Robin Cook, Claire Short

[dahamsta]

[ I originally posted this on Boards.ie, but it didn't get the reaction I was expecting. Perhaps it will get more interesting responses here. On another note, I wonder how long it will be before I have to, sadly, set up a War forum here... ]

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

[Dodge]

"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? "

Agree with you on mst points but surely its the American government doing the attacking. AFAIK the vast majority of Americans are against going to war. Coke et al don't want a war, war means people (in the global sense) are nervous and spending always falls. Thats one opf the problems of the anti war campaign, its been used by many different sources for their own agendas be they anti American, anti Capitalist or whatever. It gives those who wish to dismiss the campaign ammunition to do so.

[Colm]

Originally posted by Dodge
AFAIK the vast majority of Americans are against going to war.

Well GW Bush's approval rating has jumped over 5% to 56% in the past week or so and I think I read somewhere that 60% of Americans are willing to go to war without UN backing. So that suggests to me that the majority of Americans back the government's stance.
I think Americans always rally around at times like this.

[Dricky]

Originally posted by Colm
Well GW Bush's approval rating has jumped over 5% to 56% in the past week or so and I think I read somewhere that 60% of Americans are willing to go to war without UN backing. So that suggests to me that the majority of Americans back the government's stance.
I think Americans always rally around at times like this.

The last pole they were talking about in the states there was uproar as the questions were put in such a way that the answers were going to be in GW favour
For example if they ask

Do you belive Iraq has WOMD

Do you think that Saddam would use WOMD

Do you think the USA is in threat of another terrorist attack.

Do you think GW Bush should go to War even without the second reseloution.

You would find most people answering yes to the above and that is where they get the stats from.
Poll are minipulated by all sides,
But Millions marched worldwide against peacer and they were ignored.

[Ruairi]

The same thing happened around 11 september when the bastid said he was going to go out all guns blazing to get the "bad guys" that caused the disaster and his approval rating shot through the roof.

So it looks like the moral of the story is: if you're approval rating's going down, start a war.

[The Sheliban]

It was Adolf who first said that every successful leader needs an easily-identifiable enemy. In his case, the Jews.
Kennedy had the Cubans, Nixon the Viet-Cong, Reagan had Gadhaffi, the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Nicaraguans, Bush had Saddam, Bush Jnr has Al Khaieda and Saddam.
Of course it doesn't matter if they are really the anti-heroes they are depicted as.

[dahamsta]

You're right Dodge, but sadly reality isn't as simple as that. The Governments responsible for this are right-wing, and right-wing Governments are more inclined to respond to pressure from the people who /get/ them elected than the people who /actually/ elect them. That means they listen more to the people who give them money than the people who check their name on a ballot card. It's sad but true.

Protest via your wallet is an old tactic that's gained more support in recent years via culture jammers that Naomi Klein writes about in her book NoLogo. These people protest about globalisation - something I don't specifically object to, as it happens - by jamming the companies, by looking for links, by finding alternative routes. So sure, they protest against Monsanto, but they also protest against the supermarkets that sell GM foods. And look at the effect that's had here and in the UK.

By the way, I wasn't advocating this, I was asking a question. It wasn't: "Will you, because it's your duty?"; it was: "Will you, I'm curious?" I probably will, but I haven't decided yet.

adam

[Dodge]

Yeah but there was also a poll in America where his approval rating was less than Saddam's (as mentioned by that michael Moore letter) so as usual polls are varied.

[Schumi]

Originally posted by Vetinari
[i] 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 think she's lost a lot of credibility over that.

[sadloserkid]

Gotta say I think a lot of Robin Cook now though.

[dahamsta]

Gotta say I think a lot of Robin Cook now though.

It won't change my overall view by much. He's taken a stand on his beliefs and I respect that, but it's just one political event in a whole career. Sadly, it's unlikely to stand for much in the long run. Britain will go to war, "the boys" will fight as best they can with the woefully inadequate equipment they've been given - did you know that their boots melt, that the tanks can only run for a fw miles at a time, and their guns jam unless they clean them every five minutes - and they'll get a parade when they come back. As soon as war is declared, the protest will probably die. Such is live in the noughties. Minute to minute, boredom immediate. You young uns will be remembered as the "reality tv generation". How sad is that?

adam

[Macy]

Originally posted by sadloserkid
Gotta say I think a lot of Robin Cook now though.

The fact that they were even in the Blair Government shows there are sell-outs - stuff like this proves nothing.... They and their peers were willing to let Blair, Mandelson, Campbell et al turn the Labour Party into a right wing pseudo Tory party far removed from it's traditions and history. It's all about getting into power, for powers sake....

Blair OUT
New Labour OUT
Fianna Fail OUT

[sadloserkid]

Macy, can I ask who you vote for (generally)?

[eoinh]

Personally iraq is led by one of the biggest monsters of the recent age. However this has been known for years. The Americans, British and French (as well as others) used to supply them with wepons and armaments when they invaded Iran.
To be honest i think that any country that has diplomatic relations with a non-democratic country needs to look at itself thoroughly and ask itself questions. Even having diplomatic relations with a democratic country that has relations with a dictatorship is wrong imo.
The French have caused enermous problems around the world (but no one cares), ditto the americans, the chinese, the british and the russians. The americans prop up some of the most despotic and cruel regiemes around the world.
if we care about the world we live in and i firmly believe that most people DONT we would stand up to this.
At the moment there is a coup in the Central Afracian Republic. People dont care because they regard it as an unimportant country. The un asked for food aid and money for them. They recieved not one cent from the world combined.
What we need is for small democratic countries to say" enough is enough".
I do believe in most situations in military actions but most governments will only do it if they see immediate benefits to themselves ie oil, contracts etc.
i can guarentee you one thing, we wont see democratic government in Iraq just as we didnt see it in Kuwait after its liberation.

[patsh]

Originally posted by Schumi
I think she's lost a lot of credibility over that.

She never had any to start with.
Short is the absolute embodiment of Blairism:
Loud
(in the respect that she gets headlines)
Populist
(in the respect that she does what she thinks most of the public want to hear)
Believes in absolutely nothing except holding on to office.

[dahamsta]

Bit like Mary O'Rourke then oddboy, eh?

adam

Originally posted by oddboy
She never had any to start with.
Short is the absolute embodiment of Blairism:
Loud
(in the respect that she gets headlines)
Populist
(in the respect that she does what she thinks most of the public want to hear)
Believes in absolutely nothing except holding on to office.

[SÓC]

Originally posted by Dodge

Agree with you on mst points but surely its the American government doing the attacking. AFAIK the vast majority of Americans are against going to war. Coke et al don't want a war, war means people (in the global sense) are nervous and spending always falls. Thats one opf the problems of the anti war campaign, its been used by many different sources for their own agendas be they anti American, anti Capitalist or whatever. It gives those who wish to dismiss the campaign ammunition to do so.

Have to disagree to an extent. The US needs a war every decade to keep themselves going. They saber rattle to keep the right wing backers happy. The Arms trade and the likes in the US are worth Billions, then there are all the contracts for rebuilding Iraq and then even the likes of Coke have a new market for themselves.

Then there is the whole Oil thing, the people who got Bush elected, who told him to pull out of Kyoto, the people who most want the war on Iraq to get hold of the Iraqi peoples Oil. Bush didnt even bother to attempt to hide the fact he was after the oil in his speach last night.

The war will, long term have a very positive effect on the US finacally and politically.

I dont think people are going to go so far as a boycot of US and British goods, we've become to fat and too used to their produce. In saying that French products are apparently getting a lashing in the US.

[patsh]

Originally posted by Vetinari
Bit like Mary O'Rourke then oddboy, eh?

adam

Except Short has something like a brain inside the skull.
Thats not something you could say about the Faffer O'Rourke.

[patsh]

Originally posted by SÓCcfc
The war will, long term have a very positive effect on the US finacally and politically.

Can I ask you why you make this statement, and what evidence you have to justify it?

[Dodge]

Originally posted by SÓCcfc
Have to disagree to an extent. The US needs a war every decade to keep themselves going. They saber rattle to keep the right wing backers happy. The Arms trade and the likes in the US are worth Billions, then there are all the contracts for rebuilding Iraq and then even the likes of Coke have a new market for themselves.

Coke is probably the wrong example as it is so huge that i don't think there is anything that can affect it (health scare maybe) but to uses Adam's other example of Amazon or Virgin, These rely on disposable income and that is affected by war.

I understand Adam's point regarding Bi Business sponsorig politicians but in America these are usually industrial rather than commercial (ie they aren't the Cokes/Amazons of this world but the Oil undustry/automobile industry etc) I know if you boycott Ford cars in favour of Renault, it may affect Ford somewhat but the US is so insular that I don't think they'd care.