[continued from previous message] 
  
 way that we did and so on, but in the end what we have got to understand, 
 and this is why it's so important for us to send a message to the region, 
 we are not walking away from Iraq. 
  
 We will stay for as long as the government needs us to stay. 
  
 So there will ... 
  
 And the reason for that is that what is happening in Iraq as in 
 Afghanistan, as in elsewhere in parts of the Middle East, is a struggle 
 between the decent majority of people who want to live in peace together, 
 and those who have an extreme and perverted and warped view of Islam who 
 want to create war. 
  
 And in those circumstances, our task has got to be to stand up for the 
 moderates and the democrats against the extremists and the sectarians, and 
 they are testing our will at the moment, and our will has not to be found 
 wanting. 
  
 I mean of course it's difficult, it's very difficult but it's difficult, 
 not because people in Iraq want, you know, this, this, this bloodshed and 
 this attempt to provoke civil war, but because this is being driven by 
 outside elements that are the very outside elements fuelling extremism 
 everywhere. 
  
 Now the reason why Israel-Palestine is important and the situation in 
 Lebanon is important, is that I don't think we will succeed in Iraq unless 
 we succeed across the region, unless we have a strategy that embraces the 
 whole of the Middle East. 
  
 That's going to take a hell of a long time. 
  
 It will take time, but the reasons we are there, the reason this whole 
 struggle came about was because there were a combination of elements that 
 came out of the Middle East that ended up with the, the al-Qaeda training 
 camps in Afghanistan that ended up finally with 9/11, that ended up with 
 Madrid and London, as well as all the, the disruption of terrorism all over 
 the Middle East. 
  
 And in the end the answer to it is to recognise the roots of this are deep, 
 it's a generational struggle, but if we walk away from it now we will only 
 have to confront it again later. 
  
 What about your latest thoughts on Syria and Iran which you talked about on 
 Monday and previously in Los Angeles. The Daily Telegraph, which I am aware 
 is not a New Labour house organ, but nevertheless had an editorial, a 
 rousing editorial, which said "this approach in which two countries once 
 branded by the Bush White House as ununambiguously evil, miraculously 
 become part of the solution, defies any credible logic except that of 
 ignominious desperation".  Can it possibly work ... to get them involved? 
  
 Yeah, but you see this is where, if people will pay attention to what is 
 actually being said rather than what they think might have been said or 
 what they want to have been said we'd be better off. 
  
 First of all I don't think Syria and Iran incidentally are in precisely the 
 same position. Their interests are not the same in the region and I think 
 there are very different considerations that apply in respect of each 
 country. 
  
 However, what is absolutely clear, and this is what we have said all the 
 way through, is that if, for example, Iran wants a different relationship 
 with the United States of America or with the European Union, with the 
 West, then it has got to make sure that it is abiding by its international 
 obligations in respect of this nuclear weapons issue. 
  
 It has got to stop supporting terrorism in the region, and it's got to 
 reach out and help solve the problems of the region rather than be part of 
 the problem of the region, and I, let me make one thing absolutely clear, I 
 do not intend any message other than one of absolute strength in relation 
 to Iran, which is to say. 
  
 Not appeasement as they all say so? 
  
 It is completely absurd to say that. On the contrary what I am saying is 
 very, very clear indeed. 
  
 If you reject ... the way forward that we are setting out, if instead of 
 playing a part in helping the region in supporting peace, you support 
 terrorism, you act in breach of your International obligations, then it is 
 our task to stand up to you. 
  
 On the other hand if it is the case that you want to be part of a 
 constructive solution in the Middle East, the door is open to you. 
 It's your choice. And the whole point about what I was saying both in 
 respect of Syria and Iran is to say because part of this is actually 
 explaining ourselves properly to the region. 
  
 We have to go out there ourselves, and the Americans, and say "we are not 
 against you because we believe that we should decide who governs Iran or we 
 should decide who governs Syria". 
  
 What we are saying to you is very, very clear, if you are prepared to be 
 part of the solution there is a partnership available to you, but at the 
 moment, and this is particularly so in respect of what Iran is doing in 
 supporting terrorism throughout the Middle East in acting in breach of its 
 nuclear-weapons obligations, you are behaving in such a way that makes such 
 a partnership impossible. 
  
 And so really what we are doing is saying: "this is the strategic choice, 
 but don't go out and try and persuade people in the region that we are 
 somehow hostile to you, because we are against the Iranian people or 
 against the Syrian people, we're not." 
  
 What we're doing is laying out the terms upon which we can be either people 
 who work constructively together or alternatively face isolation. 
  
 Prime Minister, back in November 2001 you said that the Taliban was in a 
 state of total collapse. What's happened?  It seems to have had a comeback, 
 a revival to be a serious enemy again.  What's happened, did we 
 underestimate them or ...? 
  
 No but I think really what's happened is that although in many parts of 
 Afghanistan they've been beaten back, in the south in a sense they have 
 never really left. 
  
 Up in Kabul it's been a different picture, but again what it indicates is 
 that they are very serious about trying to take us on, trying to take on 
 the Afghan people who obviously want to elect their government as they've 
 been able to do for the first time, and again the answer is to stick with 
 it and make sure that we, we help those people who want to, to get a better 
 future where they're not prey to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and their country 
 is turned into a training camp or a narcotics economy or girls aren't 
 allowed to go to school or any of the rest of the extremism that comes with 
 them. 
  
 And of course originally one of our reasons for being in Afghanistan was, 
 hopefully, to hunt and find Osama Bin Laden. Have we made any progress on 
 that? 
  
 I think we're still in the same position, but you know this is, this is now 
 a worldwide movement, an ideology, and the real issue for us as western 
 nations because we can't, in the end, solve this. 
  
 This is about empowering as I say the moderate elements within what is the 
 peaceful and dignified religion of Islam to take on and defeat these 
 extremists who walk and pervert its name, and if you look back over the 
 past few years the majority of the victims of terrorism have been Muslim. 
 Many of the people who have perished in some of the worst terrorist 
 atrocities have been Muslim people, ordinary innocent Muslim people, and 
 this extremism that has taken root has grown over a long period of time, 
 and it won't be defeated in a quick period of time and I think if there's 
 anything that we underestimated at the time of September the 11th is that 
 because September the 11th was the first time it ... shattered our own 
 consciousness and broke in upon it. 
  
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)