So now we know. Tony Blair's big set piece speech at Plymouth on defence and the armed forces urged a national debate on defence to agree on how much needs to be spent and the acceptance of casualties in the long war against terror. Oh, and we have a choice of having either armed forces that can both wage war and do peacekeeping or just peacekeeping.Trouble is, Blair isn't talking to the electorate and the armed forces but to the PM in waiting, the "Great Clunking Fist". Blair is rightly concerned that Brown has no time for the armed forces and would happily see them reduced to a gendarmerie. Pathetic really. You wouldn't think these two had been running the country for the past ten years and responsible for the lack of resources and shortages of equipment. And if he had a message for Gordon, why couldn't he just pop next door rather than share it with the rest of us?
39 comments:
It could also be an implied threat to the top brass to stop leaking and complaining.
Anyway, if Brown's looking forward to having a navy that just does fisheries protection then he'll enjoy an independent Scotland !
So Blair wants a public debate on the Military! Bollocks the lying sod and that cretin Brown are going to cut military spending and reduce the military to a token outfit. They will use the media's inbuilt and inbred dislike of all things military to 'sell' it to the public. If I was sitting in barracks right now, a coup would be sounding better and better!
Can't we have a bit of Thai-style democracy here for once instead of letting the ignorant electorate choose Socialism?
Lack of resources and equipment shortages....?
Not like the Falklands War under Thatcher then, eh???
Utter Bollocks. Blair always calls for a "debate" or "Conversation" when he's in a spot of political difficulty. It never means f*ck all. This time it's because Dubya has gone bonkers, and TB doesn't dare be gung-ho here about killing lots more Iraqis in the name of "Deemocrazy"
Does anyone really believe that Blair is going anytime soon?
Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland? when was a country that didn't have an army last involved in an expensive, unwinnable war.
Is it just me that thinks Blair is off his trolley when he talks about how important it is to fight wars ? This is the man who wants to shut down half our navy and spend £ 25 billion on a new Trident fleet when they can't even provide decent accommodation for our sadly depleting numbers of soldiers.
If he wants to fight his ridiculous foreign adventures he had better find some money to pay the bills that will inevitably incur. Tosser.
perhaps both Blair and Brown should be more concerned about defence spending in Swindon today, not peace-keeping somewhere overseas in the next decade
Defence spending in Swindon ? I didn't know there was a war on there ? To be honest, if Swindon were being bombed to smithereens by Al Qaida I'm not sure they could make it any worse, and they should be left to get on with it
Britain has a military tatus because it was still standing in 1945 and...with US and Soviet help had defeated Germany.
In 1918 Britain was the strongest military power in Europe but by 1938 it was a weak one.
It left Occupied Germany in 1923 but it took 22 years and another major war to get back into The Rhineland.
The cost of getting back to the top table once you let it slide is very, very high
anonymous 7.17
you've obviously been watching "censored" news output from the BBC all day.
Things have been going on in Swindon - see ITN 6.30pm ITV1, 7.00pm Channel 4.
Swindon is reaping the "benefits" of diversity. Onward to a Balkanised Britain.
"Tony Blair warns Brown on defence". He needs to do with me around...
Q. I wonder where Chamereon Dave sits on de fence?
A. He sits on de fence on de environment, on de taxes, on de NHS, on de Elderly, on de Post offices, on de prisons, on de immigration. . .
I notice Blair went on about WMD in Iraq in his speech on board a royal navy vessel.
He obviously still believes in WMD etc or cannot counternance that he has been rumbled.
That thing in Swindon from what i see was pretty small beer, unfortunatly things go on like that all the time.
I remember similar groups of "young men" attacking innocent passers by when i was at university in Staffordshire. The place of the attacks tended to be in multicultral areas of stoke. Why the BBC think that a breakdown in community relations so unimportant i don't know? Perhaps because the victim was not of an ethnic origin?
The British economy is a war economy in the very exact sense that Great Britain is at war.
Once wars were fought with commandeered resources, through rationing, requisition, direct controls, and planning ; be it Nazi planning, Soviet command economics, or British wartime controls, they were all the same means.
Today wars are fought with resources purchased by states in the free global market. An important consequence of this is that a war launched by Great Britain generates demand and employment througout the global ecomy; of course, this is not true of the US, which supplies its own weapons, and has a nationalistic system of weapons procurement.
The irony is that while war may propel growth in the US, it dampens British growth because
it worsens our twin deficits -the public deficit and the external deficit, raises interest rates, raises inflation, and crowds out investment by raising government borrowing, without stimulating employment.
These economic distortions are rarely acknowledged, and not discussed. What is worse, the effects of attempts by Brown to contain them, not by speaking up against the war, or even resigning like Robin Cook, but by witholding resources, has been noted by British coroners.
"And if he had a message for Gordon, why couldn't he just pop next door rather than share it with the rest of us?"
Yeah, rue the day politicians tell us what they're thinking on an issue...
They put the 'funk' in dysfunction those two.
Watch the feathers fly next Tuesday when the latest CPI figures come out above 3%.
Mervyn King will not like having to write that open letter to Brown, particularly when he blames Brown and co for the surging inflationary spiral now in evidence.
Mervyn may have some explaining to do but Brown will not get away lightly.
anonymous 9.02 said:
That thing in Swindon from what i see was pretty small beer, unfortunatly things go on like that all the time.
Well the BBC seems to agree (6 seconds on the 10 o'clock tonight). ITN don't - it seems to be their lead. I'm not sure that the 15 year old who was chased round his school's playing fields by 8 adults, with a hammer, at school out would agree either.
The BBC loves self-censorship. When the coming wave of perestroika hits, the current news editor and possibly the whole of the BBC itself, will be swept away. They havn't even got the story on their local web pages.
The BBC are deliberately censoring the attack by Asian men on the white schoolboy in Swindon because it doesn't accord with their multi-cultural agenda.
When are the misguided liberals and New Labour stooges at the BBC going to learn that their attempts to manipulate the news like this only plays into the hands of the BNP who doubtless are making political capital out of this right now.
He's behind you!!!!
What the fuck is all the fuss about the 'swindon thing' - are you really suggesting the military should go in because a youth got their head kicked in ? They would be on permanent duty in most city centres come Saturday night...Get over it...
News from Swindon for those who are wondering what it's all about:
http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/display.var.1120720.0.parents_stage_protest_after_hammer_attack.php
You won't hear that on the BBC!
Anonymous said...
What the fuck is all the fuss about the 'swindon thing'...
Try to pay attention.
It's the BBC's censoring of the race aspects that are at issue. There's no doubt that race would have been reported had the roles of victim and perpetrators been reversed.
Blair looks forward to a debate on defence spending. Typical. He's going to wait a few weeks to see if anyone salutes the flagpole, if any consensus is reached in the broadsheets, before deciding on any action.
I'm sick of hearing: "there must be a debate on this issue".
Where? What's the venue? How about the House of Commons?
I'd be interested in how many suggested debates, having served their purpose as a sound bite, simply disappeared under the avalanche of consequent events.
the bbc is not censoring the 'swindon thing' - where do you think i found out about it ! a kid got his head done in - big deal. no doubt he's pretty upset, but to try and link this to a story about the defence of the country and what is going on in afghanistan and iraq is pretty laughable. grow up.
'It's the BBC's censoring of the race aspects that are at issue.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/6257933.stm
hmmm...yeeeess, as Paxman might say..
Anonymous said...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/6257933.stm
hmmm...yeeeess, as Paxman might say..
****404 - Page Not Found****
yeeeess... you'll have to do better than that Mr BBC man
anonymous 11.32 said
"a kid got his head done in - big deal."
-I should stay off the turps at this time of night mate - it doesn't make you any more charming.
Anonymous said...
a kid got his head done in - big deal. no doubt he's pretty upset,
11:32 PM
He was held down by four Asian men, hit on the head with a hammer, is now in a specialist hospital and you think he is upset?
This seems like a racist attack to me or are Asians incapable of racism?
anonymous 11.32pm
I refer you to the answer given above by anonymous 11.03pm
It is worth noting that in 1918 Britain had the most powerful military in Europe and even when it withdrew from The Rhineland in 1923 it was very powerful.
Yet it took 22 years to get the British Army back into the Rhineland, a de-militarised zone for a de-militarised power which had spread across Europe.
Decisions made throughout the 1920s and 1930s by British Govts meant Britain could not match the German War Machine without the USA and USSR.
In 1945 Britain was still standing - since that time it has sustained itself by standing with the USA - as Attlee did over Korea.
It cost a lot of lives to get back to the top table after the failures 1918-41.
No doubt if Britain let's its defences slide again it will involve the whole of Europe in new wars - Britain's bluff is what keeps Europe secure - lose it and see what it is like to have to struggle for recognition
I'm glad you told us the purpose behind Blair's speech was a warning to Brown. Who else is listening to this spent vain fantasist?
Many commentators are missing the point here. Blair's speech is part of a public offensive to justify the Trident renewal expenditure of at least forty billion pounds over the next 10 years. This campaign will have been worked out in the Pentagon and Blair has his orders. Brown's mystic ramblings about the State of the Union are also connected to this; his role is to talk about anything but Trident since he supports it, but needs to keep this from the troops, so many, many diversions are needed.
Never underestimate the extent to which our Great Britain is simply an arms production and purchasing unit.
There's a brilliant attack on Brown in today's Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/01/13/do1304.xml
"we have a choice of having either armed forces that can both wage war and do peacekeeping or just peacekeeping"
How about armed forces that are just good at war? Blair is quite correct that there is a contradiction between the 2 roles - troops trained to do hearts & minds lose their hair trigger combat reflexes. In any case why exactly should we be "peacekeeping" in Iraq or Kosovo. What particular peace are we keeping. Suppose the day after capturing Baghdad we had started moving out would the place be as bad as it is now? Suppose we had never occupied Kosovo would the KLA have been able to kill thousands & kidnap & sell thousands of schoolgirls? What particular British interest is served by occupying these places & what interest of the locals either? I will make an exception for Afghanistan, which in any case is really a war not peacekeeping but perhaps everybody would be better off if our armed forces were designed for defencive military purposes.
I think I'm going mad.. I'm sure I heard Blair slashing defence spending last month, most notably by culling a large number of Navy ships, and here he is saying how important it is. Eh?
Maybe he's just talking to himself - let's be fair, not many other people are listening.
Post a Comment