Best political speech of last 15 years?

MakeEmLaugh

What do people think is the speech given by a politician in the last 15 years?

Even though I am neutral on the subject, and would not necessarily have voted 'No' had I lived in Scotland last November when the referendum was held, I have to say that Gordon Brown's speech on the penultimate day of the Scottish independence campaign against leaving the UK was an absolute barnstormer.

Mr.Nice Guy

Brown did a great job for the No camp but I'm not sure history will judge the speech too kindly if events keep moving Scotland towards independence.

The one that came to mind for me was Robin Cook's resignation speech over the Iraq war. I remember my teacher in school raving about this speech and rightly so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0f8NBlmwwE

Red Kev

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Brown did a great job for the No camp but I'm not sure history will judge the speech too kindly if events keep moving Scotland towards independence.

The one that came to mind for me was Robin Cook's resignation speech over the Iraq war. I remember my teacher in school raving about this speech and rightly so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0f8NBlmwwE

Great speech, he said what a lot of us knew at the time, especially the "muslims believe there is one rule for the allies and another for us". Predicted a part of the catastrophe that the Middle East has turned into over the past 15 years.

Thanks for posting it.

bpb101

i would have went with this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTYU323xMfE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTYU323xMfE&feature=youtu.be&t=1m44s

DarkyHughes

Willie Frazer's 2006 and speech about how the IRA control the world.

mountai

Yeah , the one where he told us to commit Suicide.

Sever Tomorrow

MakeEmLaugh

This will have to be added to the list.

Good loser

Sever Tomorrow wrote: »

That George Galloway speech to the Senate was brilliant in the extreme.

Totally impressed by him.

Caught him on 'This Week' with Andrew Neal a few weeks ago - a more relaxed setting and he was very witty.

MakeEmLaugh

Good loser wrote: »

That George Galloway speech to the Senate was brilliant in the extreme.

Totally impressed by him.

Caught him on 'This Week' with Andrew Neal a few weeks ago - a more relaxed setting and he was very witty.

A shame he appeared on Celebrity Big Brother pretending to be a cat, and licking milk out of the cupped hands of Rula Lenska.

A Dub in Glasgo

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

This will have to be added to the list.

Maybe a passionate speech but he flip flops too much for my liking

khamilto

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

This will have to be added to the list.

Why? It's passionate but is the epitome of sounding good rather than being good. His points are illogical, rarely cogent and he makes no sound arguments for what he is espousing.

It is the most dangerous kind of politics, similar to Marco Rubio in the US. You can drape the most awful of words in charisma and lead people into doing evil things.

Jolly Red Giant

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

This will have to be added to the list.

Hilary Benn is an hypocrite - his father wasn't

MakeEmLaugh

khamilto wrote: »

Why? It's passionate but is the epitome of sounding good rather than being good. His points are illogical, rarely cogent and he makes no sound arguments for what he is espousing.

I disagree. I think it was an entirely logical and cogent speech. Benn mentions that:

• though he disagrees with his party's leader Jeremy Corbyn on the issue of supporting air-strikes against ISIS in Syria, Corbyn should not have been called a “terrorist sympathiser” by David Cameron.
  
• the UN Security Council Resolution (2249, paragraph 5), citing clear evidence that there is a legal justification for air-strikes against ISIS. The paragraph in question:
  

  calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups

• the Labour party help establish the United Nations after the Second World War, because they “wanted the nations of the world, working together, to deal with threats to international peace and security – and Daesh is unquestionably that.”
  
• air-strikes against ISIS are lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
  
• there are 60 other countries who also support air-strikes against ISIS in Syria
  
• progress has been made at the Syrian peace talks in Vienna, which began on 30 October.
  
• the French president Francois Hollande has asked Britain to support them in air-strikes against ISIS in Syria.
  
• the government in Iraq asked Britain to assist them in air-strikes against ISIS, and that the result severely weakened ISIS.
  
• air-strikes against ISIS in Iraq were supported by the Kurds, who saw what they had done to ISIS in Sinjar and Kobani.
  
• the longer the ground troops in Syria are left unaided in trying to defeat Daesh, the more of their soldiers (which could be between 40,000 and 80,000) will be depleted.
  
• Britain should offer more humanitarian aid, offer to take in more refugees, and offer to help rebuild Syria when the war is over.
  
• the Kurdistan regional government high representative in London, Karwan Jamal Tahir, said ‘Last June, Daesh captured one third of Iraq over night and a few months later attacked the Kurdistan region. Swift airstrikes by Britain, America and France, and the actions of our own Peshmerga, saved us. We now have a border of 650 miles with Daesh. We’ve pushed them back, and recently captured Sinjar. Again, Western airstrikes were vital. But the old border between Iraq and Syria does not exist. Daesh fighters come and go across this fictional boundary.’

His speech showed a formidable understanding of facts surrounding the Syrian civil war, and events which have taken place since it began.

Most of the criticisms of his speech seem to be from people who simply do not want Britain to attack ISIS in Syria, and therefore dismiss any counterargument as 'bad'.

khamilto

• though he disagrees with his party's leader Jeremy Corbyn on the issue of supporting air-strikes against ISIS in Syria, Corbyn should not have been called a “terrorist sympathiser” by David Cameron.

And?

[*]the UN Security Council Resolution (2249, paragraph 5), citing clear evidence that there is a legal justification for air-strikes against ISIS. The paragraph in question:

It provides no such clear evidence.
I suggest you read http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-constructive-ambiguity-of-the-security-councils-isis-resolution/#more-13855 or https://www.lawfareblog.com/threading-needle-security-council-resolution-2249 (they are linked so only one is necessary).

Are you still so sure it's 'clear'?

[*]the Labour party help establish the United Nations after the Second World War, because they “wanted the nations of the world, working together, to deal with threats to international peace and security – and Daesh is unquestionably that.”

And what have the US and UK in their merry interventionist adventures across the Middle East over the last 11 years been? And France happily re-embroiling itself in it's colonial past? Are they not threats to international peace and security? What about Saudi Arabia, it's involvement in the spread of Wahhabism, and it's involvement in Yemen?

So, the first point and we already have Mr. Benn being a desperately uninformed hypocrite.

[*]air-strikes against ISIS are lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Only if ISIS planned and committed the attacks and was planning to commit more. Further, it is expected to be somewhat proportionate.

Also, Hitler's invasion of Poland was lawful under Article 51. Indeed, much of the Syria conflict, the terminology and 'reasoning' around it are frighteningly reminiscent of WW2.

[*]there are 60 other countries who also support air-strikes against ISIS in Syria

Popularity does not negate the need for a clear, logical and well reasoned foundation for bombing people in a different country.

[*]progress has been made at the Syrian peace talks in Vienna, which began on 30 October.

Neither the government of Syria, nor the Syrian opposition are taking part in the talks.

Here is the economist mentioning that the peace talks were at best, limping forward:
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21678712-part-puzzle-after-paris-syrias-peace-process-limps

Yet here is Saudi Arabia hosting separate peace talks with Islamic rebels:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-conference-idUSKBN0TQ21Z20151207

So, no progress then.

[*]the French president Francois Hollande has asked Britain to support them in air-strikes against ISIS in Syria.

That doesn't make it reasonable to do so.

[*]the government in Iraq asked Britain to assist them in air-strikes against ISIS, and that the result severely weakened ISIS.

There is clear evidence that the bombings in Iraq and Syria have had very limited effects. For instance, the CIA estimated 20-30k ISIS soldiers in Aug 2014. After a year of air strikes during which it is claimed 15k ISIS soldiers were killed, the estimate for ISIS soldiers remained exactly the same.
We know that territory essentially remained static during that time, and that the numbers of foreign fighters remain low. We also know that both Iranian backed Iraqi forces, Kurds and Syrian Army units have been involved in heavy fighting with ISIS during that time.

Yet we are expected to believe that 15k soldiers were killed by airstrikes, nd unknown amount (and likely to be larger than those killed by airstrikes) by enemy troops, and the amount of troops ISIS has remains static.

Right boss.

[*]air-strikes against ISIS in Iraq were supported by the Kurds, who saw what they had done to ISIS in Sinjar and Kobani.

Air strikes in conjunction with ground forces on front line positions is a bit different. Just a tiny bit. Also, Iraq and Syria are different countries.

[*]the longer the ground troops in Syria are left unaided in trying to defeat Daesh, the more of their soldiers (which could be between 40,000 and 80,000) will be depleted.

And? Without US intervention in Syria Al-Assad likely would have crushed the rebellion and ISIS would be a barely remembered small footnote that existed briefly in west Iraq. Yet now, we must INTERVENE EVEN MORE! because we intervened before, and somehow we will have a different result despite doing the same thing.

[*]Britain should offer more humanitarian aid, offer to take in more refugees, and offer to help rebuild Syria when the war is over.

So 'We'll help with the rebuilding and humanitarian work but only after we bomb you'.
Also, in relation to rebuilding, that worked out so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh wait.

[*]the Kurdistan regional government high representative in London, Karwan Jamal Tahir, said ‘Last June, Daesh captured one third of Iraq over night and a few months later attacked the Kurdistan region. Swift airstrikes by Britain, America and France, and the actions of our own Peshmerga, saved us. We now have a border of 650 miles with Daesh. We’ve pushed them back, and recently captured Sinjar. Again, Western airstrikes were vital. But the old border between Iraq and Syria does not exist. Daesh fighters come and go across this fictional boundary.’

Which is very different than what the UK is committing now.

His speech showed a formidable understanding of facts surrounding the Syrian civil war, and events which have taken place since it began.

It shows him to be a buffoon who cannot even remember recent past experience, and certainly not learn from it.

Most of the criticisms of his speech seem to be from people who simply do not want Britain to attack ISIS in Syria, and therefore dismiss any counterargument as 'bad'.

So, what you're trying to say is David Cameron is right, and they're terrorist sympathisers.

You dismissed criticism of his speech as people who are blinded by not wanting Britain to attack ISIS in Syria. I would suggest you are the blind person.

Enjoy your day, you are unequivocally and empirically incorrect - as is Mr. Benn.

MakeEmLaugh

Hitler's invasion of Poland was lawful under Article 51. Indeed, much of the Syria conflict, the terminology and 'reasoning' around it are frighteningly reminiscent of WW2.

There was no Article 51 when Hitler invaded Poland, because the United Nations didn't exist.

Are we really resorting to Godwin's law already?

And France happily re-embroiling itself in it's colonial past?

Which colonies has France re-established?

khamilto wrote: »

And?

And what? Are you saying Benn was wrong to show respect for a view which was counter to his own? Should have just have called Corbyn a “terrorist sympathiser”?

It provides no such clear evidence.
I suggest you read http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-constructive-ambiguity-of-the-security-councils-isis-resolution/#more-13855 or https://www.lawfareblog.com/threading-needle-security-council-resolution-2249 (they are linked so only one is necessary).

Are you still so sure it's 'clear'?

You cite a blog post saying that Operative Paragraph 5 “allows the major players in Syria to politically move closer together without departing from the legal positions that they had previously adopted, and without compromising their essential interests.”

It does not say that there is no legal justification for air strikes against ISIS in Syria.

And what have the US and UK in their merry interventionist adventures across the Middle East over the last 11 years been?Are they not threats to international peace and security? What about Saudi Arabia, it's involvement in the spread of Wahhabism, and it's involvement in Yemen?

So, the first point and we already have Mr. Benn being a desperately uninformed hypocrite.

You are posing questions, but they are of little relevance to what Hilary Benn was saying in his speech. Are you saying that, because of Iraq, the UK and US should never intervene in any situation in the Middle East, at all, no matter what happens in the future?

Popularity does not negate the need for a clear, logical and well reasoned foundation for bombing people in a different country.

No one said that it should. It merely gives context to Britain's decision to bomb ISIS in Syria.

Neither the government of Syria, nor the Syrian opposition are taking part in the talks.

Here is the economist mentioning that the peace talks were at best, limping forward:
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21678712-part-puzzle-after-paris-syrias-peace-process-limps

Yet here is Saudi Arabia hosting separate peace talks with Islamic rebels:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-conference-idUSKBN0TQ21Z20151207

So, no progress then.

You cited an article in The Economist, published more than two weeks before Benn even gave his speech, which nevertheless conceded that some progress has been made.

That doesn't make it reasonable to do so.

France is an ally of Britain. It isn't as if a country with whom Britain has no previous relationship asked them to intervene.

And? Without US intervention in Syria Al-Assad likely would have crushed the rebellion and ISIS would be a barely remembered small footnote that existed briefly in west Iraq. Yet now, we must INTERVENE EVEN MORE! because we intervened before, and somehow we will have a different result despite doing the same thing.

I don't know who this 'we' is to whom you're referring.

So 'We'll help with the rebuilding and humanitarian work but only after we bomb you'.

Also, in relation to rebuilding, that worked out so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh wait.

So you are saying they shouldn't rebuild Syria after the civil war? And are you saying that buildings damaged by British air strikes will constitute the majority of the damaged property in Syria?

It shows him to be a buffoon who cannot even remember recent past experience, and certainly not learn from it.

I disagree. I see nothing in his speech which showed that.

So, what you're trying to say is David Cameron is right, and they're terrorist sympathisers.

You dismissed criticism of his speech as people who are blinded by not wanting Britain to attack ISIS in Syria. I would suggest you are the blind person.

Enjoy your day, you are unequivocally and empirically incorrect - as is Mr. Benn.

Really? You've already invoked Godwin's law, now you're just fabricating words from thin air?

Frankly, I started this thread to list great political speeches. I would regard Benn's speech as a great political speech, even if I disagreed with it, just as I regarded Gordon Brown's speech as a great political speech, despite not being someone who dismisses the SNP.

If you think there is a better speech given on the subject of air strikes against ISIS, maybe you should post it, instead of just recycling posts from other political thread in which, frankly, I have no interest in participating.

Shurimgreat

People may agree or disagree with what Benn said but the speech was powerful, cut through the BS, and was a rallying call in the Churchill mould. People need to be aware that there are consequences for inaction as well and Benn I believe outlined that better than many. If countries in the west "walk on the other side of the road" what are the consequences of this. Ultimately Britain has a responsibility to contribute if it can to the defeat of ISIS. It won't be easy and it won't be clean, but war never is. People die in war, everyone understands that. But if you don't act, in the case of ISIS, even more people will die. Try telling the Kurds and Yazidi that airstrikes don't make a difference.