If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on bla. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality bla paper right on time. Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in bla, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your bla paper at affordable prices! Forward into battle
Bushs call for the US to go to war leaves Blair facing the moment he hoped would never come
Jackie Ashley
Thursday January 0, 00
College papers on bla The Guardian
This was not a calm assessment of the dangers posed by Iraq; this was a commander ordering his troops into battle. After George Bushs second state of the union address, there can be no doubt that America is set on war. Here in London, Jack Straw and Tony Blair are still talking about Saddam having a last chance to persuade the inspectors, and to disarm. Over there in Washington, time has run out.
So is the Blair strategy already in ruins? Is there any chance of Bush being persuaded to delay much beyond next weeks UN session in which Colin Powell will unveil the alleged links between Saddam and al-Qaida? Will the prime minister be able toing the French and Germans alongside? When he sets off for Camp David later today, is it to discuss the situation, and advise, and urge, and warn - or simply to get his orders?
One thing is for sure. Whatever happens in the Gulf itself, the gulf of understanding between Europe and America has rarely looked wider. To European ears, much of what Bush says sounds archaic. There are the constant references to good and evil. Theres the biblical language (days of promise and days of reckoning). Old Europe, as Donald Rumsfeld calls us, doesnt take religion too seriously these days Bushs Washington is fundamentalist.
Then there is the calm, ponderous pomposity of the address to Congress itself Distinguished citizens and fellow citizens, every year by law and by custom we meet here to consider the state of the union. America has an instinctive deference to its political leader we abandoned long ago. This was as if Tony Blair addressed both houses of parliament, with Margaret Thatcher, Iain Duncan Smith, Neil Kinnock, the top militaryass, and even Dennis Skinner in the audience, all of them leaping up loyally to applaud him, perhaps 0 or 40 times in one speech - and with TV cutaway shots of Clare Short looking tearful and adoring. These are Potomac customs. They wouldnt happen by the Thames.
We know, of course, that the pomp of the state of the union address barely hides another reality an economically divided, unequal and uncertain country, with a substantial anti-war movement of its own, and whose citizens remain sceptical about their presidents wider strategies. Despite warm words about helping the poor with a system of mentors, and a big chunk of money to fund research into hydrogen cars to help the environment, his old conservatism shone through, with calls for an end to abortion. When he spoke ofinging forward his massive tax cuts, it was notable that only half of Congress rose to applaud stone-faced Democrats sat that one out.
With stock values plunging and a shiver of fear running through the markets, we know too that an early war is supposed to be some kind of economic solution. However bizarre it sounds, the US commentator who said that attacking Iraq was Bushs version of an economic stimulus had a point. Bushs moralistic language hid commercial calculation. The markets would like a short, sharp end to the uncertainty. They may not get it however well the speech went down on the night, if the war that follows produces large numbers of American casualties, and a wider conflagration, Bush will be in deep trouble.
From aitish point of view, all that is rather beside the point, though, compared to theute fact of Bush virtually declaring war. The single most significant sentence in his address was not the grand rhetoric about freedom and compassion but the stark assertion that the course of this nation does not depend upon the decisions of others. That was a direct slap in the face for United Nations prevarication and was instantly understood as such by his audience. It produced wild cheering. For Bush, the world community at the UN is interesting; but not very interesting; and certainly not essential.
He is the only person in the world who can afford to think this way. He has the muscle that no one else comes near to possessing. His menaces and his stare are easily mocked, but they are also impressively scary. I would not have liked to have been an Iraqi general watching that speech. We caricature todays America as a flabby, divided and sentimental empire, led by an idiot; but it is also, at moments, the warlike republic of old, with a self-certainty no other country has known for generations. Today the UN is the flag and theory of the world order but America, like its Coke, is the real thing.
So where does that leave Tony Blair? Presumably, facing the moment he hoped would never come to back American action even without UN support - or not? His Texan chum could not have been clearer We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding - if Saddam Hussein fails to disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. UN, or no UN, the Americans are going in.
Its hard to believe that Blair has any purchase left at all. Colin Powell, after all, who was always meant to be the voice of moderation in the administration, and Blairs key ally there, has defected to the hawks. He is the one going to the UN with this new dossier of evidence, the last dove now onside for war. The Americans, clearly, dont need Hans Blix to find a smoking gun they have produced their own, in the form of Colin Powell and his new intelligence.
Will it be enough to persuade sceptical countries like Germany and France, Russia and China? Possibly, but by no means certainly. The link between Iraq and al-Qaida sounds tenuous at the most - and raises the question why, if there is a link, has more not been made of it before? The likeliest thing is that Blair will be forced to make the best of a bad job, and help corral those countries, such as Spain, who will join in the motley coalition of the willing - or rather the coalition of the oh, hell, if hes going to do it anyway, wed better shuffle along in the background in case the Yanks get stroppy later. Blair will strain every sinew to get a new UN resolution, but in the end, will go with Bush because by now he feels he has no choice.
Watching George Bushs speech, you sense that, for him, attacking Iraq is not such a great gamble. He has the greatest military power the world has ever seen, and a nation still traumatised by the attacks of September 11 behind him. Now even Wall Street is urging him on.
For Tony Blair its very different.itain has not yet been attacked in the same way; indeed many people here believe attacking Iraq makes terrorism at home more likely, not less. The anti-war chorus is growing ever louder, both outside and inside the Commons, where the prime ministers insistence yesterday thatitish troops would only be committed to war by our government, our House of Commons, our country was met with roars of disbelief.
Blair is generally thought to be a good speaker - able to swing or at least subdue an angry audience, as he has so often at Labour conferences. On the evidence of Tuesday night, he is not as good as Bush. Yet if he is going to rally this uncertain, sceptical country behind the coming war, hell have to make the state of the union address look like the work of a bumbling beginner. It seems about as likely as Maggie Thatcher cheering him, and Clare Short weeping tears of adoration.
No beginning or end to war
Günter Grass
Wednesday January , 00
The Guardian
War is looming. Once again war looms. Or is war only being threatened so as to stop war coming? Does the limiting word only mean that this is just a mock threat, this staged build-up of US anditish troops and ships on the Arabian peninsula and in the Red sea, with its supply of pictures to the media of overwhelming military might? As soon as one of the worlds two dozen dictators has crumbled into exile or preferably is dead, will this all turn out to be a show of force whichought peace and can vanish away again?
Hardly. This looming war is a wanted war. It is already going on in the heads of the planners, in the worlds stock exchanges, and in what seem to be forward-dated TV programmes. The enemy target is in the sights. He has been named and - along with other enemies on the stocks who will be targeted and named next - he fits the bill for those who want to conjure a danger so grim that it undermines careful reflection.
We know how people create enemies where none exists. We know, and have plenty of pictures to illustrate it, what happens in war when the target is not quite hit. We are familiar with the words for damage and casualties which we are told to accept as inevitable. We are used to the relatively small number of its own dead that the worlds number one ruling power has to count and mourn while the mass of enemy dead, including women and children, go uncounted and are not worth mourning.
So now we wait for the new war and the old repetitions. This time new missile systems will be even more accurate. We can be confident about the choice of pictures from this looming war. The flow of images will be sanitised of every detail of horror. Familiar TV channels will be there to give us a new instalment of war as soap opera, interrupted only by ads for consumers who are living happily in peace.
The only issue for discussion is whether people approach this coming, already happening war as loudmouthed or half-hearted allies, or the sort who may only make a small contribution on the sidelines like the Germans, whose time for making war is over by now, or should be.
Who is the target of this war which is only being threatened? A fearful dictator. But Saddam Hussein, like other dictators, was once aother-in-arms to the democratic world power and its allies. On their behalf, and heavily armed by the west, he waged war for eight years against his neighbour Iran, because at that time the dictator who ruled there was enemy number one.
But, the argument goes on, Saddam Hussein is in possession of of weapons of mass destruction (which has not yet been proved). We are also promised that after this dictator is defeated democracy will be installed in Iraq. But this dictators neighbours, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which are western allies and serve as launchpads for invading Iraq, are also dictatorships. Are they the next targets for wars toing democracy?
I know these are idle questions. The world powers arrogance has an answer for all of them. But everyone knows or assumes that it is all about oil. To be accurate, that its all about oil again. The spectre of hypocrisy which the last remaining superpower and its chorus of allies use to cover their true interests has become so threadbare that the drive for dominance shows right through. It stands there in its huis, unashamed and dangerous to the rest of the world. The current US president is the perfect expression of this common danger we face.
I dont know if the United Nations will be resolute enough to resist the USs clenched drive for power. My experience tells me this wanted war will be followed by other wars with the same drive behind them. I hope my countrys citizens and government will give convincing proof that we Germans have learned the lesson of the wars we have caused and will say no to the oncoming madness, called war.
What should I do if in fretful sleep
the ghosts of the slaughtered were to appear,
bloody, pale, and wan, and weep
in front of me, what should I do?
Thats the question the 18th century writer, Matthias Claudius asks in his poem, Warsong. Looking back on our wars and the people we have slaughtered, this is the question we have still not answered completely.
That distant, looming war which is already under way and which never stops, poses his same question yet again.
Alas, it is war, and I dont wish to carry the guilt for it.
• Günter Grass won the Nobel prize for literature in 1. His new novel, Crabwalk, will be published by Faber in April.
Chirac and Schröder unite to press for peace
Europe Nato ambassadors delay agreeing US request for war help
John Hooper in Berlin, Ian Black inussels and Jon Henley in Paris
Thursday January , 00
The Guardian
Anglo-American efforts to build international support for a war on Iraq were facing new difficulties last night after France and Germany declared they were forming a united front to press for a peaceful solution.
As they were doing so, the practical implications of European reluctance were made starkly clear at Nato headquarters inussels where alliance ambassadors were unable to approve a US request for assistance in the event of war.
Though important differences remain between the stances of France and Germany, comments yesterday by President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder on the 40th anniversary of their bilateral treaty aligned their policies on Iraq more closely than before.
Mr Schröder told a joint press conference in Paris We are both completely agreed on harmonising our positions as closely as possible so as to find a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis. Mr Chirac said their joint approach was based on the two principles that the security council is the only body qualified to decide on military intervention, and secondly that war is always an admission of failure and the worst possible solution. Everything possible should be done to avoid it.
Before setting off for Paris, the chancellor had appeared to rule out a German yes to war in the United Nations. At a state election rally on Tuesday evening he told voters Do not expect that Germany will agree to a resolution that legitimises war. Do not reckon with it.
Taken together with yesterdays claims of a common vision, his warning raised the possibility of a formidable anti-war bloc in the security council, with one member - Germany - holding the chair from Feuary 1 and the other - France - able to block any second resolution in favour of war. On Monday, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, hinted that Paris might use the veto it wields as a permanent member of the 15-strong council.
The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, displayed irritation at Frances public threat. He said he had telephoned Mr de Villepin, and said the two men had a candid and honest and forthright conversation. According to the Boston Globe, Mr Powell dismissed Frances opposition as a blip.
Yesterday Mr Chirac declined to answer a question on whether France would vote the same way as Germany, which is currently one of the councils 10 rotating members.
Last week Washington made a formal request for help from Nato, including anti-missile protection for Turkey, an alliance member which is likely to be a key staging post for American forces. Requests were also made for the use of Natos Awacs surveillance planes, planning, ports, bases, airspace, refuelling facilities, and possible peacekeeping assistance in a post-war Iraq.
But ambassadors failed to reach agreement on providing such support. Officials said the decision was deemed premature while hopes of a peaceful solution remained.
Germany, now leading European opposition to war, was a key doubter after Berlin signalled that even this limited US shopping list was too sensitive politically. France is taking the same line.
Both France and Germany have called for more time to be given to the UNs arms inspectors. But whereas Mr Schröder has ruled out any military role for Germanys troops, the French have been careful to give themselves more flexibility.
Earlier this month, Mr Chirac was not even ruling French military intervention if war was felt to be necessary for the disarming of Saddam Husseins regime. But evidence has yet to emerge of the kind that would allow him to carry the nation with him.
Please note that this sample paper on bla is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on bla, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on bla will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality. Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
RSS Feed (xml)