BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 09:37 AM

I'm an American, and I thought Blair's speech was quite eloquent and appropriate to the situation we find ourselves in.

A number of people on this thread, and on the thread(s) about Bush's speech to Congress, have made dismissive or disparaging remarks about "rhetoric". I don't think the importance of rhetoric should be underestimated. I believe that one of the most important things that Bush and Blair can do at this point is to articulate the rationale for the actions we are preparing to take, and their vision for the world that we will strive to create out of this crisis. I think both have done this admirably.

Some of the most significant accomplishments of our greatest leaders of the past were the speeches they gave in times of crisis. This is certainly true of Lincoln (Gettysburg Address, Second Inaugural), FDR (Day of Infamy, Four Freedoms), and Churchill (take your pick). Leadership starts with communication, and while our response should not be limited to speeches, they are essential to any effort like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 10:36 AM

Good point, Whistle Stop. I think maybe we're just too used to hearing rhetoric used to make mountains out of political molehills, and we automatically respond in the same old way when we hear it, without much regard to circumstances. If Blair means it, it's good to hear hime sound as though he means it, rather than sounding like a soulles spokesman performing the chore of reading out a statement prepared by a faceless committee.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Scotland the brave
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 12:43 PM

Gareth,

The only reason that America came to help Britian as I said was Japan bombed Peral Harbour, I think that F.D.R. said that the second world war, 1939-1941 was "Europe's war" and that Ameria should stay out of it, I'm not saying that all Americans were had that put of view, it just some, and as for the first world war, that also was "Europe's war and not America's" and the only reason that America came into that war was because a German submarine blew up an American ship.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 01:12 PM

Scotland the brave, the USA had a substantial role in WW II prior to Pearl Harbor. Lend-lease, the "Good Neighbor Policy," convoys and the like were in operation well before December 1941. FDR had to perform a delicate balancing act, providing assistance to Britain before without seeming to be too anxious to jump into the fray. And he had to be somewhat duplicitous about it too, particularly during the 1940 elections when he had to make sure that he didn't allow his opponents to paint him as the President that would send America's sons to die in another European war.

Eventually, of course, Pearl Harbor came along and helped our country sharpen its focus -- and Hitler helped by over-ruling his advisors and also declaring war on the USA at that point, making it clear that the USA had to fight both Germany and Japan. After that we were fully engaged, with men and materiel. But it's wrong to say that we didn't help Britain before then; if we really hadn't, it's likely Britain would have lost the war before the Japanese helped us make up our minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 01:24 PM

StB, you dont seem to realise that once the USA entered WW2, the emphasis was 'Germany 1st'..... not a great deal to do with Pearl Harbour, that....

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 01:30 PM

It's important when making any speech to be aware of who you are talking to. In a situation like this, the most important audience isn't the people in the hall, or the people in the country, but the rest of the world.

Blair's big speech appears to have taken that into account more than Bush's, which seems to have been primarily for domestic consumption.

As for Thatcher - not only did she falsely and irresponsibly accuse Muslim clerics and mosques of failing to condemn the terrorist attack, but she also referred to them as "priests" which will be taken as insulting, as well as demonstrating ignorance. It's equivalent to referring to the Chief Rabbi, or Ian Paisleyas "priests".

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 02:48 PM

McGrath, I won't defend Thatcher, but I have to disagree with you about Bush. It was extremely important for him to address his own country first, the rest of the world second. I think he managed to do both, but some people seem to feel that he should have weakened his statements to Congress in order to make them more palatable to people in other countries. Again, I disagree -- the USA was on the receiving end of a vicious attack, and Bush's speech needed to be appropriately vigorous to match the scale of the attack.

In fact, I think the rest of the world would have responded less favorably if Bush's speech had been less vigorous; both our enemies and our friends needed to hear a message of strength and determination. Bush needed to let Americans and others know that we would respond to this attack with intelligence, determination, and strength. I think he hit it just right.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 05:26 PM

And it seems fairly clear that he did, for most Americans. But I disagree about seeing them as the only people he was supposed to be talking to. He'd got them on side already, without opening his mouth. The terrorists had done that already.

One think worth noting about Blair's speech - at no stage did he feel it necessary to refer to what is happening as "a war". That was no accident, and in my views it's a pity others didn't do the same. Avoiding the word in no way softens the action, but using it certainly doesn't help keep heads clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: GUEST,General Patton
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 05:57 PM

Scotland the Brave has a rather convoluted perspective on history. I am glad to see that several people have clearly demonstrated that the U.S. did support Great Britan well before Pearl Harbor. The same is well documented for WW1. On a related note, if Great Britain had taken a stronger stance toward Germany's re-arming and aggression in the mid-1930s, there probably would not have even been a WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 06:06 PM

Well, it hardly seems constructive to turn this thread into a debate about who did what during the last two world wars while we're trying to see what we can do to stave off World War Three.

Scotland the Brave, would you be willing, as a Scot, to join me, a US American, in hoping for a better future for all of the people of the world?

Thanks, Steve Parks, for the heads up about where I can get info on today's speach.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: heric
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 06:35 PM

Great big pile of transcripts of recent speeches and interviews at http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~gprice/speech.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 01:42 AM

That's a great resource, Dan. Thanks.

blicky for transcripts

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Ringer
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 05:01 AM

I find it a bit sad that we don't seem to be able to have any thread associated with British politics that doesn't involve "Thatcher bashing". No, she wasn't perfect, and towards the end seemed to lose her way, but in 1979 she was just what this country needed. You lot seem to have short memories; don't you remember the "English disease", the "Winter of Discontent", "Red Robbo", the IMF pulling Dennis Healy off that plane (I speak loosely) in the latest of many "Sterling Crises", not being able to take more than 50 quid on holiday, inflation at nearly 30%, etc, etc? We were a basket-case, the laughing-stock, certainly of Europe, probably the world.

The current strength of the economy, that allows George Brown (foolishly, in my view) to pour more money into health, education, social services, etc, is her legacy: do you imagine that, with "more of the same" in 1979 and afterwards, we'd be where we are now? If you think anything (manufacturing, the list of infrastructures above, etc) has suffered in the last 20 years, it would now be much worse if Mrs Thatcher hadn't been.

And why, I wonder, do you all seem to think that she would have reacted so differently to today's crisis than Tony Blair has (your implication is that she was a warmonger). She certainly took us to war with Argentina: which one of you thinks that was unjustified? And she supported Bush père with troops and materiel when Iraq invaded Kuwait; again, was that unjustified? Just remind me in what way she was a warmonger, please.

Mrs Thatcher did things. What she did (reducing the power of the unions, de-nationalising etc) might not have suited your liberal inclinations, but did increase general wealth, and that's a pre-requisite for the improvements to all the other areas you deem so important. Her successors seem to have had as little success in the latter. TB has been in power now for four and a half years; do hospitals, public transport, education, social services, etc, show any improvement in that time? I think not; the reverse, if anything. That's because improving them is not just a question of pouring money in; but to do anything else requires political balls. And that brings me back to my previous post in this thread (and also to the subject of the thread), because, so far, Tony Blair hasn't shown that he's got any.

Standing back, waiting for the explosion...

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Fiolar
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 05:14 AM

Yeah - she did things alright. Abolishing school milk for one which one of the few things poor children had. Remember "there's no such as society."? And by the way I presume you mean "Gordon Brown"? George Brown died in 1985.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Ringer
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 07:22 AM

Quite right, Fiolar, Gordon Brown I meant (funny how the fingers run ahead of the brain, isn't it -- even you suffer from similar effects in your post above); sorry for that.

As to "no such thing as society", here's what Mrs Thatcher actually said: ... I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. "I have a problem, I'll get a grant". "I'm homeless, the government must house me." They're casting their problems on society. And you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours. People have got their entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There is no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation... In context, it doesn't seen exceptional to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 07:35 AM

OK--let's carry on the Thatcher discussion elswhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 08:08 AM

Anyone remember a short story by H G Wells (The Phial??) about an anarchist (the Victorian equivalent of today's terrorists) who steals what he believes to be a phial (vial, if you prefer) containing a deadkly bacterium and goes out to infect the city? And two or three guys, also anarchists, went to prison about a hundred years ago for making bombs in my home town, Walsall. Seems like there have always been extremists whose ends justify any means. Only the possible scale has got worse ...

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: GUEST,Steve Parkes
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 08:13 AM

Oh b88g8r! Sorry, ignore my last post about anarchists--it somehow got into the wrong thread. Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 08:29 AM

McGrath, we can agree to disagree. As a point of clarification, I never said or implied that Americans were the only people Bush needed to be talking to; I just felt that it was important for him to communicate with Americans as well as people in other countries. And a tepid speech would not have served any of us well under the circumstances.

I think the word "war" is entirely appropriate, and I am pleased that Bush has continued to characterize it this way, despite receiving some criticism for it. Sure, it's a different kind of war, as we were attacked by a non-state entity (although one that appears to receive substantial support from a number of established governments with a range of international "legitimacy"). But the use of the word "war" recognizes that our country was attacked by an armed foreign power intent on weakening or destroying us -- their aims are not entirely clear, but certainly they meant to do us great harm. And it suggests that we must be prepared to commit substantial resources to fighting back aggressively in a campaign involving military force (as well as other mechanisms), in which there will be bloodshed, in which some will win and some will lose, for which the people of the countries involved should anticipate real sacrifice, and from which will emerge a realignment of governments and alliances. Choose another euphemism if you wish, but it sounds like war to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Scotland the brave
Date: 06 Oct 01 - 06:30 AM

I do want a better world, and going to war is not the best way. There are lot of other countries who've all had their Sept the 11's and were was America and Britain then. And as for America going to war on terriorists, and that any country harbouring them will be targets, does that mean that America is a target because you harbour Republican terrorists, you raise funds for them, and also for the orange lodge, as well. So before you start to bomb the Bin Laden and his pals, I think that you should sort out your own terrorists first as we have to do here in Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Oct 01 - 08:18 AM

Scotland the brave, I'm an American, and you'll get no argument from me on any of those points. I wish my country wasn't using so much 'war' rhetoric. I wish my government was more oriented toward justice in a world court, and working in non military ways to try to eliminate terrorism everywhere, including terrorism that we have sponsored ourselves.

I wish my country was more concerned with "Freedom and justice (and prosperity) for all" for everyone in the world, and not just for the ones we think deserve it.

That's the sort of better world I'm hoping for. Will you join me in hoping for that?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 01 - 09:28 AM

Yes, we disagree, but politely, Whistle Stop. As Mudcatters ought to.

Getting your mind into gear before you start speaking isn't the same as "tepid". Or rather before you hand the final draft to the man who is going to deliver it. Or before you deliver the speech handed to you if you are that man.

Obviously the speech was intended for Americans, but it came across as intended only for Americans.

War is a word that should be restricted to actual states of war. Using it as a metaphor, which appears to be the case here, since there has been no declaration of war, just invites panic, for example increasing the number of dead refugees. Also it invites comparison with other metaphorical wars like the "war against drugs" - in which case it's a very unfortunate association. If the "war against terrorism" goes as well as the "war against drugs", its only effect will be to vastly increase the amount of terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Scotland the brave
Date: 06 Oct 01 - 09:47 AM

Carol c.

Yes I do Agree with you in everything that you've said, at lest you can see sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 09 Oct 01 - 08:08 AM

I appreciate the politeness, McGrath.

My feeling is that, unlike the "war on drugs," this is a real war, with real planes, ships, bombs, guns, soldiers, and battles. Like other modern wars, it will not be fought only on the battlefield, and in fact non-military engagements may constitute a substantially larger element of this one. But I DO want my country and others to view this as a war, with all that implies. One of my biggest fears is that the shock of September 11th will wear off before we make any headway with this, and gradually it will lapse into an uneasy stalemate like those that exist in other theaters -- the Palestinean/Israeli conflict, Northern Ireland, etc. Not war, not peace. I would prefer that we use terminology that is appropriate to a sustained, determined, and violent conflict, so there is no misunderstanding about our intentions.

I strongly disagree with those who feel that we should be pursuing this on other than a war footing. As I probably said before (in this thread or another; one loses track), I believe it is wise to look for the root causes of people's frustrations throughout the world, and to the extent the US exacerbates their suffering, we should find ways to change our behavior (however, not all suffering in the world should be presumed to be caused by the US). But the terrorist attack on September 11th was out of bounds, as are other terrorist attacks that have been launched at the US and other countries. In my view the people who did this have to be defeated, and decisively; then we can continue to look for ways to improve matters. We may even go so far as to launch a "Marshall Plan" in Afghanistan after hostilities cease. But just like Nazi Germany, we have to beat them first.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 10:47 AM

Whistle Stop, it is surely beyond argument that the hijackings were criminal acts against a democracry. That's how the Brits always categorised the unrest in N Ireland - rightly refusing to go along with the IRA labelling it a war.

You may remember that this little matter of definitions became quite important for some people (notably the hunger strikers). If wrecking the towers was an act of war, then it wasn't criminal, and the perpetrators if caught would be POWs. Is that what you want?

Just a detail, but Boal is wrong if he thinks Blair writes his own speeches. Usually he does not. The cringe-making speech under discussion here was a notable exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Ditchdweller
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 11:18 AM

My fears about Tony Blair stem from the fact that he is a nice person. Why is this dangerous? Well, TB and his closest friends are all nice and they all have a good idea of how nice they are. Being so nice, they obviously have nice ideas and, being nice ideas they are also the correct ideas. It is obvious from that, that ideas that they do not agree with are not nice and must be the thought of people who are not nice. So anyone who disagrees with TB and his friends can not be nice and are, therefore, not only to be ignored, but are to be discouraged from putting their ideas forward. As an example of this, anyone who disagrees with TB's ideas on race must, by definition, be racist and shouted down every time they open their mouths. Beward of rule by "nice" people.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 01:44 PM

Fionn, you are right that this definitional issue isn't new, and that the semantic distinctions have been important in a number of other conflicts for a variety of reasons. In fact, we in the US have gotten used to our wars being called something else (I believe Korea was a "police action," and Vietnam was a "conflict"), while non-wars are called wars (the "war on poverty," the "war on hunger," the "war on drugs," etc.). Probably none of these words is a perfect fit, because all are defined to some extent by precedent, and this situation departs from many of the established precedents.

Still, for what it's worth, I think "war" is the right word to use. We have an identified foreign enemy that is inextricably linked to (and supported by) a foreign government. That enemy attacked us on a scale that is not typical of any of the usual "crimes" we are familiar with -- as much as smaller-scale acts of terrorism have become a distressing fact of life in many countries, I know of no other example in world history where over 5,000 people were intentionally killed in the course of a single hour and it was NOT considered an act of war. We are responding with the tools of war: armed forces, high-stakes diplomacy, international alliances, a high-tech economic blockade, dramatically increased home-front security measures, etc. True, we might employ some of these tools in a more traditional crime-fighting context, but when they are used together, on this scale, it sure looks like war to most of us. You know the saying: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Well, what does this look like to you?

And as much as some have tried to couch our aims in more limited terms, it is becoming increasingly clear that our objective is the destruction of our enemy. That doesn't necessarily mean that we'll kill them all -- hell, even at the end of World War II (I trust that we can agree THAT was a war), we imprisoned some of the senior Nazis rather than executing them en masse, and left the Emperor of Japan on his throne. But it does mean that we are using the tools of war in order to achieve more-or-less traditional war aims. Given that our enemy is not only al Qaeda, but also the Taliban, I think it is fair to say that we are seeking to destroy the Taliban, and allow it to be replaced by another government (at some point they may sue for peace and we may consider modifying our goals, but for the time being we're out to get them). The destruction of a foreign government is also something that most people would associate with war, rather than with law enforcement.

Most importantly, though, we need to call this a war because we need to make sure that people all over the world recognize it as a war. We're not in Afghanistan to arrest a bank robber, or even a murderer; we're there to kill people and break things until the existing (although unrecognized) government either surrenders or collapses, after which we can have a free hand to dismantle/destroy the offensive force that was employed against us. It is likely to result in some additional actions against us, by a foreign military force, using both conventional and unconventional means. And it will require sacrifice, and resolve. The word "war" lays the foundation for that better than any other term I've heard used. It's an ugly word, but then it's an ugly situation: I still prefer to call it what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 01:55 PM

Hear, hear, Whistle Stop! Well though out post.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 02:23 PM

Thank you Doug. You and I haven't always seen eye to eye on all issues, but I get a sense we're very much in agreement on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 05:10 PM

Yep. No doubt about that. I want to live to an even riper old age, and I don't think I would be able to do that if the nay-sayers were to get their way.

On the other hand maybe their plan is to talk the terrorists to death! *BG*

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: SharonA
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 05:33 PM

I agree with Doug: very well put, Whistle Stop. I concur that a "war footing" absolutely is the way for the US to pursue "our intentions." This isn't the time for wrist-slapping and kid gloves.

Fionn says, "If wrecking the towers was an act of war, then it wasn't criminal." Who says an act of war is not also a criminal act? The perpetrators of acts of war are, when brought to justice, tried under the law, and those who are pursued are referred to as "war criminals." The aim of the US is to bring down the Taliban, but bin Laden and others also have prices on their heads for the atrocities they themselves have committed.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 06:01 PM

If wrecking the towers was an act of war, then it wasn't criminal

Not so. If it was an act of war it was a criminal act of war, and should be treated as such. As should all war crimes, whichever side carries them out.

And yet I understand that there is still opposition by United States to there being set up a standing Internationbal War Crimes Tribunal.

People who are responsible for war crimes are the enemy, whoever they are and whatever flag they may have brought shame on.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 06:07 PM

Not so, McGrath. We (the US) make all of the rules. And we can, if we want, make one set of rules for ourselves, and an entirely different set of rules for the rest of the world.

Why can we do this? Because we have the power and the ability to destroy anyone who disagrees with us.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: Tony Blair's speech
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 01 - 12:05 AM

Gee, Carol, I didn't know you felt that way! And here I thought you were a real softie!

DougR