• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama sends former officials to Thatcher funeral

Please work on your reading comprehension. I wrote in my first post that the neoconservatives were former lefties or the children of former lefties. You need a memory span longer than fifteen minutes to play here. Because neoconservatism developed from a very small circle of mostly New York-based intellectuals, family ties were indeed significant. When you mock this you merely parade your ignorance.

Strictly speaking, the New Statesman is misusing the term "neoconservative" because it applies to a specific turn in American intellectual history. I will be charitable and grant that they are speaking only of ideas similar to those advanced by the neoconservatives. There cannot be a British neoconservative any more than there can be a British Gaullist.:roll:
You just keep on compounding the errors while you dig yourself deeper, there is no doubt about WHEN and WHO advanced the poli/sci ideology of neoconservatism, but this idea that it can only be shared via geographic location or through....OF ALL THINGS....genetics(!?!) is just the height of absurdity. There are conservatives of the past that lived and developed their ideas in England that American conservatives have adopted and developed, no one would be so silly as to put forward the proposition that conservative ideology can only be claimed by people of England.

The basic tenants of low taxation, an aggressive use of military force to further a dominant economic/strategic position, a disdain for international diplomacy, a tolerance towards the size of govt and welfare, a moralistic view towards social policy.....are not restricted to a particular place or family.

PS...since one the main tenants of Gaullism was the retaining of French Colonies, it would be tough to find large numbers of Brits who would be followers, but that not to say there were absolutely none....
 
You just keep on compounding the errors while you dig yourself deeper, there is no doubt about WHEN and WHO advanced the poli/sci ideology of neoconservatism, but this idea that it can only be shared via geographic location or through....OF ALL THINGS....genetics(!?!) is just the height of absurdity. There are conservatives of the past that lived and developed their ideas in England that American conservatives have adopted and developed, no one would be so silly as to put forward the proposition that conservative ideology can only be claimed by people of England.

The basic tenants of low taxation, an aggressive use of military force to further a dominant economic/strategic position, a disdain for international diplomacy, a tolerance towards the size of govt and welfare, a moralistic view towards social policy.....are not restricted to a particular place or family.

PS...since one the main tenants of Gaullism was the retaining of French Colonies, it would be tough to find large numbers of Brits who would be followers, but that not to say there were absolutely none....

I have not limited the means by which the views comprising neoconservatism can be shared; Jeanne Kirkpatrick is a case in point. I have said that because neoconservatism is an explicitly and specifically American stream of political thought, the term is inappropriate when applied outside the U.S. And the word is "tenets". Tenants pay rent. I suppose your second paragraph is intended to be a summary of neoconservative views; if so it is inaccurate.
 
I don't think it was a deliberate snub. She has been retired for quite a long time. Sending no one would have been a snub imo.

Being retired is not being dead. It was a huge funeral for one of the most important leaders in British history. Barrack Obama went out of his way to demonstrate what a piddling little man he is.
 
I don't think it was a deliberate snub. She has been retired for quite a long time. Sending no one would have been a snub imo.

Being retired is not being dead. It was a huge funeral for one of the most important leaders in British history. Barrack Obama went out of his way to demonstrate what a piddling little man he is.
 
PS...since one the main tenants of Gaullism was the retaining of French Colonies, it would be tough to find large numbers of Brits who would be followers, but that not to say there were absolutely none....

And one other thing. You're wrong about DeGaulle too. He oversaw the abandonment of French Algeria.:cool:
 
And one other thing. You're wrong about DeGaulle too. He oversaw the abandonment of French Algeria.:cool:

Occupied France was duped into siding with the Allies on the promise that they could have their empire back in the postwar period. The Allies forgot to tell the French they were promising virtually the entire colonialized world their freedom in the postwar period in return for their support.............................
 
Occupied France was duped into siding with the Allies on the promise that they could have their empire back in the postwar period. The Allies forgot to tell the French they were promising virtually the entire colonialized world their freedom in the postwar period in return for their support.............................

"duped into siding with the Allies"? Don't be too harsh on them. Many sided with the Nazis.

What "empire" did they lose?
 
"duped into siding with the Allies"? Don't be too harsh on them. Many sided with the Nazis.

What "empire" did they lose?

North Africa and Indochina were to be restored fully to Paris' control...............................
 
Would you rather have the Sec of State working to resolve the issue or just let it get worse?

Stop being a partisan hackjob.

John Kerry is going to solve the situation??

You don;t have to be a partisan to know he's not going to make any progress.
 
North Africa and Indochina were to be restored fully to Paris' control...............................

That was their "empire", huh?

Indochina was obviously not too interested in being part of their empire. The Maginot line was certainly not going to protect their 'empire'.
 
Therefore your answer is do nothing. Seriously, you are such a hack. You don't even try to hide it.

What is John Kerry doing to prevent North Korea from doing what they want? Any ideas?

But I can see where his presence at the funeral of Margaret Thatcher wouldn't have made much difference either.
 
That was their "empire", huh?

Indochina was obviously not too interested in being part of their empire. The Maginot line was certainly not going to protect their 'empire'.

I'm not grading or supporting their empire, I'm merely stating how France was fully drawn into the Allied camp.........................
 
I don't think it was a deliberate snub. She has been retired for quite a long time. Sending no one would have been a snub imo.

So had Churchill, hadn't he?
 
I'm not grading or supporting their empire, I'm merely stating how France was fully drawn into the Allied camp.........................

I'm not sure where you're getting your history because the French were never 'fully drawn'.

This is generally accepted as to what happened.

"Marshal Pétain collaborated with the German occupying forces in exchange for an agreement not to divide France between the Axis powers. Germany kept two million French soldiers in Germany as forced labourers to enforce its term. Vichy authorities aided in the rounding-up of Jews and other "undesirables". At times in the colonies Vichy French military forces actively opposed the Allies. Despite its pro-Nazi policies, much of the French public initially supported the new government, seeing it as necessary to maintain a degree of French autonomy and territorial integrity".

Vichy France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I'm not sure where you're getting your history because the French were never 'fully drawn'.

This is generally accepted as to what happened.

"Marshal Pétain collaborated with the German occupying forces in exchange for an agreement not to divide France between the Axis powers. Germany kept two million French soldiers in Germany as forced labourers to enforce its term. Vichy authorities aided in the rounding-up of Jews and other "undesirables". At times in the colonies Vichy French military forces actively opposed the Allies. Despite its pro-Nazi policies, much of the French public initially supported the new government, seeing it as necessary to maintain a degree of French autonomy and territorial integrity".

Vichy France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That's basically correct, but it doesn't take into consideration the large number of French who were opposed to German rule and saw Vichy as a joke and Petain as a German puppet..................
 
That's basically correct, but it doesn't take into consideration the large number of French who were opposed to German rule and saw Vichy as a joke and Petain as a German puppet..................

Yes, after the war. But we are also drifting away from the topic.
 
Yes, after the war. But we are also drifting away from the topic.

You obviously have bought into the entire AngloAmerican meme..............................
 
Yes, perhaps I have, but Nazism was just never a turn-on for me.

Looking at events from different perspectives other than what we were raised in is not Nazism...........................
 
Looking at events from different perspectives other than what we were raised in is not Nazism...........................

At the time it was AngloAmerican versus Nazism and you are correct that I bought into the entire AngloAmerican meme. I bear no shame for this.
 
Back
Top Bottom