Friday, 12th January, 2007
- 12 Jan 07, 05:13 PM
Today Tony Blair said he wanted to launch a national debate on our defence policy in a speech made on HMS Albion in Plymouth dockyards. Should Britain be a nation of war fighters as well as peacemakers?
Also, Rupert Wingfield-Hayes will be reporting on the Great Firewall of China and how many people are now managing to get round the censorship.
Comment on .
Comments Post your comment
isn;t it friday?only the header says thurs.....
Complain about this post
Can you alter your heading to read: Friday 12th January 2007 (it reads Thursday 12th January 2007 at present) ... then please delete this message. Thanks.
Complain about this post
Tony Blair, emulating his (senior)partner in war, by giving a warmongering , grandstanding speech aboard a Naval Ship such as Bush did some years ago aboard a carrier when he declared the war in Iraq was won....
Blair's vision of the UK of the future, is just that ,his vision, hoping to gain some brownie points in the US of A, I suppose!
Nobody can take this sad, pathetic man seriously anymore & the sooner he's gone (but never forgotten) the better for our country.We must never allow ourselves to be hoodwinked by another such charlatan again.
Complain about this post
Sorry, Friday's been cancelled, by order of Mr. T. Blair. Can't let those islamic extremists have their holy day.
Complain about this post
Sorry about that. Should be fixed shortly
Peter
Complain about this post
That's it. If proof were finally needed, we now know that he has gone mad.
A "war on terror" "lasting a generation".
Come on, Mr. Blair.
We now know (what we once knew in our hearts and minds) that the invasion of Iraq was justified by lies and deliberate obfuscation.
Mr. Blair's legacy is carnage in Iraq, an unresolved Israeli problem and the deatch of an honest man, Dr. David Kelly.
Dropping bombs on more poor people (mostly muslim) is not the answer.
Mr. Blair has made the world less safe.
Complain about this post
Can you please start to get journalists who actually know about defence issues. As ever tonights report displayed a lack of knowledge about British Armed Forces, defence policy and even basic concepts understood by first year students!
Complain about this post
I cannot believe this Blair promoting agressive warmongering in preference to communication and aid - and none of your commentators disagrees (other than in some matters of detail)! WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER! Our money, yes OUR money should be spent on helping others not killing them. The Blair attitude is madness. May he go soon. Let's give peace a chance.
Complain about this post
When on earth will Newsnight dump the Newsnight Review programme? It is hardly news. I wonder how many viewers either switch channel when the real Newsnight ends, or even switch over to 91热爆 2 when Review starts? It seems the 91热爆 and NHS have one thing in common; an aversion to continuity of business on weekends, bank holidays and xmas.
Complain about this post
I watched all of the Prime Minister's speech on News 24 and have to say it was very good in it's grasp of the geo-political situation in the world and how Britain should approach it.
I guess for alot of people it's very difficult to give the Prime Minister any credit for anything because of Iraq. The Time's Gerard Baker makes this point in yesterday paper:
Roll up, roll up, to chuck rotten tomatoes at the PM
Judging by the few comments thus far I guess people wish for the next PM to withdraw all British troops from Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo. Scale down the Armed forces so we just engage in peacekeeping. Do we think after all of that, Al-Qaeda etc would never attack us? We know Muslim extremism by its very nature is reactionary and has a dual psychology. I simply don鈥檛 by this argument that by retreating and becoming more and more anti-American and anti-military that we will become safer. I expect I鈥檓 in the minority of 1 here but the Prime Minister was correct in his analysis of the interdependent nature of this conflict, what happens on the streets of Lahore and Kabul will affect us in London and Berlin.
Let the Blair bashing continue...
Complain about this post
Ref Manjit #10
Actually agree with most of what you say :)
Don't like Blair myself, but acknowledge hiss talent, a past master (or past it master) at getting messages across.
His stand on extremism is part of his legacy (one the few positive bits).
That & a failure to deliver across so many issues including WoT.
New Labour - give the guys the kit & resources to do the job & match the words with real resources
UP & AT 'EM LADS
vikingar
Complain about this post
Manjit - it's not a simple case of all or nothing. Most people accepted or at least tolerated Blair's interventions in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. But the Iraq invasion was a massive blunder and also incompetently carried out (mainly due to Rumsfeld's strange ideas). It's causing more rather than less terrorism.
So, (just like in any job, after you make an unacceptable mistake) it's time for Blair to go. He has messed up and no longer has the confidence of the British people.
Complain about this post
I think Michael Portillo wins the prize for spotting the truth - Blair aims to divert attention away from his Iraqi legacy by hiding it within a 'programme of global action'.
Vikingar - there is no doubt that Blair is the master of massaging the message, this whole country now runs on PR not integrity - which was essentially the defining characteristic of British greatness.
Funeral for a culture! I can't wait to see the next election results, I think the political class may be in for a surprise because they have persistently failed to listen, or to give credence to, the dissaffected, disenfranchised and increasingly poor populus.
Questiontime in Dartford was a real treat - very brave of the 91热爆 to go there - managed to instill a system of 'putting up your hand to ask a question' eventually! - but talk about 'out of the mouths of babes and the indiginous working class' - terrific stuff and a whole heap better than watching Fiona Bruce in her 拢1million pound house conversion eating vegetables - yich!
Complain about this post
War is an industry and it carries other industries with it. For that economic reason most of us have an interest in it and might be inclined to support Blair. However, a rich country doesn't need the war machine when the threats are relatively small scale, like global terrorism. What Britain (rather England) needs is social and ecological fairness. Stop competing, stop trying to kill our enemies. We should set an example of what we think is right and fair in society.
Complain about this post
Political noises from across the Pond indicate some neo cons may still have the stomach & power to encroach(accidently on purpose) on Iran or Syria... They are not concerned with United Nations authority before any precipitate actions. Israel has it's own agenda with Iran, but would feature in the mix!... The fear is the UK would be sucked into what would be seen as more Western aggressive actions escalated by the present coalition plus +... against the Middle East per se, a very scary scenario!
We must resist being dragged into any such actions, albeit our PM may be tempted/bullied to follow the President,although our Forces are at full stretch & generally the UK populus would be against any such moves.
Complain about this post
No one has questioned why Britain should be "war fighters". To protect ourselves? Obviously not. Today, Britain has only one military threat: the American military occupation of the British homeland itself. No. It's for the current and future resource wars. Without these resources (oil, gas, water), without cheap energy, our "way of life" will not survive. But Tony wants to defend this unsustainable and morally indefensible "way of life" by wars of aggression against countries who have the resources we want. How close the two Elizabethan rules will turn out to be, both based on the philosophy of the theft of other countries wealth and resources.
Has anyone actually thought about what kind of world we would live in if every country in the world adopted Blair's proposed strategy of hard power?
Complain about this post
Ref David Sketchley #16
"鈥 But Tony wants to defend this unsustainable and morally indefensible "way of life" by wars of aggression against countries who have the resources we want 鈥."
Ref 'resources' - the same on another level can be equated to those millions seeking to gain illegal/underhand access to 1st world societies, rights, economies, services & citizenship.
Wars have always been fought over resources, in numerous ways & at different levels over different things (water, wheat, gold, religion, living space, oil etc)
It's not the preserve of the 21st Century & a English speaking Anglo Saxon thing.
Normans, Romans, invasion & Britons come to mind 鈥o do others ... Hittites, Greek , Phoenicians, Byzantine & Persian Empires, Caliphs, 13th Mongol invasion of Central Asia etc ... Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Facist, Communism, Imperialist... next please 鈥 :)
Lets alone all the other empires & invasions around the rest of the world.
Reality - for example, the cradle of civilisation [1a] has been fought over since its proverbial conception [1b]
Let's not forget HISOTRY & HUMAN NATURE in peoples desire to condemn & label some 'protagonists' & others wholly innocent 'victims' & what constitutes 'resources & a reason/excuse for actions labeled as 'war'.
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1a]
[1b]
Complain about this post
I have better things to do with my life than worry about Mr B
Complain about this post
What I think sums up Tony Blair is his frantic what I call "respond and change" philosophy.
If there is any kind of problem, respond
to it, make a law, make a speech, and it doesn麓t matter if it麓s quite clearly different from what you just legislated on 5 minutes ago. Dave the Chameleon who changes his rhetoric every 5 minutes is very different to someone who is changing his core principles and policies every 5 minutes.
The NHS is a prime example of this along with education and let麓s face it he thought this war would be another Balkans conflict settlement, in other words a push over and quite frankly it wasn麓t anything of the sort, so why not give the daft public
the impression that a sustained, note the word sustained, use of hard power was as intentional as if it had all gone our way. I think TB is a political genius, good with people of all sorts, but he麓s been in far too long now and I think a steady hand from brown coupled with some friendly conservative backing on some issues is not at all a bad idea.
Complain about this post
BLAIR鈥橲 ALBION LECTURE 12.1.07
Blair is clearly trying to set the agenda for the future (probably because his past agenda has gone all wrong). Further it looks as if his Bush-worship stems from the military power that Bush wields as 鈥淐ommander in Chief鈥. It boils down to a cry for British Military Might 鈥 Rule Britannia 鈥 without end. Blair looking for the legacy 鈥淚 made Britain Great鈥 even if the dream of leading Her to great victories has gone.
Blair states: 鈥淪eptember 11th changed everything鈥 鈥 the 鈥渨ay we look at the world鈥.
But terror-bombing of buildings was not new 鈥 indeed American nationals had demonstrated the art. The Twin Towers incident was traumatic only because of their iconic status and the number killed. The risk of attack on high-rise buildings with planes was well recognised 鈥 but not, it seems, taken seriously. Complacency is very old-world! What was missing was defence of a vulnerable target! For Bush to declare a new era of 鈥淲ar on Terror鈥 was a time honoured way of getting the people of America yelling behind him 鈥 at 鈥渢he enemy鈥 - instead of in front 鈥 and at him.
He refers (as often before) to 鈥渁 misreading of Islaam鈥 showing his abject lack of sensitivity when intruding on another faith. Also he exhibits astounding absence of application of his own averred faith which counsels: 鈥渢urn the other cheek鈥 and advises self-inspection before criticising others, in The Parable of the Mote and Beam.
Blair misreads his Christianity to support the 鈥淛ust War鈥, an exact mirror image.
Blair is careful to state that 鈥渋n no justifiable sense鈥 can the removal of 鈥渢wo appalling dictatorships鈥 be said to have inflamed Muslim opinion. He declares opposition to this assertion 鈥渓udicrous鈥 but the sentence is so convoluted (a Blair hallmark) that precisely in what wise 鈥渓udicrous鈥 applies is hazy. It is implicit that to be inflamed by bombing and invasion of ones homeland 鈥 and home 鈥 is lame excuse for inflammation, unless you are a terrorist.
He refers to: 鈥渓eaders who, gung-ho, launch their nations into ill-advised adventures without thought for the consequences鈥. According to Blair, this is a parody given the lie by virtue of 鈥 admittedly fallible - striving to get it right. Typical Blair logic.
He rides his usual hobby horse: doing hard stuff is laudable. Resisting the temptation
of the saner option of restraint, is 鈥渞etreat鈥. He trumpets: 鈥淪o, for me, the setting aside of 鈥渉ard鈥 power leads inexorably to the weakening of 鈥渟oft鈥 power.鈥 It seems Ghandi, King and even Jesus died in vain.
In a sudden lurch, Blair declares his hard power option to be part of the price of being in with America. Now he tells us.
At various points 鈥 sometimes incongruously 鈥 he returns to the whole gamut of using human life as cannon fodder, bewailing the negatives and parading pride and sacrifice. All in all, whether foreign or 鈥渙urs鈥 the general tenor is: it is OK for people to die so that Western Values (god help them) are brought to the 鈥渄eprived鈥. And if it turns out disaster 鈥 it is still OK if you meant well.
Complain about this post
Ref Hugh Waldock #20
"Further it looks as if his Bush-worship stems from the military power that Bush wields as 鈥淐ommander in Chief鈥. It boils down to a cry for British Military Might 鈥 Rule Britannia 鈥 without end"
Q. pray tell, which armed force would you wish to recommend - which we could use to sort out international problems, when force has to be used?
Those forces who are often touted by others with agenda, as a knee jerk reaction ... but in whose ranks we find repeated: corruption, selling/passing of secrets, child abuse, sex trafficking, military ineffectiveness ----> UN Forces
There is a relationship between British Society, Culture & History & British Armed Forces & their effectiveness.
If politician's misuse military power (no historical surprise there) we need to hold account politicians - not do away with military capability, period.
I would rather see a maintenance & extension of our values & competency in progressive democratic societies (& additional British values too) than over reliance of other ineffectual alliances, when partners do not pull their weight and/or alliances who have a proven history of intransigence & an inability to address the conflicts they are dispatched too.
For example NATO (as ex BAOR serving solider aware of its pro's & con's):
NATO expose in Afghanistan ex 91热爆 journalists Martin Bell did a very interesting piece [1]
- some NATO members don't do night patrols
- some NATO members don't do combat
- some NATO members don't do snow
At the moment in NATO, the Brits, Canadians, Danish & Yanks are the only ones doing the fighting - but all members face the risk.
Some have to do the rebuilding, but it should not be determined according to nationalities.
Personally I believe in NATO & UN Forces (as part of revamped UN)>
But do not believe in reasons behind any exclusive EURO FORCE or UN Force (unreformed) - based on actual Post WWII history & actions of countries, not their some promises to change.
But many in the Liberal Left / Left camps want Europeans to disengage from any body (political, economic, military) with the Yanks.
This eschews too many of Lefts views, to make them credible, beyond the theoretical plans & fantasies indulged in 'communes', backrooms, protests & wine bar discussions.
vikingar
SOURCES;
[1]
Complain about this post
Ref Hugh Waldock #20
"Further it looks as if his Bush-worship stems from the military power that Bush wields as 鈥淐ommander in Chief鈥. It boils down to a cry for British Military Might 鈥 Rule Britannia 鈥 without end"
Q. pray tell, which armed force would you wish to recommend - which we could use to sort out international problems, when force has to be used?
Those forces who are often touted by others with agenda, as a knee jerk reaction ... but in whose ranks we find repeated: corruption, selling/passing of secrets, child abuse, sex trafficking, military ineffectiveness ----> UN Forces
There is a relationship between British Society, Culture & History & British Armed Forces & their effectiveness.
If politician's misuse military power (no historical surprise there) we need to hold account politicians - not do away with military capability, period.
I would rather see a maintenance & extension of our values & competency in progressive democratic societies (& additional British values too) than over reliance of other ineffectual alliances, when partners do not pull their weight and/or alliances who have a proven history of intransigence & an inability to address the conflicts they are dispatched too.
For example NATO (as ex BAOR serving solider aware of its pro's & con's):
NATO expose in Afghanistan ex 91热爆 journalists Martin Bell did a very interesting piece [1]
- some NATO members don't do night patrols
- some NATO members don't do combat
- some NATO members don't do snow
At the moment in NATO, the Brits, Canadians, Danish & Yanks are the only ones doing the fighting - but all members face the risk.
Some have to do the rebuilding, but it should not be determined according to nationalities.
Personally I believe in NATO & UN Forces (as part of revamped UN)>
But do not believe in reasons behind any exclusive EURO FORCE or UN Force (unreformed) - based on actual Post WWII history & actions of countries, not their some promises to change.
But many in the Liberal Left / Left camps want Europeans to disengage from any body (political, economic, military) with the Yanks.
This eschews too many of Lefts views, to make them credible, beyond the theoretical plans & fantasies indulged in 'communes', backrooms, protests & wine bar discussions.
It's a Brave New World ... NOT A 鈥.naive old one :)
vikingar
SOURCES;
[1]
Complain about this post
Sorry but I did not write post 20 that was Mr Singleton.
My own prediction is that in 100 years time countries are not going to mean a lot anyway, there will be worldwide free trade laws and most of the things will be done on a basis of concencus anyway, that is why I feel Tony Blair麓s speech is entirely irrelevent to the future of the world long term and Britain麓s voice as a nation is and should be only as good as any other.
Yes, we should continue are alliance with the USA but not this US president who constantly sells us his weaknesses as strengths. I feel the stubborness and power of Mr Bush麓s personality is having a marked effect on Blair. It麓s where moral politics desintegrates, Bush is using Blair麓s language now but he doesn麓t believe it really and Blair is copying Bush麓s rhetoric and attitude to back him up and give him credibility. I hope Bush fails in Iraq, becuase otherwise we he will have the final say and there will be strings of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic copying him and learning from him. I don麓t think he deserves this accreditation, becuase I don麓t think he麓s a very nice guy. But that麓s just my opinion.
Effectiveness isn麓t everything.
Yes we should use force to some extent but not too often and Blair seems to feel it麓s the solution to everything now in order to build a better world. But why do we still describe to the social darwinist view
that our culture is superior to others. Social mobility is the answer to this problem not taking over the world.
Complain about this post
Do I take it that there is no longer a separate strand for Newsnight Review? The last date on that blog seems to be mid December. So here, in among the serious polemical stuff, is my expression of delight that someone (Bidisha?) talked about a really interesting book from the past, The Descent of Woman, by Elaine Morgan. Not at all barmy (as I fear the latest Doris Lessing seems to be) but fascinating. One of the main theses is that developing humans had an aquatic period, which to the best of my belief has never been satisfactorily refuted.
I really enjoy Newsnight Review, but I think it should be hived off, have an hour of its own somewhere else in the schedules, and that we should have the full 50 minutes on Friday putting the News into Newsnight.
Complain about this post
Vikingar - #17
"Ref 'resources' - the same on another level can be equated to those millions seeking to gain illegal/underhand access to 1st world societies, rights, economies, services & citizenship."
Alas you have forgotten that for centuries Imperial Britain and other European countries have plundered the resources of these people to be where they are today!
So, don't moan too much because they are just taking back a little of what was theirs (wealth) taken away!
Complain about this post
Ref Mahmud Ibrahim #25
Mahmud Ibrahim = anarchosurfer [1]
As previously stated 'anarchosurfer' [2] don't wish too waste time, blood & treasure engaging disingenuous myopic radical/extremists - example of 'Mahmud Ibrahim' post [3]
Esp when they post under several ID's :(
ENDEX
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1] #16 /blogs/newsnight/2006/12/friday_15_december_2006.html
[2] #27 /blogs/newsnight/2006/11/wednesday_8_november_2006.html
[3] #60 /blogs/theeditors/2006/12/too_much_conspiracy.html
Complain about this post
Iraq and Afghanistan have had government that have been elected by their own people often in circumstances requiring real bravery to travel to and from the polling stations.
It is worth helping newly popularly-elected democracies take root around the world and defend themselves from the cycle of extremist violence.
I think it is all too easy to take for granted the freedoms we enjoy in Europe today that were delivered with such heartache by our fore-fathers. Who are we to deny these opportunites to other people around the world? I wish the fight for peace was bloodless, but it seems so more often than not.
Complain about this post
Vikingar@26
As is your norm you trade insults rather than engage in debate.
All the same, I wish you a happy future and an un-Zionist years ahead!
Complain about this post
Jason - the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are two totally different kettle of fish.
Afghanistan was a proxy war using the Northern Alliance in which we immediately set about creating a democracy (however we then dropped the ball and moved resources over to the Iraq invasion instead of building up Afghanistan).
The Iraq war was an illegal invasion were we (i.e. the Coalition) simply dismantled everything (army, police force, civil service) and then somehow thought we could put it all back together and make it work.
And for those who think our is job to go around the world imposing democracy at the barrel of gun please feel free to sign up at your local military recruitment office.
Complain about this post
Blair wants to launch a debate on this - very laudable - but why doesn't the man allow the elected chamber to debate the situation in Iraq???
Complain about this post
Ref Rick B #29
Indeed.
If by your criteria you declare the Iraq war 'illegal' then by comparison the Afghan campaign * is wholly above board & legal :)
* though questionably run at times & I agree they had dropped the ball but are getting it back in play - thankfully
UP & AT 'EM
vikingar
Complain about this post
For the benefit of other posters :)
Mahmud Ibrahim = anarchosurfer
Do a search on NN, judge & compare, meantime ....
---------------
PREVIOUS - Mahmud Ibrahim Posts
'Mahmud Ibrahim' NN posts :
- Post #218 & #230 : the Newsnight thread about Hitz but Tahrir [1a]
- Post #60 : the Newsnight thread about Conspiracy Theories [1b]
- Post #7 : the Newsnight thread about Radical Extremism in British Universities - a reply to #1 [1c]
- Post #21 24 33 34 38 - the Newsnight thread about Darfur [2]
---------------
MOST REVEALING POST - Mahmud Ibrahim #60 [1b]
Peter,
Can you rationally explain how an Hijacker's Passport was found in a building we were told was so hot that steel melted away very quickly???
How did a LARGE boeing aircraft crash into the Pentagon building without living much debris and charred remains of all those killed??
How could an aviation fuel known to burn at a lower temperature, melt steel which needs considerably higher temperature to melt?
Why were those supposedly fanatic and extremist Muslim hijackers - we were told - were partying away with wine, women and eating pork chops, the night prior to their martydom!
Why did those 'Arabs' live a Van at the airport parking that contained aircraft manual in Arabic, a copy of the Koran, and other paraphenalia that could easily expose their trail? Would a thief cover his/her tracks or advertise themselves as they did?
I could go on with a dozen such questions that defy logic sorrounding that tragic event.
But ofcourse, to Peter Barron and his likes, this line of questioning is not rational!!!
---------------
One poster with 2+ ID's
Failing to write like they people they are pretending to be
.... as inept as it is sad
---------------
NODUFF
vikingar
SOURCES:
1a] /blogs/newsnight/2006/11/tuesday_14_november_2006.html
[1b] /blogs/theeditors/2006/12/too_much_conspiracy.html
[1c] /blogs/newsnight/2006/11/friday_17_november_2006.html
[2] /blogs/newsnight/2006/12/friday_8_december_2006.html
Complain about this post
On a lighter note, Mr B, please ignore that eejit who was slating 'Newsnight Review' and making some facile comment about dreadful weekends are - as if we all want to work 7 days a week. What does he think we are - Americans ?
Complain about this post
Ref Philip #32
" ....as if we all want to work 7 days a week. What does he think we are - Americans ?"
Nice one :)
鈥 & since employment involves 5 full working days in the UK, that obviously discounts us as being French either
vikingar
Complain about this post
Very nice site! Good work.
Complain about this post