How David Kidney voted on Iraq

[My Name is URL]

Saddam Hussein,

Saddam Hussein
former Iraqi president.

Charged with crimes against humanity for involvement in the killing of 148 Shia Muslims in the town of Dujail in 1982.

Charges included the murder of a total of 157 people, the illegal arrest of 399 people, torturing women and children and the destruction of farmland.

Saddam Hussein was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging.


Nice! I wish we'd let him live

 

[Markbin]

Yes but gk, it still doesn't give us the right to invade a country. Besides, Israel is in breach of more UN resolutions than Iraq was, so can you tell me why we don't invade them?

And why aren't our leaders being indicted for murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Is it because it's a statistic and you're unable to register the human dimension?

 

[Markbin]

It is also noted that 24 hours since I emailed him, David Kidney has not joined this debate. I assume it's because he's doing what his leaders tell him: don't mention the war.

 

[db]

Yes but gk, it still doesn't give us the right to invade a country. Besides, Israel is in breach of more UN resolutions than Iraq was, so can you tell me why we don't invade them?

jesus wept man, we can only invade one country at once! that's like saying "you can't arrest that man for what he has done! why aren't you arresting all the others??".. you can't not do something just because you don't have the capacity to do everything..

note that i am not arguing in favour of invading anywhere - you'll see above that i agree this war is futile - but your argument is far from sound..

It is also noted that 24 hours since I emailed him, David Kidney has not joined this debate. I assume it's because he's doing what his leaders tell him: don't mention the war.

or you could assume the more likely scenario: 24 hours is not a very long time, and he is busier with more important things than one bloke asking for justifcation on something he has probably already made clear..

don't get me wrong, i hope you get a response, and as you have said in your second post he is very good at responding to individuals, but surely you realise he has things to be getting on with?

 

[Alan B'Stard]

I'm starting to smell the whiff of SWP for some reason.

 

[My Name is URL]

Dirty bobby has responded for me and put it so well that I don't need to, except to say that I would see Mugabe up in court before we bothered about Israel.

"And why aren't our leaders being indicted for murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?" Not sure what you mean by this.... if you mean killing Iraqis that are trying to kill our armed forces then its all about rules of engagement - if someone is trying to kill you in a war situation I think you are justified in killing them first.

I think that you misunderstand my viewpoint though markbin, I do wish the war had never happened, I wish the whole situation could have been sorted out over the debating table (or on the football pitch) but life's not that simple.

 

[Wookie]

It is also noted that 24 hours since I emailed him, David Kidney has not joined this debate. I assume it's because he's doing what his leaders tell him: don't mention the war.

He's a busy man. Give him a bit longer before you start claiming victory by default.

 

[Markbin]

If you mean socialist workers, then you're wrong. Not me guv. The point is the war has been a stitch-up and no one is being held to account for it. If you care about democracy then you would support me in trying to get answers from our leaders. The saddest thing is, most of you don't have a problem with the hundreds of thousands that have died. It doesn't register as a crime at all. Seems ironic that you profess to care about human rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/15/bush-iraq-shoe-media

 

[Markbin]

gk

1. Israel was in breach of UN resolutions before Iraq.
2. Are you really suggesting that every Iraqi who has died was engaged in battle with British troops?
3. Anyway, if I was an Iraqi, I'd resist the occupation, just like if someone occupied the UK. We invaded them!
4. You'd see Mugabe up in court, but you probably didn't mind him receiving a knighthood at about the same time he carried out the Matabeleland massacre of thousands.

The fact is whether or not some of the dead Iraqis were killed while fighting British forces, hundreds of thousands have died as a result of the invasion. But that's acceptable to you. It's a price they just had to pay. It's OK, though, cus it wasn't your brother, sister, aunt, mum, dad, best mate.

 

[Markbin]

For the brainwashed:

When Saddam gassed the Kurds, guess which government blocked efforts to condemn the massacre? Reagan's. In fact he and Bush Sr went on to supply Saddam with biological weapons technology after that atrocity.

What about the British? Margaret Thatcher ignored the massacre, but there were a few parliamentary protests. Guess who wasn't among them? Blair, Straw and Hoon.

In fact, when Straw was Home Secretary in 2001, he refused asylum to an Iraqi saying that he'd get a fair trial back home.

So do you really believe our leaders when they tell you we're in Iraq to promote freedom and democracy? Give me a break.

 

[My Name is URL]

FFS, are you related to damonhoppe by any chance?

Quote from you in post #28 - "The saddest thing is, most of you don't have a problem with the hundreds of thousands that have died. It doesn't register as a crime at all."

Quote from me in post #26 - "I think that you misunderstand my viewpoint though markbin, I do wish the war had never happened, I wish the whole situation could have been sorted out over the debating table"

How much clearer can I make it.... you just keep banging on though telling me how wrong I am because you don't read my posts properly.

As to your other points:

1. Can't comment as I don't know enough about the Israel situation
2. No, but there are always innocent casualties in war. INNOCENT PEOPLE DYING IS TERRIBLE!!! (just for you) but innocent people die on British streets every day. Innocent people were dying in Iraq long before we got there.... you seem happy for Saddam to kill as many people as he wants but as soon as it happens because of the British / American you use it to score cheap points. Difference is the vast majority of innocent people killed in Iraq were killed accidentally..... you can't say the same about people killed by Saddam.
3. Good for you. I honestly can't say until I was in that situation but if I was a person being persecuted under Saddam's regime I would welcome being freed from that. If I was not then I would doubtless still welcome it just the same as I welcome the end to slavery even though it doesn't affect me....
4. How the hell can you say what I do an do not mind? As FYI, you are 100% wrong. Why the hell would I not mind a pillock (to put it lightly) like him getting a knighthood.

 

[Markbin]

gk

Where have I defended Saddam's killing sprees?

Meanwhile, you have said we were justified in holding him to account for his crimes, but the death we have caused is just shrugged off as a fact of war.

Despite all the evidence of the Sadrist resistance of the US/UK occupation of Iraq, you still insist that you would welcome the invasion were you an Iraqi.

Besides, if you're so concerned about the welfare of the Kurds it seems odd that you've said nothing about Turkey's US-backed massacre of about 50,000 of them in the 90s.

 

[My Name is URL]

gk

Where have I defended Saddam's killing sprees? So you do support the removal and trial of Saddam that would not have been achieved without the war in Iraq?

Meanwhile, you have said we were justified in holding him to account for his crimes, but the death we have caused is just shrugged off as a fact of war. Correct - death of enemy combatants - shit happens, death of innocents if its an accident that could not have been prevented then it really is a terrible shame and I say that sincerely, if its an accident that could have been prevented then someone should be held to account. However I don't imagine Blair / Brown or anyone else told soldiers to go in and shoot / bomb innocent people so don't really think it should be them.

Despite all the evidence of the Sadrist resistance of the US/UK occupation of Iraq, you still insist that you would welcome the invasion were you an Iraqi. You keep banging on about this, but do you have any figures for the percentage of population who are resisting versus those who welcome the end of Saddam?

Besides, if you're so concerned about the welfare of the Kurds it seems odd that you've said nothing about Turkey's US-backed massacre of about 50,000 of them in the 90s. You keep quoting events at me (saying I haven't mentioned them) but I haven't mentioned them because I have no knowledge of them Depending on when in the 90's it was, I could have been 10 or I could have been 19.

Hope this helps, cheers.

 

[Markbin]

gk

I would support the removal of Saddam Hussein - by his own people. That the place is still a mess five years after the invasion shows we were not welcome. Every single security analyst said invading Iraq would create a magnet for all other anti-Western terrorists, so we were extremely irresponsible to invade the country knowing that we would bring that suffering to the Iraqis.

The MoD carried out a secret poll in Iraq. It was leaked to the press. The results: Iraqis who want a complete withdrawal of Western forces - 82 percent. 56 percent of Arab Iraqis believe attacks against the occupation are justified.

As for you not knowing about the other events, I say you should read up on the background to this war and you might realise that it's not about human rights.

We supported Saddam during his massacres. So why should he suddenly become a criminal for it?

 

[Markbin]

Yep, it's now two and a half days since I emailed David Kidney about Iraq. Sure he's a busy man. But it seems obvious: for Labour it's a case of don't mention the war. This is because if they're petrified of it becoming, as it should, a major election issue. The publice has given Mr Kidney and his political masters the benefit of the doubt for too long on Iraq and the dishonesty that surrounds it. As if going to war on a false premise wasn't bad enough, they're now trying to tell us we're leaving behind a stable, democratic Iraq. The truth is, as Peter Oborne reports in Dispatches (www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/iraq+the+legacy/2880557), the British were forced to retreat to an air base and hand over/give up Basra to Iranian-backed militias. The mission has not been accomplished. The only victor is hubris. If we're to avoid ever committing such a crime (to call it a mistake would be disingenuous) again, and if it's to have any credibility as a political party then Labour has to face full independent judicial scrutiny of its misguided imperialist actions.

 

[My Name is URL]

As if going to war on a false premise wasn't bad enough, they're now trying to tell us we're leaving behind a stable, democratic Iraq.

Don't give me that line.....

They really can't win with you lot, you want them out of Iraq as soon as possible but as soon as they say they are withdrawing its "oh they're buggering off and leaving the Iraq to implode......" Unbelievable.

And just so you know, I have myself e-mailed David Kidney and didn't get a response for about 3 weeks and even then it was from his secretary to say he was very busy and that was a letter to my home... not an e-mail.

 

[Markbin]

gk

Pay attention. I said the reality on the ground in Iraq is very much different to the picture of victory the establishment wants you to see. Go to Channel 4's website and watch Dispatches. Stop swallowing the lies. I am not complaining about us leaving Iraq. Labour is on a damage limitation exercise and is presenting it as a victory, a job well done. It is anything but. And the British people deserve to know the truth, so we can stop it happening again.

 

[Markbin]

It's exactly a week since I opened this thread and still no response from David Kidney. He doesn't want to talk about Iraq. He hopes it will go away and we'll go into the next election starting at year zero with Iraq erased from everyone's memory. If I'm wrong, then why isn't he making a lot of noise in Westminster about the lack of an inquiry? Could it be that career comes before principles?

 

[Markbin]

Yep, we've hit the one month mark on my appeal to Stafford MP David Kidney to explain himself on Stafford Forum for his voting behaviour and apathy towards holding the government to account on Iraq. Sure, people will say he's a busy man. But I say that's rubbish. Iraq is a topic he knows he can't win on. He knows he and his government have messed up big time. The only way they can deal with this is not to talk about the war, hope no one mentions it and resist all attempts to get dragged into a messy debate about what is an illegal act of aggression. Come on, David. Join the fray. You don't mind others laying down their lives for your failed policies. The least you owe them is a verbal defence, that is if you truly believe the occupation is legal and legitimate.

 

[ToriRat]

Maybe he just thinks your a loon?