The New York Times has the full text of PM Tony Blair’s speech to Congress yesterday. A few other good lines I forgot yesterday:
September the 11th was not an isolated event, but a tragic prologue, Iraq another act, and many further struggles will be set upon this stage before it’s over.
What the anti-war left fails to understand is that even if there is not a tenable link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, there is an ideological one. Both were attempting to become champions of a new pan-Arab alliance to destroy Israel and the United States, and both would use whatever methods they could to do so. Both were threats to the peace and security of the United States and the region, and both will be found and brought to justice.
There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don’t; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia’s savior. Members of Congress, ours are not Western values. They are the universal values of the human spirit, and anywhere — (applause) — anywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.
The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack.
And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify around an idea. And that idea is liberty. (Applause.)
We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal. Abraham Lincoln said, "Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
And it is this sense of justice that makes moral the love of liberty.
This strikes at the heart of what this war is about. There are millions of people in the Arab world who live in shackles due to an ideology that combines radical Islam with the tenets of fascism. The Western world can and must end this practice. We cannot simply live with the fact that the Iraqis were being oppressed in Iraq, nor can we simply live with the oppression of Iran. In such circumstances as we are able, that means removing such repressive regimes from Tehran to Pyongyang through whatever means are necessary.
The risk is that terrorism and states developing weapons of mass destruction come together, and when people say that risk is fanciful, I say we know the Taliban supported al Qaeda. We know Iraq, under Saddam, gave haven to and supported terrorists. We know there are states in the Middle East now actively funding and helping people who regard it as God’s will in the act of suicide to take as many innocent lives with them on their way to God’s judgement. Some of these states are desperately trying to acquire nuclear weapons. We know that companies and individuals with expertise sell it to the highest bidder. And we know that at least one state, North Korea, lets its people starve while spending billions of dollars on developing nuclear weapons and exporting the technology abroad. This isn’t fantasy. It is 21st century reality and it confronts us now. (Applause.)
Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least, is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive. But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership.
That is something history will not forgive. (Sustained applause.)
Again, if there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (even though that is still highly unlikely), then the coalition has still removed a horrendous dictator and given birth to freedom in a country of tens of millions. If we were wrong, then it was a mistake that was based in the knowledge that we were acting in a just manner. The threat of terrorists with weapons of mass destruction is not a fantasy, and if we do not act to prevent this form of destruction millions will die. No President and no Prime Minister should act with anything less than the utmost viligence against such a nightmare scenario.
That’s what we’re fighting for, and it’s a battle worth fighting. And I know it’s hard on America. And in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I’ve never been to but always wanted to go — (laughter) — I know out there, there’s a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, “Why me, and why us, and why America?” And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do. (Sustained applause.)
And our job — my nation, that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond — our job is to be there with you. You’re not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. (Sustained applause.)
We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us.
“What the anti-war left fails to understand is that even if there is not a tenable link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, there is an ideological one.”
Yes, lumping together the Turks, Brits and Israelis, they have a centuries long ideological link of wanting foreigners to leave them alone.
I’d have been all for a war of freeing Iraq, if I thought our government had even a half-assed idea how to stimulate a democracy when the bombs stop falling. However our international track record suggests this is not so.
Our “international track” beat the “Evil Empire”.
Oh? Is that so?
How’s that democracy doing in Afghanistan? Of course you probably haven’t heard much about Afghanistan lately, since they’ve stopped talking about it on Fox News…
As for beating the “Evil empire”, I notice that the world’s most populous country is still communist.
How’s that democracy doing in Afghanistan?
Quick history lesson. US Army was in charge of post war Germany till 1949, and did not leave till 1955. Just to put things in perspective.
I notice that the world’s most populous country is still communist.
I guess USSR/Eastern Europe is too insignificant for you. Sorry. By the way, note the word “Empire”.
Honestly if you think we did anything to defeat the USSR, you’re the one in need of a history lesson – Russian history.
Russia has never had the economic capital to be an effective power. If anything the USSR destroyed itself, like a weed that grows so fast it exhausts its resources and dies.
Defeating Russia over the long term is like tripping a midget – it’s just not that hard. Especially if you don’t actually field troops against them, oddly enough…
…you’re the one in need of a history lesson – Russian history.
LOL! Given that I was born in the USSR and spent a good part of my childhood there…
Russia has never had the economic capital to be an effective power. If anything the USSR destroyed itself…
US kept the pressure on with the arms race and missiles in Europe. If US stood idly by, then Afghanistan would’ve been communist, and who knows what else.
For some reason you are assuming that without US policies, USSR would’ve been on the same course as it was through the 20th century. Very naive.
China is Communist in name only – even Deng Xioping said "to get rich is glorious". China’s plays lip service to Marxism, but the reality is that it practices old-fashioned crony state capitalism – and even that will change with time.
As for the USSR, even by the late 1970’s it was thought that the Soviets would last for decades – conservative estimates said that Communism wouldn’t fall until after the 21st Century. Communism fell mainly because of the Catholic Church’s influence in Eastern Europe, the support of dissidents like Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, and President Reagan’s willingness to directly challenge the Soviets and nurture those dissident movements. Had Reagan not been in power, Communism might have lasted for decades longer than it did. Yes, it would have fallen sooner or later, but North Korea provides an example for how long a tyrannical regime can last if not vigourously challenged.
I think the question is still valid – have we ever been succesful in establishing a democracy in a Islamic nation in the Middle East?
Mustapha Kemal Ataturk seemed to do a fairly good job in Turkey in 1922.
Establishing real democracy in Iraq is going to take a long time – not years, but likely decades. However, the price of not doing so is establishing the bloody status quo in the Middle East, and it is clear that we cannot allow that to happen.
I think the question is still valid – have we ever been succesful in establishing a democracy in a Islamic nation in the Middle East?
That question is irrelevant given that no factors are the same.
Honestly if you think we did anything to defeat the USSR, you’re the one in need of a history lesson – Russian history.
I’m not Monkey, but I suspect I could teach you the history of the USSR, Chet.
Nobody on the left, as of 1983 (and even, in some cases, 1992!) thought the USSR was going anywhere soon. Strobe Talbott in 1983 editorialized that things were looking up for the USSR – Reagan’s rhetoric aside, we really just had to get used to it.
Guess they were wrong.
Russia has never had the economic capital to be an effective power. If anything the USSR destroyed itself, like a weed that grows so fast it exhausts its resources and dies.
But, somehow, it had the political (and military!) capital to make up for it! It wasn’t an accident that the USSR’s sphere of influence expanded, and Marxism was regarded as ascendant from about the thirties through the seventies.
Defeating Russia over the long term is like tripping a midget – it’s just not that hard. Especially if you don’t actually field troops against them, oddly enough…
You act like defeating the USSR without firing a shot was less preferable to other outcomes, like war, or losing?
You act like defeating the USSR without firing a shot was less preferable to other outcomes, like war, or losing?
Actually, I don’t act like that. I’m glad the Cold War ended without firing a shot. I guess I don’t understand why you would think I was sad about that. Unless you’ve characterized me as a stereotypical America-hating liberal or something.
Suggesting that the self-defeating thesis of Communism as practiced in the Soviet bloc nations “would have lasted decades longer if Ronald Reagan hadn’t been President” defies any semblance of logic. Communism didn’t fall because Reagan told Gorbacheav to “tear down this wall”, and Reagan’s ultimately self-serving action of hyperinflating defense spending only played a small role in the ultimate downfall of Communism.
Communism fell because decades of practice failed to produce the intended results, and there was little indication that it ever would. Younger generations of Russians and the less corrupt members of its political leadership recognized that. Reagan’s incessant rhetoric probably accelerated the pace of Communism’s demise, which is the only thing I can give that guy credit for in his eight torturous years in the White House, but Gorbacheav and Soviet citizens didn’t need an American actor telling them that their governmental system was not working. They were fully capable of noticing that themselves, and took the appropriate steps to break the shackles. Do you honestly believe if Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale had been elected President, the Communist would still control the governments of half the world? Seems highly unlikely that one man wielded that much power from his bully pulpit.
Do you honestly believe if Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale had been elected President, the Communist would still control the governments of half the world? Seems highly unlikely that one man wielded that much power from his bully pulpit.
Yes, actually. Carter already had a history of inability to counter Soviet expansionism in Angola and Afghanistan. Had he been President another 4 years who knows where else the Soviets might have expanded to. Especially if Afghanistan were fully conquered by the Soviets Communism could have lasted for decades longer.
Members of the Soviet inner circle have commented, in the past 10 years or so, the extent to which Reagan’s show of resolve affected Soviet policy.
The invasion of Grenada was instrumental in forcing the Soviets to hew a more “moderate” line (and choose the “reformer” Gorbachev). And Reagan’s hard line at Rejkjavik was key to showing the Sovs that they weren’t going to talk their way around us, either.
Tthe left caterwauled about about both incidents (or wrote off as jokes). Both were instrumental in ending the USSR.
Can you imagine Walter Mondale pulling either of those off?
Mitch, for future reference, it’s “the” not “Tthe”. That might help give you a little credibility next time. 😉
Typical sign that Mark conceded.
not to minimize the influence of all the actors above, maybe the cold war ended because everyone realized it was pointless and dangerous.
for those who haven’t seen it, or long ago, I strongly recommend “Dr. Strangelove” from Stanley Kubrik.
…maybe the cold war ended because everyone realized it was pointless and dangerous…
Yea. Exactly. And WW2 ended because Nazis realized that war is “pointless and dangerous”. Maybe we should just ignore terrorists, cause eventually… they’ll just realize that they are “pointless and dangerous”. Cool. I like this new attitude. Let’s stop finding police – its a waste of money. After all, criminals will realize that they are “pointless and dangerous” and will become model citizens. This is how the wolrd works. Right Vincent?
maybe even you may realize you are someday !! (is that what you want for an answer?)
What’s the deal monkey? we don’t have to argue on every single article you know!
so just a reminder because you seem kind of selectiv in your quote choices, my first words were:”not to minimize the influence of all the actors above” = which means: yeah, reagan, the pope…they all helped a lot.
the rest was a lighter comment on this movie you should definitely watch before escalation in world’s violence goes too far.
take it easy!
I prefer to learn from history, not fantasy.