Friday
13Jul2007
BROWN OPTS OUT OF WAR ON TERROR
Friday, July 13, 2007 at 09:45AM 
I know it is early days but UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is already busily setting himself up as a prize Dhimmi already. I see he has been grovelling to the UN that "he would seek the widest possible international support and agreement through the UN before intervening in another country". Since Brown knows that such support would not be forthcoming, he is effectively saying that when it comes to any further necessary military interventions, the UK will be firmly counted out. Bet the Mad Mullahs will love our Gordie, eh? Everything about this Brown regime exudes a desire to be distant from the USA and get closer to the EU/UN. I believe that Brown will really be exposed should a Republican get back into the White House next year. It is clear that Brown is banking on a Democrat in the White House so that his internationalist approach can be covered, but he may not get what he wants at which point his preference for Ban Ki-Moon will become much more evident. Blair understood the value of the US/UK alliance but Brown is very different. It will all become clear over time.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (74)
'seeking international support and consensus'
Brown is giving the scottish bombers exactly what they wanted. They knew he would be a soft option, so they planted their bombs in order to change policy. Sad thing is, they didn't need to, Brown was going this road anyhow.
Isn't Brown just reflecting the view of the British electorate?
In any practical sense the British public don't, I think, want entaglement in foreign wars.
Again, in a practical senese any 'intervention' would be done by the U.S. anyway.
Why wouldn't Brown take the low road?
Though he'll anyway and always be in Scotland afore ye, given his access to CO2 emitting government jet transport.:)
whether the british people want entanglement in foreign wars or not is irrelivant. The war is not a foreign war it is local.
I guess those car bombs and subway attacks really took place in Bagdad...LOL
thats ok your children have just had their school curriculim changed to prepair them for their dhimmitude in the british caliphate as your politicians surrender.
To quote you on another thread Troll - give us a break
thats ok your children have just had their school curriculim changed to prepair them for their dhimmitude in the british caliphate as your politicians surrender.
what. a. serious. load. of .old . bollocks.
am I wronge? were those not local attacks? and Didn't Brown just propose dropping studying Churchill and Hitler in favor of Arabic an Urdo?
It is not I who should give you a break it is your politicians.
Read this post from David
I see that Gordon Brown is already making a clunking impact on UK education. Just a few weeks into his reign, it is revealed that the compulsory teaching of the life of Sir Winston Churchill will be dropped. A new school curriculum, unveiled as part of the Prime Minister’s barrage of initiatives, has also scrapped the mandatory study of dictators Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
Instead, secondary school pupils will be taught classes in global warming, healthy eating, Arabic and Urdu. And they will get five-minute “attention-grabbing” lessons in subjects like French and mental arithmetic following claims that today’s youngsters cannot concentrate for long. Shocking stuff - we are going into a de-education period, when political propaganda forces everything else off the school curriculum and our children will be brain-washed.
I never learned about Churchill at school (Tories in power) so where does this 'dropping' business come from all of a sudden? We have never taught history properly or consistently in our schools, this is nothing new. It is a complete lie to say that schools that do run this part of history will suddenly drop it (they wont) or that it wont be taught. The usual bollocks playing to 'the crowd'. The only dhimmis round here are the RIGHT. Arabic and Urdu are going to be pretty vital language skills whether you want them to be or not. And these languages = optional. Which do you think is going to be more vital for security services in the future? When is the right going to wake up.
has also scrapped the mandatory study of dictators Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
LOL! Again - never learned it. Tory government. Nothing new.
if you had learned about churchill you might understand the world better.
As for Arabic and Urdo I would think if you want to follow that line of thinking you better learn Chinese. Mandarin would be best...
Troll - we covered WW2 but not nearly in as much depth as they do today. I learned about Churchill at university, along with Europe and the rise of fascism, the Spanish Civil war, the french resistance and propaganda. I loved history at school. If you learned about Britain you might understand us better.
Mandarin - my friends opted for it in 6th form. I chose european languages.
ah yes here we go again I'm not British so I don't understand you.blah blah blah
I won't bandy words with you. You can close your eyes and see what you want to see.
What I see is a world in the first stages of a world war.
What I see is our strongest alli being lead by politicians who refuse to acknowledge the threat as it's own citizens are blown up in it's streets.
What I see is half my own government wanting to follow the same folly as yours.
What I will do is continue to teach my children to view the world honestly, not through un-realistic politicly correct blinders
And I will prepair to react to the car bombs that will go off in our streets and not by getting ready to celebrate when they fail to kill a lot of people.
but I will disengage from this conversation with you
No Troll its you and your 'if youd learned about history' you would know what is going on fucking shit. You buy into all the bullshit on a regular basis and noone can say ANY different can they. We cover second world war in schools. This is a bunch of spurious bullshit to sell a few papers. If you want to believe it because it is posted on ATW or lemm guess, LGF then go right ahead and bury your head in the sand. Or listent to a few other Brits who are telling you something different and accept not everything is as our MSM tells you it is. Amazing trust weve all developed in these headbangers all of a sudden
LOL your over the edge...
Alison: Well you certainly studied profanity!
Alison, I learnt about Churchill at school, or isn't Belfast a part of the UK? I covered him at O level standard, and he is a great huge part of British History. They (students) are taught about him in schools in the Irish Republic.
Don't you think Spanish, French, German would be better languages to be taught and made compulsory, rather than an added language of Urdu?
The way the cirriculum is going everything academic is becoming obselete. Thus the dead languages are gone, no more latin, huge pieces of history are to go, philosophy was almost taken off the cirriculum at Queens not so long ago, due to money and the attitude that it wasn't relevant anyway.
Troll is stating what he has read here, the cirriculum is being changed to suit immigrants, by a PM who has no electoral mandate to make these changes. The states interferance in the state school system has led to chaos and a lot of failures. Current figures suggest that it is white males who are doing most poorly at school, while other ethnic groups are actually improving. Do you think Urdu will actually help the white male group to succeed better at school. I don't think so.
I picked that up at the docks ;)
A far better education available there than at some universities.
Hannah - I know he is stating it as he reads here. The fact is blogs are a way of sharing knowledge about what happens here but i get the impression that information is taken as the truth by some who seem unwilling or unable to accept that it isnt always. It was under a Conservative government that the compulsion for all children to study history until 16 was removed as i mentioned on the other thread. We did not cover Churchill at our school, our teacher was more specialised towards the industrial revolution and American War of Independence. I adored history at school and chose it as an O level, we covered off WW2, nothing like as much depth about Churchill as they do now but the relevant facts, but the real in depth stuff about him came with the freedom to learn this at uni. The point is this blog and the MSM are trying to tell people that this is Labour removing all teaching from Churchill from the curriculum which is not true.
As for languages Labour 'introducing' european langs at primary level is a great move. That is the best time to learn them. At secondary *in addition* to the traditional French or German pupils will be able (in theory) to take languages such as Russian, Mandarin, Japanese, Arabic and Urdu. Again none of it compulsory
Alison what branch of the government do you work for?
What you are saying is this has been published in Newspapers and it is a total lie because the government minister has said so, and you believe him hook line and sinker. What ever the government minister says is the truth and what ever the media say is not the truth unless it replicates what the government goons say.
So much for critical thinking!
No because i helped out in schools Hannah so i understand what is being dished out as nonsense when i see it. I think history should be compulsory fullstop. It wasnt under the Tories it isnt under Labour. The school system as a whole is beyond far from perfect but i know rubbish when i see it in the media.
So much for critical thinking!
Youre not wrong there Hannah
'Helping out in schools and your own experience Alison is hardly proof that a report on government strategy is rubbish. Whether history is compulsory or not, it is clear as I said on the previous thread that this strategy has its opponents. These opponents do give the impression that they know what they are talking about, but hey! what would they know? Right?
Thus the introduction of Urdu will benefit British children immensely, and unclutter the cirriculum?
And you know rubbish when you see it?
Critical thinking indeed!
Hannah,
you need to look a little bit deeper than this Government. All the changes in education go much further back.
Everyone back up a step or two. Alison's having another fit.
Monica,
I'll let Alison deal with that, but the idea that Labour are subverting and ruining education would only be valid IF they had departed from the direction that education was going in, which they haven't. I never learnt History at school past the age of 13, and I certainly didn't learn about Churchill at school.
The roots of the problem are in John Dewey, the Progressive movement, the adherents of Rousseau, the Ford/Rockefeller/Carnagie Foundations etc.
OK will removing Churchill from a list of figures that must be studied, introducing Urdu and five minute classes benefit children or achieve its aim of uncluttering the ciricullum?
Richard I know the changes go much further back, but that doesn't make these changes good for children or of achieving the aim to unclutter the ciricullum, which does need a proper over haul, but this is madness.
Hannah,
all such arguments amount to no more than re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic.
Richard
I never learnt History at school past the age of 13, and I certainly didn't learn about Churchill at school.
that explains a lot
Richard I couldn't put it better myself. But in this case the deck chairs are all over the place, there is no order to them which makes things even more difficult for the passengers instead of helping them.
Richard - you are absolutely right about John Dewey. We are feeling the effects of that poisonous viper of a man here in the US as well. There were other factors at work, too. Fascinating subject. May I recommend a blog about the state of American education and the history that lead us to where we are now? The author is called 'Cubed'. She's awesome. Start with her earliest entry and read forward.
http://sixthcolumn.typepad.com/cubedseducationblog/
A lot of misplaced froth so why wouldnt you get pissed off at the constant barrage of rubbish on a topic that other people pick on as fact - and Troll telling you he knows better or 'that explains a lot', lol. I wouldnt suggest that about US schools based on what I read in the msm. If the knowledge i have in schools counts for squat then so be it.
The disbelief expressed in much on this issue seems to have led people to overlook the following paragraph:
A spokesman for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority said the new curriculum, to be taught from September 2008, does not prescribe to teachers what they must include. But he added: "Teachers know that they need to mention these pivotal figures. They don't need to be instructed by law to mention them in every history class. "Of course, good teachers will be teaching the history of Churchill as part of the history of Britain. The two are indivisible."
A competent teacher of history which covers as a COMPULSORY element World War Two will be trusted to cover key figures like Churchill as a matter of course. You cannot cover WW2 without covering the big hitters. It doesn't need a government edict to instruct him to do so. This is an entirely reasonable and a welcome change, doesnt that make sense to anyone here? Or do you really believe that Churchill has been removed from the curriculum?
Most who have posted about this seem to have been influenced by the tone of the article and the post into believing that teachers have been instructed not to teach about Churchill. Which is wrong.
Hannah - its OPTIONAL so how can it be clutter?
The fact is that the status quo on education was changed years ago and not under Labour. But kids do get a broader base on WW2 and Churchill now than they did under the Tories. It was *not* a compulsory element to cover WW2 under Thatcher.
Troll,
bad call, bro. History's my favourite subject, and I can go on all day. I've always loved History, and no dumn school curriculum would have satisfied my desire to learn.
What you seem to overlook is that educating yourself is a personal responsibility. Test me any time on the English Civil War, my favourite era - again never taught in any school curriculum.
Richard - you are right about the Progressives. I loved history too. The bigger issue teachers have is garnering any interest in the subject to begin with.
Richard that is the only way to learn, but you may want to study the 2oth century
Alison I wouldnt suggest that about US schools based on what I read in the msm. and A competent teacher of history which covers as a COMPULSORY element World War Two will be trusted to cover key figures like Churchill as a matter of course
Trusting in teachers to teach the truth has lead to the poor education levels in both our countries, thats why we home school
Richard, have you read the new book "The English
civil War" by Diane Purkiss, 2006? I gotten about 1/4 way through, and am finding out that your civil war was much different than ours.
"..educating yourself is a personal responsibility.."
Oh Richard! So true. I would also add that when push comes to shove it is the parents responsibility to provide a good education to their children, not the state's responsibility. It is in the state's interest that all citizens are educated but the state has a very poor track record in actually providing that education. Atleast here in the US they do.
Troll
You cant teach WW2 without teaching about Churchill Hitler and Stalin and the facts as they are. The subjective element is true of anything in life.
The problem is whether or not you have a) a decent teacher to teach the basics and b) an interest in the subject for it to mean anything at all to a kid at the end of the day or to make any lasting impression. No tinkering with the curriculum will change that.
If you are inspired about the history you will naturally ask questions and read more about it and feel your own way. If you arent you wont take on board even the basics no matter how much they throw at you.
I had crap history teachers all through school. It's a shame because my kids love history. It's all in the presentation.
(sorry everyone else, Charles has my attention!)
Charles,
completely different to the ACW, probably much more like the War of Independence.
The religious aspect of it is very important, and the forces that were unwittingly unleashed, such as freedom of the press, due to the breakdown in censorship, and democratic sentiments.
I think the ideas of the founding fathers are heavily linked to what happened in this period in England, and there were key figures on the revolutionary side with links to America, such as Hugh Peter and Thomas Rainsborough. Cromwell himself was getting ready to quit England for America in the period before the start of the war.
Monica: I agree with you that parents should take a great bit of this upon themselves. Even if the hsitory taught at school is good (and it often is not). We had wonderful history books at home and were constantly taken to historic places as children.
It's optional so how can it be clutter.,
When I was in school there were subjects that you chose and others that were compulsory. Putting in Urdu as a language is not a range of choice, it is a waste of resources. It introduces a whole new discipline, which has to have new examiners teachers and resources in schools. The revenue spent on this takes revenue away from other things. That makes it clutter in my book.
As to Churchill, and your quote above. What it boils down to is, we have removed Churchill from a list of historical figures, as well as Hitler and Stalin, because teachers know to teach these big hitters and do not need a government edict, therefore we need to include this in our overhaul. Therefore included in the overhaul is an edict telling teachers what NOT to do because they should DO it anyway.
Pretty clever! But as you say telling teachers what not to do is a welcome change.
Its all subjective Hannah I suppose - the range of euro languages (which is what i taught) is pretty much oversubscribed. There was a huge recruitment drive for traditional modern languages so you wont see these disappear. Nothing that is taught and supplied as an option is a waste of time or money in my opinion (where there are people willing to teach it). It is how you manage your choices that is important and that is where parents come in.
Churchill is well covered off. It boils down to the interest he can garner for it to have any effect or meaning to pupils. Thats a different issue.
We are blessed in this country in being surrounded by history and being able to take children to a range of buildings, locations, museums and establishments that can add far more to an understanding of history by putting it into context, than books.
My friend teaches history and languages and recently took inner city kids to Belgium to see WW1 cemeteries and museums and meeting local people. That had a far bigger impact than she imagined. As does the Holocaust exhibition at the Imperial War Museum.
At the school i used to able help out in the primary kids did a project on the local area and how it was affected during the Blitz. It was incredibly engaging. I dont mind admitting that the kids enthusiasm to speak with local people and stick their stories and old black and white pics on the wall was pretty special.
Richard, From what I've gotten so far, your CW really was a civil war, in that even villages divided into sides. When entering a village and asked the question " King or Parliament?" one better have the right answer!
I think it is more like our War for Independence, in that your (our) ancestors were playing for the whole country. And when my Founding Fathers thought of war, it's this they thought of.
I suppose being Catholic, I'd have been a Royalist.
Here is Texas my family were rebels of course. We haven't picked a winning side in 400 years!
Yes Alison I agree that history is more interesting when it is brought to life, but then what happens in those schools were the teacher is not so interested. When she has 35 children to a class, and a lot of them do not have english as a first language. Where parents do not have the money to provide for these trips and sometimes the money even for a packed lunch is beyond the range of some parents on manys a morning.
IMO the introduction of Urdu is not a sensible option for British schools, it is political correctness from this PM to pander to a large ethnic vote, nothing more. This isn't for the childrens benefit, its for the goverments benefit, so the opponents of the strategy are correct when they say this panders to political correctness. Resourses are valuable commodities, it ought to be spent teaching Britihs children how to communicate in this EU and internet age. Or it could go to better remedial facilities for British children. Since not all children are the same, its best for educators to work with what they've got, rather than a one size fits all. Remedial classes geta poor look in, even interpeters for ethnic children come before them. This Urdu money could be well spent elsewhere.
Charles,
due to the ideological/religious aspects, the war split families apart, although there were broad regional divides - and of course we should not forget that a lot of people probably didn't support either side. The question of whether you're a roundhead or a cavalier is still a perplexing one, and I've changed sides a few times! As a catholic, you're right you'll have to side with the King or keep it very quiet!
If you're only 1/4 in, there's much to come. The most interesting part for me is after the King has been defeated in the field, at which point Parliament thinks it can stitch up a deal with him, share out the loot and that will be that - not counting on the Army that had won the war who have other ideas.
As for picking losing sides, I sympathise. I think my interest in History is partly down to being a lover of lost causes!
Charles: Upon relflection, are you glad "your" side lost? Or would you prefer the Union had been defeated? I promise not to report you to the DAC.
Mahons,
bloody carpet bagger!