ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:28 pm Post subject: Defense in the World debate |
 |
|
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-02-01a.386.0&s=speaker% 3A10427+section%3Adebate#g432.0
Check out contributions by Michael Meacher
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2007-02-01a.406.0
| Quote: | | I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the nature of the Iranian regime, in particular about its oppression of human rights and its rejection of what we would regard as normal democratic politics. However, I think his position is that the UK's possession of nuclear weapons is indispensable for its security, so what is his answer for Iran, which is surrounded to the north, west and east by nuclear powers—by America in the Arabian sea and the eastern Mediterranean and by Israel, China, India, Pakistan and now North Korea? On what basis can he say that, in terms of Iranian security, the country is not entitled to have nuclear weapons? |
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2007-02-01a.432.0
| Quote: | | First, there is the question of our response to the growing evidence that the United States or its proxy, Israel, may unleash a military strike and possibly a nuclear one against Iran's nuclear facilities. |
........
| Quote: | | .....Our nuclear deterrent is not an independent British nuclear deterrent.... We depend on the Americans for the warheads, the fuse and firing systems, the nuclear explosives, the warhead casings and the guidance systems. We cannot fire the missiles without US-supplied data and satellite navigation. .... They are leased to us by the Americans from a repository on the east coast of the United States under a system which, I believe, is known as rent-a-rocket. If we ever needed to stand alone in a situation where we did not have US approval, we would not be able to do so. |
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2007-02-01a.434.1
[url]The Americans offer it to us not because they depend on us for the defence of the west, but—this is why they are so happy to do it—because it makes us subservient to US foreign policy, as we have seen, tragically, over Iraq, where we apparently felt obliged to follow them, over Lebanon; and perhaps in future over Iran. To continue with that subservience for the next 30 or 40 years, which may well be the implication of this decision, is far too high a price to pay.[/url]
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2007-02-01a.434.3
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2007-02-01a.435.1
| Quote: | | To put the argument in the context of today's situation, how can we insist that the UK must maintain its nuclear weapons to guarantee its security and at the same time lecture Iran to the effect that it does not need nuclear weapons for its own security and that the safety of the world will be compromised if it is allowed to go down that route? The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made a good, balanced and thoughtful speech, but I was not impressed by his argument that the situation in Iran is very different because of the wild rantings of President Ahmadinejad. I agree, of course, that that inflammatory rhetoric is extremely unhelpful, and it would be much better if he did not use it—[Hon. Members: "But he has."] Yes, but the point about Ahmadinejad, which is perfectly well known to the British Government, is that he does not have the power in Iran—that lies exclusively with Ayatollah Khamenei and the senior ayatollahs around him. It would be quite wrong to take the view that we are justified in preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons and, apparently, quite justified in attacking the country militarily just because Ahmadinejad made a statement—an extremely unwise one—about Israel. |
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2007-02-01a.435.3
Peter Kilfoyle
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2007-02-01a.407.0
| Quote: | | The hon. Gentleman knows that there is, and has been for a long time, a strong trend in American Government circles to support a military strike against Iran. Rather than parroting the allegations emanating from Washington, will he tell me which of its neighbours Iran has attacked? |
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2007-02-01a.426.0
| Quote: | | .........all of us now know in our heart of hearts that the Iraq offensive was an illegal campaign to effect regime change—an action specifically outlawed under the UN charter. Perhaps we can debate that on another day, but I am sure that that is view taken by the majority of people.......... |
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2007-02-01a.428.2
| Quote: | | Why are we being pushed into an early decision? I may be a little paranoid, but I see a Prime Minister who has been supportive of the defence establishment coming to the end of his term of office, and I see pressure being brought to bear on him by the industrial military establishment to get the decision through now. |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
