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?

Should companies, people who resident overseas but benefited from UK businesses, and politicians be subjected to a Britishness test?

I am keener on getting rid of the culture of fraud, scam and arrogance from our society.

How will AIM and the city survive? LOL

I find it hard to think that Blair is on the high moral ground or fit to make judgements of morality.

Most of us, at one time or another, make judgements of morality. But most of us probably have neither the power nor the willingness to use it as pretext to kill and to plunder.

zscrooge, probably. But IMHO, a few bad cases give a bad name and reason for suspicision to the whole.

On being British. Should be consider as British those who are responsible for the collapse if Farepak and also profited from the 40m-60m lost by the hundreds of thousands of poorer members of the British society? One or two of those are titled and others are probably gleefully gloating and enjoying, in anonymity, their ill-gotten gains in anonymity.

There are several modern examples of racial and religious conflicts, mostly from the Middleeast and Africa. These are complicated and difficult to study because of the breadth and depth of the issues and histories of those involved. But the latest events in the South Pacific island of Fiji offer a much simplier and better opportunity of study.

In a free society, we have to accept that some communities will not want to integrate and that some in the majority community might not want to integrate in return. One Muslim interviewed on BBC news in response to Tony Blair's speech said that Muslims could never completely abide by British norms and values because they were obliged to put their religion above all else. Those Muslims who choose to may decide that they want to continue to live in separate communities. That's fine but only if they can pay for such seclusion themselves.

If Muslim women refuse to take jobs where they would have to remove their veils, they should lose their entitlement to benefits. Local councils should stop funding minority festivals and cultural centres. The ethnic minority outreach workers should be fired or re-deployed onto more useful work. The expensive practice of translating signs and leaflets into dozens of languages should cease. Employers should no longer be penalised for refusing to accommodate diverse cultural practices and there should be no funding for any more religious schools. Above all, funding for unelected community leaders should be stopped and their groups disbanded.

Diamonds, I am picking on you again.

I do agree all the the signs and leaflets in Wales should be written in Welsh.


That would keep the marauders out.


But I have sympathy for a tolerant secular state with all religions being self supporting. But the problem is that people of a similar culture in a "strange land" tend to congregate together. The English in Spain and France, even to a lesser degree the Welsh in London or England. But in the latter case we are performing a missionary purpose.












The only problem is that it would also keep me out as I speak the minimal of Welsh only.



8-)

Difference is fred, the spaniards have prospered and standards have improved since the english armada landed, towns and cities that have a large english pop are reaping the benefits, unfortunately the class of immigrant to the UK has the opposite effect, you only have to wander about in your own locality to have the evidence of that old son, Brummie aint yer? ,-)

I am sure that fish and chips and warm beer is superior to suckling pig roasted on a spit with Rioja.

For some.

Firms 'ban festive decorations'

I blame this OTT over-reaction on Blair ... :-(

Miserable gits, why anyone would want to live in the UK, I will never know?

Slowly but surely becoming a third world country........

Hope George and Tony get our troops out orf Iraq soon!!

Iraq 0 1 1 2
Sri Lanka 0 1 1 2
Turkmenistan 0 1 0 1
Pakistan 0 1 0 1
Nepal 0 0 3 3
Macau 0 0 2 2
Afghanistan 0 0 1 1
Bangladesh 0 0 1 1
Notice Iraq ahead orf Pakistaniin the asain games.......well done

From the timings and contents of some latest events, Blair/Labour are being "dumped" (by those who used him). US analyst's speech, Sir Cohen's honour and contributions, Saudi threat of BAE contract, ...

Poor guy. Nurtured, flattered, manipuated, used and then spitted out with a little pat on the head and a kick in the backside to come.

diamond, yes, it is good to see those countries (Iraq etc) participating ...

Don't leave Iraq in chaos - Major

But the interesting bits ...

"... His words follow claims by a former top diplomat that the government never viewed Saddam Hussein as a threat to the UK.

Carne Ross, who quit his job over the war, said British officials felt the threat from Saddam was "contained".

Mr Ross made his claims in a submission to the 2004 Butler review into Iraq intelligence - it has only just been published because of initial fears it breached the Official Secrets Act.

'No threat'

Mr Ross was head of strategy for the UN mission in Kosovo, and played a leading role in drawing up Britain's policy on Iraq and Afghanistan.

In his Butler evidence, he said that while he worked at the UN, "at no time did HMG (Her Majesty's Government) assess that Iraq's WMD (weapons of mass destruction) posed a threat to the UK or its interests".

Mr Ross added: "We would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that `regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

British troops
Troops should not be withdrawn immediately, says Sir John

He also claimed that there was no evidence of "significant holdings" of chemical or biological weapons in the possession of Saddam prior to the invasion.

"There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added.

Liberal Democrat Leader Menzies Campbell said Mr Blair's justification for going to war had been "systematically destroyed".

He said Mr Ross's evidence was "entirely consistent" with the leaked documents suggesting "the real intention was always regime change."

"If this is true, the British people were knowingly deceived. The prime minister should be ashamed of himself. Parliament and the public deserve an apology."

Mr Blair has always defended the war's legality and the Butler inquiry said there was no evidence of "deliberate distortion" of intelligence on WMD. "

-----------------

July 2004 - Butler Report published. Details of Carne Ross submission suppressed
"... because of initial fears it breached the Official Secrets Act."

May 2005 - UK General Election

Dec 2006 - Detail of Carne Ross submission published.


Let us give war every opportunity and cover ... Sigh :-(

COMMENTARY:
The Iraqi Flim-Flam: Bush-Blair Lies Confirmed Again
Was this obscene war based on lies? Yes.
by CHRIS FLOYD
Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war (The Independent, via rebellenation). Excerpts:
The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.
In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said. "At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

... Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict. It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added.

Mr Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross.

...Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment. "What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added.

Mr Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings.

Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris Floyd is an American journalist. His work has appeared in print and online in venues all over the world, including the Nation, CounterPunch, Columbia Journalism Review, the Christian Science Monitor, Il Manifesto, the Moscow Times and many others. He is the author of Empire Burlesque: High Crimes and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium, and is co-founder and editor of the "Empire Burlesque" political blog. He can be reached at cfloyd72@gmail.com.

Just a question about racism.

I always understood that white Aryans were a race, as were Negroids, as were Orientals etc. Now racismseems to be applied to French, British, Germans, Romanians etc. Surely there is no raceof Lithuanians? Or Romanians? Or Kenyans? Or Muslims???

Can anyone enlighten me?

I understand Tony Blair is enjoying the hospitality of Baghdad today travelling in an open top stretched limo through the streets meeting his adoring fans cheering him along the way rather a special moment for him I guess.

Racism is now a word applied to shut people up and try and ridicule them when they ask difficult questions about differences between cultures. It is now simply the rallying call of a discredited idea that all people are the same, regardless of beleif system.
It is increasingly obvious that varying religions / nationalities hold loyalty to fellow men / national law / religion / ideals in differing orders and that these cannot be reconciled by blandishments to treat everyone in exactly the same way.
To ask basic questions that go to the very root of problems of different races living together in harmony raises evidence of peoples differences, and the liberal regime of our country cannot provide an answer that effectively covers the points raised. Their response, therefore, is to try and discredit the question, and the questioner with a word that has become used as both an insult and implies bigotry.
For me, racism simply means accepting that races are different. Not biologically, but idealogically.
So to ask the question of a jew, "If infant circumcision were outlawed, would you still practise it?" is not racist. Neither is asking a Muslim "If wearing veils in public were banned, would you still practise it?". It is an attempt to show where peoples loyalties lie.
My belief is that the state and the welfare of the citizens transcends religious belief and ideology. I think most people agree with that, and that if there were any collision between the 2 structures, the state should override.
Personally, I do not give a damn whether people cut bits off their kids, or wear a veil, a mask or a basket of fruit over their faces. But when it causes problems for societies majority, it should be cast aside.
That attitude makes me be labelled racist. But that only means I accept there are differences, so it is a badge I will wear happily, for to not accept that there are differences is to shuffle the deckchairs as the Titanic sinks. It is foolish and is simply allowing our nation to cascade into greater problems simply to try and defend your own convictions.
Thats my take on racism, anyway. take it or leave it.
Though it has little to do with this thread.
Alan

I hear that Blair is in the Green Zone. Is it possible to arrange that he stays there indefinitely!

Just finished reading the Sunday papers. Wondering if Blair is hiding in the Green Zone from Levy, or the Police or the British Press.