Search Tags:

Categories:

Citizentube Interview: David Cameron



Uploaded by: citizentube
Video Description:
Citizentube interviews David Cameron, Leader of the Opposition in the United Kingdom. A Conservative, Mr. Cameron is the MP for Witney.
To see Mr. Cameron's YouTube channel, go to http://youtube.com/webcameronuk


Tags for this video: Cameron citizentube David Kingdom politics United

Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by citizentube

Related Videos
Ken Wilber - Integral PoliticsBill Maher on Mormonism and Religion in PoliticsDavid Cameron discusses plans to clean up politics
ken-wilber-integral-politics.htmlken-wilber-integral-politics.htmlken-wilber-integral-politics.html
David Cameron campaigns against Gordon Brown's NHS CutsRicky Gervais Politics Tour Live (Part 2 of 7)David Cameron down on the farm
ken-wilber-integral-politics.htmlken-wilber-integral-politics.htmlken-wilber-integral-politics.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
As for the no WMD's ... ( 1 month ago by dbww)
As for the no WMD's. If it's ok for you to say that looking back the US thought it would be easy then I can say looking back the US believed Saddam had WMD's. In which case the invasion was justified. Like I said the fact he didnt have them is irrelevent. If he had had them & the US had done nothing next thing you know Kuwait would be no more and we would quite possibly have a nuclear exchange between Iraq & Israel, I say better safe than sorry. But hey, at least your conscience would be clear.
The "evidence" was ... ( 1 month ago by hugoegbert79)
The "evidence" was made up by the americans so that they could go to war. And "better safe than sorry"?!? Jesus Christ what kind of an asshole are you?! I think perhaps the people blown to pieces in that war fell sorry about it, and don't feel all that safe. This isn't about my conscience, it's about the lives of Iraqi people-lives that were cut short when the US blundered in with some half-baked, unconvincing, false "evidence".
The "evidence" was ... ( 1 month ago by hugoegbert79)
The "evidence" was tragically unconvincing. You cannot invade a country and kill people based on some guesses and made-up "intelligence" someone gave to Bush because thats what he wanted to hear. The evidence wasnt there, and thats why the UN said NO. You cannot invade on the basis of, "Well, they might have WMDs, theres no real evidence they have, but hey, better safe than sorry!" because then people die for no reason. Then again, thats the american way of doing things isn't it?
The UN is there to ... ( 1 month ago by hugoegbert79)
The UN is there to stop countries bullying other countries, to stop unjustified invasions, to stop unjustified war and death. America went into Iraq and killed lots of innocent people, needlessly, and got a lot of american troops killed aswell. Thats how the UN has the moral high ground. And "the one reccuring theme through all American deployments abroad since about 1900 is Americans saying "Bring our Boys home"." Yes. I wonder why.
Oh I see so ... ( 1 month ago by dbww)
Oh I see so according to you the UN has moral authority because they mean well. Presumably the T4 programme had moral authority because its end was a happier healthier human race. The UN is a morally bankrupt institution-Like I said Saddam Hussein (who was a frightfull bully to Kuwait) had equal standing to Panama which doesnt even have an army. How can you say that such an institution has moral authority without saying everyone/thing with good intentions has the moral high ground?
The evidence wasnt ... ( 1 month ago by dbww)
The evidence wasnt "tragically unconvincing" at the time there was reasonable ground for suspicion of WMD. You are once again using hindsight to judge the decisions of the time. In fact at the time most intelligence agencies in the west thought that Iraq had or was trying to obtain WMD. The reason that the French didnt join the US was simple. The French didnt care if Iraq had WMD, they were the people who gave Iraq its first reactor & were happily breaking UN sanctions by trading with Saddam.
The evidence was ... ( 1 month ago by dbww)
The evidence was not made up by the Americans. At the time the intelligence services of the US, UK & Germany all thought they had evidence of Iraqi WMD. Some of which has later been justified, such as the centrifuge &al in Mr Obeidi's garden. You seem to think that they shouldnt have acted on it, of course if they had been right then there would have been a regional crisis. But you dont care about that because you are just happy to beat America with another stick. (Oh and btw its spelt arsehole)
"Oh I see so ... ( 1 month ago by hugoegbert79)
"Oh I see so according to you the UN has moral authority because they mean well." That's exactly what you are saying about America. They meant well by going to war with Iraq, so therefore it doesn't matter that so many people died as a result. It's alright, because they thought they were doing a good thing. You're a hypocrite.
The evidence was ... ( 1 month ago by hugoegbert79)
The evidence was extremely dubious. It wasn't enough to convince the UN that there was enough case for a war. The UN said that to go to war would be illegal, because there was not enough evidence. The US went to war anyway, and the UN was right. No nuclear threat, but now lots have people have died for this illegal war.
"If they had been ... ( 1 month ago by hugoegbert79)
"If they had been right..." THEY WEREN'T. They were wrong, and the UN said so at the time. But of course, George Bush knows better than the UN! So he'll just ignore international law and cause the deaths of countless thousands for no reason. I see you are friends with dragonlee90. Someone else who I disagree with. A right-wing, Thatcherite Tory who supports Thatchers appalling treatment of the poor in the '80s. Says a lot about you.
And I'm not going ... ( 1 month ago by hugoegbert79)
And I'm not going to continue this conversation, because you are a person who supports a corrupt, election-fixing, oil/bloodthirsty administration which has caused a lot of pain and bloodshed in the past 8 years and you obviously won't change your mind. I sincerely hope Obama wins the next election, because otherwise a lot more people will die. Good day to you.
No America has ... ( 1 month ago by dbww)
No America has moral authority because it is a liberal democracy. Saddam was a mass murdering tyrant-he had no moral authority. However you seem to think that he was an equal to the democratically elected US government.
Oh so the US ... ( 1 month ago by dbww)
Oh so the US clearly went into Iraq for oil. But the French opposed the war out of the goodness of their hearts? Nothing to do with the fact that they were making millions by breaking UN sanctions. Why dont you make a great fuss about their breaches of internationl law? Or is it in fact you that is the hypocrite?
Well for one thing ... ( 1 month ago by dbww)
Well for one thing the invasion was justified under previous UN resolutions. Iraq had breached UN sanctions & failed to comply with weapons inspectors. Secondly the "UN" did not oppose the war, France did. This shows another reason for the UN's lack of authority. The French were not acting out of the goodness of their hearts as I have said earlier. Yet you and others have been duped by the UN's magic aura into believing that this self interested decision by Chiraq makes the US's war wrong.
Ahh good arguments ... ( 1 month ago by dbww)
Ahh good arguments there: What in an old ad hominem and then run. Classic left wing tactics. If Obama wins im sure your consience will be clear. You will get another President like Clinton, who stood aside and watched in Rwanda because he calculated that each American life was worth around 100000 Rwandans. But hay at least Uncle Sam kept his nose clean & didnt upset anyone. I hope McCain wins so the US doesnt become an isolated economic wreck leaving the world at the mercy of tyrants & islamists
I know I said that ... ( 1 month ago by hugoegbert79)
I know I said that I'd finished, but I'll leave one more comment. I never said anything posive about Saddam, so how exactly do I think he was equal to the US? Yes, america is a "liberal democracy" that imprisons people without trial and then tortures them. Very democratic. And "democratically elected"? The Republicans fixed that election and everyone knows it. Even the official results show that MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR AL GORE than Bush. How democratric is that?
Oh, and also, Bush ... ( 1 month ago by hugoegbert79)
Oh, and also, Bush watched thousands die after Katrina and didn't send in help until media pressure forced him to. He was campaigning whilst those people were dying. He even flew over in air force 1, and still did nothing. Why? Because the dying were poor, and black. And poor black people don't vote Republican. George Bush hides behind the pretence of democracy, but breaks his own country's laws aswell as international law so he can falsely imprison people and torture them. SCUM. Now I'm done.
Bush wasnt ... ( 1 month ago by dbww)
Bush wasnt campaiging. Mainly because thre wsnt an election. Most of the problems were in fact caused by the DEMOCRATIC mayor's total lack of preparedness for the Hurricane. Within just 4 days Bush had given $10.5 Billion of federal aid. Sure the Federal response could have been better, they wernt prepared either (perhaps they expected the Mayor to prepare his city better). But to accuse Bush of intentional delay is just pathetic, got any evidence for it? No you just hate Bush as he isnt a lefty
President Clinton ... ( 1 month ago by dbww)
President Clinton never won the majority of the popular vote. But I dont remember the liberals moaning about the unfairness of that. However Bush did win a majority in his second election. You consider Saddam equal to liberal democracies because the UN considered him equal to liberal democracies & you say the UN has moral authority. You attack Guantanamo as undemocratic yet I have not heard you criticise Saddam once for his genocide of his own people. I think you need a little perspective sir.
Hey Dbww,Your views ... ( 1 week ago by critics11)
Hey Dbww,Your views about this small video of 5:29 minutes really very amazing.The Threshhold in every comment of yours is just like the propellant of Spaceship.All comments added by you is highly impressive for these 5 minute video which has alived the issues of last 5 years of International Community.
Hey Hughegbert79, ... ( 1 week ago by critics11)
Hey Hughegbert79,Whatever the comments you added while replying is very much similar like putting Water H2O on burning furnace.The Person who ignited the furnace while bringing back the issues which international community is suffering from also includes poor and black.
We cant say like ... ( 1 week ago by critics11)
We cant say like they are doing nothing for them.Poor people are much more happier then those who are rich earning the big sum of money Poor work for the entire day for one day meal And all the organisation like UNICEF,WHO,UNO are doing the good part in their respective Group.What we should do make them much more better and bringing,collecting more funds for such organisation rather then the huge Lumsum money get donated or funded for the Election.
Poor people dont ... ( 1 week ago by critics11)
Poor people dont need debate and argument which generally people do for their parties either they do for democratic or they do for republican I think this need to be understandable by both the parties "War Brings Poverty Economic Breakage Whether it is done by Words or done by Ammuniation" So if we do debate on this topic arguments of comments which is being added by both of you while replying can be ended easily for the Peaceful life of Poor Or Even Rich.
David cameron's ... ( 1 day ago by MANCKIE)
David cameron's policy of 'Hug a hoodie' is ridiculous.
In fact, why stop there?
Tickle a rapist.
Wank-off a paedophile.



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code