Speech to congress by Tony Charles Lynton Blair British Prime Minister

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Did you hear the Speech to congress today by UK PM Blair?



He said the world is not the same place in the face of terorism. He said never before in such a way has American power been needed in the world and never has it been so mis-understood.



He is a most articulate leader and I respect the man. I have been critical of the war in Iraq namely (were we lied to). If there is substance to the WOMD issue I may retract some of my former statements about President Bush.



My thoughts hinge on the facts of this war in Iraq.



What are your thoughts of the Blair speech?



Fellowship

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    Did you hear the Speech to congress today by UK PM Blair?



    What are your thoughts of the Blair speech?



    Fellowship




    HE IS A LIAR!



    A LIAR!



    LIAR LIAR LIAR!!@!!!!!!!!!@!@!!!
  • Reply 2 of 14
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Damn he's good. Forget the truth, he is one smart guy.
  • Reply 3 of 14
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    HE IS A LIAR!



    A LIAR!



    LIAR LIAR LIAR!!@!!!!!!!!!@!@!!!




    Why is he a liar Hassan?



    btw good to see you around been some time



    Fellows
  • Reply 4 of 14
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    HE IS A LIAR!



    A LIAR!



    LIAR LIAR LIAR!!@!!!!!!!!!@!@!!!




    Heh. He's really taking a pounding in the Guardian lately. Do you have any sense of when a new PM will be elected? I'm assuming labour will throw Blair out in favor of some new candidate, but is there a chance that the Tories could win?



    I just don't understand why Blair's doing all of this. I mean, he was the British version of Clinton when he used to pound Major at question time and when he was campaigning, and now he's, well, pounded Labour into dust, it seems.
  • Reply 5 of 14
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Is that Gordon Brown I hear snickering in the background?
  • Reply 6 of 14
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    I thought it was a great speech. And he came across as intellectual, something Bush could certainly do more of. And it's apparent he wrote his speech as well (as opposed to a team of flunkeys), or at least it seemed so. From the way the yanks were clapping incessantly throughout, you'd think they never heard a good speech before.



    Unfortunately, while very rousing and inspiring, it does not change the facts of the war in Iraq, nor my stance on it. In fact, it seems to artfully dodge any of the lingering questions, etc. He just goes on about how the world is a better place now and freedom shall triumph and together we shall rejoice in the... you get the idea. No mention of the case for war, and how every aspect of it has crumbled (Al-Quaeda, WOMD, Iraq is completely ****ed now, unbelievable expenditures, soldiers being killed daily etc).



    Totally, utterly lacking in substance, the Blair speech was nonetheless endearing.
  • Reply 7 of 14
    gardnerjgardnerj Posts: 167member
    Its amazing what a good speech writer can produce. Lets face it he's just the salesman....
  • Reply 8 of 14
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    Why is he a liar Hassan?



    btw good to see you around been some time



    Fellows




    Only joking. A bit of cross-thread tomfoolery.



    I'm in a house with a connection at last. Good to be back.
  • Reply 9 of 14
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Can´t you see this is so wrong?



    Quote:

    Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together?



    Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering.



    That is something I am confident history will forgive.



    There is a huge difference between saying "Support us because he has WoMDs. He didn´t have them? Well that doesn´t matter because other good things came out of it" and saying "We want Saddam ousted for a number of reasons, some of which we can´t prove but firmly believe in. And we are willing to take the risk of them not being proven afterwards. We have been given the power by the people and they can judge us on election night."



    The first is cowardly and lying about your reasons. The second is, although I strongly disagree with the arguments, honest and make the position quite clear.



    The shifting argumentation for the war shows why it is wrong.
  • Reply 10 of 14
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Blair is certainly the best native english politician for convincing peoples.



    However it does not change the facts, US and UK went for war, not for the reasons they gave at the time. Blair is a master in the art of convincing, but it does changes the facts.



    However the war is finish, so there is no need to argue about this subject for centuries. But problems are still there : Where is Saddam ? , who will rule Irak ? , attacks against US soldiers ...

    This speech was more related to inside politic (Bush and Blair next reelection), than anything else.



    Removing Saddam was good, but if it lead to a second Iran, it's worthless.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc



    However the war is finish, so there is no need to argue about this subject for centuries.




    I strongly disagree. This IS the most importent aspect of the war. Not because we are able to say "ne ne ne nee ne, Bush is a liar pants on fire" as I think someone so elegantly said it but because this sets a presedence for how arguments in international politics will be used in the future. If this is somwhat accepted by other countries (this is an international issue) then the field is open.



    Unfortunetly it does seems like we are doing that. None of the countries that went to war with US have questioned the way it was argued. Polans position is "Its okay because we were in it for the oil", our position is to say what the White House say and we know the position of UK.
  • Reply 12 of 14
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    I strongly disagree. This IS the most importent aspect of the war. Not because we are able to say "ne ne ne nee ne, Bush is a liar pants on fire" as I think someone so elegantly said it but because this sets a presedence for how arguments in international politics will be used in the future. If this is somwhat accepted by other countries (this is an international issue) then the field is open.



    Unfortunetly it does seems like we are doing that. None of the countries that went to war with US have questioned the way it was argued. Polans position is "Its okay because we were in it for the oil", our position is to say what the White House say and we know the position of UK.




    By no need to argue about the subject for centuries, i mean AI peoples .

    I have not the pretention, that any kind of discussion here could change the world ...
  • Reply 13 of 14
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc



    I have not the pretention, that any kind of discussion here could change the world ...




    And noone told me before now? I´m outta here.
Sign In or Register to comment.