How David Kidney voted on Iraq

[Markbin]

Let's have a debate about how Stafford MP David Kidney voted on Iraq. He abstained from the declaration of war vote on March 18, 2003, the one which led to the invasion.

But he says he's qualified to say he opposed the conflict because he voted in favor of an amendment to the declaration saying the case for war was not made.

When the final unamended declaration of war went to the vote, Kidney abstained. If he was so opposed why did he do this? Why didn't he join the likes of Robin Cook?

And if he thinks the war was such a mistake, why did he vote against a full inquiry into the failure to find WMD, and no to a judicial inquiry into the war?

Kidney also rejected a vote on the Commons response to the National Audit Office report which criticised the government for failing to properly equip British servicemen with chemical weapon attack clothing, given that the casus belli for the war was WMD. (Makes you wonder whether the government knew all along that Saddam had no weapons)

Kidney also rejected the releasing in full of the Attorney General's advice to the government on the legality of the war.

Kidney also voted against expanding the UN's role in Iraq.

Kidney's also voted for 42 days detention without charge and ID cards, which we apparently need to protect against the threat that his bosses have created by invading other countries.

 

[Alan B'Stard]

Have you tried emailing or writing to him and asking him?

 

[Markbin]

Colin, I could email him and he, to his credit, would reply. However, that email exchange would be between him and I only and wouldn't serve society in any way. It's much better, in my opinion, that this debate is held openly and involves as many people as possible. I confess, I have an axe to grind - not specifically with David Kidney - but with the entire political establishment for lauching these despicable invasions and then trying to avoid accountability for the lives lost. We are five years on from Iraq and seven years from Afghanistan. What has been achieved apart from inflaming radicalism, harming our reputation around the world and most importantly, destroying hundreds of thousands of lives? Judging by their behaviour David Kidney and his bosses would love this to go away, pretend it never happened. Why should we let them do that?

 

[Alan B'Stard]

I don't disagree with your point of view at all.

My suggestion is to email him this thread and invite him to respond so we can have an informed debate rather than conjecture on why David Kidney voted this way or that.

 

[My Name is URL]

Whilst you are e-mailing him (and you too may want to answer this since you too seemingly oppose the war in Iraq) can you ask him why he was against a war that would allow women to live free and normal lives, that would allow children to go to school without fear, that would allow Iraq to be represented at the olympics..... etc etc.... or does he / you support the despot regime of evil dictators like Saddam?

 

[Markbin]

gk141054

If you really think the invasion of Iraq was about freeing people, perhaps you should ask yourself why Saddam was a friend who we happily armed for many years? I don't and have never supported Saddam Hussein, but our government used to. You also might want to wonder why we strengthened Saddam by impoverishing his people through sanctions that left children dying because they couldn't get the medicine they needed. That's really caring about human rights, isn't it?

 

[db]

the problem is, none of us will ever truly know the motivations of any of the involved parties, and so a lot of the arguments are based on conjecture - some of it bordering on conspiracy theory..

for me, when looking at the "big picture" (i.e. the facts and outcomes achieved so far), it does seem hard to justify the war at all..

My suggestion is to email him this thread and invite him to respond so we can have an informed debate rather than conjecture on why David Kidney voted this way or that.

this would be smashing.. aren't there some photos knocking about of The Kidney wearing a forum t-shirt? or at least standing next to Sofa whilst he sports one? so he must be aware of this place - get him on here to stick his ore in!

 

[Markbin]

I have emailed him and invited him to join the debate.

I'd also like to ask gk141054 further questions: if our motives for being in Iraq were noble then why has it created so much violence? And, how can the invasion of a sovereign nation ever be justified, particular on the pretext of imposing our superior ethics? Hitler wanted to invade us to project his superior values - what's to say an Iraqi doesn't view us in the way we view Hitler? The evidence of the insurgency (I call it resistance) seems to support that theory.

 

[Alan B'Stard]

I have emailed him and invited him to join the debate.

Good. I'd like to see him contribute and answer some of your questions because the voting pattern does seem contradictory.

if our motives for being in Iraq were noble then why has it created so much violence?

Any invaded nation will offer some resistance regardless of the noble intentions of the occupiers. In Iraq there is also the Sunni and Shi-ite divisions which add to the complications.

And, how can the invasion of a sovereign nation ever be justified, particular on the pretext of imposing our superior ethics?

So we should just let Mugabe do his thing and also ignore Darfur?

I'd quite readily support a U.N invasion of Zimbabwe and Sudan to support the suffering that is occurring, however there is no oil or precious resources which is why it gets ignored. Who wants to die over a dustbowl?

Iraq is about securing oil supplies not human rights, democracy or womens rights.

Afghanistan is about ensuring that no alternative to Western Democracy exists. We are still in a post-cold war flu where we need an enemy to define ourselves and currently it is a nation state that is run upon sharia law, which ignores our fundamental basis of statehood that separates state from religion. We cannot understand it and it is unpredictable.

 

[Astro Boy]

The Iraqi insurgency or resistance.

Well, who wouldnt want to fight the invader? What troubles me about the Iraqi insurgency is 'The Awakening'. The 'Sons of Iraq' who fought against the 'Coalition' are now fighting for them because they are getting paid to. This hardly seems like a struggle of ideals, but fighting for fightings sake, and doing it for the highest bidder.

 

[My Name is URL]

Just to clarify, I do actually think that the war in Iraq was mostly about oil, however as Colin said, we will never know for sure. However I do think that a lot of good has come from our brave boys doing the good thing in Iraq.

Can't comment on the government supporting Saddam as I don't know enough about it, but again we only have what we read in the papers and what we see on tv to go on.

You also might want to wonder why we strengthened Saddam by impoverishing his people through sanctions that left children dying because they couldn't get the medicine they needed. That's really caring about human rights, isn't it?

As terrible as that is, whats the point in sending medical supplies and food into a country where the people that need it will probably never see it. Despots like Saddam use the aid to further their own evil aims.

In response to post 8, I see our army in Iraq doing a similar job to the police in our country. Before it was lawless and the gangs (saddam) ruled in a bad way. As an upstanding country, it was our duty to step in and do the right thing.

I'm sure we've all heard the quote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

Why has it created so much violence is obvious. As with everything in life, you can't please all of the people all of the time. There will be people who aren't happy that their evil regime has come to an end and so will fight so desperately to hang on to it. Does this mean that we should let them win because the silent majority (too scared to stand up and have their views heard) aren't as violent? Your "evidence of the insurgency proves my point" line is very weak. Does the fact that drug dealers dislike the police support the fact that we should not have a police force in this country? Of course not.

Colin makes a great point about Zimbabwe above. I understand what you are saying about superior ethics and Hitler, but again i'm not sure that women in Iraq enjoyed not being allowed to go out and work if they chose to, having to wear head scarves for fear of being killed.... even if you asked them then they may say that they wear them out of choice because thats all they have ever known, but at least now they have a choice and that's what its all about, allowing people to have choices.

 

[Markbin]

Colin, can you define Western Democracy, please. Your description of Afghanistan could have been substituted with Saudi Arabia, whose women's rights record makes the Iranian regime look like its run by Germaine Greer. Yet we're happy to fund Saudi Arabia's monarchy who in turn donates the money to Wahhabist mosques the world over which practise an extremist form of Islam, which advocates death to the kaffir - us. So we are in effect funding the terrorists ourselves.

I urge you to step outside the Western mindset for a moment and consider the views of millions around the world who are outraged at what they see as our meddling.

We cooperate with too many dictators for our policies against some to have any credibility. When we are consistent about human rights, then I might get behind espousing our values.

In 1998 the US bombed the Al Sharifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. America suspected it was being used for chemical weapons but no evidence was ever found. Tens of thousands died as a result, many more than 911. Why no outrage? With acts like that what makes us better than Islamists?

Anyway, important as they are, these issues are taking us away from David Kidney, and why he is ambiguous on Iraq, where hundreds of thousands have been killed. Is that acceptable?

 

[Markbin]

gk

Five years on women in Basra get attacked for not wearing the veil. We have not imposed freedom on them. Nothing has been achieved except death and suffering, oh and control of oil. It is a different culture. If they want to find democracy, that's their business. But as long as they are not threatening us, which they were not, we have no business occupying their land. We hate the thought of someone trying to impose a one-party Islamic state on us; so why would people who hold that view not be equally repulsed by the imposition of our values. Much better if we live side by side. Besides, from what I've seen, the best way to freedom is through improving the prosperity of a nation. Governments will be ruthless with uneducated peasants, but a large educated middle class is insurmountable. Sanctions keep people as peasants, aiding dictators.

But why won't David Kidney let us have a full inquiry into the Iraq war?

 

[Gramaisc]

Colin makes a great point about Zimbabwe above. I understand what you are saying about superior ethics and Hitler, but again i'm not sure that women in Iraq enjoyed not being allowed to go out and work if they chose to, having to wear head scarves for fear of being killed.... even if you asked them then they may say that they wear them out of choice because thats all they have ever known, but at least now they have a choice and that's what its all about, allowing people to have choices.

I understood that Saddam ran a generally secular state where headscarves, etc. were not enforced and that was only when the fundamentalist gangs emerged after the invasion that "islamic standards" were violently enforced. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Alan B'Stard]

Colin, can you define Western Democracy, please. Your description of Afghanistan could have been substituted with Saudi Arabia

Again, I don't really disagree with your general position, but Saudi Arabia is a monarchal government & nothing like Afghanistan. Neither of which come close to Western Democracy, i.e freedom to vote, freedom of candidate, freedom of association, universal suffrage etc.

 

[MyCult]

Very little to do with how David Kidney voted on Iraq (sorry guys), but it does have a bearing on the stratigec and economic reasons for war. Also how we the brittish are unique amoung nations in our ignorance of our own history. How even today the first world war is taught in secondary schools as a rection to the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. When it was actually an invasion of Iraq.

Robert Newmans 100 years of Oil

 

[Markbin]

Colin, which government has given more money to extremist religion - the Taliban or the Saudi Arabia monarchy? As far as I'm aware the Taliban were negotiating handing over bin Laden after 911. But they wanted evidence of his culpability and the US could not supply it, they did not have any (by the way, I believe bin Laden was responsible for the attacks). It was the Taliban that was operating within the norms of international law. They wanted to go through the extradition process. The US just expected them to hand him over.

 

[My Name is URL]

Five years on women in Basra get attacked for not wearing the veil. We have not imposed freedom on them. Nothing has been achieved except death and suffering, oh and control of oil. It is a different culture. If they want to find democracy, that's their business. But as long as they are not threatening us, which they were not, we have no business occupying their land. We hate the thought of someone trying to impose a one-party Islamic state on us; so why would people who hold that view not be equally repulsed by the imposition of our values. Much better if we live side by side. Besides, from what I've seen, the best way to freedom is through improving the prosperity of a nation. Governments will be ruthless with uneducated peasants, but a large educated middle class is insurmountable. Sanctions keep people as peasants, aiding dictators.

But why won't David Kidney let us have a full inquiry into the Iraq war?

People still get stabbed and shot on the streets of the UK, just because bad stuff still happens, doesn't mean it was the wrong choice in the first place. As for "nothing has been achieved except death and suffering", what do you think was happening before that.... difficult choices need to be made in situations like this and death and suffering is always regrettable but we have to do (what we believe) is the right thing for the greater good.

"we have no business occupying their land" thats a bit of a silly comment. Do you really think that anyone wants our troops to be there? If we could have waved a magic want from our little island and fixed the problem we would of. We need to be there now or else all of the hard work getting Saddam would have been wasted as these terrorists took his place.

 

[Markbin]

gk

You've swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker. Before the first Gulf War Iraq enjoyed a GDP similar to Greece and had a health service comparable to some in the developed world. While a tyrant, Saddam did share the oil wealth. It was the sanctions that really plunged his people into poverty. When he invaded Kuwait, he had told the Americans he wanted to revise national borders. The Americans said, fine go ahead. He was our mate back then. We only thought it necessary to act when his actions went too far and threatened to destabilise the region where the planet cooking resources we're addicted to are based. Besides, the Iraq war was sold to us on the premise that we were going to get rid of Saddam's WMD. He didn't have any so our leaders tried to say it was about human rights. If we so care about human rights, why do we never criticise the Saudis? In fact we give them State visits, full honours, meet the Queen.

If someone advocated invading Britain because too many people are getting stabbed, as you say, would you welcome it?

 

[My Name is URL]

gk
If someone advocated invading Britain because too many people are getting stabbed, as you say, would you welcome it?

Invading a country because they have too many stabbings (but are trying their best to stop it) is very different to invading a country to prevent mass genocide....

However the big difference is its not Gordon Brown going around doing the stabbing is it.

And if Saddam Hussein was so innocent then why was he executed - was it for not having WMD's?