear oblivion He was playing to the gallery and smarming up to the Indian's in order to win trade, not a bad thing in itself of course, but not to risk alienating an vital ally for the west in the battle against terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 I'd agree with all that. High level politicians never say anything in a public speech that isn't highly crafted for whatever effect it's intended to have. It could explode in his face, of course, but I'm quite certain that he intended to say what he said. Similarly his so-called 'gaffe' in the USA would have had some purpose to it. Sadly I doubt I'll be around for the big reveal when he publishes his diaries in however many years![/QUOTE] Don't give up hope yet, all being well it should be much nearer than you think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funky_Gibbon Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 I can't quite remember the last time the UK and French were at each other's throat for a bad look or a bad word, never mind with underlying threats of nuclear oblivion But if we were then it would be a very stupid thing to say something so inflammatory in public just to curry favour for trade agreements under our new commercial foreign policy. What he said may be true and those things will have been discussed before through private meetings and diplomatic channels. Broadcasting them worldwide whilst meeting their regional rivals whom they've fought several wars with since independance is just monumentally stupid. Those are the kind of actions that cause conflicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 But if we were then it would be a very stupid thing to say something so inflammatory in public just to curry favour for trade agreements under our new commercial foreign policy. How do you know that this was the (sole?) purpose of the declaration? What he said may be true and those things will have been discussed before through private meetings and diplomatic channels. Broadcasting them worldwide whilst meeting their regional rivals whom they've fought several wars with since independance is just monumentally stupid.It might be seen as that, absent a fully-informed context. The fact of the matter is, if there is enough truth behind the declaration, then it also forces the Pakistanis' hand in the matter: they cannot afford to lose face, just as publicly, so have to take whatever acton it is they may have been sitting on for too long, due to whatever local political issue/factor. Diplomacy, more than any other governmental discipline, is one area where every single sentence, down to the last word and comma, is long-considered, weighed, double- and triple-assessed before being uttered. The fact that it was made public, my money's on Pakistan's braces being pulled up tight for a very good reason, whatever it is (but that's not blindly accepting DC is infallible... it just makes me want to dig and find out why he said that, which should go some way to explain the how and where). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 He was playing to the gallery and smarming up to the Indian's in order to win trade, not a bad thing in itself of course, but not to risk alienating an vital ally for the west in the battle against terrorism. That Pakistan might not actually be a whole-hearted ally was rather the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.