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?

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.

Would have to be a very big person to strap on a nuclear device or atomic weapon!

What makes you think that? How big do you think a plutonium bomb is?

axdpc,
just gotta say, we are talking an Iran where under the rule of the Ayahtollas, just a couple of decades back, death was preferable to allowing western ideals to impact upon arab beliefs. The religious leaders are still there, just not in power.....at the moment. Russia, on the other hand, had no illussions about glorious death and resurection into paradise for destroying thr west. They wanted to win while still alive.
Alan

hewittalan6,

I once held the unquestioning belief that Russia is the kingdom of the devil on earth populated by evil Russians bend on destroying us with those nuclear weapons marked with sinister looking red star. Everything they do is suspect and all overseas Russians work for the KGB with only ill intent, even the curvey ones has a trick or two up her long legs :-). The people on TV and films seems very sure about it. The magazines I browse often have no doubt (Newsweek, Times, Readers' Digests ...). Even the the comic books hint at it now and then.

Well, yes, there are nasty, scheming Russians, both very rich and very poor. But it is a nation whose people lives with hope and in despair, some very talented and some are not, some are upright and some are otherwise ... all trying to make the best of it.
Not much different, really, from the rest of us. Certainly not a saintly nation nor populated with saints, but far from devil's own as described.

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

There are some very sad, unfortunate and potentially nasty consequences from the Iraq invasion. The circumstances of the war will confirm to countries and groups with WMD, or hope to have some WMD, that it is essential and urgent to have WMD, at least as the only effective defence against invasion :-(((((

Again, the public suffers fear, risk and cost, from actions and decisions not of our doing and knowledge.

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

Still think true buddhism is the safest. Less likely to encounter fake believers as the belief provides very little cover and excuses for power and sacrifices from others.

Oh, and you can talk/debate with a buddhist without the risk nor frustration of receiving physical, emotional, verbal, hinted-at intimidations and ridicules. Thus one is more willing and able to listen and consider their points of view ...



All IMHO, NAG, DYOR etc etc

I encountered Buddhism in Sri Lanka and they are very likeable and peaceful people. My point was not aimed at nasty Russians or particular religions, as such. It was aimed at the fact that the doctrine of Islam promises an extra special afterlife for anyone who dies while slaying infidels and I was comparing this with a Russia where the state outlawed discussion of religion, and therefore an afterlife, but promised better tractors instead. My point was that the comparison being made was irrelevant.
We must remember that there is no defence against an enemy prepared to die en mass in the prosecution of a war, so our nuclear deterrent will hold no sway against that kind of religious regime.
We owe it to the future to use whatever means we have to prevent unstable and non-democratic countries, run on a pseudo-religious basis from getting nuclear capability.
Remeber, the threat is not necessarily now, but may be decades hence, but is a real threat.
Alan

Get real people - Blaire may be a prat but we went to war for the right reasons, our forces removed the weapon of mass destruction, and stablised the area.
Contary to tree huggers beliefs, the majority of the people in Britain supported in invasion.

MW

iran is an unstabalising country like it or not

why do u think oil prices are were they are

answer because the money men know were going in

israel wont let them have it and nor should we(dont like agreeing with israel but i do this time)

if we want to stay safe in our beds they need to be stopped period

better doing it now and get it over with

they are in shit creek on stratagey there surrounded on at least three sides

afgan.iraq. turkey.uzbecky with the gulf full of yanks and brit hardware

time to get the mission done im my opinion

as a yank gen said once

" ITS HAMMER TIME"

hewittalan6:

You mention "arab beliefs" in the context of Iran in post 211.

While Iran is an Islamic Republic it is most certainly not an Arab nation. The Iranians are, in the main, Persian.

Just got back from the smoke.


Can't remember, how many acts of aggression had America and Britain committed in countries other than their own?

Which country has used nuclear bombs and nuclear material and banned chemical war heads? Who provided banned chemical material for use by others they supported?

But I agree one of the oldest civilisations in the world are not fit to do research into Nuclear Material or inte continental missiles.

I can't remember who gave the rest of the world the basis for modern math.


Ah well. We know they are less civilised than us?

Dil - "explosive ... you sound as stupid as Chamberlain does in hindsight.

Sort it now while it still can imo." some hindsight you've displayed with that post..

Alan
"Remeber, the threat is not necessarily now, but may be decades hence, but is a real threat." The same could be said about many nations, Cuba, Koria, how many more have chemical weapons just as deadly? How many nations reasearching nuclear arms in secret? Should we hunt them all out and then attack them?

It seams to me that America is by far the most hostile country in the world. Before Bush was president and as governor of Texas more people were put to death than any other time in the state. We ask for peace yet follow a butcher. My monies on America to fire the first nuclear war head, or use atomic weapons yet again... In the next decade they could be a threat to us already with arms, theres your real threat..

.

I was using Arab to include all nations around the Persian Gulf, and the Islamic nations too. Just a form of shorthand.
I disagree with the idea of the west and the US being the danger. Any democratic society has a real problem in justifying and prosecuting a war that is foundless, as the voters will bring such pressure to bear, as to make the leaders position untenable. Think of Vietnam, and more recently, Iraq and the problems of the respective governments from dissenting citizens. It is the total and absolute power of dictatorships that cause the wars, either by their own actions or by their refusal to join the worlds majority voice and toe the line of world opinion.
I am hard pushed to remember, off hand, a major war that did not involve a dictatorship of some kind, of either a military, idealogical or religious bent.
Anyone who is sad enough to read my posts knows I have no great love for the Yanks, and their threat to us may be more financial than violent, but to suggest they are more likely to attack us and use WMD against us than a fanatical regime is a little odd.
The more fundamental disagreement is who was responsible for the Iraq war. I maintain that Iraq were responsible by disobeying the control of the UN. Many on here contend that we started it all by prosecuting the demands of the UN and enforcing international law.
Using the same logic, the UK was responsible for WW2, when hitler refused to leave Poland, and we were responsible for the Falklands by not agreeing to Argentinas demands for sovereignty.
The question,as always, is one of degrees. How far should one nation be allowed to go in flouting international law before military action is taken? If military action is never justified, then what is the point of international law? It may as well be scrapped. That would leave us with international anarchy. This, I assume, is not the improvement in world affairs we all seek.
Alan