This board has been a little to quiet for while.

Is it time that Bush and Blair who is a close friend and confidant of Bush were tried for War Crimes?

Do you think the use by the American Administrations of renditions are War Crimes and committed with full knowledge of American and British leaders ie. Blair and Bush and they are ultimately responsible?

Also in the aftermath of the illegal invasion of Iraq are should their action seen to be as the provocation for the rising toll of British, American and Iraqi deaths.

As a result of the military intervention in Iraq do you think you are safer in Britain to-day?

Do you think one should expect government leaders and ministers who have been responsible for massive foreseeable casualties should visit the hospitals to meet the casualties they have produced directly or indirectly by their actions?

War what War?

Looks like my missus has been doing the map reading again.
200 miles form where they should be.
Alan

Hobleg, you don't have to be ashamed of yourself because you are a psychiatrist and if you wish you can use this thread for your confessions. A little abreaction is good for you.

aldwickk- where did you get that pic of me just after i started reading your posts?

Alan - some good points. I think Britain must have one of highest human rights record in the world now. One of the reasons i was happy the government didnt get this holding people in custody for 90 days that could have taken us back a bit.

MM made me laugh when he called India the biggest democracy in the world. He has obviously never read about an Indian race they call the 'untouchables', i'd like him to ask them about democracy. Blinger also made the point that billions of people want to come to country which is true but forgot to say more and more brits want to get away from it. I recently had to spend 5 weeks in an Itailian Hospital and it was brilliant.

How did the Italians treat you?
I have been fortunate to travel widely and have almost always found my nationality was treated with courtesy and respect, particularly in the Arab world. The only time I have been shown any disrespect, due to being British, was in Crete of all places, in 1983, which was, I was told later, how the local youths reacted to foreigners who appeared rich to them. I was not rich of course, I was a young lad getting drunk every night, but they simply saw me spending more on booze in a night than they earned in a month.
Perhaps, on another level, this is partly what fuels the dischord between nations.
Alan

Kivver You said "Alan - i dont claim too know much about India or our history there as part of the BE. I just know our human rights issues left a lot to be desired. For examle you say we helped build Railways, how was this done???"

What puzzles me is how you can claim to know that our human rights record in INdia left much to be desired when you, on the other hand, say that you do not know much about our history there.

For the record, the Indian Railways were largely built by Scottish engineers who came from the Glasgow engineering college which I attended. It became the *Royal* College of Science and Technology after George V's Durbar, when he kept meeting Scottish engineers on the railways there. RCST is now the University of Strathclyde.

MM

This is an eduction [ did i spell that right ] this thread .

Thanks for that MM. I could catch the hint of "were the railways built using slave labour?" but I had no idea on the answer.
I have never been to India, but in southern Sri Lanka, they are very proud of their colonial past, and preserve many fine buildings and traditions from the era. Much of their current economy is built around the industries created and then abandoned by the empire.
Alan

aldwickk: "eduction [ did i spell that right ]"

Er, no, you didn't ;-)

MM - nice too see get to some serious argument. I admit ive never studied what goes on there, but i havent been living in a shed for the past 40 years either. The glimpses of tv programmes i have seen, the film 'Ghandi' and different articles i have read in the papers all help build a picture. You said the scottish built the railways in India, we didnt need any help from the locals then?

Alan - the italians were brilliant, for first 5 days i was completely out of it and cannot remember a thing (head injury), apparently i was very abusive and threatening and in total denial of having an accident. Swearing at staff, refusing to let them treat me, pulling out tubes etc etc but they never gave up on me and i am eternally grateful to them. The place was spotless, no mrsa, vistors had to wear gowns and shoe covers etc. A total oppisite to what has happened since i got back.

A fair time back on a lads holiday again in Italy we meet some US sailors in a bar, 5 of us and 5 of them, and we a good chat and a laugh for about 20 mins then about 10 of their friends joined them. One was a big black guy about 6'5'' tall, built like a you know what. When they came over these lads just turned on us told him a whole pack of lies saying we were calling him this and that. You can guess the result of what happened, we got a good kicking.

Thought I'd just brighten up this thread!!

War in Iraq 'may not be justified'


Tony Blair's former envoy to Iraq has conceded the war may not have been worthwhile.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock said it was too early to say if the war was worth the violence and lawlessness that has followed the ousting of Saddam Hussein.

In an interview to be broadcast on the BBC's Sunday AM programme, Sir Jeremy was asked if, in the light of the troubles in Iraq, the war was "worth it".

He replied: "I don't think we can tell yet. I think it is probably up to each person in his own mind to make that decision."

Sir Jeremy said the Iraqis wanted to see the back of Saddam, but they also wanted the coalition to be more "competent" in giving them a new life.

Sir Jeremy said the biggest mistake was to allow a security vacuum to develop in Iraq. He said the current violence would last for "many years".

He said the coalition had wrongly assumed that the operation would be easier than it turned out and that the Iraqis would be able to look after themselves.

Before taking up his post in Iraq Sir Jeremy was Britain's ambassador to the UN. He played a pivotal role in the negotiations over the resolutions before the war.

In the interview he said he believed the British Government would have liked the weapons inspectors to have been given another six months, but it got caught up in the American momentum.

Sir Jeremy lays the blame for the mistakes clearly on Washington. He said the Pentagon was in control of policy.

I read the above interview yesterday. It says little that we don't know about Iraq, but speaks volumes about the British media. It will go down as the interview where the Ambassador to Iraq said the war wasn't justified, because that is what the headline suggests.
However, at no point is Sir Jeremy asked if the war was justified. He is asked the less objective point, "was it worth it"? His answer, even to this, is less than unequivical.

He replied: "I don't think we can tell yet. I think it is probably up to each person in his own mind to make that decision."

He does, however, state that the Iraqi prople wanted rid of Saddam.That was not going to come from internal pressure, so foreign intervention was surely justified on that alone.
My point in all this is to question the role of the British media. Should they follow their own agenda and create a subtext to an interview, obviously designed to discredit the role of the UK and her armed forces? Should they be responsible for reporting more than the facts and twisting what was said to fit their own agenda? And what is that agenda, and why?
I fully support all free speech, but to lead with a headline like this, which bears no resemblance to the interview as printed is to lead people to an unshakeable belief in something that is patently not true, and that is a questionable position for a free press in a free country.
Alan

It is interesting to me that Sir Jeremy Greenstock had his biography of the Iraq conflict suppressed by the Government. It is unusual if a book is in praise of their actions that this would happen. The good thing is that the book will draw more attention when it does arrive in the public glare.

I think that Blair and cohorts should tried for their crimes, found guilty and loose their pensions.


Also as I am sure that Blair will produce his memoirs of his failed period as a premier the proceeds of the book or books should go to the victims of his crimes.

The same should apply to Bush and his cohorts, although I would think the proceeds of rebuilding and oil contracts for the different companies he and his friends have contact with will more than compensate him.

Fred,
In the nicest possible way, I must take issue with that.
One of the hallmarks of this great country of ours is that one is not accused of generally being a criminal. One is accused of specific crimes. Please tell us exactly what these crimes comitted by Tony Blair are. You are fully entitled to your opinion that he has committed some, but there is a real need to be more specific.
Secondly, pronouncing someone guilty without trial is simply not acceptable. Being Prime Minister does not remove the right to a presumption of innocence, however I look forward to the irrefutable evidence you have in your possession to implicate him.
May I just remind you, however, that the ramblings of the British media are not admissable, for the very reasons I outlined in my earlier post. They are no more than the personal opinions of some Fleet Street hack, or worse.
Finally, it is interesting that you have committed no crime in stating your opinions and can sleep safely in your bed tonight in the full knowledge that the British police are trying to look after your safety and interests.
I submit that if you had made accusations like that about Saddam, while in Iraq, you would be fleeing for your life and knowing that the might of the Iraqi police force were on a bonus for causing your death.
Somehow, this is being portrayed as a better and more just system than the one employed here in the UK. Strange.
Alan

Hewit, I did not think I would agree with you but I do agree with you partially.
Unfortunately, to list all the crimes I think Blair has committed in his tenancy of 10 Downing Street are to long for a man of my age to list. But taking Britain into an illegal war with Iraq, obvious deceit with dossier on WMD, either awareness or ignorance of rendition. (As head of government, a previous lawyer, closeness with Bush and his clambering for the limelight, if he didnt know about rendition he should have known, but is still responsible for these actions.

His lack of condemnation of American policy in Guatanamo Bay and manipulation of the various investigations that have been held into the procedures leading up to the war itself.

I abhorred Saddam and his regime and its treatment of the Kurds, the invasion of Kuwait and War with Iran and wished for it to be removed.
I do not think the new American proposed replacement government bodes well for the Iraqi people and the American Iraqi Oil contracts which are to be signed prior to its inauguration are for the benefit of Iraq.

If removal of the Saddam regime had had the blessing of the UN the results may have been different. But it suits America to demote the UN as it would prefer a puppet organisation.

Other actions of Blair which I decry and feel criminal but are not in the full legal sense are the removal of introduction of charges for university students, removal of financial support for students at University or further education. This is initiating many of them indebt at the beginning of their careers. Also I feel this government has help to devalue the value of an University degree.

I write as one, who with many members of his family, have benefited from University Education, attending universities with others who would not have been there except for the grant system.

I wont go further a list the destruction of moral and standards in the NHS, Teaching and University profession by the policies attempting to grab the headlines.

Thought out evolution is necessary and beneficial, but revolution as practiced by recent governments is destructive.

As far as living under Saddam regime I would have probably found it difficult but the recent changes in the retention systems without trial are a step in a similar direction. Again I think these changes are being made as another bout of headline grabbing activities, knee jerk reactions by Blair.

The law is OK when it appears to be on your side.

Fred,
As with Kivver before, we find a little common ground. I have no grat love for detention without charge / trial. However I approach it from a slightly different viewpoint and I can understand the concerns of a government who are more and more subject to the scrutiny of the population on matters of security, that they should strengthen their hand on the war on terror. It is an arms race of a different kind. As terrorism becomes more deadly, so the defences need to be more draconian.
Could you imagine the outcry if the monsters who visited such carnage on London in the summer had been in police custody just a day or two prior to the tragedy, only to be released due to lack of enough evidence to bring charges? Blair would have been hounded out of office, and rightly so. To be fair, and I always try to be, if we are to hold the government entirely responsible for preventing actions like these we must be careful not to leave them hamstrung by libertarian red tape.
On the subject of the university issue, I did not benefit from any higher education and I have no regret of that, or the issues that prevented it (me being too thick for one thing), but I believe the cause of these costs comes from the massive expansion of the degree courses.
This has come from a couple of muddle headed policies form the liberal thinkers of a few decades ago. Namely that foreign students should have access to our universities in exactly the same way the indiginous population has, and the extraordinary idea that all children are capable, and therefore should, obtain a degree in something. The degree system has been devalued by the strive for quantity over quality in order to fulfill the doctrine that all people are equal in all ways.
Thankfully it is still possible to fail a degree, but the time is coming where this becomes a distant memory, and fails are reclassified, as is happening through the rest of the education system. As an employer, I now take no notice of exam passes on application forms, and in this you are right. A degree is totally worthless and why should anyone have to pay to obtain something that is worth nothing.
Alan

The main reason i was against the war was because there appeared to be little planning to deal with the aftermath of the invasion. This is a country that is populated by a number of different groups/factions that do not see eye to eye. Thousands of Iragis (yes they are human beings to) have died since, 100's of the thousands live in daily fear, law and order has disappeared in some parts, mainly US soldiers shoot randomly at anyone when fired upon. hospitals have been looted and are full to the brim. I just wonder if an Iragi who wanted to see the back of Saddam Hussain would say he now feels much better off.