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?

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.

Alan - you said ''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.'' how do we differentiate between the asian muslims 98% who will totally against violence and condemn what happened in london, some that we will express the disgust they feel by the way things have worked out and things they percieve not to be fair, and very small percentage who will be behind terror if there is no eveidence.

Fred - agree with some of things you said but do you believe all the things you have talked about (inc uni, nhs etc) would have been handled better under a Tory government.

Kivver,
Therein lies the problem, me old mate. We have to make a choice of which takes precedance in these times. The rights of the individual (of whatever race) or the safety of society.
While I would not argue for internment, I would argue the case that individual liberties come second to the national safety, in these troubled times. I believe the civil liberties forces and the PC brigade have visited a terrible legacy on this country by kow-towing to the latest fahionable cause, regardless of the expense to society.
I believe that the majority of muslim asians in this country wholeheartedly support the security forces of this country and are outraged by the terrorism in their name. I also believe that the wooly thinkers of the PC brigade have gone so far with their ridiculous dictats that the majority of the asian community are embarrassed to have their cause associated with the ridiculous idealism of them.
The question therefore becomes less complicated and is one of extent.
Where police have a justifiable and real concern that an individual is engaged in terrorist activities, but no admissible evidence to present to a court, what are we to do?
Alan

The next problem buddie, how far do we take it and where does it stop. The old saying give an inch take a mile. There was a day not to long ago in this country where some us would have been arrested in this country for things that have been written on these boards.

Some of us a moan about the state of the country, poor nhs, uni charges, no police on the streets, etc and we are spending millions in Irag (for what cause im still not sure) and now the introduction of id cards, one figure have been told is 54 million, what a waste of money!

Kiv

Kivver: I just picked up on something you posted earlier.

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.

Your wish is my command.

The "untouchables" were not a race -- they are the mass of ordinary people (dalits) outside of the Indian Caste system. They all have the vote.

The caste system is Ancient Indian, predates British rule, and lingers to this day. However, an "untouchable" has become President of India (K R Narayanan) -- he died just last month. Let me quote him “My life encapsulates the ability of the democratic system to accommodate and empower marginalised sections of society.”

Not the worst epitaph for both him and the legacy of British rule.

Just a quick note to thank everyone for the conduct of this debate. It is on an issue that does tend to lend itself to screaming hysterics, entrenched views and vitriolic insulting. It makes a pleasant change to find the issue being debated rationally, logically and without recourse to petty name calling and unsubstantiated gossip.
The standard has, on the whole, been high and that is to everyones credit.
If all that sounds condecending, I apologise, but having taken part on debates of a very similar nature elsewhere, I feel moved to mention the huge difference shown here, and while I cannot confess to sharing some of the views expressed, I at least now have a greater respect for those views.
Alan

Southern Iraq is now totally controlled by funadamental Islamists with strong ties to Iran -- women must now wear the veil on pain of death etc. Worst of all worlds - Other two thirds of Iraq little better and generally run by fundamentalists/thugs - though even the Americans report it to their population there have been no reports of the situation on the BBC or ITV! Why one wonders?

fred, don't know.

IMHO B&B, probably like most 'leaders', as puppets reacting and led by events and situations carefully fostered, fanned and presented as Hobson's choice by others, within and without. Different strings and baits are used. One of Blair's main addiction is vain glory. But he is not, knowingly, an evil man.

All wars, sometime dressed up as defence, are private wars. All wars are profitable to someone. Armies of nations over the ages are used by the minority, paid for in resources, risks, bodies and blood by the majority. The trick is in how to whip up public frenzy and support using various means of fear and greed through obedient, gulliable, ingorant, intimidated, bribed intermediaries and the media.

Romans have triumphant marches with public executions and gifts of sestertius.
The crusades draw in the volunteers with religious goodies, paid for in heaven.
The age of discovery enriches the museums with stone and marble artefacts.

So, what is it in the 21st century?
Greed is getting expensive to use, so more fear is needed.

All IMHO.

AXDPC, In my mind, I judge people by their actions and in the cases of Blair and Bush I find their actions "evil" as they are both are I think "God Fearing Liars". I believe also the reasoning for war was not to help the Iraqi people but to help themselves.

Fred, IMO, some Iraqi's lives will be improved as a result of the Iraq invasion. But I never believe for a second that the concern welfare of ordinary Iraqis is anything but a cover story. Good for speech material. However, apart from vanity etc, I don't believe B&B are in it to help themselves personally. They may have power of, health, wealth and live over most of us but they have far less influence than their title suggest. Power is exercised in their name but held anonymously by people around them and those who can get to them to bend their ears. Probably a bit like pharoahs, kings and emporers. It is the viziers and unknown advisers who really determine things. Props really.

As far as I have seen and have read, the Iraqi invasion brought us nothing but high costs, significant risks and permanent lost lives for ordinary people, now and for the foreseeable future.

I have always beleive in the fundamental sense of fair play and decency, reserved and conservative yes, but a deep sense of right-and-wrong, in the traditional British public servants (not all, but most). So it is VERY telling on the state of affairs when one after another, they are willing to risk publicity, their careers, the wrath of ???, the public service secrecy rules, their pensions, even possible prisons, and in very sad loss, his live, by either speaking out or passing on information into the public domain.
These acts speaks far louder than any fine speeches.