Blair: "Britain must continue to fight wars to maintain British influence worldwide"

**Goku** · 01-12-2007

Tony Blair pledged to improve conditions for the Armed Forces today as he told troops they must continue to fight wars to maintain Britain's influence in the world.

The Prime Minister acknowledged there was anger within the military and promised that the Government would plough more money into improving forces' equipment and housing.

Speaking on board HMS Albion in Plymouth, he said that military might was essential to winning the war on terror as he rallied increasingly sceptical troops.

The Premier said that the convenant between the forces and the public had to be renewed as soldiers were asked to undertake unprecedented challenges.

"In general the British Armed Forces are superbly equipped," he maintained. "But talk at any length to serving soldiers and there will be amongst the pride, some anger at faulty weapons or ammunition, boots and body armour, the right vehicles or the wrong ones, and the problems of transport to and from the battlefield and home.

Single living accommodation, in particular, and also a minority of family accommodation is below standard, though being improved. I suppose in the times of 10 years ago none of this would have mattered so much.

"In times in which men and women are being asked for so much more, they do. They are not just about the conditions they live and work in - they symbolise the respect and gratitude for the nature of what that work now entails."

The Prime Minister insisted that defence spending had been "roughly constant" since 1997 and was "still one of the highest in the world". The fall in Army numbers had only been by "very small amounts" since Labour came to power, he said.

But he went on: "It is true that, despite all of that, operational commitments are at a higher level than originally planned. And it is also true that service personnel are working harder and for longer than intended."

The Government had made a "big effort" to equip the Navy for what was asked of it and a "massive" ship-building programme was to come, he said.

"All of this is progress, but we know it's progress against a challenge that grows ever bigger."

The Ministry of Defence was committed to improving homes for military families but he admitted there were still "real problems".

"The extraordinary job that servicemen do needs to be reflected in the quality of accommodation provided for them and their families, at home or abroad," Mr Blair said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Sounds a bit like a colonial tone. Does this man have any idea how the war struck families suffer? Both British and abroad.

**England** · 01-12-2007

I'm happy to see Blair has realised that the condition of our troops and the equipment, homes, needs improving. I'm also happy to hear that he is to equip the Royal Navy with a massive ship-building programme which just shows that the media that have said he is scrapping navy ships to pay for costs in Iraq was just aload of coswallop.

It's the best thing I've heard Blair say in a very long time.

**Trumble** · 01-12-2007

Originally Posted by Goku

Sounds a bit like a colonial tone. Does this man have any idea how the war struck families suffer? Both British and abroad.

As far as I can see;

he told troops they must continue to fight wars to maintain Britain's influence in the world

isn't actually what he said. The Daily Mail is fairly liberal with such (mis-)interpretations. As to suffering, the argument would be that his policy is intended to prevent far more than it causes, although we could debate that for a year and a day, of course.

I haven't managed to find the whole text yet; THIS is the best I could do.

**Fishman** · 01-12-2007

Originally Posted by Trumble

The Daily Mail is fairly liberal with such (mis-)interpretations.

I thought the Daily Mail was supposed to have a reputation of being conservative and racist, like the Express (who have a crusader as their logo!).

**England** · 01-12-2007

Originally Posted by Fishman

I thought the Daily Mail was supposed to have a reputation of being conservative and racist, like the Express (who have a crusader as their logo!).

A crusader as in St. George cross? Nothing wrong with that. All respect to the Express for that. The St. George cross represents England. Don't like it lump it. I have the flag flying outside above my front door on the pole. A Union Jack used to fly next to it but it kept getting tangled but the "crusader" cross is staying.

**Goku** · 01-12-2007

Originally Posted by England

I'm happy to see Blair has realised that the condition of our troops and the equipment, homes, needs improving. I'm also happy to hear that he is to equip the Royal Navy with a massive ship-building programme which just shows that the media that have said he is scrapping navy ships to pay for costs in Iraq was just aload of coswallop.

It's the best thing I've heard Blair say in a very long time.

Its not that that worries me. Its Blair's stance of insiting Britain must wage wars and send troops, perhaps as a gesture that there may be another upcoming war Blair would like to sacrifice British lives on.

Its alright for him, he enjoys life in the luxury, free holidays like his recent ones, while troops on both sides of the war are suffering hardship and life threatening situations:

Prime Minister Tony Blair urged his successors today to maintain the warlike foreign policy that he promoted, sending troops into battle in Africa and the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/....0112blair.php

It seems he has been getting influence from Bush. Britain is better to keep their troops here back at gome to guard the British Isles. Fortunately, most Brits arent keen on sending their troops into unnecessary and illegal wars only to kill or get killed. Once Blair steps down, its hinted that Britain wont blindly follow the US as Mr Brown stated he speaks his mind and voices his opinions clearly.

**Goku** · 01-12-2007

Originally Posted by Trumble

As far as I can see;

isn't actually what he said. The Daily Mail is fairly liberal with such (mis-)interpretations. As to suffering, the argument would be that his policy is intended to prevent far more than it causes, although we could debate that for a year and a day, of course.

I haven't managed to find the whole text yet; THIS is the best I could do.

Hmm, well this is enough for us to see his intentions:

Prime Minister Tony Blair urged his successors today to maintain the warlike foreign policy that he promoted, sending troops into battle in Africa and the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq.

How about a policy which values human life rather than a war mongering one such as Blair would like to see.

**Fishman** · 01-12-2007

Originally Posted by England

A crusader as in St. George cross? Nothing wrong with that. All respect to the Express for that. The St. George cross represents England. Don't like it lump it. I have the flag flying outside above my front door on the pole. A Union Jack used to fly next to it but it kept getting tangled but the "crusader" cross is staying.

No, an actual crusader, as in a knight. I wouldn't mind if it just had a St George's cross, since that's the English flag.
DailyExpressLetUsPrayCU 2 - Blair: "Britain must continue to fight wars to maintain British influence worldwide"

DailyExpressLetUsPrayCU 2 - Blair: "Britain must continue to fight wars to maintain British influence worldwide"

**England** · 01-12-2007

Originally Posted by Goku

Its not that that worries me. Its Blair's stance of insiting Britain must wage wars and send troops, perhaps as a gesture that there may be another upcoming war Blair would like to sacrifice British lives on.

Its alright for him, he enjoys life in the luxury, free holidays like his recent ones, while troops on both sides of the war are suffering hardship and life threatening situations:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/....0112blair.php

It seems he has been getting influence from Bush. Britain is better to keep their troops here back at gome to guard the British Isles. Fortunately, most Brits arent keen on sending their troops into unnecessary and illegal wars only to kill or get killed. Once Blair steps down, its hinted that Britain wont blindly follow the US as Mr Brown stated he speaks his mind and voices his opinions clearly.

I've said that once before. British troops should be brought back and concentrate on defending the British Isles. Britain is known as a "fortress." Our troops have protected this country time and time again, fighting off any invader successfully. I'm not sure whether Brown will make a difference but Blair is an awful leader. He has ruined this country.

**England** · 01-12-2007

Originally Posted by Fishman

No, an actual crusader, as in a knight. I wouldn't mind if it just had a St George's cross, since that's the English flag.
DailyExpressLetUsPrayCU 2 - Blair: "Britain must continue to fight wars to maintain British influence worldwide"

Ah right fair enough. My apologies.

**shible** · 01-12-2007

What ever be the statement

but in case if the are planning to raise a war only against common terrorist then they will not be facing many issues and in case if they try to do that with muslim or an Islamic nation then surely the 3rd world war in just in their reach

**Eric H** · 01-13-2007

Greetings and peace be with you all

I believe this war mongering policy is so wrong, we are creating a next generation of terrorists because we are killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan unjustly. Britain and America have created a civil war in Iraq, look at all the innocent people killed in Iraq who had nothing to do with 9 / 11.

Why are we so shocked and horrified when they retaliate by bombing our trains and buses.

If Bush and Blair want to do some good they should actively spend all the money earmarked for war mongering on worthy causes like poverty, disease and global warming. That will reduce terrorism without having to kill people and invade countries.

Eric

**north_malaysian** · 01-13-2007

At least British people should be proud that one of their ex-colony, Malaysia still retaining many British values here.... lots of Anglophiles too.. But Singaporeans are shifting from being Anglophiles to being Americanized. I think US has more influence than UK.

**Goku** · 01-13-2007

Originally Posted by England

I've said that once before. British troops should be brought back and concentrate on defending the British Isles. Britain is known as a "fortress." Our troops have protected this country time and time again, fighting off any invader successfully. I'm not sure whether Brown will make a difference but Blair is an awful leader. He has ruined this country.

Which party in the UK do you support?

**Goku** · 01-13-2007

Originally Posted by Eric H

Greetings and peace be with you all

I believe this war mongering policy is so wrong, we are creating a next generation of terrorists because we are killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan unjustly. Britain and America have created a civil war in Iraq, look at all the innocent people killed in Iraq who had nothing to do with 9 / 11.

Why are we so shocked and horrified when they retaliate by bombing our trains and buses.

If Bush and Blair want to do some good they should actively spend all the money earmarked for war mongering on worthy causes like poverty, disease and global warming. That will reduce terrorism without having to kill people and invade countries.

Eric

Greetings Eric, peace be with you.

I agree with what you say, id would be a lot better if there were more people like you in politcal leadership.

Warmongering is bound to create hostility in areas affected. It would do more harm than good.

**England** · 01-13-2007

Originally Posted by Goku

Which party in the UK do you support?

Who I support is nobody's business. I'm entitled to support a party of my choice as you are entitled to support a party of your choice but that statement you quoted from me is a BNP policy which is absolutely correct. We should bring back troops to protect our isles.

**Zulkiflim** · 01-13-2007

Salaam,,

that is all for the western world and western populace..politics..

their money our blood.

It is time for the oppresors to shed their blood,dont you think..

**Fishman** · 01-13-2007

If the troops are for fighting evil opressive dictators across the 1st world (the west), the 2nd world (the 'Sharia' States) and the 3rd world (everybody else), I am for them. If they are just there to protect 'our' interests, which I suspect is the case, then I am against them.

The army should not protect Britain and her allies, it should protect protect the people of Britain and the people of all the other countries in the world!

**England** · 01-13-2007

Originally Posted by Fishman

If the troops are for fighting evil opressive dictators across the 1st world (the west), the 2nd world (the 'Sharia' States) and the 3rd world (everybody else), I am for them. If they are just there to protect 'our' interests, which I suspect is the case, then I am against them.

The army should not protect Britain and her allies, it should protect protect the people of Britain and the people of all the other countries in the world!

The British forces SHOULD protect Britain and it's people. It should also support it's allies if the circumstances are right to. We should not risk our people and our soldiers lives protecting people all over the world. What happens outside of Britain, if it poses no threat, should be left for someone else to sort out. It shouldn't concern us. We're a tiny, but tough country but we shouldn't play the role as the policeman of the world.

**Fishman** · 01-13-2007

Originally Posted by England

The British forces SHOULD protect Britain and it's people. It should also support it's allies if the circumstances are right to. We should not risk our people and our soldiers lives protecting people all over the world. What happens outside of Britain, if it poses no threat, should be left for someone else to sort out. It shouldn't concern us. We're a tiny, but tough country but we shouldn't play the role as the policeman of the world.

I don't believe in protecting some abstract state of 'Britain'. I believe we should be selfless and do whatever we can to protect people regardless of what would happen to Britain. If protecting 'Britain' means protecting the British, whatever race or religion they are, from peril, I am for it. But if it's just some selfish 'let's take care of some dictatorship in East Asia because we get more money that way' plan, then I am utterly against it.
If you are a patriot, as your username suggests, surely you must think that the greatest act this country can do is to sacrifice itself for the good of humankind! I think that is a good thing for the Muslim to do as well, the Quran condemns all oppression, and fighting against it would certainly be a good and blessed act.