Robin Cook, Claire Short

dahamsta

I can't quote his exact words, so this is taken from the BBC website:

Cook gets Commons ovation

[...]

Mr Cook said that Iraq's military strength was less than half what it had been at the time of the last Gulf War. It was illogical to argue, therefore, that Iraq presented a threat and moreover that that threat justified war. Furthermore, he said, Iraq probably had no weapons of mass destruction in the "commonly understood" sense of being a credible threat that could be delivered on "a city target."

[...]

That last sentence is just scary when you think about it. We've been told time and time again that Saddam has WoMD, we've been told that we need to trust the people that are telling us, and although we've doubted them every step of the way, there's always been a niggling worry that they're telling the truth, that there really are WoMD, that there really are connections to terrorism. Now we're being told once again that there probably aren't, but this time it's not some pundit in the street, or a journalist, or even a backbench MP, it's a frontbench Cabinet Minister. Was he - a former foreign secretary - being asked to take Blair at his word too?

And what the hell is Claire Short playing at? I was expecting her to go before Cook. Has Blair pulled a wild card, or is she just a bullsh1tter. I'm lax to think it's the latter.

While I'm here, I also want to ask a question. It'll probably get split off into another thread, but if so, so be it: If the US and the UK go to war without United Nations backing, will it affect your purchasing habits? Will you stop drinking Coke, buying Dell, shopping at Amazon? How about Tesco, Waterstone and Virgin? Will you stop using your O2 and Vodafone mobiles?

adam

Mossy Monk

Originally posted by dahamsta
Will you stop drinking Coke, buying Dell, shopping at Amazon? How about Tesco, Waterstone and Virgin? Will you stop using your O2 and Vodafone mobiles?

out of your list i use Coke and O2 and the answer is no

Von

Cook is one bitter little bastard. It's a pity he'll be remembered for this rather than for his record of flogging loads and loads of military gear to Indonesia's genocidal regime after he spent years slagging the tories for flogging loads and loads of military gear to Indonesia's genocidal regime.

dahamsta

It's a pity he'll be remembered for this rather than for his record of flogging loads and loads of military gear to Indonesia's genocidal regime after he spent years slagging the tories for flogging loads and loads of military gear to Indonesia's genocidal regime.

Perhaps that was the point? And aren't you rather missing mine?

adam

Shinji

True, his "ethical foreign policy" turned out to be a bit of a bad joke eh?

Still, everyone gets a chance to redeem themselves. I'm sure this is a shrewd political move on his part (lots of mutterings about him being forced out in the next reshuffle anyway) but regardless; under the circumstances, whatever his reasoning, it would appear that he's done the Right Thing.

aine

first of all Ive got to say Im rather disappointed with CLaire Short! even if she goes now it wont have the impact that it would have last night! anyway I dont thijnk its an issue because it was just all rhetoric!

Second of all, I would like an answer to Cook's question, why is it that now 20years after Britain helped to supply Iraq with weapons, a decade since the Gulf War and now that Iraq has a seriously depleted armed force......so why is it that Iraq is NOW a major threat to world peace?

dahamsta

HALLO? Is anyone listening to me? Robin Cook, a Cabinet Minister and former Foreign Secretary for the UK has said that he thinks that Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction, which is in total contrast to statements from the leaders of both the US and UK, who state that Iraq has WoMD as fact. Earth to Boards, come in Boards?

(By the way, Cook's speech is here in MP3 format. Only just got this meself via IP, so he could prove me wrong yet. Also here as streaming RealAudio. Dave Farber sent it four times in all to IP in his excitement, so it must be worth a listen. )

adam

gandalf

Yes Adam we hear you. Its exactly what the majority of us suspected anyway. We know George and Tony are lying to us. I can't wait for them to produce the "proof" you know a dodgy looking metal sphere with a big yellow nuclear sign and a few wires hanging out of it :rolleyes:

Gandalf.

bug

I have to say regardless of my opinion on Robin Cooke I was delighted with his speech.

first of all Ive got to say Im rather disappointed with CLaire Short!

Yes I am too, although she's probably been offered some deal to stay..maybe in connection with the construction contracts which are possibly signed already, for the rebuilding of Iraq.

Sorry, head exploding with conspiracy theories at the moment.

dahamsta

I note that parliament.uk isn't responding this morning. I wonder is that because lots of people like me went looking for Short's address to give her a good ticking off.

adam

gandalf

Well back on topic I have to admit even given my extreme dislike for Robin Cook he has at least restored some of my faith in politicians in the way he conducted himself in resigning. I thought his speech was clear, to the point and dignified.

Shame Claire Short has turned out to be a hypocrite :rolleyes:

Gandalf.

sceptre

And now John Denham is gone too. And Lord Hunt (junior minister for health)

I've got to say, I'm pleased that these people are willing to stand on their convictions. Obviously there could be something in it for them if they get around to toppling Blair but I suspect they're just making the point they want to make in the best way they can. Claire Short just looks like she's checking her bread to see where the butter is.

Those with Sky Digital can check out the entire debate broadcast from about 1 till 7 on BBC Parliament (get it through Add Channels, hop over to ICDG if you want the frequency). There are a few other things to get through first but I suspect they'll get through them rather quickly. (edit: Sky News are showing it - they'll probably show all of it)

Furthermore, he said, Iraq probably had no weapons of mass destruction in the "commonly understood" sense of being a credible threat that could be delivered on "a city target."

Sums up what quite a few people have been saying for some time. It's rather heartening to realise that Cook has probably been shouting this out in cabinet for months.

On the last question Adam posed - yes, I'm annoyed enough about this to start doing this. If there had been a second resolution (even a bribed one) things might have been different. No shopping at Tesco for me (and they'll be getting an email to explain why they won't be getting a pittance of a profit from me, for the little that's worth). Considering mobile options too (examining Meteor coverage). Like all these things, I'm going to try and vote with my feet (or rather my thin wallet)

Dampsquid

Emm, what has Tesco's done to anybody? Why would you boycott them or anyone else?

Claire Short is not gonna resign, because Tony told her she will be part of the rebuilding process after the war.

dahamsta

Emm, what has Tesco's done to anybody? Why would you boycott them or anyone else?

I'm not saying I will, I'm just asking right now, but the answer is that Tesco is a British company, and companies are what right-wing Governments take most notice of.

Claire Short is not gonna resign, because Tony told her she will be part of the rebuilding process after the war.

The full text of Claire Short's statement is here. I'd normally say that your comment is a gross simplification, but I don't think Short deserves my defense.

adam

Dampsquid

I'm not saying I will, I'm just asking right now, but the answer is that Tesco is a British company, and companies are what right-wing Governments take most notice of.

If we were to boycott tesco, then it would affect irish jobs. That would hurt our country much more than it would affect britain.

Xterminator

Originally posted by dahamsta
shopping at Amazon? How about Tesco, Waterstone and Virgin? Will you stop using your O2 and Vodafone mobiles?

adam

I'm sure all the nice people at O2 and tesco, and waterstones, who work in the republic, will appriciate losing there jobs, because there being boycotted for being of british origin.

<rant>Perhaps we should also boycott all football, rugby and cricket too?
Sorry Brian Keer, but no fans want to watch ireland play a british game .... And we can cancel tomorrows JCT final in donnybrook, along with the 6 nations matches!</rant>

I'd say cop on.
Tresco is one of the biggest employers in Ireland, and through them irish manufacturers get access to the UK markets etc.
vodaphone have a lot of irish based staff, as have waterstones.

What possible reason have we to boycott these multinationals?
Are you saying if a business'es hq is in britian, they are to blame for war?

X

Von

Originally posted by dahamsta
Perhaps that was the point? And aren't you rather missing mine?

adam

If Cook hadn't been shafted by Blair, would he have made that speech? Don't think so.

John Humphries gave John Prescott a fairly funny slagging this morning on radio 4. The party whips are bullying MP's into supporting Blair, telling them their careers are on the line etc. "Why don't you tell the whips to lay off and let MP's vote with their conscience?" Prescott denies this is happening, says that whips are merely outlining Blair's position and claims that MP's are free to vote whichever way they choose.

sceptre

Originally posted by Xterminator
I'm sure all the nice people at O2 and tesco, and waterstones, who work in the republic, will appriciate losing there jobs, because there being boycotted for being of british origin.

Ah but the people at Meteor, Dunnes and Easons will be rather happy. Yes I'm being frivolous but it's a frivolous point. I'm not saying jobs aren't important but I'm not prepared to divide the number of dead people by the number of jobs to get some kind of perverted opportunity cost figure.

dahamsta

If Cook hadn't been shafted by Blair, would he have made that speech? Don't think so.

I doubt it, but I don't see your point. Cook has come out now and said that there probably aren't WoMD in Iraq. Are you saying he's a liar because he didn't say it before? Or perhaps he's a terrorist?

adam

Dampsquid

Ah but the people at Meteor, Dunnes and Easons will be rather happy. Yes I'm being frivolous but it's a frivolous point. I'm not saying jobs aren't important but I'm not prepared to divide the number of dead people by the number of jobs to get some kind of perverted opportunity cost figure.

If you think that boycotting Tesco or any other brittish business here in Ireland is going to effect anything in the Gulf, then you are very much mistaken. Wake up!

Von

Originally posted by dahamsta

I doubt it, but I don't see your point. Cook has come out now and said that there probably aren't WoMD in Iraq. Are you saying he's a liar because he didn't say it before? Or perhaps he's a terrorist?

adam

Nah it's just that his hypocrisy and opportunism is extremely annoying. Look at the first para of his Guardian article -

"I have resigned from the cabinet because I believe that a fundamental principle of Labour's foreign policy has been violated. If we believe in an international community based on binding rules and institutions, we cannot simply set them aside when they produce results that are inconvenient to us."

When he was foreign secretary the fundamental principle of Labour's foreign policy was that it's ok to flog heavy gear to murderous regimes as long as no one finds out about it.

The man is a bounder. And anti-american to boot. And so are you.

dahamsta

The man is a bounder. And anti-american to boot. And so are you.

Wow, great tactic. Way to go.

adam /waves his pompoms

Von

Originally posted by dahamsta


Wow, great tactic. Way to go.

adam /waves his pompoms

At this stage, I have decided that it may be prudent to gang up on the strongest side.

mike65

I'll be making sure to shop at Tescos I may even buy my first mobile phone just to keep O2 or Vodaphone in business!

Mike.

Ps peaceniks, dont forget to stop watching UK TV, listening to UK radio, buying UK papers, magazines.....yeah right. :rolleyes:

Typedef

Mike, no offence, but, the war is next-to-nothing to do with the UK in reality.

The UK has been dragged into this war, because since Maggie forged the 'special relationship' with the Americans, the mainstay of British foreign policy has been, support of America and all the requisite political contortions that go with that.

For me, I will simply do business with non-American entities until such time as I feel more comfortable with American foreign policy.

Thus Shell (and it's history of support for military juntas) and Esso (with it's scuppouring of the Kyoto protocol) will never, get my business, unless I am literally pushing my vechicle and there is no, non-US petrol station in sight.

I'm thinking I might try using non-American computer hardware, but, at least using Linux when, where and if I can, I can throw a spanner in the works of Y.A.A.M.A.M. (Yet another American Monopoly aka Microsoft).

</open source rant>

mike65

Typedef, the special relationship was forged by Churchill and Roosevelt, as for Shell, well they're partly UK partly Dutch as far as I know as in RoyalDutch/Shell but that may not matter to you given the issue you state. As for MS, well any excuse!

Mike.

shotamoose

Well, I live in the UK and to express my revulsion at British policy I will no longer buy anything whatsoever. I hope my imminent death will communicate just how strongly I feel on this. Maybe in the meantime I'll buy a car and start boycotting the petrol companies too.

Oh yeah, back on topic. I'd like to think it's not too late for Robin Cook to have discovered his principles, but I have no doubt that he wouldn't be resigning if he was still Foreign Secretary.

Shinji

See, I don't actually care if Cook has discovered his principles or if this is a cynical political move. The end result is the same; he's doing what I consider to be the right thing, and I don't give a flying fuck what his reasons are.

Same goes for Jacques Chirac. I KNOW that the French have economic interests in Iraq. I don't care; it puts Chirac on the right side, and it means - as it does with Cook - that there's a credible, strong voice of opposition to this ludicrous war.

I've heard a lot of previously pro-war people sound rather more shaky today after Cook's comments about there being no evidence of WMDs. The comment made by a previous poster hasn't missed the attention of the British people; it was one thing to believe that Blair has evidence he's not showing the public, but it's another leap of faith entirely to believe that he has evidence he wasn't even showing his own cabinet...

Éomer of Rohan

don't actually care if Cook has discovered his principles or if this is a cynical political move. The end result is the same; he's doing what I consider to be the right thing, and I don't give a flying **** what his reasons are.

Hear Hear!!

Same goes for Jacques Chirac. I KNOW that the French have economic interests in Iraq. I don't care; it puts Chirac on the right side, and it means - as it does with Cook - that there's a credible, strong voice of opposition to this ludicrous war.

Not so sure about this one, especially considering the French decision to switch sides IF Saddam uses his Chemical or Biological arsenal. They are opportunists, nothing more.

Typedef, the special relationship was forged by Churchill and Roosevelt, as for Shell, well they're partly UK partly Dutch as far as I know as in RoyalDutch/Shell but that may not matter to you given the issue you state. As for MS, well any excuse!

The special relationship was forged out of necessity - one empire needed to boost its fading prestige and the other needed someone to help assuage its paranoia that it was better to be dead than red. Both were idiots.

Shinji

Not so sure about this one, especially considering the French decision to switch sides IF Saddam uses his Chemical or Biological arsenal. They are opportunists, nothing more.

If it DOES transpire that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, then this isn't a matter of switching sides. If he has those weapons and has been concealing them, then a military incursion to remove them can be considered justified (although of course the nature of such an incursion, its right to effect regieme change and the nature of any state set up in the wake of such an incursion remains open to question).

I don't hear many voices other than the pathetically ignorant arguing with that line.

What I do hear is a hell of a lot of people, myself included, who see precisely zero evidence of the existence of said WMDs. If they do exist and Saddam does fire them at US troops, I'll be the first to throw my hands up and say "fine - I was wrong, this war was justified". That doesn't mean I'll shut up and be happy with how the US decides to run Iraq afterwards, of course...

Éomer of Rohan

If it DOES transpire that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, then this isn't a matter of switching sides. If he has those weapons and has been concealing them, then a military incursion to remove them can be considered justified (although of course the nature of such an incursion, its right to effect regieme change and the nature of any state set up in the wake of such an incursion remains open to question).

I disagree; you are right that it is not them switching sides but i disagree that any nation now has the right to attack Iraq. I am not saying that Saddam is a good person or whatever but it is not sanctioned by the UN - the UN want to disarm him and even if they find anything now, who can say that these weapons would not have been found and decommissioned had Kofi Annan not been forced to pull out the weapons inspectors.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Shinji

I disagree

I know you do. It's alright, I allowed for this. See my comment about the "pathetically ignorant" in the previous post? Draw your own conclusions!

shotamoose

Originally posted by Shinji
If it DOES transpire that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, then this isn't a matter of switching sides. If he has those weapons and has been concealing them, then a military incursion to remove them can be considered justified (although of course the nature of such an incursion, its right to effect regieme change and the nature of any state set up in the wake of such an incursion remains open to question).

I don't hear many voices other than the pathetically ignorant arguing with that line.

What I do hear is a hell of a lot of people, myself included, who see precisely zero evidence of the existence of said WMDs. If they do exist and Saddam does fire them at US troops, I'll be the first to throw my hands up and say "fine - I was wrong, this war was justified". That doesn't mean I'll shut up and be happy with how the US decides to run Iraq afterwards, of course...

Maybe I'm pathetically ignorant too, then, because I don't agree that if Saddam fires WMD at US troops "this war was justified". But it would be enough to justify a subsequent war if Saddam had been proven to have been hiding WMD with the intent of using them in the near future. If you kick a dog in the face and it bites you it doesn't justify you kicking it in the face.

This war will always be a pre-emptive strike based, at best, on a hunch. If they know he's got WMD and have failed to convince even half the world of it they were probably never interested in disarmament alone in the first place.

Hobbes

As I mentioned in another thread.

If Saddam attacks with WMD, how can you say this war is justified?

Remember it's the US/UK who's actions removed the UN Weapons inspectors from Iraq before they could finish their job, and despite Iraq dragging it's feet they were making progress.

It's a shame that Bush is more intrested in proving himself right by the possible deaths of US soliders and civilians then by using the weapons inspectors.

Now if he had gone to war after the weapons inspectors had finished and found something I might be more inclined to agree.