Norman Kember-honourable and brave or a bit of a pompous arse??

[moondog]

I'm plumping for the latter.....

Millions of people were opposed to the war in Iraq. Kember does come across as a tad irritating, but bloody hell he has, after all, stood up and made a stand for what he believes is right. So I for one am not going to start slagging the poor soul off, after what he has been through, for being insufficiently grateful to his rescuers.

Let's not start praising those who are prepared to die for their beliefs, the 911 bombers died for their beliefs, the july 7th bombers died for their beliefs, and they are by no means heroes, and whilst Norman Kember is not among the relms of suecide bombers, the fact that he is prepared to die for what he believes is right does not make him a hero.

Makes him "honourable and brave" though. Which was the OP's question.

And while most people did not necessarily support a war against iraq in the form that it happened, most people did believe that Sadam Hussain should be removed from power, and even most Iraqis now, given the choice, would not choose to have Sadam reinstated to power, even after all that has happened over there.

no, didn't say Kember was a hero. Just said he was prepared to die for his beliefs. And obviously, he is different from suicide bombers who might feel the same, as he is a man of peace - he doesn't want anyone else to die for his beliefs.

absolutely wannabe1974, being prepared to die for one's beliefs is not necessarily a signifier of honour and bravery
it might just as easily be a sign of stupidity, foolhardiness and the inability to judge the value of human life properly

he may well be foolhardy - he himself has admitted it. But don't agree he is not able to value human life properly - if anything that is the rest of us who are thankful what is happening to people over there is far from us and just glad we are OK.

oh I wasn't saying that applied to him necessarily, although he must have foreseen that, if he did get kidnapped, lives would be endangered?

I think it's a bit startling to try and blame pore ole codger Kemble for the fact that the government can't be arsed to provide troops with proper equipment.

agree Caligula.

I don't know whether he forsaw a possible kidnap may endanger lives - i presume he thought lives [on both sides] were so endangered already that his presence in the mix would not make a huge difference. I haven't managed to read any interviews with him yet, so I haven't decided if he did the right thing by going.

I think his motives are entirely opaque.
I can't imagine what good he thought he might do, that would outweigh the risk to other peoples' lives.

Perhaps he cares MORE about Iraqi lives than he does about the lives of paid soldiers ? Or would that be treason ?

I think his motives must be good [which is far more than I can say about Tony Blair's] Whether he was misguided, however, is another matter.

Perhaps he is a misguided traitor just like me ?

interesting point KK. I am now waiting for the sh*t to hit the fan!

do you ruty? why do you think that?
I am much more inclined to think Tony Blair's motives are/were good tbh.

Let's run ruty, run

no, koolkat, I don't think it's treason. I do however think it is in very poor taste and rather crass.

What is crass harps ? being concerned about civilian life more than the life of a paid soldier ?

i think KK has a point HC. Because though all Iraqis lives and soldiers lives are of equal value, the soldiers are paid to do what they do and it comes with the job. They also have much more protection than the Iraqi civilians. The Iraqis are totally vulnerable to all danger aroudn them - they also do not have clean water to drink or adequate health care - unlike the soldiers. I can see why NK may feel their lives are more under threat and more important to save.

TB's motives are good? that must be why he lied then. I don't trust people's motives when they lie.

I think you mean, 'more in need of saving'? At least I hope so. I don't think that members of our af are less worthy of life, do you?

And for what it is worth I don't think they are more, I belive all human life is equaly valuable.

actually, you didn't say civilian - you said Iraqi. Not all Iraqi's are civilians. That is a different argument altogether
it is crass for you, imho, to project a judgment about relative values of lives of different nationalities onto Norman Kember, when he hasn't said anything of the kind.

MB sorry if i phrased that badly. I pointed out their lives were of equal value in my first sentence. thankyou for correcting my grammar.
I recognise this is dangerous ground to tread, but i really don't think we want to realise just what ordinary Iraqi people are going through at the moment.