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?

I think the only Bush and Blair hold on to delusions as strongly as you. The American electorate have woken up and realise the Bush had his own agenda and is now being rejected. I think that Blair and unfortunately the Labour party ( because of the moral cowardice in not removing their tainted leader) will also pay the price for lying to the public.

The history of war leaders is one of removal after the conflict, regardless of the outcome. Think of dear old Winnie.
FWIW I agree with marc. The world is not any more dangerous than it was before, it is safer than it was. The middle east in general is safer, and the problems in Iraq were always coming whether Saddam was removed by might or old age.
Had we not shown strength in the face of Saddam, what brakes could we possibly apply elsewhere??? Korea is going down a treacherous path. If we had buckled under Saddam, then we would have no threat to hold over them. They would know it was bluff. As it is, I believe the best hope for a resolution in that area is for a negotiated settlement, but failing that we will have to use force. The knowledge that we will use force may be enough to prevent them going too far. The knowledge that we would postulate and pull out at the last moment would not deter them.
Alan

H6, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Afghanistan and Israel is so safe I volunteer you and M should live there for while. The world being much safer is probably the reason for the increase on spending on Anti -terrorist programs and the increase precautions being taken at American and British borders and ioverseas institutions.

Nah. That increased spending was down to 911, before the Iraq war. But you already know that.
Nobody said the middle east was safe, but you know that too. What I wrote was SAFER. Imagine all those completely insane leaders of very unstable countries being given free reign to develop whatever they wished. Now that really would be unsafe.
Oh and BTW. I did live in the middle east. For some considerable time. Many wonderful people and wonderful countries there. Some completely insane politics and laws and probably the worst racism and sexism you will find anywhere including apartheid South Africa, with some of the worst Human rights violations you could imagine. But you already know that too.
alan

I think labelling the leaders as insane is part of the problem of dealing with many leaders. Psychopathic may be more appropriate, but that would apply to the two Bs.

I don't condone the conduct or human rights history of many countries including those in the middle east, but see that Britain and America due to their administrations has been all to ready to drop their standards in interfering with the legal structures and turning blind eyes to torture and assasinations.

We use differing dictionaries, fred.
Khomeni, Gaddaffi, Hussain etc. etc. all qualify as insane from where I stand.
never said we were perfect, but to qualify Bush and Blair as being in the same psychopathic league as Hussain is not even worthy of taking seriously.
Be honest. When was the last time Tony Blair had a few tories made to drink petrol and wander round Horseguards Parade so he could lean out of the window of number 10 and take potshots at them. Just to see if they would explode.
He hasn't???? I thought he must have done to be labelled as mad as Saddam. Saddam did. With alarming regularity.

When was the last time did 2 "god fearing" "men" deliberately make decisions leading to the death of over 100000 civilian deaths (collateral damage) based in the majority of peoples opinion a pack of lies.

Of course they have been on the front line in the sacrifice of members of their own families.

The barbarity of other nations does not excuse our own.

Earlier I wrote that Iraq and probably Afghanistan would be a repeat of Vietnam. Only the consequences for world peace will be far greater this time round.

When was the last time did 2 "god fearing" "men" deliberately make decisions leading to the death of over 100000 civilian deaths (collateral damage) based in the majority of peoples opinion a pack of lies.

Of course they have been on the front line in the sacrifice of members of their own families.

The barbarity of other nations does not excuse our own.

Earlier I wrote that Iraq and probably Afghanistan would be a repeat of Vietnam. Only the consequences for world peace will be far greater this time round.

Its nice to see I've revigorated this thread, even if people seem to be harping on about history and irrelevant tripe.
If going to war was wrong, them please feel free to post your alternative.
If the figures of 100,00 deaths is correct, how many would saddam and his cronies have killed themselves in the same period.
By now they could have perfected thier chemical weapons and progressed onto whole towns as apposed to villages.
The truth is no one knows. So with hindsight should we have left him in power?

What are the legal definitions of "war crimes" and "crime against humanity"?

What is a war crime?

"At the heart of the concept of war crimes is the idea that an individual can be held responsible for the actions of a country or that nation's soldiers."

"Genocide, crimes against humanity, mistreatment of civilians or combatants during war can all fall under the category of war crimes. Genocide is the most severe of these crimes.

The body of laws that define a war crime are the Geneva Conventions, a broader and older area of laws referred to as the Laws and Customs of War, and, in the case of the former Yugoslavia, the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague (ICTY).

Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes.

The statutes of The Hague tribunal say the court has the right to try suspects alleged to have violated the laws or customs of war in the former Yugoslavia since 1992. Examples of such violations are given in article 3:

* Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
* Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
* Seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science
* Plunder of public or private property.

The tribunal defines crime against humanity as crimes committed in armed conflict but directed against a civilian population. Again a list of examples is given in article 5:

* Murder
* Extermination
* Enslavement
* Deportation
* Imprisonment
* Torture
* Rape
* Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds.

Genocide is defined by the tribunal as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

...

I rest my case.
Saddam has been proved guilty of both war crimes and genocide. That itself
justifies removing him from power.
The transition for the population from a dictatorship to democracy is a long road. The 'West' can only assist in establishing the police, health, sanitation, water, power and other essential amienties, then leave the people to run thier own country.
The goverment must assist where needed but not interfere. The timing of troop withdrawal is vital. There is no doubt that troops need to be withdrawn, but at what stage?

IMO, based upon reports of Saddam over the last decades, there is little doubt about
Saddam's guilt.

Victims never find closure.


Keeping to the topic of the thread, how about Blair and Bush?
Instead of UK's PM and US's president, what if Blair and Bush are rulers of banana republics? Are they attracting unfair amount and degree of accusations/scapgoating; or are they protected by fears and greeds afforded them by their positions, connections, nationalities and race?

Bush and Blaire are not guilty of war crimes. They are however guilty of misleading the country, and embelishing facts to suit thier needs. All politicians do this but they have been caught.
So the original thread 'should they be tried' - No.
Should they lose the next election - Yes and probably will
Will the next goverment have learned a lesson - No
Nothing changes but the people.
The price of democracy is leaders become to scared to make a decision that could be unpopular. They therefore water it down, mislead people and spin information.
The reason - to stay in power.
Democracy is not perfect - but its a damm site better than the alternatives.

Am I out of line again. Does anyone else see the hand of Mossad behind the killing in Lebanon?

I think, maybe only that Israel would have any gain from chaos in Lebanon.

As usual don't know.

Would there be interest in another thread under the heading of something like " What would be intelligent approaches to enable the development of peace and stability in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East in the aftermath of invasion of Iraq?"


This will give H6 another opportunity to educate me.

I thought with the recognition by the American administration and the cohorts Blair and Bush, (i.e. the monkey and the organ grinder) it is time to resurrect this thread.

Besides hanging both of them alongside Saddam Hussein, I wonder what would be appropriate methods of withdrawing from Iraq. Perhaps even Afghanistan before it is to late.

I thought with the recognition by the American administration and the cohorts Blair and Bush, (i.e. the monkey and the organ grinder) it is time to resurrect this thread.

Besides hanging both of them alongside Saddam Hussein, I wonder what would be appropriate methods of withdrawing from Iraq. Perhaps even Afghanistan before it is to late.

Also, whether it would be appropriate for the cohorts to pay compensation to the victims (British, American and Iraqis) caused by their stupidity, from the overlarge pensions and future earnings..

?????

Fred, on your post #1221 ...

Lebanon Christians have always been the "meat in the sandwich" - exploited and abused by both sides. There will be genuine peace in Lebanon only if and when both Israel and Syria (perhaps Russia and USA and perhaps plus a few dozen other interested parties) believe peace it is to their advantage.

George Patton once said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." is, IMHO, an under-statement. It is more like

"No bastard ever won a war by suffering for their country. He won it by making, rpovoking and tricking other poor dumb bastards to die for our country."

Divide and conquer have been practiced by nations for as long as there are nations.

In short, of course it is possible, but who knows ... I can also see several other shadowy "hands"? Some have the means and can easily create the opportunity. But what are the motivations in this specific case ???

Fred1new, in his final hours, Blair is starting to be a little bit more like a British PM for the British (at least in his speeches) ... Yes, I much suspect it is still only for his own benefits but better late, however little and not likely to be effective, than never .