ForumGarden

Tony Blair spoke about the the role of the UK's Armed Forces in the 21st century in the latest of his Our Nation's Future lectures today.

The full text of his address is on http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10735.asp

In it, he invites ForumGarden (among many other meeting places) to debate whether "the combination of hard and soft power is still the right course for our country". He concludes his lecture with:It is not easy to have this debate with the swirl of recent publicity about the conditions of our Armed Forces - however wrong or exaggerated it might be; or when we are in the middle of two deeply controversial engagements of our troops. Yet this is the right time to debate and decide it precisely because of such stormy argument.

The reason for the storm is not this or that grievance or conflict. Its origin is the new situation we face. The post Cold War threat is now clear. The world has changed again. We must change with it. I have set out the choice I believe we should make. I look forward to the debate.I would be pleased to engage in Tony Blair's national debate by opposing this motion.

spot;514032 wrote: Tony Blair spoke about the the role of the UK's Armed Forces in the 21st century in the latest of his Our Nation's Future lectures today.



The full text of his address is on http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10735.asp





In it, he invites ForumGarden (among many other meeting places) to debate whether "the combination of hard and soft power is still the right course for our country". He concludes his lecture with:It is not easy to have this debate with the swirl of recent publicity about the conditions of our Armed Forces - however wrong or exaggerated it might be; or when we are in the middle of two deeply controversial engagements of our troops. Yet this is the right time to debate and decide it precisely because of such stormy argument.

The reason for the storm is not this or that grievance or conflict. Its origin is the new situation we face. The post Cold War threat is now clear. The world has changed again. We must change with it. I have set out the choice I believe we should make. I look forward to the debate.I would be pleased to engage in Tony Blair's national debate by opposing this motion. Well I certainly couldnt argue FOR it. I cant think of a thing I would vehemently argue against more, than this.

This seems a good week to find people supporting, perhaps. Far? Clipper? bozooka? Any other gung-ho vets out there listening?

spot;547676 wrote: This seems a good week to find people supporting, perhaps. Far? Clipper? bozooka? Any other gung-ho vets out there listening?
I am a vet of the first gulf war too. I still oppose.

Clipper;547692 wrote: Sorry. I don't go sticking my nose into other Country's affairs. I refer to that as respect.



Now altho I am no longer on Active Duty I can assure you that I was gung ho then and I am gung ho about protecting a sacred Memorial from desecration.



Also....I have never gone on record here as to opposing or supporting this war in Iraq and I defy you to find any such posting by me.
LOL! Clipper! I would do no such thing!

I think my stance on this subject is well documented in the garden.

Clipper;547692 wrote: Sorry. I don't go sticking my nose into other Country's affairs. I refer to that as respect.:DWould that your wretched President were of the same mind, Clipper. You remember how he weaseled his way into his first term saying he'd listen to other nations?If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation and if we're an arrogant nation they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation they'll respect us.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html

Respect doesn't seem to have figured highly on his agenda since he got into the White House.

The proposed motion isn't country-specific at all, you'd not be sticking your nose into anything but a limited-post explanation of your position. Four posts each, that's all.

Clipper;547709 wrote: LOL! Raven my post was NOT directed at YOU.....



ps: I did the Gulf War as well back in 91....no fond memories about that one either.
I was stationed on the Comfort.

spot;547712 wrote: Would that your wretched President were of the same mind, Clipper. You remember how he weaseled his way into his first term saying he'd listen to other nations?If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation and if we're an arrogant nation they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation they'll respect us.







http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html

Respect doesn't seem to have figured highly on his agenda since he got into the White House.



The proposed motion isn't country-specific at all, you'd not be sticking your nose into anything but a limited-post explanation of your position. Four posts each, that's all.
Other people write his speeches. He probably doesnt remember one from another. Surely you dont think those are HIS sentiments, do you?

Clipper;547726 wrote: USS Pittsburgh SSN-720. We were only 1 of 2 Submarines allowed to launch Tomahawk missiles into Bagdad. Punched their lights out good we did.



The Skipper woudda launched a kitchen sink as well that night if we had been able to get it into a launch tube....
LOL! I bet!

The thing is.....I know why we were there then. I dont know why today. It just doesnt make any sense. Afghanistan, I understand. But Iraq, again? Why?

I am coming late to this debate, but as far as I am concerned, Blair should have been on trial along with Saddam and Bush.

Where he and I differ most though is when he asks for "war-fighting" forces. Apart from the fact that the "British" armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are woefully under-equipped, their presence there is legally questionable (at best).

Armies, Navies and Air Forces should, in this day and age, be used only for defence - not for the purpose of lining corporate pockets.

Chookie;547804 wrote: I am coming late to this debate, but as far as I am concerned, Blair should have been on trial along with Saddam and Bush.

Where he and I differ most though is when he asks for "war-fighting" forces. Apart from the fact that the "British" armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are woefully under-equipped, their presence there is legally questionable (at best).

Armies, Navies and Air Forces should, in this day and age, be used only for defence - not for the purpose of lining corporate pockets.


We live in a parliamentary democracy-Blair could not go to war without the support of parliament. Our MP's have a lot to answer for as well.