Rory Stewart | We Will Fight For Queen and Country
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- Rory Stewart gives his argument in proposition for fighting for Queen and Country.
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Facebook @ theoxford...
Twitter @ / oxfordunion
Oxford Union Website @ www.oxford-unio...
Rory Stewart begins by saying it's very honourable to think that whenever we fight it would be for Queen and Country, but to use 'Queen and Country' to justify the cause is absurdity.
He States that fear and guilt are the emotions that drive War. Statements like "no soldier can die in vein" or "Failure is not an option" trap politicians into never being able to admit failure because that would be seen as conceding to the fact that a soldier had die in vein.
Filmed on Thursday 7th February 2013
MOTION: THIS HOUSE WOULD NOT FIGHT FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY
RESULT: MOTION DEFEATED
ABOUT RORY STEWART:
Former Foreign Office diplomat; served as senior government official in two Iraqi provinces.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY:
The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
When I listen to Rory Stewart I see the huge difference between a sustained, informed and intellectual argument and a few smart aleck remarks in the comments column .
@@carolthomas8528 yes the man is educated and he also wants light sentences for criminal gangs to run a muck. He doesn't fool me with the education and smiles.
Ladies and Gentlemen - If you watching this then you have a bias. I served 23 year in the UK Armed Forces and I'm afraid EVERYTHING Rory Stewart has said has meaning. The medals I wear are because the politicians of the day failed in their duty of care to a community. I wear a 'political fuck up' medals because I served at a time when my government was never strong enough to sort things out via communication and we love and trust all what is told via the TV. Discuss?
ok, lets see, how would you keep jobs, GDP and tax income then? how would you plan a defense and fp policy if you are not expecting an attack? how do you communicate with people that dont want to give you oil at a good price because they can, and it is destorying your country? etc etc. Talk is cheap, what would those that moan do.
So I ask you Adam why does oil have to be sold to the USA $. The only reason we attacked them is the fact they stated selling to the euro that is worth more than the $
I also served about the same as you. However, I took from my service a wider view. There are too many reasons for war to generalise. I agree with Rory that WW2 was a case of this far and no further. I do not agree that it was fought for Queen and Country.. That was probably a good catch line. I think folk fought because they could see that Nazism was an evil thing and the talking was over.
Since 45 however, I think it has to be a case of each war to its merits. I agree its a bloody crying shame they happen at all, but that the human race for you.
@@AceBanana100 wow your so 😎 respect.
@@dopeheaddude9651 The USA has it's own oil resources and are totally independent from any country. Fabulous government skills 😎
Rory Stewart should be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately it will never happen.
I agree
He is an unusually gifted conservative ;)
Looks like it's your lucky day
It is looking like that :(
Wow, Amun, you might have just made some statement of prophecy. I've just watched his hustings on youtube for the Prime Minister's position, and as a 100 - 1 outsider, he is looking more now like a realistic threat to B Johnson. Amazing that you said this 5 years ago when all of us were asleep to him.
The politicians whom vote for war , should be the first to be deployed and in battle. Lead by example
Who would run the country? I assume your not dumb
They can't. They are put on there to follow the Agenda.
@@C.t1888 we will not know the answer until it happens, but a point taken
Iraq didn't attack the UK or the US. So, who were the soldiers fighting for? It certainly wasn't the Queen or the UK.
that's why it was a totally illegal war. the Queen should have said no.
@@FreedomsNurse I see that is also why Saddam Hussain was executed for war crimes. The man was guilty as charged if you didn't know this fact.
These are absolutely amazing, and I'm both delighted and grateful that you post these. However, if possible, please post the whole debate. Trying to properly follow the order of these arguments is very difficult otherwise. Thanks again!
They won't because Ben Griffin buried Rory Stewart's Establishment narrative.
@@telsutton What are you going on about, Griffin's speech is here: th-cam.com/video/eccMTIcd3ww/w-d-xo.html
This comment section has completely missed the point... do some research into this man before you spew nonsense
@@daniel67797 This is correct. I don't like the light sentences. Drug dealers and all running a muck everywhere because of his policy. I can say he impressed the rich and educated. Is this because they don't have to live round these criminals and put up with the activities?
Pro war trumpets couldn't last 5 minutes in a British infantry battalion,they send the lower class to do the fighting
He served in the British infantry as second lieutenant
Jinwoo Jeong so?
@@jinwoojeong3149I don’t think he actually fought in battle
War occurs, when logic, reason and dialogue fail. Sadly and tragically, often such failure, is the result of one man's vanity being slighted. Therefore war does not serve reason or logic, but vanity. The consequences of many wars fought in vain, continue to echo in the minds of humanity; influencing our collective actions into infinity. Therefore there is no such thing as a just war.
Rory Stewart doesn't realise he's falling for the public relations of the military and the establishment.
Also there are very few circumstances of a 'just war'. None I know outside of WWII.
The Korean War I believe was a just war. The US however fucked it up
This comment hasn't aged well./V. Zelensky
Would you not include any of the conflict in Yugoslavia as just on the behalf of the western intervention
@@bisratezra8247I assume he might point out that the west are not directly involved in the war itself
If no war is "just" then if a war goes ahead, surely the peoples who that war is waged upon would be justified in waging a defensive/retaliatory war. Meaning all wars are both unjust and just
So Rory Stewart bangs on about the justification for going to Bosnia but negates to include that we, the developed world turned our backs on a much larger attrocity such as the Rwandan genocide where at least 800,000 people were slaughtered and 2.7 million people were displaced, so 27,000 europeans are worth more than 3.5 million africans, this is the perversity of war. Of course we couldn't allow it to happen on our door step but we did nothing for a small central african country because it was far away and had no mineral wealth and no geographical strategic purpose = some humans are more human than others.
whataboutism
Has he ever stated that Rwanda wasn't worth fighting for? Just because he chose Bosnia as an example instead? I find it hard to follow your line of reasoning.
We all ready did fight for the country no matter who is on the throne so long as its royalty
My grandfather was the wisest man I have ever known. He was born to a relatively poor family in 1915 and, even though he came 2nd in a national mathematics competition and could easily have gone to Oxford or Cambridge and maybe have gone on to become part of the Bletchley team, but instead chose to join the RN in 1937 out of a sense of patriotism as he could see what was coming. He quickly rose through the ranks to become a Chief Petty Officer (Artificer) and served with distinction. His ship was on active duties in the Mediterranean in the early 40's but for reasons I can't remember was scuttled and the whole crew were taken to a POW camp in the Sahara where they all stayed for 9 months before they were liberated as emaciated waifs. He always emphasised that he had the utmost respect for his German captors as they treated he and his crewmen as humanely as they could but he had a burning hatred until the day he died for his Vichy (collaborator) French captors as they treated he and his crewmen with the utmost cruelty. After release and repatriation, my Grandfather went on to serve with the RN at Arramanche during the D-Day landings. He told me this story with the only caveat, which he never told my own father, many times (especially when I was being fussy and refusing to eat certain foods!) was to never trust the warmongers on any side which I've come to realise also meant Churchill who was also a terrible imperial warmonger throughout his life, as bad as the Nazis. Hate me for saying this if you will but it is the truth. May God rest all the Souls who died during that awful war.
Jonathan Warne, my grandfather was too young to serve in the First World War (he was born in 1904) but he had three older brothers and they were all killed in Flanders, their bodies were never recovered. He went to sea when he was older and became the skipper of a fishing trawler and when WW2 broke out he became the captain of a minesweeper in the north sea.
My father served in the British Army during WW2, as many did. I know he thought the world of Churchill, and how we could never have won the war without Churchill, or our allies Russia and the U.S.A. (On the whole I agree with him about Churchill, BUT l also recognise that Churchill had many faults) However, what I find truly disturbing today are the many British and American politicians who are now doing everything they can to turn the West against Russia and China, I remember the Cold War era, and even then I never came across the kind of hatred that is being stirred up today by our western politicians and msm. If nobody stands up to these warmongers then we will surely see the return of a new Cold War, one that in today's climate of fear could easily turn into a bloody conflict. So much hate, and for so little reason...these politicians never learn.
Rory Stewart knows the game yet sticks to the narrative.
Wat a charmer is this man he'll get a medal 4 that speech an never once did he mentioned the weapons of mass destruction that millions of humans slaughtered on all sides....cud u plz tell me wer is all the oil In Iraq is now being devided up amongst Rory?....
F.Y.I: Rory Srewart was/turned against the Iraqi war. There's an entire episode of his podcast 'The Rest is Politics' dedicated to this subject.
I do not debate the humanity in his fully just opinion of what modern war has become. But I would struggle to agree the community implications of why 300,000+ dead in WW2 is down to a belief that they didn't understand why they were giving there life. The reasons of freedom were at the heart of 'why' the disregard of this very basic fact is something I'm sure Rory could understand.
A comment section full of western guilt.
Right so we should all be completely shameless? Sorry only sociopaths can do that
Well I would, playing the devils advocate, recommend you see Christopher Hitchens’s retroactive argument for the Iraq war, you might not agree (I certainly do not) but it’s at least a decent argument so I can see how one could feel not-guilty and not be a sociopath.
You can tell that he is a distinguished gentleman by the way he has combed his hair into his fucking ears.
Do you just hate white gentlemen or gays, trans and fat people too? All of that won't make you better looking tough
What is absurd is hearing this politician talk about war as if he knows what it is like to be a soldier. I've never been a soldier myself, and I dont want to become one, and thus I would never dream about talking like this guy does.
Monscent
69 serving MPs- including Rory Stewart, are former servicemen
Nathan Hazlett My bad then. I still don't agree with him whatsoever though.
Monscent he was a soldier you wanker
I do plan to join the royal navy , and I completely agree with him
Monscent the idea is that your country does so much for you so you should do something back if your country needs you
Will the Queen fight to protect her people?
queen is a woman and she has no real power. Britain is a republic not a monarchy.
How ridiculous.
If you do not fight for the goals of the queen, be that for her wishes or commands, then you do not fight for the queen.
He is defending that we ought to fight for what is right and/or reasonable not for the queen.
What a farce.
Yes we should have a strong defence ......BUT... for that purpose only .....DEFENCE.
Defence is sometimes attacking others.
I completely agree with him
I've seen him present documentaries on Laurence of Arabia and Afghanistan, and he seemed like a reasonable guy but it seems like he hasn't learnt much. Britain has broken most places in the world its ever invaded, some with really big consequences like India/Pakistan and the Middle east. The very idea of queen and country is absurd too, they have a superior bloodline to us? But now they're purely ceremonial? They don't do anything we just sell out our morals for this medieval throwback.
Loadatat his nickname in the commons is “ Florence of Arabia “ apparently , he likes Afghanistan where he gets his pure opium from of course
“Broken most places in the world…”. That’s bullshit. In the case of India/Pakistan, the brits improved these places greatly. My grandfather was stationed to Burma for 2 years in WW2 and I’ll never forget him telling me: “When us British soldiers boarded the boats to leave India for the last time, we were swarmed by the natives and their tears of the realisation that the British were leaving for good”. The locals of places like Burma and India revered and loved the Brits who were there because they are not stupid. They could see clearly how much safety and improvement had occurred when the brits had occupied it and they were greatly thankful for it.
@@archiet2205 yes because dividing Indian worked so well, just like in the middle East
@@tomfurstyfield ok so let’s look at the two periods of India/Pakistan when the Brits weren’t present there. So pre British occupation: these countries are incredibly backward and the vast majority of ppl live in utter squalor. Then the Brits come: peace is created, safety and security assured, industrialism is brought and the railways etc are built. Then, the Brits leave and after that we see war break out…
@@archiet2205 yeh just ignore the massive famines that killed millions, extracting as much as they could and the decision to divide the country by people who didn't have the right or knowledge to do so. They then repeated this colossal fuck up by dividing the middle East which you seem to be ignoring in your responses.
The old lie: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. Very, very few wars are just.
Correct me if im wrong but the case hes trying to state is pre emptive war? To stop a world war you need pre emptive war.. So all the wars after world war 2 you should support because it prevents world war 3. So it begs the question if you add up all the casualties of war since world war 2, would they be more or less than if world war 3 happened.
It's just a way of saying never question the morality of a war ever again, just do as you're told
@@deanfowles3707 Indeed, it will not be long before heading off to Syria again with msm help
@@wiggledytoes I have no idea what your on about. But I'm sure it's a good point
@@wiggledytoes Syria was helped by Russia not long ago. They didn't return the favour. I see a reality of watch your own back.That way you know it's covered. Stupid russian Putin got mugged off by Syria.
@@carol2336 thanks carol
I think this debate is a little bit silly. As war, is war, always happened and will do. No war the population grows so big we all stave to dealth or fight over food and somewhere to live, in decades to come. Or we face the true. When we focus so much on income and benefits. We all want a job so we can live, we pay taxes so those of us in the UK can have the NHS, education, beneifts, penistions , roads , law courts , police a goverment etc etc. We cannot do that without taxes. So how much would we lose in all the military lot there jobs? and the arms industry, how many working in ship yards etc and then the knock on effect, millions will lose job, and billions of tax income. See the effect? people moan about oil, yet we need it, we need it to drive cars, make roads etc. If we did not go to war sometimes for it, prices would be high, but what then if somone goes right, you will pay xxxx. Would you pay it, or would you want the gov to take actions? sad facts of life, war happen and it is horrible and we wish to never be part of it. But it happens, and we have to deal with it.
@@adamb123ful Good point.
Is this the same talk that Ben griffin appeared at?
yes
Lol old Florence of Arabia won’t be doing any actual fighting of course he leaves that to the poor , by the looks of him he couldn’t fight his way outta paper bag
I Do
does this guy even know what he's going on about?
He was in the Army
@@donalobrien7868 An Etonian so probably "in the army" in the way Prince Harry was.
Afghanistan is not Germany.
Rory
Google chark leong boey, HSBC bank Singapore, regarding final agreement, white spiritual boy agreement signed by your queen inter alia, not for the faint hearted
Is the only way for working class lives to have meaning for these people by them dying in endless wars?
he wouldnt last one hour in the forces x talk talk talk x do the walk x we go to war ha ha x you are in a bubble xxx you dont see daylight xx
Stewart was in the army. Google him fella
He was an officer in the Army Max and was recuited as an officer like most upper class who join
@@dopeheaddude9651 yeah so he was most likely never really put in harms way or saw the real horrors of war. One of the rules I live by is never ever ever trust or believe wealthy people
Somebody should give this guy a gun and fly his ass into an hotspot in Syria or lybia and see how glamourous honourable and patriotic he thinks war is then dying for a rich woman and man called the king and queen thousands of miles away from danger in a life of luxury like the politicians are this guy has no right to be talking about war he's never been in ducking one
He was an officer in the Blackwatch and served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He walked across the entire country of Afghanistan and is fluent in Pashtun. He ran a province of Iraq when the war was going on. He is legit, the real deal, and we are lucky to have him.
Do your research you imbecile
It's all well and good for him. He will never have to go to war will he.
Only sending others to their death.
Diane Bettenson
He is an ex soldier, governed two districts in Iraq , and was in Libya the day after Gaddaffi fell, as well as walking solo across Afghanistan .......This guy knows more about conflict than most politicians
Oh, boy. I hope you have done some reading about this guy since the time you were ignorant of his biography. This guy has faced real bullets, and bombardments, talked his way past the Taliban when apprehended by them while walking across Afghanistan alone at the time of 9/11, Governed provinces in Afghanistan and Southern Iraq, worked in Kabul for three years running a charity, and generally shown the kind of integrity, resourcefulness, pragmatism and can do attitude that a select few great Britains, over many centuries, has seen them lauded as being the best we have produced! His speech was also nuanced in a way you seem to have missed, about what kind of war.
"Only sending others to their death"?!? Look up this guy's bio.
On this issue Rory Stewart puts forward the perceptions of a muddled thinker. Both the monarchy and the government have proven themselves to be amoral and self seeking. In light of this track record there cannot be any moral war for queen and country.
Why, sir, is it necessary to be so uncivil? By being so, you only display the baseness of your own character for all to see. If you can not be civil out of generosity or for lack of respect for others whom you disagree with, be civil for the sake of your own honor.
When you speak in an uncivil manner, you harm yourself and no one else.
Stuart MP, might fight for queen and country but he would not fight for the people.
He was a soldier