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?

roflmao

are you allowed to say xmas

roflmao

Winterfest.
;-)

roflmao

Power, the ultimate addiction and illusion, comes in various forms and degrees. Those who believe they have power are consistently looking for ways and reasons to exercise those power - sometime brutal, often indirect and in disguise.

The creator of the phrase "force as the last resort" has a great sense of ironic humour.
In practice, force is often the end to the means.

Alternatively; "If you shall seek peace, prepare for war".
Don't know who said it, but it was someone cleverer than me.
Not that that narrows it down much.
Alan

Just a wee question to get people going again on the original line of this thread.
What is your position at the moment vis Iran?
Almost the whole world has asked them not to do the nuclear work they are doing as it will provide weapons grade material, and said they should develop their nuclear power capability under the supervision of the UN.
They refuse and continue with their chosen path. What should the world do? Allow them to continue as it is their right to develop their power resources as they see fit or get tougher and tougher until they bow to the international pressure? And how tough should we get?
If we do not impose any sanctions, are we afraid of an unstable country potentially becoming an atomic power?
It would be interesting to gauge peoples views now in case we end up with a similar thread in 2-3 years time about an "illegal" war in Iran.
Alan

Iran is next for the chop, and Iraq will be willing to help, plus a lot of other Arabic countries.
They have unlocked the Nuclear Doors today, they will repent at leisure.

Alan wooden spoon for post 195!!

I hate to say it but I think we should follow in the footsteps of the French... Our taxes should be used to serve the people and not a democratic ego...

Should Iran become an atomic power then a very done to them. I'm sure the government has the money to purchase an atomic weapon anyway, and I can think of plenty of contries that would sell them one!

An Atomic weapon is one thing, having the technology to deploy it is something else. Pakistan is a nuclear power, so is India, neither have missiles that could deploy the power furhter than their own doorstep......

Explosive,
Not sure what is awarded after the wooden spoon but you have just won one!!!
Who needs a delivery system like a missile when you have a whole army of martyrs to choose from???
Neither Pakistan, nor India have a consistent history of Suicide attacks. The bulk of the Arab world has. Further, while the asian subcontinent has its own internal problems it has not been considered as a threat to the west. If only the same were true of the Arab world, and the seemingly endless numbers from those lands and religions prepared to strap high explosives to their bodies and wander into market places.
Still, you have made your position clear and I can't argue with that. We let the Iranians do whatever they wish, without any form of sanction or reprisal.
Alan

Alan, my point exactly, lets patrol our borders and cities catching terrorists instead of invading else where.
Also high explosives can be strapped onto a persons body. Would have to be a very big person to strap on a nuclear device or atomic weapon!

Soon after Iraq, I started to notice the odd signs slowly preparing us for an Iran invasion. Getting more signs and hints now. So, one way or another, it shouldn't be long
. Probably by June this year. Latest June 2007 providing a war boost in time of ression and to allow for more time till the next election.

etc etc

All IMHO, NAG etc

We have enough works to do, challenges to face, problems to solve, things to build and maintain in our society without inviting more burdens and troubles.

Came across many people who are falling over themselves scrambling to get positions
(they label it responsibility) to bark orders and be pleased with themselves ... But I have seldom met a person who has more power and ability, by himself/herself, to create than to destroy ...

Well then I suppose it'll be good for Marconi, Croma shares etc.... I reckon we should pull out and leave it to the yanks or someone else... Always fighting someone elses war whilst being done up the backside in the meantime.... If our forces weren't so stretched would the London bombing have happened, more to the point if we've stayed out of Iraq would we have even been a target?

Blair's respect plan ...

Lead by example is worth more than a thousand plans.

Examples start at the top in every organisation.

Do we now have more smooth, presentable, selfish, deceitful manipulators posing as leaders in our society?

On these, I will judge Blair ...

Leave it to someone else??
I refer you to Pastor Neidemier (excuse spelling). When they came for me, there was no-one left to speak out.
Would we have been a target if we kept out of Iraq?
Ask the good people of Indonesia and Australia.
Who mentioned a warhead, explosive. Sub-critical uranium about the size of a football should be enough to wipe out most of London.
Patrolling the borders? That alone will never be enough. The border is effectively Europe and the civil liberties brigade hamstring real attempts at controls and searches.
What you are saying, in effect, is allow anybody who chooses to develop whatever capacity they want as long as they are not threatening us. I do not believe for one moment that they are a threat today, but any future threat is unlikely to include a warning of what their intentions are!!
You decried Blair & Bush for not listening more closely to the UN inspectorate. The UN inspectorate have already said that Iran are developing nuclear capabilities for weaponry.
You decry the lack of control on our border and yet fail to realise that discovering a nuclear device on our borders does not make the attack any less deadly, for fallout spreads. Protecting the border can also mean stopping things from ever reaching there.
You take the line of doing as the French, but they, along with us and the germans are the ones demanding the UN do something to stop this proliferation right now.
I believe that protecting interests and lives demands that the UN do everything in its power to stop the Iranians riding roughshod over world opinion. The question is, what power is justifiable.
Alan

Alan the word future threat is the only reason for an assult on Iran. The threat isn't even certain (100% guarented 80% will possibly happen, 60% may happen). Why declare war making it 100% guarented, adding fuel to the fire when its not necessary. Surely any attack on Iran will only infuriate more people and bring about more bombers. Do we know that Iran is developing itself to produce nuclear missiles which when built will be fired at will around the world? When we do know or know similar I'll be fully for a use of force.

Lets not be seen yet again by the world to have invaded another country only to find the reason force was used actully never existed..

It exists. The UN inspectorate have seen it. ITN have seen it and shown it on the TV!!!
I would rather play safe by eliminating a threat rather than reacting to it after the event. After all, what would you all say if we did find ourselves on the wrong end of an Iranian Nuclear device in say 10 years time and Blair had done nothing at all to prevent it?
Remember, once the technology and equipment is there, it cannot be un-invented. It is there for ever.
I prefer the gamble of using force if necessary to prevent future threats, rather than the potential for thousands of lives lost due to the threat being actioned and then us having to use force anyway.
As always in politics, it is a no win situation. We use force and people cry foul. We don't use force and people cry foul when Sheffield dissolves in a nuclear fireball.
How do you square that circle? If you were PM how would you explain to the population that you knew all about the potential threat, but chose to sit on your hands, and now tens of thousands of your countrymen lay dead because the threat was a real one?
Time to talk tough and use whatever sanctions are required to bring Iran into line with the wishes of the rest of the planet. If they succeed in ignoring the world, then who and what next??
Alan

explosive ... you sound as stupid as Chamberlain does in hindsight.

Sort it now while it still can imo.

I am unsure about Iran nuclear threat.

If tens of thousands of US nuclear war heads mounted on ICBMs on land, sea and air can put off the evil, nasty, heartless Russians, as painted in the media, at the time of the cold war from using the bombs. Surely, these same deterrent will put off a country with one or two nuclear bombs. Otherwise, the resulting reaction will be providing the region near Iran, even the world, with free, but radioactive heating for decades.

Sky-1 program tonight (10-11pm), amongst other things, suggested the Iraq invasion is to protect the petrol-dollar. The program claims the US bought 2/3th of the three billion barrels Iraq sold between 2001-invasion in 2003. But these had to be paid for in Euro. Iraqi oil is now privatised, and sold in dollars.

In 2006, Iran is planning to open an oil exchange where oil trading will be done in the Euro.

So, perhaps Blair had to go along to protect the pound (against the Euro) and to net UK at least a share, probably much smaller than expected, in the Iraq oil stake.