Skip to main content

The oddest reason for invading Iraq

I am speaking at two public meetings later today in Clare Short's Constituency. I have, therefore, hunted up Clare Short's reasoning for supporting going to war in Iraq. I have always found this the oddest reason. One of her reasons was:

"We should also consider taking military action if it is necessary to minimise suffering and to maximise the speed with which Iraq is reconstituted so that it gets up and going and its economy is improved."
Hansard 30th January 2003 Column 1052 - see link

So Clare's argument is that the Iraq invasion was necessary:
so that ... its economy is improved

Does that mean that given the problems at Longbridge (caused by the government) she will be calling for the government to invade Northfield?

Comments

Bob Piper said…
Perhaps you can quote Chat Show Charlie, who said "We are not the all-out anti war party" and On 18 March 2003 the LibDems voted against the government motion that would start the war. But paradoxically, even as they voted against the government, they fell into line behind the government. It was that very day that they abandoned their previous talk of forcing the Prime Minister to prove the unproven case for war. There were no more LibDem conditions about a clear UN mandate and clear proof of a threat from Iraq. Kennedy's view was now simply that the decision had been made, and the LibDems must give it their "genuine support." In other words... Kennedy's position after the war had been voted on, was exactly the same as Clare Short's position after the Cabinet had voted in favour. All the Lib Dems did was accept a different collective responsibility... not a different position, despite their public posturings.
PoliticalHack said…
No John. No.

The bits you skip from your shortened quote (no pun intended) are entirely relevant to her argument. Pretending otherwise is deceitful.

'the problems at Longbridge (caused by the government)'

We've dealt with this. They weren't. The government is just trying to put things right. Where's your praise for the pensions security that many Rover employees now enjoy thanks to Labour? Where's the praise for the training funding?

The Rover employees were let down by your mates at Phoenix. End of story.
john said…
I don't know where you are quoting that from (much that it may not be plagiarism).

It is also a good intellectual point rather than the drivel that is often spouted by the blogosphere.

As far as I can tell even Charles Kennedy never actually supported the war. The party clearly never did. I accept that the party was never an "all-out anti war party". I myself am not a pacifist.

There is no question that the party mishandled the presentation of the position.

I was very careful to write down and keep my speeches both at the demonstrations before the war started and also at the demonstration during the war (when Lynne Jones refused to speak).

In practise even "respect" "supported the troops".

There are a lot of intellectual challenges as to position when the country goes to war and it is an illegal and improper war. Personally I think I handled that properly and this has been recognised by people in Yardley.

However, the big question is the one about whether or not it was right to go to war. Somewhat miraculously, all 53 Lib Dem MPs voted against going to war. (The Lib Dem whip is weaker than that of Labour - hence getting all MPs to vote the same way is not guaranteed)
john said…
(anonymous) PoliticalHack says it is disingenuous to indicate that Clare Short thought a good reason to attack Iraq (aka Riverbank) was to improve its economy.

Semantically I have given the source quote, the detailed quote and my sub-analytical parsing.

Sorry, but I think you are wrong.
PoliticalHack said…
Your interpretation of the quotation and mine clearly differ.

I perceive that she justifies invasion to improve the lot of the Iraqi people AND improve the economy, not invade TO improve the economy. Seems clear to me and requiring no further deconstruction.
john said…
We will have to agree to disagree. I personally do not accept recession as a good cause for invasion.

There were many reasons cited. As far as I know the only person to suggest that "improving the economy" was a valid reason was Clare Short.

Most Labour people went on about Weapons of Mass Distr(u/a)ction.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…