Religions > Atheism > Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Davey" |
| Date: |
06 Mar 2004 04:11:36 PM |
| Object: |
Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
Source
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html?79%3A+Uk+latest
Friday March 5, 2004
No decision I have ever made in politics has been as divisive as the
decision to go to war to in Iraq. It remains deeply divisive today. I know a
large part of the public want to move on. Rightly they say the Government
should concentrate on the issues that elected us in 1997: the economy, jobs,
living standards, health, education, crime. I share that view, and we are.
But I know too that the nature of this issue over Iraq, stirring such bitter
emotions as it does, can't just be swept away as ill-fitting the
pre-occupations of the man and woman on the street. This is not simply
because of the gravity of war; or the continued engagement of British troops
and civilians in Iraq; or even because of reflections made on the integrity
of the Prime Minister. It is because it was in March 2003 and remains my
fervent view that the nature of the global threat we face in Britain and
round the world is real and existential and it is the task of leadership to
expose it and fight it, whatever the political cost; and that the true
danger is not to any single politician's reputation, but to our country if
we now ignore this threat or erase it from the agenda in embarrassment at
the difficulties it causes.
In truth, the fundamental source of division over Iraq is not over issues of
trust or integrity, though some insist on trying to translate it into that.
Each week brings a fresh attempt to get a new angle that can prove it was
all a gigantic conspiracy. We have had three inquiries, including the one by
Lord Hutton conducted over six months, with more openness by Government than
any such inquiry in history, that have affirmed there was no attempt to
falsify intelligence in the dossier of September 2002, but rather that it
was indeed an accurate summary of that intelligence.
We have seen one element - intelligence about some WMD being ready for use
in 45 minutes - elevated into virtually the one fact that persuaded the
nation into war. This intelligence was mentioned by me once in my statement
to the House of Commons on 24 September and not mentioned by me again in any
debate. It was mentioned by no-one in the crucial debate on 18 March 2003.
In the period from 24 September to 29 May, the date of the BBC broadcast on
it, it was raised twice in almost 40,000 written Parliamentary Questions in
the House of Commons; and not once in almost 5,000 oral questions. Neither
was it remotely the basis for the claim that Saddam had strategic as well as
battlefield WMD. That was dealt with in a different part of the dossier; and
though the Iraq Survey Group have indeed not found stockpiles of weapons,
they have uncovered much evidence about Saddam's programme to develop
long-range strategic missiles in breach of UN rules.
It is said we claimed Iraq was an imminent threat to Britain and was
preparing to attack us. In fact this is what I said prior to the war on 24
September 2002:
"Why now? People ask. I agree I cannot say that this month or next, even
this year or next he will use his weapons."
Then, for example, in January 2003 in my press conference I said:
"And I tell you honestly what my fear is, my fear is that we wake up one day
and we find either that one of these dictatorial states has used weapons of
mass destruction - and Iraq has done so in the past - and we get sucked into
a conflict, with all the devastation that would cause; or alternatively
these weapons, which are being traded right round the world at the moment,
fall into the hands of these terrorist groups, these fanatics who will stop
at absolutely nothing to cause death and destruction on a mass scale. Now
that is what I have to worry about. And I understand of course why people
think it is a very remote threat and it is far away and why does it bother
us. Now I simply say to you, it is a matter of time unless we act and take a
stand before terrorism and weapons of mass destruction come together, and I
regard them as two sides of the same coin."
The truth is, as was abundantly plain in the motion before the House of
Commons on 18 March, we went to war to enforce compliance with UN
Resolutions. Had we believed Iraq was an imminent direct threat to Britain,
we would have taken action in September 2002; we would not have gone to the
UN. Instead, we spent October and November in the UN negotiating UN
Resolution 1441. We then spent almost 4 months trying to implement it.
Actually, it is now apparent from the Survey Group that Iraq was indeed in
breach of UN Resolution 1441. It did not disclose laboratories and
facilities it should have; nor the teams of scientists kept together to
retain their WMD including nuclear expertise; nor its continuing research
relevant to CW and BW. As Dr Kay, the former head of the ISG who is now
quoted as a critic of the war has said: "Iraq was in clear violation of the
terms of Resolution 1441". And "I actually think this [Iraq] may be one of
those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought."
Then, most recently is the attempt to cast doubt on the Attorney General's
legal opinion. He said the war was lawful. He published a statement on the
legal advice. It is said this opinion is disputed. Of course it is. It was
disputed in March 2003. It is today. The lawyers continue to divide over
it - with their legal opinions bearing a remarkable similarity to their
political view of the war.
But let's be clear. Once this row dies down, another will take its place and
then another and then another.
All of it in the end is an elaborate smokescreen to prevent us seeing the
real issue: which is not a matter of trust but of judgement.
The real point is that those who disagree with the war, disagree
fundamentally with the judgement that led to war. What is more, their
alternative judgement is both entirely rational and arguable. Kosovo, with
ethnic cleansing of ethnic Albanians, was not a hard decision for most
people; nor was Afghanistan after the shock of September 11; nor was Sierra
Leone.
Iraq in March 2003 was an immensely difficult judgement. It was divisive
because it was difficult. I have never disrespected those who disagreed with
the decision. Sure, some were anti-American; some against all wars. But
there was a core of sensible people who faced with this decision would have
gone the other way, for sensible reasons. Their argument is one I understand
totally. It is that Iraq posed no direct, immediate threat to Britain; and
that Iraq's WMD, even on our own case, was not serious enough to warrant
war, certainly without a specific UN resolution mandating military action.
And they argue: Saddam could, in any event, be contained.
In other words, they disagreed then and disagree now fundamentally with the
characterisation of the threat. We were saying this is urgent; we have to
act; the opponents of war thought it wasn't. And I accept, incidentally,
that however abhorrent and foul the regime and however relevant that was for
the reasons I set out before the war, for example in Glasgow in February
2003, regime change alone could not be and was not our justification for
war. Our primary purpose was to enforce UN resolutions over Iraq and WMD.
Of course the opponents are boosted by the fact that though we know Saddam
had WMD; we haven't found the physical evidence of them in the 11 months
since the war. But in fact, everyone thought he had them. That was the basis
of UN Resolution 1441.
It's just worth pointing out that the search is being conducted in a country
twice the land mass of the UK, which David Kay's interim report in October
2003 noted, contains 130 ammunition storage areas, some covering an area of
50 square miles, including some 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets
and other ordnance, of which only a small proportion have as yet been
searched in the difficult security environment that exists.
But the key point is that it is the threat that is the issue.
The characterisation of the threat is where the difference lies. Here is
where I feel so passionately that we are in mortal danger of mistaking the
nature of the new world in which we live. Everything about our world is
changing: its economy, its technology, its culture, its way of living. If
the 20th century scripted our conventional way of thinking, the 21st century
is unconventional in almost every respect.
This is true also of our security.
The threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different
nature from anything the world has faced before. It is to the world's
security, what globalisation is to the world's economy.
It was defined not by Iraq but by September 11th. September 11th did not
create the threat Saddam posed. But it altered crucially the balance of risk
as to whether to deal with it or simply carry on, however imperfectly,
trying to contain it.
Let me attempt an explanation of how my own thinking, as a political leader,
has evolved during these past few years. Already, before September 11th the
world's view of the justification of military action had been changing. The
only clear case in international relations for armed intervention had been
self-defence, response to aggression. But the notion of intervening on
humanitarian grounds had been gaining currency. I set this out, following
the Kosovo war, in a speech in Chicago in 1999, where I called for a
doctrine of international community, where in certain clear circumstances,
we do intervene, even though we are not directly threatened. I said this was
not just to correct injustice, but also because in an increasingly
inter-dependent world, our self-interest was allied to the interests of
others; and seldom did conflict in one region of the world not contaminate
another. We acted in Sierra Leone for similar reasons, though frankly even
if that country had become run by gangsters and murderers and its democracy
crushed, it would have been a long time before it impacted on us. But we
were able to act to help them and we did.
So, for me, before September 11th, I was already reaching for a different
philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held
sway since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely that a country's
internal affairs are for it and you don't interfere unless it threatens you,
or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance. I did not
consider Iraq fitted into this philosophy, though I could see the horrible
injustice done to its people by Saddam.
However, I had started to become concerned about two other phenomena.
The first was the increasing amount of information about Islamic extremism
and terrorism that was crossing my desk. Chechnya was blighted by it. So was
Kashmir. Afghanistan was its training ground. Some 300 people had been
killed in the attacks on the USS Cole and US embassies in East Africa. The
extremism seemed remarkably well financed. It was very active. And it was
driven not by a set of negotiable political demands, but by religious
fanaticism.
The second was the attempts by states - some of them highly unstable and
repressive - to develop nuclear weapons programmes, CW and BW materiel, and
long-range missiles. What is more, it was obvious that there was a
considerable network of individuals and companies with expertise in this
area, prepared to sell it.
All this was before September 11th. I discussed the issue of WMD with
President Bush at our first meeting in Camp David in February 2001. But it's
in the nature of things that other issues intervene - I was about to fight
for re-election - and though it was raised, it was a troubling spectre in
the background, not something to arrest our whole attention.
President Bush told me that on September 9th 2001, he had a meeting about
Iraq in the White House when he discussed "smart" sanctions, changes to the
sanctions regime. There was no talk of military action.
September 11th was for me a revelation. What had seemed inchoate came
together. The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not
its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on
the streets of New York. All of this made it an astonishing, terrible and
wicked tragedy, a barbaric murder of innocent people. But what galvanised me
was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared
to wage that war without limit. They killed 3000. But if they could have
killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it. The purpose was to
cause such hatred between Moslems and the West that a religious jihad became
reality; and the world engulfed by it.
When I spoke to the House of Commons on 14 September 2001 I said:
"We know, that they [the terrorists] would, if they could, go further and
use chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction. We
know, also, that there are groups of people, occasionally states, who will
trade the technology and capability of such weapons. It is time that this
trade was exposed, disrupted, and stamped out. We have been warned by the
events of 11 September, and we should act on the warning."
From September 11th on, I could see the threat plainly. Here were terrorists
prepared to bring about Armageddon. Here were states whose leadership cared
for no-one but themselves; were often cruel and tyrannical towards their own
people; and who saw WMD as a means of defending themselves against any
attempt external or internal to remove them and who, in their chaotic and
corrupt state, were in any event porous and irresponsible with neither the
will nor capability to prevent terrorists who also hated the West, from
exploiting their chaos and corruption.
I became aware of the activities of A Q Khan, former Pakistani nuclear
scientist and of an organisation developing nuclear weapons technology to
sell secretly to states wanting to acquire it. I started to hear of plants
to manufacture nuclear weapons equipment in Malaysia, in the Near East and
Africa, companies in the Gulf and Europe to finance it; training and
know-how provided - all without any or much international action to stop it.
It was a murky, dangerous trade, done with much sophistication and it was
rapidly shortening the timeframe of countries like North Korea and Iran in
acquiring serviceable nuclear weapons capability.
I asked for more intelligence on the issue not just of terrorism but also of
WMD. The scale of it became clear. It didn't matter that the Islamic
extremists often hated some of these regimes. Their mutual enmity toward the
West would in the end triumph over any scruples of that nature, as we see
graphically in Iraq today.
We knew that Al Qaida sought the capability to use WMD in their attacks. Bin
Laden has called it a "duty" to obtain nuclear weapons. His networks have
experimented with chemicals and toxins for use in attacks. He received
advice from at least two Pakistani scientists on the design of nuclear
weapons. In Afghanistan Al Qaida trained its recruits in the use of poisons
and chemicals. An Al Qaida terrorist ran a training camp developing these
techniques. Terrorist training manuals giving step-by-step instructions for
the manufacture of deadly substances such as botulinum and ricin were widely
distributed in Afghanistan and elsewhere and via the internet. Terrorists in
Russia have actually deployed radiological material. The sarin attack on the
Tokyo Metro showed how serious an impact even a relatively small attack can
have.
The global threat to our security was clear. So was our duty: to act to
eliminate it.
First we dealt with Al Qaida in Afghanistan, removing the Taliban that
succoured them.
But then we had to confront the states with WMD. We had to take a stand. We
had to force conformity with international obligations that for years had
been breached with the world turning a blind eye. For 12 years Saddam had
defied calls to disarm. In 1998, he had effectively driven out the UN
inspectors and we had bombed his military infrastructure; but we had only
weakened him, not removed the threat. Saddam alone had used CW against Iran
and against his own people.
We had had an international coalition blessed by the UN in Afghanistan. I
wanted the same now. President Bush agreed to go the UN route. We secured UN
Resolution 1441. Saddam had one final chance to comply fully. Compliance had
to start with a full and honest declaration of WMD programmes and
activities.
The truth is disarming a country, other than with its consent, is a perilous
exercise. On 8 December 2002, Saddam sent his declaration. It was obviously
false. The UN inspectors were in Iraq but progress was slow and the vital
cooperation of Iraqi scientists withheld. In March we went back to the UN to
make a final ultimatum. We strove hard for agreement. We very nearly
achieved it.
So we came to the point of decision. Prime Ministers don't have the luxury
of maintaining both sides of the argument. They can see both sides. But,
ultimately, leadership is about deciding. My view was and is that if the UN
had come together and delivered a tough ultimatum to Saddam, listing clearly
what he had to do, benchmarking it, he may have folded and events set in
train that might just and eventually have led to his departure from power.
But the Security Council didn't agree.
Suppose at that point we had backed away. Inspectors would have stayed but
only the utterly naive would believe that following such a public climbdown
by the US and its partners, Saddam would have cooperated more. He would have
strung the inspectors out and returned emboldened to his plans. The will to
act on the issue of rogue states and WMD would have been shown to be hollow.
The terrorists, watching and analysing every move in our psychology as they
do, would have taken heart. All this without counting the fact that the
appalling brutalisation of the Iraqi people would have continued unabated
and reinforced.
Here is the crux. It is possible that even with all of this, nothing would
have happened. Possible that Saddam would change his ambitions; possible he
would develop the WMD but never use it; possible that the terrorists would
never get their hands on WMD, whether from Iraq or elsewhere. We cannot be
certain. Perhaps we would have found different ways of reducing it. Perhaps
this Islamic terrorism would ebb of its own accord.
But do we want to take the risk? That is the judgement. And my judgement
then and now is that the risk of this new global terrorism and its
interaction with states or organisations or individuals proliferating WMD,
is one I simply am not prepared to run.
This is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the
risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly
wise who favour playing it long. Their worldly wise cynicism is actually at
best naivete and at worst dereliction. When they talk, as they do now, of
diplomacy coming back into fashion in respect of Iran or North Korea or
Libya, do they seriously think that diplomacy alone has brought about this
change? Since the war in Iraq, Libya has taken the courageous step of owning
up not just to a nuclear weapons programme but to having chemical weapons,
which are now being destroyed. Iran is back in the reach of the IAEA. North
Korea in talks with China over its WMD. The A Q Khan network is being shut
down, its trade slowly but surely being eliminated.
Yet it is monstrously premature to think the threat has passed. The risk
remains in the balance here and abroad.
These days decisions about it come thick and fast, and while they are not
always of the same magnitude they are hardly trivial. Let me give you an
example. A short while ago, during the war, we received specific
intelligence warning of a major attack on Heathrow. To this day, we don't
know if it was correct and we foiled it or if it was wrong. But we received
the intelligence. We immediately heightened the police presence. At the time
it was much criticised as political hype or an attempt to frighten the
public. Actually at each stage we followed rigidly the advice of the police
and Security Service. But sit in my seat. Here is the intelligence. Here is
the advice. Do you ignore it? But, of course intelligence is precisely that:
intelligence. It is not hard fact. It has its limitations. On each occasion
the most careful judgement has to be made taking account of everything we
know and the best assessment and advice available. But in making that
judgement, would you prefer us to act, even if it turns out to be wrong? Or
not to act and hope it's OK? And suppose we don't act and the intelligence
turns out to be right, how forgiving will people be?
And to those who think that these things are all disconnected, random acts,
disparate threats with no common thread to bind them, look at what is
happening in Iraq today. The terrorists pouring into Iraq, know full well
the importance of destroying not just the nascent progress of Iraq toward
stability, prosperity and democracy, but of destroying our confidence, of
defeating our will to persevere.
I have no doubt Iraq is better without Saddam; but no doubt either, that as
a result of his removal, the dangers of the threat we face will be
diminished. That is not to say the terrorists won't redouble their efforts.
They will. This war is not ended. It may only be at the end of its first
phase. They are in Iraq, murdering innocent Iraqis who want to worship or
join a police force that upholds the law not a brutal dictatorship; they
carry on killing in Afghanistan. They do it for a reason. The terrorists
know that if Iraq and Afghanistan survive their assault, come through their
travails, seize the opportunity the future offers, then those countries will
stand not just as nations liberated from oppression, but as a lesson to
humankind everywhere and a profound antidote to the poison of religious
extremism. That is precisely why the terrorists are trying to foment hatred
and division in Iraq. They know full well, a stable democratic Iraq, under
the sovereign rule of the Iraqi people, is a mortal blow to their
fanaticism.
That is why our duty is to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan as stable and
democratic nations.
Here is the irony. For all the fighting, this threat cannot be defeated by
security means alone. Taking strong action is a necessary but insufficient
condition for defeating. Its final defeat is only assured by the triumph of
the values of the human spirit.
Which brings me to the final point. It may well be that under international
law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and
oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue,
diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of
a humanitarian catastrophe (though the 300,000 remains in mass graves
already found in Iraq might be thought by some to be something of a
catastrophe). This may be the law, but should it be?
We know now, if we didn't before, that our own self interest is ultimately
bound up with the fate of other nations. The doctrine of international
community is no longer a vision of idealism. It is a practical recognition
that just as within a country, citizens who are free, well educated and
prosperous tend to be responsible, to feel solidarity with a society in
which they have a stake; so do nations that are free, democratic and
benefiting from economic progress, tend to be stable and solid partners in
the advance of humankind. The best defence of our security lies in the
spread of our values.
But we cannot advance these values except within a framework that recognises
their universality. If it is a global threat, it needs a global response,
based on global rules.
The essence of a community is common rights and responsibilities. We have
obligations in relation to each other. If we are threatened, we have a right
to act. And we do not accept in a community that others have a right to
oppress and brutalise their people. We value the freedom and dignity of the
human race and each individual in it.
Containment will not work in the face of the global threat that confronts
us. The terrorists have no intention of being contained. The states that
proliferate or acquire WMD illegally are doing so precisely to avoid
containment. Emphatically I am not saying that every situation leads to
military action. But we surely have a duty and a right to prevent the threat
materialising; and we surely have a responsibility to act when a nation's
people are subjected to a regime such as Saddam's. Otherwise, we are
powerless to fight the aggression and injustice which over time puts at risk
our security and way of life.
Which brings us to how you make the rules and how you decide what is right
or wrong in enforcing them. The UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights is
a fine document. But it is strange the United Nations is so reluctant to
enforce them.
I understand the worry the international community has over Iraq. It worries
that the US and its allies will by sheer force of their military might, do
whatever they want, unilaterally and without recourse to any rule-based code
or doctrine. But our worry is that if the UN - because of a political
disagreement in its Councils - is paralysed, then a threat we believe is
real will go unchallenged.
This dilemma is at the heart of many people's anguished indecision over the
wisdom of our action in Iraq. It explains the confusion of normal politics
that has part of the right liberating a people from oppression and a part of
the left disdaining the action that led to it. It is partly why the
conspiracy theories or claims of deceit have such purchase. How much simpler
to debate those than to analyse and resolve the conundrum of our world's
present state.
Britain's role is try to find a way through this: to construct a consensus
behind a broad agenda of justice and security and means of enforcing it.
This agenda must be robust in tackling the security threat that this Islamic
extremism poses; and fair to all peoples by promoting their human rights,
wherever they are. It means tackling poverty in Africa and justice in
Palestine as well as being utterly resolute in opposition to terrorism as a
way of achieving political goals. It means an entirely different, more just
and more modern view of self-interest.
It means reforming the United Nations so its Security Council represents
21st century reality; and giving the UN the capability to act effectively as
well as debate. It means getting the UN to understand that faced with the
threats we have, we should do all we can to spread the values of freedom,
democracy, the rule of law, religious tolerance and justice for the
oppressed, however painful for some nations that may be; but that at the
same time, we wage war relentlessly on those who would exploit racial and
religious division to bring catastrophe to the world.
But in the meantime, the threat is there and demands our attention.
That is the struggle which engages us. It is a new type of war. It will rest
on intelligence to a greater degree than ever before. It demands a
difference attitude to our own interests. It forces us to act even when so
many comforts seem unaffected, and the threat so far off, if not illusory.
In the end, believe your political leaders or not, as you will. But do so,
at least having understood their minds.
.
|
|
| User: "Hiero5ant" |
|
| Title: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
06 Mar 2004 05:28:30 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net...
Source
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html?79%3A+Uk+latest
<snip>
Intersted persons can also find the speech in streaming video from
www.c-span.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
06 Mar 2004 06:22:29 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:28:30 +0000, Hiero5ant wrote:
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net...
Source
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html?79%3A+Uk+latest
<snip>
Intersted persons can also find the speech in streaming video from
www.c-span.org
Why would anyone be interested in anything Tony Blair says?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick James" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
06 Mar 2004 07:18:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 19:22:29 -0500, Bobby D. Bryant wrote
(in message <pan.2004.03.07.00.29.27.847602@mail.utexas.edu>):
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:28:30 +0000, Hiero5ant wrote:
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net...
Source
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html?79%3A+Uk+
latest
<snip>
Intersted persons can also find the speech in streaming video from
www.c-span.org
Why would anyone be interested in anything Tony Blair says?
Observing lapdogs can often give insight into the behaviour of their owners.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
06 Mar 2004 08:39:39 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 00:22:29 +0000 in episode
<pan.2004.03.07.00.29.27.847602@mail.utexas.edu> we saw our hero "Bobby D.
Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu>:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:28:30 +0000, Hiero5ant wrote:
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net...
Source
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html?79%3A+Uk+latest
<snip>
Intersted persons can also find the speech in streaming video from
www.c-span.org
Why would anyone be interested in anything Tony Blair says?
My only question is why is it taking the Brits so long to send him packing...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
06 Mar 2004 10:35:57 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 00:22:29 +0000 in episode
<pan.2004.03.07.00.29.27.847602@mail.utexas.edu> we saw our hero "Bobby D.
Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu>:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:28:30 +0000, Hiero5ant wrote:
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net...
Source
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html?79%3A
+Uk+latest <snip>
Intersted persons can also find the speech in streaming video from
www.c-span.org
Why would anyone be interested in anything Tony Blair says?
My only question is why is it taking the Brits so long to send him packing...
Because the alternatives are Tories...
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Drayton" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
07 Mar 2004 07:06:15 AM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<1gaa9ur.1yg5ilv1k8x680N%>...
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 00:22:29 +0000 in episode
<pan.2004.03.07.00.29.27.847602@mail.utexas.edu> we saw our hero "Bobby D.
Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu>:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:28:30 +0000, Hiero5ant wrote:
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net...
Source
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html?79%3A
+Uk+latest <snip>
Intersted persons can also find the speech in streaming video from
www.c-span.org
Why would anyone be interested in anything Tony Blair says?
My only question is why is it taking the Brits so long to send him packing...
Because the alternatives are Tories...
So what's *our* excuse (in Aus) ??
--
John Drayton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick James" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
07 Mar 2004 08:24:19 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:35:57 -0500, John Wilkins wrote
(in message <1gaa9ur.1yg5ilv1k8x680N%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 00:22:29 +0000 in episode
<pan.2004.03.07.00.29.27.847602@mail.utexas.edu> we saw our hero "Bobby D.
Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu>:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:28:30 +0000, Hiero5ant wrote:
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net...
Source
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html?79%3A
+Uk+latest <snip>
Intersted persons can also find the speech in streaming video from
www.c-span.org
Why would anyone be interested in anything Tony Blair says?
My only question is why is it taking the Brits so long to send him
packing...
Because the alternatives are Tories...
IIRC, the current leader of the Tories (whose name I'm blanking on an will no
doubt recall roughly 0.001 seconds after posting) used to be police minister
under Marvelous Maggie of the Iron Handbag, and is an even more repellent
example of the type than is John 'put a dress on that statue' Asscroft.
As long as the Tories keep serving up gits like him and Vague Hague, and the
Lib-Dems continue to dive up their own behinds at an ever increasing rate of
knots, Tony Be-Liar's fireproof. The only thing he need fear is the left wing
of his own party, and that's been in a shambles since Maggie handbagged them
back in the 80s.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
07 Mar 2004 02:57:23 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:24:19 +0000 in episode
<0001HW.BC709C2C00542D86F060B5B0@news-60.giganews.com> we saw our hero
Patrick James <patjames@newsguy.com>:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:35:57 -0500, John Wilkins wrote
(in message <1gaa9ur.1yg5ilv1k8x680N%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 00:22:29 +0000 in episode
<pan.2004.03.07.00.29.27.847602@mail.utexas.edu> we saw our hero "Bobby D.
Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu>:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:28:30 +0000, Hiero5ant wrote:
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net...
Source
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html?79%3A
+Uk+latest <snip>
Intersted persons can also find the speech in streaming video from
www.c-span.org
Why would anyone be interested in anything Tony Blair says?
My only question is why is it taking the Brits so long to send him
packing...
Because the alternatives are Tories...
IIRC, the current leader of the Tories (whose name I'm blanking on an will no
doubt recall roughly 0.001 seconds after posting) used to be police minister
under Marvelous Maggie of the Iron Handbag, and is an even more repellent
example of the type than is John 'put a dress on that statue' Asscroft.
As long as the Tories keep serving up gits like him and Vague Hague, and the
Lib-Dems continue to dive up their own behinds at an ever increasing rate of
knots, Tony Be-Liar's fireproof. The only thing he need fear is the left wing
of his own party, and that's been in a shambles since Maggie handbagged them
back in the 80s.
Yeeesh.
Okay, is there a English speaking democracy around that has any sane
politics remaining?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
07 Mar 2004 03:53:12 PM |
|
|
Okay, is there a English speaking democracy around that has any sane
politics remaining?
New Zealand probably...
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
07 Mar 2004 03:41:52 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in
<pan.2004.03.07.21.03.36.740356@hoo.com-amikchi>:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:24:19 +0000 in episode
<0001HW.BC709C2C00542D86F060B5B0@news-60.giganews.com> we saw our hero
Patrick James <patjames@newsguy.com>:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:35:57 -0500, John Wilkins wrote
(in message <1gaa9ur.1yg5ilv1k8x680N%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 00:22:29 +0000 in episode
<pan.2004.03.07.00.29.27.847602@mail.utexas.edu> we saw our hero "Bobby D.
Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu>:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:28:30 +0000, Hiero5ant wrote:
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net...
Source
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html?79%3A
+Uk+latest <snip>
Intersted persons can also find the speech in streaming video from
www.c-span.org
Why would anyone be interested in anything Tony Blair says?
My only question is why is it taking the Brits so long to send him
packing...
Because the alternatives are Tories...
IIRC, the current leader of the Tories (whose name I'm blanking on an will no
doubt recall roughly 0.001 seconds after posting) used to be police minister
under Marvelous Maggie of the Iron Handbag, and is an even more repellent
example of the type than is John 'put a dress on that statue' Asscroft.
As long as the Tories keep serving up gits like him and Vague Hague, and the
Lib-Dems continue to dive up their own behinds at an ever increasing rate of
knots, Tony Be-Liar's fireproof. The only thing he need fear is the left wing
of his own party, and that's been in a shambles since Maggie handbagged them
back in the 80s.
Yeeesh.
Okay, is there a English speaking democracy around that has any sane
politics remaining?
Canada has a passing grade at least. I think the Kiwis are doing okay.
They'll do even better if Peter Jackson stands.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
07 Mar 2004 04:42:38 PM |
|
|
Canada has a passing grade at least. I think the Kiwis are doing okay.
They'll do even better if Peter Jackson stands.
Of course it would be a disaster for footwear manufacturers...
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
06 Mar 2004 07:09:43 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 00:22:29 +0000 (UTC) the ET form known as Bobby D.
Bryant<bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:28:30 +0000, Hiero5ant wrote:
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net...
Source
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html?79%3A+Uk+latest
<snip>
Intersted persons can also find the speech in streaming video from
www.c-span.org
Why would anyone be interested in anything Tony Blair says?
<free.christians removed>
It may be historically significant. The swan song of a lair. Needless
to say I'm not too interested in what phony Tony says.
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
07 Mar 2004 11:51:40 AM |
|
|
Użytkownik "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> napisał w wiadomości
news:pan.2004.03.07.00.29.27.847602@mail.utexas.edu...
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:28:30 +0000, Hiero5ant wrote:
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net...
Source
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html?79%3A+Uk+latest
<snip>
Intersted persons can also find the speech in streaming video from
www.c-span.org
Why would anyone be interested in anything Tony Blair says?
Ask your President, he seemed quite interested, when he was looking around
for allies...
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
07 Mar 2004 11:05:44 AM |
|
|
Użytkownik "Hiero5ant" <vze4knfn@verizon.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:edt2c.47670$TF2.38022@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net...
Source
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html?79%3A+Uk+latest
<snip>
Intersted persons can also find the speech in streaming video from
www.c-span.org
That's a fine looking resource.
Pity I'm on dial up, right now...
When I get back to Moscow I might be able to see it.
Thanks for that.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
06 Mar 2004 08:39:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 22:11:36 +0000 in episode <c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net>
we saw our hero "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>:
No decision I have ever made in politics
<SNIP>
Does this apply to ANY of the ngs you posted it to?
(PS... plonk)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Full text of Tony Blair's Sedgefield Speech on global war against terror |
07 Mar 2004 11:57:08 AM |
|
|
Użytkownik "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> napisał w wiadomości
news:pan.2004.03.07.02.45.10.223369@hoo.com-amikchi...
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 22:11:36 +0000 in episode <c2dim1$k6r$0@pita.alt.net>
we saw our hero "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>:
No decision I have ever made in politics
<SNIP>
Does this apply to ANY of the ngs you posted it to?
It applies to _all_ of us.
Everyone's life is being effected by what the leading governments'
perception of the terrorist threat is. It will effect the amount you receive
after tax from every day of your life, your ease in travel and the price of
goods and services, and a great many personal liberties.
You and everybody else needs to be clear about the various arguments going
on around this.
(PS... plonk)
Big of you.
You can play the austrich if you like, with it's head in the ground poking
into bilbo baggin's lair, but the issues in Tony's speech ain't gonna go
away.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
