Former minister Robin Cook dies

[jose]

Former Cabinet minister Robin Cook has died after he collapsed while out hill walking, police have said. He resigned that position in the lead-up to the conflict in Iraq in protest over Tony Blair's decision to go to war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4127654.stm
Respect. RIP robin

[Matt W]

Absolutely. Somebody who followed his conscience.

[G. Adams]

This is a horrific tragedy for the country. He was one of the few MP's whom we could trust, who would always standby his principles.

Frankly, I'm gutted. I've got a lump in my throat as I write this. RIP Robin.

[PatrickHenry]

Cooks resignation speech: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm

...The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.... Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq. The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands. I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back. I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk. Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy. For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? ... I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest. Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war. ...The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies. From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support. I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.

A heroic MP, Mr. Cook, you spoke the thoughts of many. You did what you could. Rest in peace...

[Nono]

Quote by: Robin Cook We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Like Scott Ritter, Robin Cook was right while The Boss was wrong.
He was a man of extraordinary integrity. And a wonderful debater of the type disappearing so quickly from our elected assemblies. The good die young, in his case far too young anyway.

[Trotsky]

I am/was opposed to Cook politically. But I don' t think I've ever come across a politican with the same level of integrity as Robin Cook. He stood by his ideals and didn't waver under pressure. People have criticised his sanction the sale of warjets to Indonesia during the East Timor event, a sale I might add that was sanctioned long before the abuses in East Timor had come to light.

The one thing though that impressed me the most was his stance on the Iraq war, it was never motivated (like George Galloway) by political gains as Cook was never going to lead the labour party ever, it came from his conscience. It was confirmed for me that he truely was a man of integrity when he resigned with immediate effect on the eve of the conflict. Pity more politicians don't have the same integrity.