In Sept 2002 in a parliamentary answer, Blair said
" That (Regime change) is not our purpose, our purpose is the removal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Party
- Thread starter Ban-jani
- Start date
" That (Regime change) is not our purpose, our purpose is the removal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
What is untrue?
The Iraq Liberation Act had no force in UK. Blair was adament that UK aims were not the same as US aims, even tho' we were acting together.
That the war had nothing to do with removing Saddam.
I think you’re making parts of it up to support your agenda.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said the war had nothing to do with removing Sadaam, but regime change was specifically denied as a UK aim by Blair.That the war had nothing to do with removing Saddam.
I think you’re making parts of it up to support your agenda.
Dont be so nasty as to accuse me of lying. I have no agenda. Read the Chilcot report and Hansard. It's all there.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said the war had nothing to do with removing Sadaam, but regime change was specifically denied as a UK aim by Blair.
Dont be so nasty as to accuse me of lying. I have no agenda. Read the Chilcot report and Hansard. It's all there.
I’m not being nasty, it’s just incorrect.
Quote What Blair told ParliamentI’m not being nasty, it’s just incorrect.
Edit. I will concede if you can find a pre war quote from Blair in which he states UK aims included regime change.
hilts
Well-Known Member
I wonder if Blair ever regrets cosying up to Bush and not dumping Brown.
Quote What Blair told Parliament
Edit. I will concede if you can find a pre war quote from Blair in which he states UK aims included regime change.
Blair spoke of regime change being only a detriment to Saddam and not the Iraqi people - he said that they’d prefer a non-military disarmament first and foremost but that was only an option.
We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Liberated from Saddam, they could make Iraq prosperous and a force for good in the Middle East.
So the ending of regime would be the cause of regret for no-one other than Saddam.
That is not a statement of UK aims, and well you know it. But below is Blairs quote from the debate on the resolution to invade Iraq.Blair spoke of regime change being only a detriment to Saddam and not the Iraqi people - he said that they’d prefer a non-military disarmament first and foremost but that was only an option.
" I have never put our justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441. That is our legal base."
Edit Just in case you dont remember, 1441 called on Iraq to honour its agreement to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and comply with the UN inspectors.
Last edited:
That is not a statement of UK aims, and well you know it. But below is Blairs quote from the debate on the resolution to invade Iraq.
" I have never put our justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441. That is our legal base."
He’s saying that peaceful disarmament is the first option but regime change and conflict is on the cards if not - it’s fairly obvious to understand that.
He may have said that but that was earlier and you know it.
Stop the sophistry. This is UK aims in the debate to invade Iraq, from the horses mouth. We invaded the day after he won a majority in this debate.He’s saying that peaceful disarmament is the first option but regime change and conflict is on the cards if not - it’s fairly obvious to understand that.
He may have said that but that was earlier and you know it.
I cant imagine why anyone given the appalling consequence of that invasion, would rather play party politics with history.
Stop the sophistry. This is UK aims in the debate to invade Iraq, from the horses mouth. We invaded the day after he won a majority in this debate.
I cant imagine why anyone given the appalling consequence of that invasion, would rather play party politics with history.
I’m not playing party politics with history.
I’ve previously stated that it was a catastrophe in the end but the idea was from a good place.
If you want to take hypothetical warnings to Saddam and The Ba’ath Party, suggesting that regime change wasn’t on the cards, then be my guest.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
What the fuck are they doing.
Leave - the leaflet it seems say Labour backs Leave obvs Scotland and London favour a Reamain pov - what happens when a split party hits the real world.
I have no problem with that but be clear and stipulate it.Leave - the leaflet it seems say Labour backs Leave obvs Scotland and London favour a Reamain pov - what happens when a split party hits the real world.
It’s the half-arsed approach that’s doing no one favours.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
I have no problem with that but be clear and stipulate it.
It’s the half-arsed approach that’s doing no one favours.
more likely to get retweeted by all sides in the current climate if you are ambiguous eh? the number of retweets means more than actual fact in this day and age - ask Trump
I asked a local Labour organiser what Labour's Brexit policy was for the EU elections and all she'd got was that the sitting Labour MEPs were pro-EU....more likely to get retweeted by all sides in the current climate if you are ambiguous eh? the number of retweets means more than actual fact in this day and age - ask Trump
Different policies for different areas has been Libdem strategy for years.Leave - the leaflet it seems say Labour backs Leave obvs Scotland and London favour a Reamain pov - what happens when a split party hits the real world.
Metal Biker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 22,639
- Team supported
- Manchester City (and McLaren F1)
What a brilliant idea.
They're just winning the people over, aren't they.
They're just winning the people over, aren't they.
The antisemitism row is having more an impact on me than their Brexit stance.
Metal Biker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 22,639
- Team supported
- Manchester City (and McLaren F1)
As it is for many people. Quite a number of former Labour supporters are put off voting for them and they really aren't helping themselves with shit like this.The antisemitism row is having more an impact on me than their Brexit stance.
My family is part Jewish and they cannot justify voting for them anymore.