I thought the speech was excellent, rational, fair, and correct.
It’s odd that the biggest argument I hear against it is that Blair is an excellent speaker, as if that somehow makes him able to be persuasive with untruths.
Blair is an excellent speaker because what he says is correct.
It is an excellent speech because it is correct.
Sorry, Scylla, but Robin Cook’s speech was excellent b/c it was correct. Blair’s speech was excellent because he is an excellent speaker.
Was that sarcasm ?
“Behold soldiers, this is the garden of Eden, a place so delicate and wonderfull, that we’ll kill everybody and destroy everything”
You have one (1) opportunity to retract that ignorant nonsense or be reported.
Okay, it seems you’ve posted elsewhere since, but haven’t found the integrity to reply to this. The Report feature has therefore been used, for whatever effect it will have.
No Pitting for you, though; that post was beneath even that.
Well, you’re right. It was over the top. My apologies.
But if we tone the comment down a few notches, there is a point to be made there. Someone posted a comment about a British speech, and your response was basically that Americans were uneducated and not capable of speaking that well, which was unnecessary and had nothing to do with the thread. It seemed very gratuitous. That’s what prompted my reply.
But you’re right - I was out of line. I had just gotten home from a long day at work, and there was pandemonium here in the house, and I was responding quickly without thinking too much. I should not have said that.
“Someone posted a comment about a British speech, and your response was basically that Americans were uneducated and not capable of speaking that well, which was unnecessary and had nothing to do with the thread. It seemed very gratuitous.”
Elvis and I have different posting styles, but on the whole I support the gist of his comment, and I think you misunderstand its meaning, Sam. The point is not that all Brits are refined while all Americans are uneducated. To the contrary, Elvis is himself an example of an educated, articulate American, and this board has no shortage of them.
But the relevant comparison here has to be between the level at which Blair’s (or Cook’s) speeches are pitched in contrast to those of Bush, Rumsfeld and others. I didn’t actually listen to Bush’s war speech–just read excerpts in the newspaper. I didn’t have the heart! Listening to the Newspeak (and I don’t use that term lightly) in his state of the union address was enough for me. But I’ve been listening to press conferences with Rumsfeld, Fleisher and others, and reading plenty of Bush quotations. It is pretty disheartening for anyone who–politics aside–values democracy, the legitimacy of which depends on leaders’ making communicative appeals to an informed, rational and thinking public.
Although I strongly disagree with Blair, and remain somewhat mystified by his readiness to embrace Bush policies, the man seldom talks down to the British public–and as the BBC interview with Jeremy Paxton showed, he’s also willing to endure a harshly critical grilling. The same cannot be said for his American counterparts who, these days, regularly employ deceptive rhetoric, use infantilizing emotive appeals, duck critical questioning, and, in so doing, reduce their official communications to propaganda.
Sam Stone:
Not to cause trouble, or anything, but I think your response to Elvis’ jibe was spot-on and appropriate.
What then were the innacuracies in Blari’s speech.
Well, since we’re going to beat this dead horse for a while, this is what ElvisL1ves said:
In other words, the fact that a British commander could speak so eloquently is an indictment of the AMERICAN education system, because Elvis ASSUMES that an American commander is incapable of speaking that well.
I don’t see what other conclusion you can draw from that, other than that Elvis was taking a gratuitious shot at American military commanders. He’s got a stereotypical view of them, that they must all be a bunch of half-educated gung-ho idiots. My apology for my over-the-top response in no way should be seen as an excuse for the gratuitous smear against American military commanders that ElvisL1ves uttered.
Sam, you were doing so well for a post or two there, before going right back to where you were. Pity, I was about to accept what had appeared to be a gracious apology.
Now go to hell.
I did NOT go back to where I was. In my earlier message, I made assumptions about your dislike for your country. I was wrong to make that assumption.
You did, however, make a direct slur against U.S. commanders, by saying they were incapable of making speeches as good as the British commander did.
If I’m wrong, I’m willing to be corrected. Perhaps you could explain your statement.
I thought he was criticizing the American education system. It was a compliment to the eloquence of the British commander, or so I thought.
But the only way you can criticize the American education system in this regard is to assume that American commanders would be incapable of making that speech.
That’s clearly ridiculous. There’s no evidence that British commanders are educated any better than American commanders. And Elvis seems to be unaware of the fact that most military commanders are very learned people, with a deep understanding of history (especially military history). Almost all of them have university degrees or advanced degrees.
It was just a gratuitous cheap shot. It had nothing to do with the thread.
Are you going to report yourself for your flagrant and deliberate flaunting of the rules, or do you simply intend to bask, self-satisfied in the warm fecal puddle of your own juvenile hypocrisy?
[hijack]
Nothing to add except that that comment was priceless, Scylla (nothing against Elvis, just thought it was funny). I’ve adopted it as my sig, at least until I get tired of it.
Okay. Carry on.
[/hijack]
Actually, Scylla, I meant my post to be a wry reply to your own. I ought to have added a smilie to indicate the tone.
As to the inacuracies in Blair’s speech, why not check out Cook’s speech for yourself and see what the differences are between them. It doesn’t, of course, come down to factual inaccuracies but to questions of correct interpretation and logical reasoning.
Sam Stone:
“Well, since we’re going to beat this dead horse for a while…”
It’s fine with me if you prefer to drop the point.
“I don’t see what other conclusion you can draw from that, other than that Elvis was taking a gratuitious shot at American military commanders. He’s got a stereotypical view of them, that they must all be a bunch of half-educated gung-ho idiots.”
Like I said, Elvis’s posting style is his own and I’m not going to enter into the question of US education vs. British, nor of how problematic it is or isn’t to stereotype by way of making a general point. (Speaking for myself, I don’t doubt that there are many articulate and well-educated officers in the US armed forces; Colin Powell is very articulate and was even more so before he was compelled to become the hawks’ mouthpiece.)
Putting aside Elvis’s comment which I don’t wish further to debate, I’ve heard a lot of stuff from Bush, Rumsfeld, and Fleischer just lately which does not make one proud of the level of American official discourse.
Just today at a press conference Fleischer was asked about Bush’s sentiments towards Iraqi civilian deaths. Here is part of his reply:
"The other portion of what the President remembers when he thinks about the innocents are the 3,000 innocents who lost their lives on September 11th in the United States. And if it were not for the worries that the President had about an Iraqi regime, in defiance of the United Nations, possessing weapons of mass destruction, which he fears could again be used against the United States, you might not see this developing." (my emphasis)
Notice how this reply attempts to justify the war by indicating that the Iraqii regime has in the past used weapons of mass destruction against the United States, and implies that 9/11 was the episode in question. Here again, Americans are misled into believing that there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11 when there is no such connection. And they are further asked to believe that 9/11 involved WMD when in actuality 9/11 involved the use of box cutters and lax airport security measures. That is simply shameful!
Although it’s true enough that Fleischer is an educated person, so that this quotation does not support the point about US education that you object to Elvis’s post, it’s absolutely the case such misinformation insults the intelligence of Americans. I am frankly disgusted and embarrassed when I hear this kind of thing.
First of all, a little acknowledgement to jjimm over there, hiya! 
Well… I’m sorry if I’ve in some way caused all this ruckus, but the reason I posted the link to the British commander’s speech was the same as AZCowboy 's – i was very much impressed with his eloquence.
I also wondered to myself, “How come it’s almost always the Brits who come up with such stirring and inspiring oratory?” Speeches that come to my mind right now are Churchill’s “Finest Hour” and “We Shall Fight on the Beaches”, not forgetting Nelson’s immortal “England expects the every man do his duty” (although that was not a full speech)… and many more besides! What about the Americans? The only speech i can recall at present is Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and General MacArthur’s “I have returned” , made when he set foot on Philippine soil in 1944. If we’re looking at peacetime speeches too, of course i remember and admire the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s “I Have a Dream” address.
And it’s not only speeches as such either. I was trawling about the 10 Downing Street site the other day, looking at the Iraq debate in the House of Commons and i found this:
Are the Brits all like that, always ready with a sting in the tail? Or is it just the politicians? Like Avalonian and AZCowboy, count me as another fan, if you can call it that, of the British parliament system and its traditions. If I remember correctly (and do correct me if I’m wrong) that MPs in the Houses of Parliament are strictly not allowed to refer to notes and other bits of paper when speaking - so it’s all spontaneous!*
What Sam Stone said is correct, however - US generals and commanders are not fools, they are all very learned folk with advanced degrees. But what I’m asking is, why is it that the Brits always come up with the brilliant speeches? Any possible explanations? And hey, don’t use the excuse that they invented the language in the first place, okay? 
Back to the current dead horse…
I think what ElvisL1ves meant to convey was that compared to Lt. Col. Collins’ address, U.S officials’ statements do come across as really uninspired, that’s all. And I agree.
Sam was a bit hasty there, but he did apologize graciously. Let’s just leave it there, shall we? Come on guys, Elvis, Sam, everybody… there’s a lot of crap going on in the world right now, we don’t need to argue about this. Shake hands, kiss and make up, whatever. Please. 
And to Sam as the OP, i really must apologize for hijacking this thread away from Tony Blair’s address-- i was astounded by Collins’ speech and i felt that this was the most appropriate place to stick it.
Oh, by the way - i’m not French.
Mandlestam -
Though your response to me here was days before, I feel compelled to respond to a couple of parts in it.
**
My comments on that matter were in response to Abe. He is the one who called into question Bush’s alleged “assuring himself of his own moral superiority,” as if that was somehow a major issue here.
My point was, if this accusation is in the context of Bush versus Saddam, of course he has moral superiority. Who doesn’t? If Abe’s statement wasn’t made in that context, I asked for clarification as to what he was referring. He declined to elaborate.
If the word “evil” has any meaning whatsoever, Saddam Hussein, and his sons, are evil. I’ll provide you with as much and as graphic evidence of this fact as you feel you need.
I haven’t seen Bush or Blair harping on their moral superiority. Have you? They have stated the goals of a mission, and their conduct since certainly appears to be in keeping with the mission, whether you agree with it or not.
Please tell me where I said I didn’t expect any more from Bush than that he conduct himself more morally than Saddam Hussein.
**
Don’t mistake the fact that I agree with the U.S.-British position wholeheartedly in this particular instance as indicating I am in lock-step with any and all policies of “the official U.S. opinion.”
More than once here, to similar accusations most notably from the likes of Elvis L1ves, I’ve offered to put up evidence of my divergence from Bush/Republican positions, as stated on these boards. In fact I’ll guarantee I’ve shown less unwavering adherence to the ideological line as many of the people who like to throw that slur around. So far they haven’t wanted to take me up on it.
**
The U.S didn’t work within “the global framework?” Last time I heard a count, 45 nations on this planet are part of the U.S.-led coalition, or are at least expressing support for the war. Cite
**
This continues the curious mindset that it is the U.S. and U.K. governments who must change their minds, as opposed to the leaders of the few nations in Europe who are opposed to this. (Note I didn’t say Bush and Blair. This goes beyond them. Each had the overwhelming support of their Congress/Parliament for this action.)
The U.S. and U.K. have laid out a compelling case for why we are at this point. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the response of the likes of France, Russia and Germany has been that:
*1. We are not yet at the point where military action is needed *(Despite demonstrable evidence that every other possible avenue to make Saddam Hussein disarm and comply has been tried over more than a decade, and has failed.)
2. Weapons inspections should continue and be expanded, because they are working.
(Despite demonstrable proof that Saddam Hussein was not doing what was required of him, proof that little or no substantive progress was being made on answering the crucial questions about Iraq’s WMD, and proof the U.N. resolutions weren’t designed to be hide-and-go-seek. They were to oversee and confirm Iraq’s active and cooperative disarmament.)
How anyone can say with a straight face that inspections can work against someone who’s trying to thwart them, in a country as huge as Iraq, is beyond me. But that’s what France, Russia and Germany are saying. It flies in the face of the years of evidence. And it flies in the face of logic.
And I’ve yet to see one person yet on the SDMB who is a critic of this war provide evidence that the inspections were working. A few have tried. They mumble that Iraq hasn’t used any WMD in about 20 years, as if that is evidence that their WMD are not a threat. Which is the exact kind of ridiculousness that allowed the U.S. to feel safe and secure up until shortly before 9 a.m. EST on Sept. 11, 2001.
**
Yet another typical strawman from the anti-war crowd. I have provided evidence in thread after thread on these boards regarding how 9/11 caused the Bush administration to reevaluate its policy on pre-emption in the face of potential large-scale threats. Bush himself has stated it did. The actions of the U.S. government, in a step-by-step timeline since 9/11, when compared to the actions prior to that terrible event, prove that it did.
Now here’s where the twin strawman is usually erected: “But there’s no proof Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.” So? September 11 caused a reevaluation and a strategy shift on that type of threat, whether Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or not.
**
Says you. Others would say it showed that paper-shuffling, speechifying and “strongly worded condemnations” are useless in protecting Americans.
I’ve heard quite a bit since 9/11 about arrests and thwarted terrorist attacks in numerous countries. Cooperative law-enforcement and intelligence operations. Shared efforts in tracing and shutting down funding streams for terrorists.
That would seem to refute your apparent assertion that the U.S. is not working closer with allies.
**
Several smart pundits rightfully predicted that the outpouring of support for the U.S. immediately after 9/11 would quickly dissipate, and that the U.S. would come to be disliked for how its policies changed in light of that event. They were proven exactly correct.
The idea that we could have somehow sustained that goodwill through the years flies in the face of human nature, and is a myth.
The U.S. is more right-center than countries like Germany, France and Russia. And left-center countries have a big, big problem with that. And always will. One of the tenets of being to the left is the idea of power-sharing. The U.S. doesn’t want to give up its power and influence to countries that may not necessarily have America’s best interests at heart.
You ever listen to the diplomats from Syria give their little Security Council speeches? You’ll hear about as much anti-Semitism as you would at a skinhead rally. These are the countries the U.S. should allow to shape its policies?