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'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.

Iran will probably get it anyway, they are on the hit list of the us who always needs an enemy, sure Irans human rights record sucks but so does the so called civilised world, if its not Iran its going to be somebody else, thats judt the way it is, Iran arent going to nuke anybody, the US is the only country to have used atomic weapons and one of their generals also wanted to use one in vietnam, not happy with spraying agent orange every where. We can debate this forever, but the west will always have double standards, will always shit on people, selling arments to scum bags all over the world. putting us innocent civilians in the firing line.

Dave,
For double standards, please live and work in the middle east, and compare their actions towards immigrants, to how the west treats immigrants. Now think of all the arab voices in this country, deploring the west and its treatment of muslim peoples.
Now you have real double standards.
Alan

You have a point there mate, but you know my stance cruelty is cruelty,and the only reason why europe has a current better record of treating its own citizens and immigrants is the so called pc brigade that you so despise. If you look at european history its one of constant wars and cruely whether from the church or the state against the so called majority or minority groups. In other words it would be the same here if people could get away with it. just imagine if all the hate groups this country were able to get away with what they would like to do and were able to win an election. so i see know point in constantly comparing the middle east to the west, they are both guilty of bad behaviour, whether its selling weapons to sadamm hussain or not mis treating women. By the way I know countless stories of immigrants being mistrated by white employers in the uk, the same type of employers who used to mistreat the white working class who made up the majority in this country. off for a break now

alan i agree with u in ur last post

but i add this

we did not supply saddam with his chem weapons
if u know anything youll be able to find out who did its all documented
another thing

the french germans and russians opposed out intervention in iraq ever asked why
was it because they were peacefull ppl(dont make me laugh)

no it was because they knew that as soon as there was a regime change the contract they had with saddam which were worth hundreds of billion(yip billions)of dollars where all null and void

they would not agree after the war was declared finished by that idiot bush to allow the un to help in the construction of a new administration untill they were allowed to place contract with the new regime(its all documented just look for it)

so lets see how this pans out

usa and britain are monsterous ppl for going to war with a country that was bluffing it had wmds and were prepared to use them(bad bluff)
a country that had stuck two fingers up to humanity and was basically out of control

i know we supplied him with ordanance during there war with iran but in my honest opinion we should have been there with him and the problem were getting now would not exist imho

it might also have help saddams relations with western states and stopped us going into iraq in first place

just an opinion mind

as to my opinion on iran

its simple if a mad dog is threatening to go around and bite ppl do we stand by to see whos first then whos second third and so on

i think your answer tells u my position

as for not knowing a lot about arab or persian culture ill say this my father spent 7yrs in arabia speaks fluent arabic and he belives that as soon as the usa and britain move out iraq will go straight to civial war

his reason

simple he lived with these ppl and as he said they dont think like us and have never been allowed to have democracies ever in there history

he also says that the only way it will work is if the new regime allow the children and the adults who wish it to be educated in how to be democratic

just an opinion(and im not saying that arads or iraqis are thick just that they are indoctorated in a diffrent culture to the west)

just an opinion mind

A very differnet culture, Fred, with very different value systems.
It really is a case of East is east and west is west and ne'er the twain shall meet!!
That, in some ways, is the most scary aspect of Iran, Iraq or Korea (to a lesser extent) getting nuclear capabilities. We live in a culture where life is prized above all else. Theirs is a culture where life is much further down the list, behind honour and religion, amongst other things.
Mutually assured destruction was always sufficient to keep the USSR and USA from launching Armageddon. I am not at all convinced it would be sufficient against the Middle and Far eastern nations.
Dave,
Immigrants can be treat terribly by white employers in this country, it is true. But it is also illegal, and done secretively. Have a look in the vacancies section of The Gulf News and see how openly it is done in the middle east. God help the poor Bengalis working there.
Alan

I agree Alan, thats my point it is illegal because some people here over they years have fought for it not to be otherwise it would be because thats exactly how it used to be here, its only recently that the minimum wage came which the majority of politicans on the right were against it.

Don't get me wrong, Dave, I applaud the principles that led to a fairer society for all the individuals in it, regardless of creed. My point on PC is that it has gone way beyond that and set up base camp on fantasy island!!!
Those that admonish us to rename Christmas, and not fly our flag, have done nothing to make anyones life better, quite the opposite. As thugs have hijacked the Union Flag as a symbol of hatred, lunatics have hijacked social ideals and experimented with social engineering, to the point where my position as a 30 something married, middle class, whiteman, is shameful!!!
The difference is that the illuminatti have succeeded in making everyone with a point of view different to theirs be labelled. Racist, homophobic, little englanders, facist or simply not living in a modern world. This prevents many from speaking out against the idiot ramblings of the extremes of PC.
Does anyone remember "Love Thy Neighbour" from the 1970's? This was a comedy where a bigotted and ignorant white man was constantly shown to be a buffoon by his better educated and much nicer black neighbour. The show was shelved following complaints to the BBC (I think) that it was racist!! This show should be repeated, not because it was funny, it wasn't that good, but it showed the racists as ignorant idiots but the PC fools had it banned!!
Recently i saw a black comedian on TV called Junior somethingorother and he danced onto the stage and then announced his dancing was so bad people would think he was white. I laughed. It was funny. Then I realised that had it been a white man walking on stage with a huge ghetto blaster and announcing people would think he was black, the plug would have been pulled very quickly for racism.
This is where PC has gone bad and is causing problems.
Now, having voted in the Asian businassman of the year award and the Music of Black origin awards, I am off to find a sponsor for a white musician and White businessman award ceremony.
What do you rate my chances?
Alan

I have just read all 238 entries, including my own written as gargmid.
There have some great points raised and some some very weak ones. It seems that the 1st gulf war, although possibly motivated by oil, was just. It was santioned by the UN and was carried out in a very professional manner. The 2nd removed from power a very corrupt goverment in an attempt to stablise the entire area. The Iraqi government had boasted and DID use chemical weapons. They failed to cooperate with both the UN and UN inspectors. They allowed the world to be convinced they had WMD and would be prepared to use them. His semi bluff worked for years. The world saw him use the chemicals on the kurds in the north. How can people therefore expect the British and U.S. goverments to find somthing he had years to move to anywhere in the world.
War is an evil, but needed. If we (the so called civilised world) never react when there is need, our threat of an armed responce to maintain world peace is useless.
There is no doubt that war should alsways be a last resort. The risking of the lives of our armed forces is somthing that should only be risked as a

(SORRY PUSHED RETURN BY MISTAKE)
last reort. Speaking as an ex soldier I can honestly say that my men and I always considered fighting for a good cause well worth the risk. Both Iraqi wars were just. I personally only fought in one, I have no doubt that should I have still been in the army I would have been proud to go again. I'm not nor have I ever been a war monger. There are times when there is no alternative. There are times when it is better to act first than wait.
Sometimes the cost of inaction is more exspensive than the cost of action.

marc.

Well said, Marc.
I for one, offer you my full gratitude and support.
Alan

DITTO///