Tony Blair and what next...........................

@forfein (2509)
January 12, 2007 12:15pm CST
Hi Did anyone see the Tony Blair speech aboard HMS Albion in Plymouth today??? It was live on Sky News He said that we have to combat the new threats of global terrorism, and that it is like the fight against revolutionary communism in its early and most militant phase. (one assumes he was refferring to the amount of Armed Forces we had stationed in Germany, along with the rest of NATO to guard against "Soviet Imperialism") (I trained for years to fight the "Commies" when I was in the Army, and now I married one!! Strange world!!)) He also said that our Armed Forces have to meet the unconventional global threat from a movement of Fanatics wielding a warped version of Islam He also made reference to the fact that the "Terrorists" have a "strategic advantage" such as "Terrorism and Time" I think we all know that it is going to take "Time" to defeat these people!! He also made reference to them not being a "conventional army," and that they "can not be defeated by conventional means". I think the majority of the people in the Forces know this!!! Blimey.... we knew it in 1972 against the IRA and LOOK AT HOW LONG THAT ONE TOOK!!! However, to retreat in the face of this threat would be a catastrophe. We know from the past that to give in to terrorists means giving up freedom!! Global terrorism, the proliferation of it and the expansion of its circle of sympathisers is something we can do with out!!!!
1 person likes this
6 responses
@snowflake5 (1580)
• United States
12 Jan 07
I think he's trying to bind his successor into going along with Bush's conventional wars. Fat chance - my belief is that the first thing Gordon Brown will do is distance himself from Bush and Blair. I hear that Congress (both republican and Democrat) are unhappy with Bush's ideas about escalation and may stop him. I hope they do. I think terrorism will be solved by police work and intelligence co-operation across Europe and the world, not by bombing.
@forfein (2509)
12 Jan 07
First thing is I sincerly hope that Gordon Brown is NOT the next PM !!! The idea of Bush's "escalation" as you call it, is to try and finally put a stop to the "insurgents" in Iraq! You need "manpower" to do this! Winning the war was easy!! Winning the Peace of Iraq is a lot more difficult! However, I do agree that Good Police Work and REALLY GOOD Intelligence is the key!
• United States
12 Jan 07
Well like it or not, Gordon Brown WILL be the next PM - the Labour party won the 2005 election and as ours is not a presidential system, it's the man elected leader of the party with most seats who will be PM, just as in 1990, it was the man elected by the Tory party (who then had the most seats) who became PM. Re the escalation - the 20,000 troops only brings the American troop level back to what it was in Sept 2003. You will recall that late 2003 was the period where they lost control and the jihadis took over and they've got stronger and stronger with time. The situation in 2007 is much, much worse than in Sept 2003. If they couldn't manage in sept 2003 with the troops they had, how on earth are they going to make a turnaround now, with the same number? By wishful thinking? If the troop increase was for another 100,000 (remember that General Shinseko had recommended before the war that 250,000 was needed to maintain security), then I would have thought the Busg plan had a chance. But going back to 135,000 won't cut it. The reason they're in this mess is that 135,000 didn't cut it in the first place. To believe otherwise is to indulge in delusion. Sorry.
@hasseyg (313)
13 Jan 07
I hope gordon brown will become the next primeminister as i think he will become a better one than tony blair who does anything bush sais.
@forfein (2509)
16 Jan 07
Oh I have to disagree I am afraid! I think he is no where as good as Tony Blair, at least he is a Statesman! Brown isnt!
11 Feb 07
I agree: Tony Blair is not saying anything we don't know. Trouble is that a lot of people are getting fed up with having to listen to it. Many people think they're being clever by calling him Bush's poodle but the fact of the matter is that hardly any British PM would snub the US when called upon at times when the chips are down. When it comes to doing the West's dirty work you can't rely on France or Germany and it's always the Anglo-Saxon countries who have to stand up and fight. It was also thus and this is something any future PM will have to deal with as well.
• United States
27 Jan 07
I watched it and quite simply, he is playing the same propaganda game as Bush Jr is.
@wolfie34 (26820)
• United Kingdom
26 Jan 07
Everytime I see Blair speak, I keep wondering if Bush's hand is somewhere underneath, pulling the strings and making him talk or garble one or the other. I'm afraid that I have lost all hope of a better tomorrow with these bungling men. I rued the day that Labour got in, but trouble is there is no stiff opposition and if you get rid of Blair they'll always be another idiot in power. Let the people have the last say instead of leaving it in the hands of these individuals, after all its the people who have to fit the bill of the mistakes which are made on our behalf, apparently. Personally I think this is another Vietnam war and it's not the politicians who are in the firing line it's our brave men and women sent to the slaughter house.
@ashjoe76 (1434)
• India
19 Jan 07
Blair or Brown, the larger question is about defining global terrorism. Can we just reduce those who argue for for humanitarian and national culture concerns as 'sympathisers' of what is generally termed terrorism? I guess, an attempt needs to be taken to see the significance of other local cultures and their specifics if the US or the EU thinks they have some right to lead the world in peace. See how easily they have shifted their focus from preemptive war to preventive war, and who knows what will be next step! I feel it is always better to leave some space in our minds for concerns that are not restricted to national interests. The entire attitude of seeing the rest of the world as a lesser entity and terming and defining them the way Adam and Eve did can only make the issues bitter. This leads just to an idea of permanent global hegemony, which as you may understand, is possible in today's world niether with coercion not by consent. I hope you would take this as an opinion that differs from yours naturally as it comes from someone who experienced life from the other side of where you stand. We need to respect each other, right?