UKIP policy on Iraq

jillgold · 01-10-2004, 10:21 AM

What is UKIP policy on Iraq, please? Although I normally vote tory I do not intend to vote for them at the next election because of their support for the Iraq invasion.

Anthony Butcher · 01-10-2004, 11:26 AM

I honestly don't know. Because UKIP doesn't currently have any MPs, there hasn't really been a chance for UKIP to voice an opinion. I don't recall seeing anyone from UKIP being asked what they thought about it. Prior to the European elections the party was still marginalised in the press.

My own stance on this is that we should have done what the Lib Dems wanted - push for the final UN mandate to go to war. Blair claimed that the French were going to veto any resolutions that would allow this, but I am fairly sure that this turned out to be another Labour lie.

That is not to say that we shouldn't have gone to war at all, but if the inspectors had been allowed to finish their work we would not have gone to war on the false evidence presented by Labour. Nor would we be involved in what the UN has declared an illegal war.

Blair's government forced this issue through, based on shoddy intelligence. They didn't go through the proper channels to get a proper coalition together and the Conservatives supported this. Hopefully the war has taught both parties the necessity to do things properly. An apology to France and Germany might not go amiss either, because they were proved completely right.

Had Blair said "we need to go to war with Iraq to free the Iraqi people, keep our Anglo-American alliance and secure the Iraqi oil" then we could have had an open debate on whether this was what we wanted.

The pretence that it was about WMDs is an insult to our sensibilities now. As Senator Kerry pointed out last night, while we have been nation-building in Iraq, North Korea has actually been developing nuclear weapons, as has Iran. Do we expect an invasion of either of them any time soon? I think not.

mkpdavies · 02-10-2004, 05:19 PM

I think I saw Roger Knapman on T.V. once saying he didn't believe we should be getting involved in unnecessary wars fought on false pretences. However I have since heared other prominent members such as RKS say he was for it.

I guess the party would need to be given much more information before it could form a real policy on the matter, but with the infomation the publiuc have been given from day one, the case for going it alone without any backing from the UN (which also needs to be totaly reformed to reflect the world today!), has always been shaky to say the least.

Forgetting the moral side of things (which is what causes the most disagreement), the cost of us and the USA taking on this problem alone is not at all welcome. So I have to say for once I have to agree with the Lib Dems on this one too. They have certainly benefitted from taking this position.

Lafayette · 02-10-2004, 06:14 PM

Being that the majority of the UK were against it and the goal of the UKIP is a strong Britain that does not take cues from the US as well as Europe, Mr. Kilroy-Silk might do a good deed if he altered his past opinion and the UKIP came out with a clear stance against Iraq.

Tom Wilde · 03-10-2004, 12:15 PM

I have a fairly clear recollection of a letter that Roger Knapman wrote to one of the newspapers a few months before the invasion of Iraq. (Times? Guardian? I'm not sure.) In it, he said that UKIP would support an invasion of Iraq if and only if: (1) there was a full UN mandate for doing so (2) an invasion was in Britain's interest (3) there was a clear plan for withdrawal afterwards.

I may have the nuances wrong, but I think that was pretty much it. In fact this position isn't a million miles different from the one Anthony Butcher outlines above. The implication is surely that UKIP opposed the invasion, as none of these three very reasonable conditions had been met when the troops went in.

However, if UKIP did oppose the war, it did so very quietly indeed. Maybe this was because opinions within the party differed on this issue and later nobody wanted to rock the boat once our troops were engaged.

Like others here, my personal view is that the invasion was an awful thing. Parliament was misled, an illegal war was fought, and Blair has blood on his hands. I'm truly delighted that Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, but was it worth undermining the UN and alienating the Arab world at a time that the US and UK are confronting such a huge threat from al Qaida? Kerry was right in the debate the other night when he said that invading Iraq in response to 9/11 was like responding to Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico.

01-10-2004, 10:21 AM	#1 (permalink)
jillgold Newbie Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1	UKIP policy on Iraq What is UKIP policy on Iraq, please? Although I normally vote tory I do not intend to vote for them at the next election because of their support for the Iraq invasion.

02-10-2004, 05:19 PM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	I think I saw Roger Knapman on T.V. once saying he didn't believe we should be getting involved in unnecessary wars fought on false pretences. However I have since heared other prominent members such as RKS say he was for it. I guess the party would need to be given much more information before it could form a real policy on the matter, but with the infomation the publiuc have been given from day one, the case for going it alone without any backing from the UN (which also needs to be totaly reformed to reflect the world today!), has always been shaky to say the least. Forgetting the moral side of things (which is what causes the most disagreement), the cost of us and the USA taking on this problem alone is not at all welcome. So I have to say for once I have to agree with the Lib Dems on this one too. They have certainly benefitted from taking this position. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-10-2004, 11:26 AM	#2 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 9,425 Party: None	I honestly don't know. Because UKIP doesn't currently have any MPs, there hasn't really been a chance for UKIP to voice an opinion. I don't recall seeing anyone from UKIP being asked what they thought about it. Prior to the European elections the party was still marginalised in the press. My own stance on this is that we should have done what the Lib Dems wanted - push for the final UN mandate to go to war. Blair claimed that the French were going to veto any resolutions that would allow this, but I am fairly sure that this turned out to be another Labour lie. That is not to say that we shouldn't have gone to war at all, but if the inspectors had been allowed to finish their work we would not have gone to war on the false evidence presented by Labour. Nor would we be involved in what the UN has declared an illegal war. Blair's government forced this issue through, based on shoddy intelligence. They didn't go through the proper channels to get a proper coalition together and the Conservatives supported this. Hopefully the war has taught both parties the necessity to do things properly. An apology to France and Germany might not go amiss either, because they were proved completely right. Had Blair said "we need to go to war with Iraq to free the Iraqi people, keep our Anglo-American alliance and secure the Iraqi oil" then we could have had an open debate on whether this was what we wanted. The pretence that it was about WMDs is an insult to our sensibilities now. As Senator Kerry pointed out last night, while we have been nation-building in Iraq, North Korea has actually been developing nuclear weapons, as has Iran. Do we expect an invasion of either of them any time soon? I think not.

02-10-2004, 06:14 PM	#4 (permalink)
Lafayette Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 114	Being that the majority of the UK were against it and the goal of the UKIP is a strong Britain that does not take cues from the US as well as Europe, Mr. Kilroy-Silk might do a good deed if he altered his past opinion and the UKIP came out with a clear stance against Iraq.

03-10-2004, 12:15 PM	#5 (permalink)
Tom Wilde Moderator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: London. Posts: 2,717	I have a fairly clear recollection of a letter that Roger Knapman wrote to one of the newspapers a few months before the invasion of Iraq. (Times? Guardian? I'm not sure.) In it, he said that UKIP would support an invasion of Iraq if and only if: (1) there was a full UN mandate for doing so (2) an invasion was in Britain's interest (3) there was a clear plan for withdrawal afterwards. I may have the nuances wrong, but I think that was pretty much it. In fact this position isn't a million miles different from the one Anthony Butcher outlines above. The implication is surely that UKIP opposed the invasion, as none of these three very reasonable conditions had been met when the troops went in. However, if UKIP did oppose the war, it did so very quietly indeed. Maybe this was because opinions within the party differed on this issue and later nobody wanted to rock the boat once our troops were engaged. Like others here, my personal view is that the invasion was an awful thing. Parliament was misled, an illegal war was fought, and Blair has blood on his hands. I'm truly delighted that Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, but was it worth undermining the UN and alienating the Arab world at a time that the US and UK are confronting such a huge threat from al Qaida? Kerry was right in the debate the other night when he said that invading Iraq in response to 9/11 was like responding to Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico.