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?

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.

axdpc, You must be an intelligent fellow as I agree with you!

Have a good day.

fred :-)

Kennedy admits battling alcohol

At last we have a politician who isn't trying to redefine words to suit the occasion!

Blair is right about the need for more "respect" and "leaders" lead by examples.

Doesn't matter about redefining words. Have you ever tried to understand anything a drunken scotsman had to say???
Alan

hewittalan6 :-)

Rather have as leader, an occasional drunkard who is sincere with his/her hearts with what he says and does. Too many international, national "leaders" in politics, business and commerce love murky and muddy waters.

Funny though how puritanical our society has become, on the back of the pc brigade and decades of the hand wringing liberalism that seems to dominate society.
Politicians must be purer than pure, to satisfy the masses. Heaven forbid they have any human frailties such as to be accused of the following;
Lying; Bush, Blair, Archer, Aitkin, Thatcher and virtually any politician ever!!
Drugs; Clinton
Womanising; Clinton, Major and many others
Smoking (!); Clarke
Drinking; Kennedy

Wonder what some of the greatest political leaders ever would think. Winston as he smoked his cigar, drank his whisky and screwed his mistress.
LLoyd George as he sold titles from the back door of number 10.
JFK as he covered up military intentions against the soviets.
Even Queen Victoria as she drew on her opium.
Great leaders who, these days, would not make it to be local councillors, as they were human beings with human frailties.
Alan

I would be very happy to have Mr Kennedy as our leader, except that his policies are outrageous, and I couldn't condone his parties plans.
Now if he were to lead a different party, then I would consider him a fine man to lead them. As it is, the policies make him unelectable, not the booze.
Alan :-)

Right on `The Right`
I may disagree with both of your investment strategy & with your shareholdings but I defend your right to be Right , well not to my death maybe, but at the risk of being banned from a bb

Right on , stuff the Left, get some right wing Tories back.
Oh bring back the electric -chair to UK, we only loaned the US the first one.
First one to test it ?- anyone we the majority decide to !!!!!!

What does being on the the right or the left mean?? What if you have views from both sides. eg, hate racism love wars, love capital punishment, hate scroungers getting state handouts. Want to see gays all wear pink, hate wars etc. ps are not my views, just questions.