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?

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

All IMHO, NAG etc

Kennedy tells you what he thinks. The other two will only tell you what they think you want to hear to give them the vote. It is a bit like two person going for the same job. One will tell you what he has done and able to do. But the other will exaggerate what he has done and able to do but, when he gets the job, will not apply himself to the fullness of his ability. (An useless talking guru).

Some of these PCs can be regarded as fundamentism and extremism.

Perhaps over the years we have been gradually hookwinked into assisting those who can pull the media strings in "controlling" the politicians. Since no one is faultless, pressure can be applied to any man and woman using almost any current PC's. Could it be, just maybe (?), that someone wants Kennedy out of politics becuase of his views on Iraq? IMO, in our world, if there is enough to be gained, someone can and will make even mother Teresa looks like an evil, despicable, lying, cruel, selfish, calculating, drunken old woman.


Remember those full pages, over several days, in the tabloids on David Kelly's private live with special attention, angle and coverage on his religion ???

It sometime seems "innocence is no defence."

axdpc,
Kennedy can say what he thinks, because he is safe in the knowledge that he will never have to make those decisions and live with the consequences. He can promise almost anything in the full and certain knowledge he will never have to deliver.
If he had any real chance of power, then you may hear a very different Mr Kennedy, as he tried to assuage the PC press, all factions in his party, and a very broad electorate.
The leaders of the other 2 parties have to balance these interests.
All parties are hamstrung by the sweeping liberalism in this country. We may see very different leaders if they could freely call a spade a spade and not be forced into referring to it as an earth overturning mechanical agricultural device.
The BNP, for instance. If they seriously had any chance of power, would moderate their language dramatically, in order that they encouraged more votes and less vitriol. By then being held to their pre election promises and talk, they would be far less extreme in power.
While I am no racist and I do not support the BNP, the question must be raised; If their views are sincerely held and representative of a section of society (however small), then should the press censure and hound them, and should we instantly dismiss them as racist fanatics?
I would argue that democracy demands all views held in a society should be aired, no matter how distasteful they may be, and that debate on them should be mature and without recourse to petty labelling. This is no longer possible in the Uk and we are all the poorer for it.
This is why Mr Kennedy can come across as an honest man of the people. He has no need to moderate or adjust his own thoughts because he will never have to impliment them.
Alan

For gods sake stop arguing about war,,,these are the only soldiers you should be worried about..

I'm on her side whoever she's fighting .

Hew, sorry mate the PC world has all been about tolerance even though we can all quote extreme cases , historically right wingers have been the puritanical ones who have often been been total hipocrites, you quote Churchill who was a great war time leader, who was infact a man who didnt think Indians should be allowed to rule their own country, and who was also prepared for Gandi to die when on hunger strike. Then theres Thatcher a lady that called Pinochet a friend and whose family did business in South Africa under Apartied, and whose late husband used to refer to black people as 'fuzzy wuzzies', any way thats my rant for the day!! Dont forget that in the 2oth century 160 million died in wars, because of intolerance.

Intolerance is exactly what I am talking about.
I cannot see how expressing ones true opinion can be labelled intolerant, while demanding censure and censoring of that opinion is an enlightened and tolerant attitude.
If we are truely tolerant then surely we must grant the extreme, but non-violent, views media time and the courtesy of listening and debating. At the moment, anyone from the BNP is ignored as a racist and muslims are now labelled as homophobes!!
The muslim leader was expressing his view. To label him for an earnestly held view is as ignorant and intolerant as expressing it may appear to you or I.
Alan

Jimmy,
Love your plan for world peace. Nobody would ever dream of fighting with those two around. Last thing on anyones mind.
Alan

Absolutely agree, ''make love not war''. When i was a kid mum and dad didnt like me to watch anything with any sexual content, even kissing, but cowboy films, war films the news with everyone killing each other that was fine.

killing a fox, absolute uproar, sexy scences, uproar, killing, letting and watching people die , NOTHING. We sometimes get our prioritities a little mixed up.

While I was in the USA, I noticed that all films carried a warning about their content. It has started here now as well, but these are hilarious.
On a kids film I read; "Warning. Contains language".
Imagine that!! A film where people communicate with each other!!!
I also heard that any film that shows someone smoking automatically carries a 13 certificate.
Of course a film starring Hulk Hogan knocking crap out of people (Can't remember the name of that dreadful film) carries a "U" certificate.
What a strange world we live in.
Alan

Hew how can you tolerate people like the BNP who attack people for no reason atall, who previously belonged to the national front and combat 88 a group that worships hitler if you do that there will be no world left, as i said 160 million people died because of war, you are talking about tolerating people that hate, who do not tolerate anybody it makes no sense, so its okay for them too hate as long as they dont attack anybody, but people that hate always attack people its the way of the world, would you have alouded the facists to continue in England during the 2nd world war

I believe in absolute freedom of speech. I believe in peoples right to demonstrate. Many people claim to support freedom, but with freedom comes a price, and the price is to tolerate the views of those you don't agree with.
Your argument is in favour of totalitarianism, where the state tells me what I may or may not say or think. Is that so much better than fascism?
Now you have attacked the section of my post that referred to the BNP. Easy target. Before anyone starts, I do not support them or the majority of their views.
Why not attack the Muslim reference?
Answer; It would not be PC. The BNP leadership wants an end to immigration and the BNP are racist. The Muslim leader attacks Homosexuality, so why are we not branding muslims as homophobes and sexist? Because the vast majority are not.
A minority of BNP members attack non whites and we brand any supporter of the BNP as a thug. A minority of muslims commit horrendous acts of terror, in the name of Allah, because their religious leaders tell them to. We do not label all muslims as terrorists for the simple reason that the vast majority are peace loving.
This is my point. In modern society, one dare not give the views I did, as you will be instantly affixed with the racist label, or the fascist label, rendering the sub text - this guys a raving moron, don't listen. I am not racist or fascist, and certainly not a moron, but I will not be drawn into the media fuelled PC world where the standards are doubled, yet suprisingly low.
Abandon the idea that anyone saying all gays are unnatural perverts is a homophobic lunatic not worth listening to. Abandon the idea anyone saying enough of immigration, multiculturalism is the death of the UK, is a rampant racist and fascist.
If we can abandon those ideals, and actually listen and debate, we may actually hear good ideas, understand each other, and move forward.
If we close our ears to huge parts of society, we will certainly not.
Alan

Dave - i can see what your getting at and sort of agree with you. I dislike people who say they are not racist then usually come out with a racist remark. Also remember there are people all over the world who attack other people because of their race or religion (and usually in the majority to keep the miniority where they want them).

But where do we draw the line. If someone says they want debate the amount people who we are allowing into the country, is that racist to do that??? that should get you all thinking. ps im not saying i agree or disagree with that remark!