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?

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

No Sadam is a peasant too, thats why we took Iraq from him- grow up boys you don`t really think there was any other reason?
Energy can neither be created or destroyed, oil=energy, energy= money, money = power.The circle is closed finite energy is needed by the powerful, at the moment we are powerful.It may change in centuries to come, but the same energy will still be finite and fought over.

Hi Alan, you put hi kivver on your post i think you meant to put Hi Explosive.

One thing i do remember about fairness and honesty was Americas 'stars war' programme where they insisted they would be the only country to have them and didnt want anybody else invovled.

I stand corrected, Kivver. Sorry explosive!!!!
Reading this morning that the UN is looking toothless in its security council with regard to Iran. This is because China nad Russia are likely to veto any sanctions.
This is not political ideology, or social conscience, but the defence of contracts to build the infrastructure for uranium enrichment. I am happier with people arguing against sanctions on the basis of morality than the export value.
On a seperate note, the Ukraine, again for financial reasons, wishes to start enriching its own uranium. Even though the Ukraine is somewhat less than stable, I have no great issue with this. If you remember, when the soviet union broke up Ukraine inherited a huge nuclear arsenal, which it propmptly sent to russia for destruction. My only concern is that it is supervised by an international body for safetys sake. Remember Chernobyl!!
Alan

allan ur getting the point

china russia are big contractors in this country

but they are not getting there nuke stuff off them

there getting it off of ??????????????????

look and u shall find

as for the rest off the horseshit on here its simple

if someone comes up to u when ur out with ur wife and kids and says right ive got a huge big knife and im going to kill u all what do u do????????

say ok??(dont think so)

say hey lets get round the table and try to be friends even though i know ur out to kill me????(probably a bad idea)

or do u say ok m8 pull out ur browning 9mm and shoot the clown dead??(this way u know ur safe and he aint comming back at u,unlike saddam)

now take me little thoughts and put them on the bigger screen

this is what iran is saying and has been saying for the last three years

were not going to say ok u can have the capability to wipe out millions if u want

weve tried the lets talk they dont want to know

we aint got a lot of processes left to us

before answering this ask ur self this..

if they got the big one and say they decide to nuke ur house in ten years will u say then hey deadfred and alan might have been right or do u say well i was wrong about them

remember they look at all westerners and thats all as infidiles(its in there book)

also remember this israel has had the nuke for over 20 yrs now and apart from constant terrorist attacks(from both sides i might add) the peace in the middle east has been held

ok it might not look like it to some but overall it has

now israel is on record as saying there is no way in hell that iran is getting its weapon(which in my opinion is right)and they have said to the the world that they better sort it or they will(and i think in the past they have shown they will stand up for there ppl,they already took out irans nuke program back in the 80's)

now going from relative peace to chaos aint good for the whole world never mind middle east so im my opinion take out the problem which is iran

i dont mean fight the whole country we dont have to

there facilities are well marked and can be hit with off-shore missiles or just let the israelies loose they will do it for us and dont mind getting sanctioned for a year or two

that way the russians get there money the chinese get there money and were blameless

i know what id do mind u i like shamless on channel 4

life

blinger - 13 Jan 2006 19:24 - 272 of 275
No Sadam is a peasant too, thats why we took Iraq from him- grow up boys you don`t really think there was any other reason?
Energy can neither be created or destroyed, oil=energy, energy= money, money = power.The circle is closed finite energy is needed by the powerful, at the moment we are powerful.It may change in centuries to come, but the same energy will still be finite and fought over.


Spot on. Talk of UN fairness, law and democracy is nonsense. Biggest in the playground.
But I suspect the difference between me and you bling is that you are happy with might is right since your aritstocratic blood naturally assumes those 'peasants' are inferior. ;)

For those whose wish informed opinion.
19:30 30 Minutes Channel 4.
[subtitles]
Iraq: The Failure of War
Veteran war reporter Martin Bell kicks off the new series of 30 Minutes with a powerful film arguing that war is an increasingly unreliable and unjustifiable means of solving conflicts in the 21st century.

If repeated well worth watching.

look who is increasing the money they put in the US.. China and Japan reduced after this date and UK increased
http://www.treas.gov/tic/exhibitsc&d.pdf

Fred,
Opinion, yes. Informed, questionable. We have already done to death the way the media turn any fact they wish into a tirade of PC versus the world.
I do not know anything about this programme but I can confidently forecast the opinion that will be aired.
I wonder if they will show enough balance to commission a programme giving the opposite view...................?
Alan

explosive:

You said (post 270) "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..."

Are you sure you've got the right country? Turkey has never been a communist country. The Ottoman empire fell at the end of the First world war and Kemal Ataturk built a modern secular republic into the Turkey we broadly know today. He promoted the adoption of western dress and encouraged women into the workforce.

As Turkey is member of NATO (and has been for 50 or more years, as I recall), and has applied to join the EU, I can't believe it's more of a threat than Iran.

I think you're way off beam.

Earlier I wrote I missed out that Saddam randomly kill ---- , I feel this is what the Americans have done and are still doing ------------------------- and was questioned about my terminology.


I was referring to Iraq at the time, but below is an example of the behaviour.
This I am sure will appeal to the hearts and minds of the Pakistan people and sets an example to the rest of the world to follow.

Imagine a small peasant town in Texas being bombed and innocent children killed.

What would be the Outcry and action.

I dont condone terrorism but understand that people fight with the only tools they think they have.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4613108.stm


'Zawahiri' strike sparks protest

A missile strike apparently targeting al-Qaeda's deputy leader in a village in Pakistan has prompted Islamabad to protest to its American allies. Ayman al-Zawahiri was not in the village on the border with Afghanistan, Pakistan officials said. But the attack left at least 18 local people dead. The US military has denied knowledge of the attack, which US media reported had been carried out by the CIA. But Islamabad condemned the strike and called the US ambassador to complain. Pakistan's Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told a news conference the Pakistani government wanted "to assure the people we will not allow such incidents to reoccur". He said he did not know whether Zawahiri had been in the area at the time.


It was stated in response to 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 suggest starting on the following report __ at :-

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

Guantamo Bay - a human rights scandal



The unlawful detention of enemy combatants at the US Naval Base at Guantamo Bay, Cuba has now entered its fifth year. Hundreds of people of around 35 different nationalities remain held in effect in a legal black hole, many without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits.

Many of these detainees allege they have been subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In desperation, some detainees have attempted suicide. Others have gone on prolonged hunger strikes, being kept alive only through painful force feeding measures.

Guantamo Bay has become a symbol of injustice and abuse in the US administrations war on terror. It must be closed down





It is unfortunate that the blindest are often the ones who dont want to see.

They are, refers to the nuclear installations. The rest of the response(s) made that perfectly clear.
Of course the they have been subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment would never apply to the regime that was removed, would it?
I sometimes need reminding when I read comments like that what a lovely peaceful and fulfilling place Iraq was to live in, while ruled by that cuddly old Saddam. War is a nasty business. I do not condone much of the USA actions since the war and many of my posts refer to that, but the war was necessary and required and the world is a far better and safer place for it. It has removed a maniac regime, reduced the threat of state sanctioned WMD use and of terrorists being armed with such and it has given pause to other rogue nations to think that following Iraqs lead will end in similar tears.
This is a good thing. People dying is a bad thing, as is torture, but there is much less of this under the new Iraq than there ever was under Saddam. But still you try to convince everyone that Iraq and the world were better prior to the Gulf war.
By your own petard; It is unfortunate that the blindest are often the ones who dont want to see.
Alan

Another poser for those who think the war was wrong.
It is much easier to knock an action than to defend it. Those of us who support the war have to be accuntable for mistakes that have happened in our replies and are assumed to support not only the war but the methods employed before during and since. Those of you who were opposed to it have the luxury of not having to defend any single event because the position you defend exists only in your imagination, where all things are possible.
So heres the deal.
For the purposes of this thread let us go back in time to after the UN security council had passed the resolution, but before the attack. All nations of the world had agreed the resolution that should Iraq not fully comply, then military action was allowable to enforce compliance and that no further vote was needed.
The WMD inspection teams were reporting that while Iraq were complying in part, it was not in full and they could not give any catergorical assurances on the presence or otherwise of WMD. The security services and intelligence agencies of numerous countries were reporting their belief that Iraq may have WMD capabilities, but again could not be certain. Sadddam was insisting that any use of force would be met by the tactical use of battlefield WMD, and that the inspectors could only return on his terms. No negotiation on that.
Back home a slender majority of your electorate favours military action.
This is the position of Blair, prior to the attack.
Now tell me, what would you have done that would have ensured Iraq did not have WMD, that would have made it impossible for Saddam to visit the death and destruction he visited on the Kurds somewhere else in the region and that would have ensured Iraqi citizens no longer had to fear death and torture for decades to come?
Alan.

First.
It would have been sensible for US and Britain to allow Hans Blick to continue the investigations in IRAQ as he suggested.

Second
I and seemingly the majority of the British people believed Blair distorted and lied about the WMD etc. and also the reasons and legality of going to war. Parliament and many of the country were persuaded by those falsehoods and voted with the government. This was a shameful piece of manipulation.

Thirdly.

As stated regularly I had no wish for Saddam as leader of Iraq and would have support UN moves to remove him.

But recalled his position as leader of that country was aided and abetted by America and Britain + other Western States.

An as yet I have to see, read or hear of any improvement in the living conditions of the normal Iraqis.

I believe their schools, hospitals, police and legal systems and badly functioning under appalling conditions. Their power supplies and economy is in a disastrous state.

These situations are due to the stupidity of the US and British administrator and the Gun Ho approach.

Change was necessary but not in the crazy fashion it was attempted.

As you sow, so shall you reap.

I believe this is part of the superior Christian teachings.

I feel if the 10-12 billion a year which is being used for the Iraqi war was use for AID and social development the opinion and security of the World would have been improved.

I would like to add one further piece of information, that I am not a pacifist but consider wars are a way out for fools.

I promise to try not to add anymore to this topic.