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?

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.

I have heard more sense from a so called drunken Scotsman than the majority of sober Englishmen.

I like Kennedy and the majority of his policies. In his presentation of those policies he is probably to moderate and sensible for the baying public and the little "englanders" who air their views. It is a pity he is not a little more charismatic and more forceful, but politics is not for moderates.

I will be sorry if he looses the leadership of the Lib/Dems but I think it is probably necessary for them that this happens.

But out of the choice between Kennedy and the two spivs leading the other parties at the moment I would prefer to sit at the table with Kennedy any time.

As far as the sentiments express by Blinger, they are similar views voiced by others, who generally are affected by alcohol or similar substances.

But going back to the original topic, I think if Blair and Bush have the courage to to face up to their responsibility for the aggression and review the death loss, carnage and destruction caused by their action to-day and over the last months, they should hang their heads in shame and resign.

Don't get me wrong, Kivver. I could never be described as right wing. Or left wing, come to that.
All politics in all parties has been stifled to the point of meaningless by the socially "right-on", who would have a public figures balls hanging from a Fleet Street lamp post if they said any little thing that might upset anybody, or hurt the feelings of some poor soul.
I long for a day when any man woman or child regains the right to say exactly how they feel, without some lunatic accusing them of racism, sexism, ageism or some other schism.
This will only happen when our leaders can say, without fearing a media backlash that will drive them from office, that yes, blacks are stopped and searched more often because the crimes reported that allow stop and search are accompanied by a description of a black. Instead they have to resort to insipid crap as a response.
When our leaders can say that homosexual parents adopting is un natural, then we can all say what we believe and society will get some normality back, and lose the sterility that is a yoke on its progress.
I must add that the above are not necessarily my views, but the point is that if they were, I would happily shout them from the rooftops. If I were a politician, to do so would be tantamount to resigning my seat.
This is why I could not support any political party. I am left to vote for the least bad.
Alan

Fred, in reply
Paragraph 1; I only said it as a joke originally!!!
Paragraph 2; I have no problem at all with anyone supporting any political party of their choice. I even extend that to the extreme parties. Surely that is what democracy means.
Paragraph 3; Your choice again, my friend, and I would be happy to sit at the table with any of them (Providing I didn't pick up the bar bill!)
Paragraph 4; Don't know what he said, squelched him long ago as irritating.
Paragraph 5; You know my feelings on that one!!

I personally could not support the Lib Dems until the notions of a local purchase or income tax to replace the council tax and proportional representation are dropped.
The first i believe to be a fiscal disaster. The second I believe to be a constitutional one from which this country would never recover.
Alan