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 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.

Marc - your right, but remember it the west set up Saddam with his weapons in the first place, partly hoping they would win the against Iran.

In theory, one of our greatest allies is France, yet we have had more wars against them than any other nation on earth.
Alliances and aleigences change, sometimes distressingly quickly, as world opinion, leaders and ids move on.
When we were arming Saddam, he was a lesser threat than Iran under the Ayatollahs. When we were supporting Afghanistan, they were a lesser threat than the soviet bloc. Idealism is fine, but international politics, especially where warfare and WMD is concerned requires pragmatism and realism.
Saddam made it very clear that UN inspectors were not welcome and what happened in Iraq was his affair. The world was worried, and quite rightly. The UK, USA, China, India, Pakistan and all other nuclear nations are monitored extremely closely, and countries who show any signs of nuclear abilities are similarly visited.
It is the most regulated industry in the world and the basis for it is spelt out in the non-proliferation treaties, signed by every country on the planet.
He created his own problem. Had he given free access and unencumbered assistance to the inspectors, he would not have breached any ruling, and I sincerely believe would still be president.
Iran are, unfortunately following the same path. Why should these countries be exempted from a treaty that they agreed to and has kept the world a safer place for as long as it has?
Iran can prevent any action, right now, by simply allowing the inspectors to inspect. They can carry on with their mission to create nuclear energy plants, but it must be under international control. For our safety from potential WMD but also in order that another Chernobyl is avoided.
Fallout does not respect international boundries.
Alan

I think all research facilities in Britain and America should be open to World Inspection at any time of day and night. Like their torture chambers at G.Bay.

I think we need level playing fields.

I think anybody who disagrees with Kivver, axdpc or me should be nuked. Solve their b. problem. Like all those who sell their shares just after I decide to buy them.

I think all research facilities in Britain and America should be open to World Inspection at any time of day and night. Like their torture chambers at G.Bay.

They are.
I think the rest was in jest (I hope!!)
Alan

Some thoughts;

The bottom line is if a country wants to develope WMDs then it will, either publicly or in secret....

Is there a single country with a weapons inventory? I think not...

Turkey is closer to home, a currupt country with a communist past and communist in places still... I would have put Turkey at a higher level threat to the UK than Iran...

Alan would you agree??

Blinger - "Oil is much too important to be left in the hands of peasants." Why?? I bet Saddam said the same thing before using chemical warware against the Kurds..

Hi kivver,
Its fairly tough to develop WMD in secret because the raw materials are so colosely guarded and monitored. Its not beyond imagination that someone might, but the facilities required are very difficult to hide from satellites. You can however look like it is for energy, when weapons are the end game, as Iran MAY be doing now.
The UN maintains an inventory of nuclear material, and chemical material, and inspects and audits on a regular basis. Including here in the UK.
Don't know too much about Turkey, so its hard to comment but they appear to be in so much internal turmoil as hard line Muslims and modernisors battle it out over the future direction of Turkey, that they don't strike me as much of a threat at the moment. It speaks volumes though that the power struggle there between western ideals and prosperity and fidelity to shariah laws goes on without apparent major bloodshed.
Like i say, this is just an impression, as I don't know the country too well, but I read a very interesting (and very long) article a couple of years back about the struggle of Turkish women for the right not to have to wear a burkha for their jobs as civil servants. They won the right and I remember being astonished at this, as I was so used to reading about the Talibans treatment of women, or seeing how women were treat when i lived in the UAE.
I don't doubt the corruption bit. It seems almost mandatory to be corrupt in many parts of the world, and given the recent Italian governments histories, we don't have any reason to be smug in Europe!!
Alan