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?

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!

By the way, Dave. We are not in a state of war. We already do tolerate hate without violence. Its called religion.
I am a very firm beleiver in the harm to others principle of legislature.
Tolerance in the minds of many who are drawn to the BNP is a dead duck. It has been slain by the hand wringing liberals on local councils, who will deny the St Georges flag and all but ban Christmas in favour of Winterfest in case it upsets a local minority while rejecting a hot sandwich shops planning on the grounds of the smell of bacon being offensive to local religious communities.
Tolerance is a two way street, and as such it is both difficult to navigate and even more difficult to police.
Alan

PS (and then I'll shut up)
A neat illustration of the duplicitousness of the local liberatti occured in Leeds some years ago, when the council donated 1m to fighting apharteid on the very same day it opened the (Excuse spelling) Ramghari Seikh sports centre for the exclusive use of seikhs.
HMMM????
The same council who will not tolerate any sexual/sexual preference or race discrimination regularly advertises jobs where the end line promises an interview for anyone who is non-white, gay or female!! (Paraphrased but you get the gist).
Thats why tolerance has disappeared.
Alan

Jimmy, LOL.

hewittalan, "not able to call a spade a spade.". Perhaps we ,collectively, were never properly educated in politics, independent thinking and evaluation. Maybe be it was deliberately neglected for decades, so the population can be more easily "directed".
And, now presentation, rather than substance, is everything . ...
The chickens are coming home ...

It would be interesting to how smaller European nations like Sweden, Norway, Switzerland etc debate their internal and international issues.

IMO, B & B are probably very likeable and hospitable people if they hold oridnary jobs and making decision with very limited consequences for others.

The whole war in Iraq was a complete con based on intelligence that was known to be dodgy and/or fabricated.

I have serious doubts about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 as well. Anyone else seen the documentaries floating around the internet questioning why there was no Boeing plane wreckage at the Pentagon site, why video tapes recording the Pentagon attacked where confiscated by the FBI, why there was no wreckage in PA where one plane was bought down, why the towers fell (including WTC 7) like a professional demolition job.

It all stinks.

From Saturdays Daily Express;
University of Central England has released its official calendar.
Eid is marked, as is Diwalli.
December 25th 2006 appears as no more than "Bank Holiday - University Closed".
These things are the recruiting Seargent of the BNP, Combat 18, intolerance and a multitude of other fantics and extremists, yet it is done in a misplaced spirit of tolerance, multiculturalism and inclusion.
Strange then that the majority community in this country will not be tolerated or included and have their culture wiped from a multicultural society.
Alan

Can you tell this is one of my favourite soapboxes? ;-)

To quote Oscar, patently not a spade lover--

"The man who could call a spade a spade should be compelled to use one. It is the only thing he is fit for."

OR

"I am glad to say I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.
Oscar Wilde

Being an absolute atheist it is wonderful to pick bits from various religions, with which one agrees absolutely.
I yearn to have some prat take me to court for "religious contempt" for my moral code, pinched from a variety of pious verses---

1.I strongly urge the return of mutilation for thieves, death penalty for murder, and ritual humiliation for sexual perverts , including castration of course.
2.Xmas must be celebrated by all holders of British passports, all regional councils
and all religious buildings.
3.The Union Jack will be flown from all buildings not privately owned.
4.Women caught in adultery to be stoned
5.Arranged marriages to be condoned, indeed encouraged, but only where the male reckons she is fit
6.English only to be spoken in the UK, this includes Scots ,Welsh, and Brummies, who will be `re-trained in the language.
7.Polygomy officially encouraged, but only the Tibetan version where several men marry one woman,
8.The family of murderers must invoke the punishment for murder
9.Homosexuality to be the subject of Islamic Law.
10.The Bible and Koran banned in all public places, including religious buildings
11. Priests of any religion to be taxed at 99% on their earnings, the resulting cash to be given to the poor of their Parish, and bits re-distributed back to them as the poor decide.
12. God Save The Queen

snappy: (Re your post 160)

Please don't regurgitate all that 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff: each and every one of those wild theories has been debunked. Believe me, there was plenty of wreckage of flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

I can assure you that I have (literally) second-hand eye-witness accounts from a very good long-term American friend who had to work on the recovery process at all three sites in the line of duty.

At the flight 93 site, for example, I can tell you that the largest human remain recovered was one-half of a foot.

this is how serious the yanks the take the Iraqi war. http://www.office-humour.co.uk/g/i/3413/

and another one! http://www.office-humour.co.uk/g/i/2102/

Sorry mightymicro but to my mind many things just do not add up.

We are each entitled to our own opinion and a jury does not always reach a gulity/not guilty verdict.

Too many questions remain and the 'official' story has more holes than a sieve.

I don't trust our government and I certainly don't trust the present US administration.

blinger, IMO true buddism is the safest religion for none-believers!

On Iraq

(1) Perhaps Iraq would have split into two or three nations by now but, IMO, Iraq and Iraqis would have been far better off now if Saddam has not been helped to power.

(2) why has the oil price gone up since the invasion. Increase Chinese demand was a factor, but in my mind, it is grossly over-played. We don't have the whole picture.
How much has the Iraqi people benefited from the increase in oil price. 100% of the price increase or much less? Consumer don't even get the benefit of cheaper oil!

Blair impeachment over Iraq urged

...

Former UN commander in Bosnia General Sir Michael Rose said Mr Blair had to take responsibility for his actions.

"To go to war on what turns out to be false grounds is something that no one should be allowed to walk away from," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

The consequences for Iraq and the war on terror had been "quite disastrous", General Sir Michael said.

"Certainly from a soldier's perspective there can't be any more serious decision taken by a prime minister than declaring war," he told the programme.

He said Mr Blair's actions were "somewhere in between" getting the politics wrong and acting illegally.

"The politics was wrong, that he rarely declared what his ultimate aims were, as far as we can see, in terms of harping continually on weapons of mass destruction when actually he probably had some other strategy in mind.

"And secondly, the consequences of that war have been quite disastrous both for the people of Iraq and also for the west in terms of our wider interests in the war against global terror."

...

With comments like "he rarely declared what his ultimate aims were", it make General Michael Rose a conspiracist, in some people's opinion. Wonder how long before stories about his personal life start to appear and ciruclate, from unknown sources ...