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?

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.

Some brillant comments and insightful observations from the panel, especially Matthew Parris and Lord Tebbit, and member of the audience, in last night's "Question Time".

BBC Question Time

"Is a slave a slave if he does not know he is enslave?" - Dr. Who

...

Are victims of deception victims if they do not know they have been deceived?

etc
etc

that ones over my head. wwwwwooooooooooossssshhhhhhhhh

what the feck is axdpc on about

its simple really axdpc

your on our team or ur on their's

simple for simple people, since when as it ever been a us against them. What a single Iragi ever done to us???

they gave us a free saddam

need a say more

Kivver, Do you ever feel you are wasting your time?

Kivver - your right it is simple - It's nothing to do with the iraqi people themselves. Genrally they are ordinary people, its the old regime, ie saddam and his cronies that were threatning whe whole area.

Oil is much too important to be left in the hands of peasants.