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?

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

It would be nice if the rule of law applied to Israel and US. But apparently they are above the resolutions or buy the decisions they want from the UN.

A short news tonight on UK's increase involvement in Afganistan.

Cannot see what's in it for us to be involved in Iran but Afganistan, well, that's a different story. 90% of poppy-related drugs in Europe originated from Afganistan.
I think it is in UK public's interests to get MORE involved to cut this number down.
Less drug-related crime and social costs mean safer streets, saving lives and, hopefully, more resources can be directed to other areas needed by the majority of the population
(eg. keeping hospitals open, better public transports, quicker and better repairs of public facilities etc etc). It could be worth 10s of billions for us.

With Iran, I suspect, it is yet one of those setups where a tiny minority of people can reap fantastic rewards and benefits whilst the rest of us bear the cost ( and lives) as well as the risks.

axdpc - I agree with your post, the price we pay for a so called democratic society and the price we pay to give foreigners the same. I agree money would be better spent else where.

Alan, you talk about international laws that must be upheld, whats international about a law which isn't funded internationaly where only a few countries foot the bill... Surely these are not international laws but home policy of contributing countries... If so then these laws upheld by the few could also be viewed as dictatorship in exactly the same way Arab countries govern their land and people.

Very much enjoying the debate and views of all who have constructivly contributed. Thanks everyone!!

I'm thinking UN, of which Iraq and Iran are full members, though not of the security council. The international laws were subject to debate and vote by the 167 (I think) countries who are members and I admit that it is not a perfect democracy due to the idea of permanent members.
If memory serves me right, resolutions are passed by simple majority, providing a permanent member does not vote against. ie USA or UK for example could block a resolution, but resolutions may not be forced by the backing of a permanent member.
The laws are not upheld by the few, the resolution stating the UN would use force if Iraq impeded the weapons inspectors was passed unanimously, with the exception of Iraq who, as subjects of the censure, were not allowed to vote.
It follows therefore, that just as a policeman who arrests an individual for a crime is not responsible for making the law that was broken, Bush and Blair are not responsible for the war. They are partly responsible for the decision to go to war, but so was every other nation and leader on Earth, when the resolution was passed.
Except of course, Saddam, who wasn't allowed to vote!!
Alan

dick cheney hospitalised due to shortness of breath.....

woohoo time to break out the champagne....lying, murdering b@!@rd

I think Sven should be the first one to try it unless we win the world cup.

Sorry I was looking at a previous post suggesting bringing back the electric chair thats why my previous post did not make sense.

It don't need to make sense to appear on here!!!!!!!!!!!
Alan

The war in Iraq, if justified, in your opinion or not, has happened. It time think about how we and Iraq can move forward.
Fred has banged on about acts of aggression and Britain and the USA's involvment in them, fred, have a look at how many lives have been saved, how many areas are now stable and peacful as a result.
Saddam and his henchmen were a tyranical dictatorship who ruled by fear. He didn't care about his people, economy or anything apart from his wealth. He murdered over 200K people to test his chemical weapons, he and his followers killed people randomly for petty crimes. I am a great believer in the death penalty, but there should at least be a proper legal process. How can people whinge about a military action that gave people there freedom. We all post on here from a very spoilt position. We have basic freedoms which we all take for granted.

MW

axdpc, I am not sure that military action in Afghanistan will prevent the abuse with addictive drugs in the Western World. Got a feeling it might just push the price up.

I am not certain about legalisation of addictive drugs and the use of such, but doing so might prevent some to of the crime associated with this market. Reducing the income for criminals to use in other areas.

I think somehow that it is necessary to have a change in attitude of the public to the harmful effects of the abuse of drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. Also to have effective treatments for the addicted, perhaps by using tax from legally sold drugs to fund these clinics. Outlawing substances seems to have had little effect on the usage.


garymid, I dont know how many lives have been saved by the war in Iraq. I had no time for Saddam or his henchmen who were supported by the US and British governments until Saddam got a little above himself and invaded Kuwait. Even in that action I believe there was a little bit of a nod and a wink from the Americans as there was for the Iran Iraqi conflict. Nor do I have time for Blair, Bush and his cohorts or their real motives for invading Iraq. But accept that probably over 200,000 Iraqis have been maimed or kill due the decision to invade Iraq. I dont have the figures for Americans and British troops maimed or killed and I have yet to see our brave heroic leaders (Blair and Bush) visiting the wounded in hospitals or the families of those wounded on account of their decisions.

The toll of deaths is increasing every day, as is the destruction of Iraq, there is more distrust of America and Britain in the Middle East and throughout the world now than in any period in Modern times.

No I dont the action of invading Iraq, and trying to replace a rotten dictatorship with a puppet government was morally or legally correct.

To invade a country on the pretext given, without having plans for subsequent policing of it, for a plan for sensible movement to self government or a coherent policy shows that the British involvement was or is credible.

I do feel interventions in anothers country may be acceptable, but if it is done it should be done under the auspices of the UN. I understand the difficulties of doing so, but think that steps could be taken to increase the authority on the UN moving it in this direction of having authority and power.

Unfortunately, the recent actions and American corruption have undermined this possibility.

(I missed out that Saddam randomly kill ---- , I feel this is what the Americans have done and are still doing in Iraq, demonstrating that they consider an Iraqi life of less value than an American's. Killing unarmed civilians in a seemingly random manner. Aren't these reprisal attacks similar to Saddams.)

I'm not actually certain about allies randomly killing Iraqis. I'd like to know the basis for that one. The vast majority of the deaths in Iraq come from suicide bombers and the like targeting allies and missing, (I think I see a Yank connection there ;-)).
This is a war. Allied troops are targetted by resistance, and are easy to target. they are the guys with the uniforms and big tanks, but somehow the attacks hit markets and Iraqi police stations. Allied troops attack the resistance, but as was shown in many places round the globe, guerillas are a tough cookie to spot. Little wonder then that innocents die.
Remember, the UN resolution legalised the use of force, with no further vote required. This resolution was prosecuted. I cannot see how this can be illegal. I cannot see how the pretext for war was false. The resolution was about co-operating with the inspectors, which Iraq did not do. The reason for invasion was that the world believed that Iraq were building or had WMD. Iraq would not let anyone check this so force was used.
You may not like the morals of it, but those are facts.
Interesting that the power of the UN should be raised.
I submit that had Saddam been allowed to do as he wished, with no ultimate sanction, then the UN would have completed its journey to becoming a toothless talking shop with no power at all, and no constraint over any other nation who wished to ignore the non-proliferation treaty, which by the way, was signed by both Iran and Iraq, and which both are, or were in breach of.
I agree the subsequent policing is lamentable, but the new government can hardly be called puppet. They were freely elected by the Iraqis, in PR style.
What we have changed for certain, is who is doing the killing. From Saddam killing thousands to insurgents killing hundreds is a positive step. Similarly, the insurgency will wane over the next few years, whereas the Hussein Dynasty had decades left in it.
We have a few years of hundreds dying compared to decades of thousands dying. In simple maths terms that is a result.
Alan

Alan - well said, I could'nt have put it better myself.
Fred you need to get off your moralistic soap box. Ive spent time in Iraq and afganistan so I know what really happening.
Remember the insurgants are NOT Iraqi, they are paid from outside organisation to try and get the press to film and report to draw attention from all the good thats being done there.
Americans kill randomly?? grow up. With the amount of press this wouldnt be a sensible option. Listen to some of the witness's at Saddam's trial.
Im Marc by the way just using Gary computer.