Skip to main content

Tony Blair has no plans to invade Iran

Tony Blair said previously:

"Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education."

and that Labour had "no plans" to increase National Insurance.

Comments

Bob Piper said…
Absolutely untrustworthy. The man is a true bounder. He is about to win his third general election. His popularity rating is nearly twice the level of the other party leaders when people are asked who would make the best prime minister. Cheap-shot Charlie is supported by only 23% of respondents. Asked about Lib Dem taxation policies, only 14% support the Lib Dems, on their economic policies a mere 9% of respondents support them. Interestingly, 62% of respondents think Labour will put up taxes. Don't give up the day job John... go back to your constituencies and... prepare to shaft your leader.
PoliticalHackUK said…
Can anyone remember which party attacked the Tories for being in coalition with the Labour party in Birmingham? I seem to recall that this party thought that the Tories couldn't be trusted and that they had betrayed the citizens of Birmingham.

Where's that party got to now?
John Hemming said…
That party campaigned on the basis of getting rid of Labour and did so.
PoliticalHackUK said…
..and the party that nationally supports congestion charging

...except where it might affect their local vote, so is deemed suitable for local reasons in Edinburgh or Bristol.

Charlie Kennedy couldn't name one city where they want to bring in congestion charging. Can you?
Simon Titley said…
Interesting that none of the Labour-supporting comments here mention Iran. So let's get back on topic, shall we?

First, read this report in Saturday's Guardian - "Lib Dems challenge Blair to spell out Iran plans".

Next, to find out how serious are the USA's plans to invade Iran, take a look at these articles, all from sane and authoritative commentators:

Scott Ritter article (Al Jazeera, 30 March 2005)

Scott Ritter speech (18 February 2005)

Dan Plesch article (Open Democracy, 21 March 2005)

Seymour Hersch article (New Yorker, 24 January 2005)

If, having read these, you want to do something about it, support the Our World Our Say campaign, which aims to extract commitments from all the party leaders that they would not support a new war.

Memo to Bob Piper: If Blair refuses to disassociate himself from Bush's next move, he may win this election but, when the tanks roll in, his 'popularity rating' will go right down the toilet.
Bob Piper said…
Let me be clear: I was and remain, totally opposed to the war in Iraq... and for that matter, Iran. I also believe that the mass opposition to the war in Iraq, together with the absence of WMD (which given the level of internal opposition, thank God, Iraq never possessed by the time of the war), means a war against Iran will not be supported by the government. My point was, and it is emphasised by all the opinion polls, the electorate trust a man they think had lied about Iraq, twice as much as they support smarmy Howard or the useless Charles Kennedy. I repeat... go back to your constituencies and kick out this wet!
Bob Piper said…
...and presumably Charles Kennedy has "no plans to form a government." Another one of those Lib Dem pledges they will be able to keep.
PoliticalHackUK said…
Whatever human rights arguments existed for Iraq, they do not apply in the same way to Iran, which is a country modernising in its own way. A British and European policy of engagement with Iran is working. Like Bob, I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, although I accept that we now owe the Iraqis our best efforts to reconstruct their country. I am convinced that the Americans dropped the ball when it came to the immediate post-war period and their mismanagement and lack of planning following their straightforward conquest has caused the problems in the country today. I am equally certain that Blair will not join in any Iranian adventures because he will probably resign before that comes up, because the UK military is in a process of regeneration following the Iraqi campaign and does not have the resources to conduct another attack and because Blair knows how unpopular the war was. He won't go through that again.

However, asking a PM (any PM) to rule out future military action isn't ever likely to get a definite answer. He has no way of knowing what events lie around the corner that might possibly justify action against Iran, but as things currently stand, whatever Shrub might do in Iran will not involve British forces.

Popular posts from this blog

Why are babies born young?

Why are babies born young? This sounds like an odd question. People would say "of course babies are born young". However, this goes to the core of the question of human (or animal) development. Why is it that as time passes people develop initially through puberty and then for women through menopause and more generally getting diseases such as sarcopenia, osteoporosis, diabetes and cancer, but most of the time babies start showing no signs of this. Lots of research into this has happened over the years and now I think it is clear why this is. It raises some interesting questions. Biological youth is about how well a cell functions. Cells that are old in a biological sense don't work that well. One of the ways in which cells stop working is they fail to produce the full range of proteins. Generally the proteins that are produced from longer genes stop being produced. The reason for this relates to how the Genes work (the Genome). Because the genome is not gettin