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?

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///

It seems many think the world is a safer place because of the war. That is why the majority of the West is now on constant alert.

It is fairly obvious each of us has their own beliefs about the war and its aftermaths but I do defer to :-


Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.


For more of what he stated start at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

I think as far as the legality of the Iraqi war I tend, like the majority of the Europe and the World to take Annans opinion.

Where do you start?

Quote: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.
Iraq was foundless. There were no WMD. The public had no choice. We went to war.

Quote: It is the total and absolute power of dictatorships that cause the wars,
Vietnam? Perhaps you should see Robert Macnamaras revelations in the film The Fog of War; he makes the stunning confession that at no stage did he consult directly with the North Vietnamese war was fought on a perceived threat. What about wars where you just fancy what your neighbours got like gold, minerals, sugar etc?

Quote; toe the line of world opinion. That would be USA opinion then? The French and others were not part of that world opinion on Iraq. Your world is a small one.

Quote: How far should one nation be allowed to go in flouting international law before military action is taken? Indeed. USA and environment ; Rwanda (ah, that was only a few black people and no oil); Zimbabwe; British in Ireland; Israel etc etc

Quote: Bush and Blair are not responsible for the war. LOL. Sexing up documents; misleading the public; oil interests; Bushs need for an enemy to keep the mind of the electorate from serious matters;

Quote: They are partly responsible for the decision to go to war, but so was every other nation and leader on Earth. Er France.

Quote; have a look at how many lives have been saved, how many areas are now stable and peacful as a result. Didnt save the lives of those on a tube in London. Wont stop recruitment to hardline Muslim sects. Iraq, stable?

Quote; He murdered over 200K people to test his chemical weapons, he and his followers killed people randomly for petty crimes. Yep, supported by USA and British for a long time. Why did we suddenly get so squeamish?

Quote: I cannot see how the pretext for war was false. LOL. WMD capable of being launched and hitting western targets in 30 minutes remember?


Fred and Dave youre wasting your breath. Humans are stupid and will rush headlong into another war. But then what will politicians and bb pundits care- itll be the usual poor sods, white trailer trash who make up the fodder. Twas ever thus.

You start by not taking quotes out of context and having the facts right when answering them.
Those saintly french voted to force iraq, by means of arms, to co-operate. As did every other nation on Earth. my world may be a small one, but it takes in the entire known planet and does not contain any imaginary areas, such as a UK who did not support the war. All polls showed support for the war.
The pretext for war was a UN mandate. No dossiers or other rationale. That was all after a vote that was unanimously carried to prosecute a war.
We cannot declare a war on all these countries because we have no UN mandate. If we had, we should. If we haven't and did, then people would be very quick to call our leaders criminals. They do that even when the war is legal.
Vietnam wasn't a dictatorship?????
Incredible.
The public had every choice. If you didn't like the UN resolution, then you should have voted against Labour. You had a chance between the resolution and the war.
You did but they got into power? Tough. Its called democracy. You didn't know about the resolution. Your fault. These things are reported.
I think that answers all the points, but some people will never accept majority rule and majority decisions if they don't like them.
Alan

By the way. I never remember stating anything about supporting the lack of action in Zimbabwe or Rwanda.

400people killed throwing stones at "devil staues", in Mecca, I expect the West will get the blame for that too.
Who owns Mecca now anyway Lew Grade still?

The public had every choice. If you didn't like the UN resolution, then you should have voted against Labour. You had a chance between the resolution and the war.
You did but they got into power? Tough. Its called democracy.

Rubbish. I had no vote about the war. Labour were already in power.
Majority rule is fine when all the facts are laid out before people on which to make a sound judgement.
Democracay? Ah, yes that would be Bush and his brother then? LOL Majority rule -tell it to the disenfranchised.

So your idea of a democracy would be to disenfranchise the majority who supported the war??
As I said. The facts were laid out before the UN. This was before the General Election and Labour supported the vote to use force of arms if Saddam did not comply, so Labour were not already in power.
Really do not understand how our democracy is Bush and his brother. Perhaps I miss the point.
You can, of course, choose that our democracy is not to your tastes, and find a country where democracy is not used and where you agree with the current dictator. Me? I'll take my chances with living in a democracy where a politician is responsible to the electorate. It tends to be much more stable, even if I do disagree with their decisions on many occassions.
On a final note, their are dozens of political figures who have been removed from office for lying and cheating, and many more who have stood trial for it, to be found not guilty. In our democracies this happens peacefully, and unofficially at least every 5 years through an election. In dictatorships it happens rarely and through bloodshed.
Our democracy is far from perfect and our leaders are no angels. many do feel disenfranchised, but this is not new. it occurs on all levels from major decisions on armed action, to trivial things such as parliament time and money being spent on railway services that are irrelevant to most people outside the south east. The point is that the alternatives have been tried and are too awful to contemplate, from PR at one end to absolute monarchy at the other.
I would, of course, be delighted if someone created a system that gave everyone exactly what they wanted of government, but I fear that is not possible.
Alan

Just something that occured to me, for those who have argued so reasonably and eloquently against the Iraqi action.
Saddam killed thousands for his own ends. This is well documented. Without force of arms, how would the man be brought to justice? I am assuming that we all believe murderers should be hauled before the courts and sentenced appropriately. If the invasion of Iraq been on the premise of detaining a known mass murderer, in order he should face trial, would that have been acceptable?
Alan

I sort of agree al, but where does it end why just Afganasthan and Iraqi, nothing to do with oil, and pipe lines. What Rowanda, Sudan, North Korea, Zimbabwe even China and lots of other countries with appalling human rights. What about the US its self how many of their own people have they put to death.

Absolutely, Kivver. A bit of a problem is there will be a real lack of appetite for armed action against any of these because the action in Iraq has drawn venomous protests even though it was under the rule of a UN resolution.
As you know, I also have a real despise of the USA, and am outraged at much of their actions, but if I had to choose a next door neighbour from that list, I think it would be more likely to be Uncle Sam than Robert Mugabe!!
People really do want all of these nations made into better places, of that I have no doubt. I believe that even the anti-war demonstrators wanted Iraq to be improved, but if anyone thinks that can be done by eductaion or persuasion or even economic sanctions, they are mistaken.
Reasonable people, around a table can sort out most problems, but not all people are reasonable. If we dismiss force as a route to take, what is left? Diplomacy works well but works better when a stick hangs around in the background.
Can't remember who said it but war is diplomacy by other means.
Alan

Good points but remember just because some people were against this war doesnt make them 'anti-war' pursay (or however you spell it) or tree-huggers as some ignorant idiots have said. I and many others could see before this war were no decents plan for the aftermath in the country that has many, many different factions and cultures and has resulted in exactly what most of thought would happen, mayhem, murder, lawlessness, but eh its million miles away, just glad none of friends or reltives live there.

look society has been born from war

rome

persian

asian

european

americas

all have had major wars to make them what they are

darwin was not wrong when he said the strong survive its nion guaranteed

this does not mean that cause ur big makes u the boss most great generals have been under 5'5" as history shows

basically what im trying to say is this there is no way in hell iran is getting a nuke
if we dont stop it the ppl that there pressidant wants wiped from the face of the earth will

infact if it was not for the yanks having radar all over the gulf just now they would have done it by now problem solved

in days of old if iran had said this to britain or about britain we would have probably done it by now(that was before the wimps and pc mob got in)

everyone knows why they cant have it and its because they would use it

the beauty of nukes are no one in there proper mind would want to get themselves wiped from planet earth

but as marks said religion is the opium of the masses and in iran hes onehundred percent right

the yanks used it to stop a war costing more lives than it need to loose which in my way of thinking is the right way

im not saying nuke iran but they could take there facilities out with no lives lost on our part

i know that iranians will die but its better them than my ppl

sorry but there it is

back to society they go or we do

your choice

Straight to the point, Fred!
I feel that Iran must be prevented from amassing a nuclear capability, but that force is a last resort, not a first choice.