Debating Iraq

So – another chance to debate and beg for an Iraq inquiry – and another chance for the Labour Government to say no! And that is what happened. Although it has to be said it was game, set and match to the opposition parties (united now the Tories have realised how wrong they were to vote for the war) who really made mincemeat of Beckett. The Government had not a single good argument. Sadly, that didn’t stop them winning the vote. For goodness sake – even the US has had an inquiry!

Before that we were subjected to King Tony in the last days of his reign coming forth to the House of Commons, returned from the glorious G8 Summit where agreements to talks were the successes of the day.

Not to be too harsh (oh why not?) whilst it is good that the G8 agreed to a UN-sponsored process on climate change – actually there already is one in the form of Kyoto protocol which involves all of the key developing countries. And while the protocol’s first commitment period comes to an end in 2012 – the protocol itself doesn’t.

If Bush is serious about wanting to involve the US in climate talks all he needs to do is ratify Kyoto – and Bob’s your uncle. Then he can join the next commitment period talks – no probs!

That having been said – it’s at least a start to raising these issues amongst those who count – agreements etc must follow – otherwise it’s all hot air.

0 thoughts on “Debating Iraq

  1. I will look forward to the Iraq enquiry when it happens, which won’t be until after all the political fall-out it’s going to generate is too late to adversely affect the campaign there. (Is it too cynical to suggest that’s the real purpose here? Else, why the hurry?) There are questions we would like answering too.Why didn’t the UK push the UN to act earlier? The UN charter requires military action if sanctions don’t work, and that was apparent fairly early on. Who was blocking action? What went on in the diplomatic negotiations that first brought about a final resolution and then illegally blocked action on that? Is it true that the sanctions were about to collapse, through Franco-Soviet pressure to develop their oil contracts, and the moral pressure of continuing sanctions? What role did the Paris Club loans play?Who else in the political establishment was in on the oil-for-food corruption? Who orchestrated the media and political campaigns against the war, and why? How was the BBC allowed to take a political stance on the issue? Why has subsequent media coverage been allowed to propagate anti-war falsehoods and distortions unchallenged? What would have been the consequences of dropping sanctions, continuing sanctions, withdrawing early, etc. on the death toll in Iraq and prospects for liberty and stability?Yes, a genuinely independent enquiry on Iraq would be a good idea. We won’t get one, of course.On Kyoto, you ought to know that it wasn’t Bush who refused to ratify Kyoto but Congress, through the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Clinton knew perfectly well when it was signed that it could never be ratified – it was purely a poison cup for his successor.I’m sure you’re also aware that even if ratified, its effect on CO2 rise would be neglible. It’s stated purpose was entirely to show support for the cause and get buy-in for further cuts, not to actually achieve anything itself. It’s unimplementable, makes no economic sense even from the AGW perspective, and is a bad joke from the perspective of anyone else.George Bush is a lame duck President who is merely buying more time – he isn’t convinced and has no intention of doing anything about it. Neither, for that matter, has any other G8 leader – but they can make political hay from pretending, and there’s a bit of corrupt money to be made on the carbon trading scam. When it’s all exposed as just another enviro-scare, the scandal this time is going to be monumental. 🙂