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?

hewitt, I agree with your opinion in the first sentence.

I can see little difference from launching a missile from a battleship or plane and indiscriminately killing civilians for the good of the rest of that country and murdering a person (civilian) for the cause they think they are fighting for.
Both participants are doing their actions in cold blood.

I also find it a weak argument that first class civilised countries like America, Britain, France, India, Russia, China etc. are able to have nuclear weapons and assess to Nuclear Science while the second raters are not civilized enough to do so. Perhaps, America should be the only one in a position in to control the world economy by be the Nuclear Science and Energy etc.

It should also be remembered that the only countries who have used the Nuclear bomb and material has been America with acceptance by the British Government.

But the other pariah states and their people (lower classes) are not fit or capable of being responsible.

It is America who has abused the UN.

It is America (with or without Blair on an Ego trip) who has abused other countries by their threats of ultimate force or economic power. (Just consider their attitude to global warming and trade agreements.)

If America and to a certain degree Britain related to other countries with more respect then we may have been in a safer situation than we appear to be now.

Alan - I hope your off to the US to do business and not enjoyment, lol. Dont forget the other really enoyying phrase they have, 'god bless america' oh yea what for. I went to Cananda last year, how can it be so different (less gun crime than the uk for one thing). What a great place and great people. The only place i would go to by choice is probably New York because it seems to be very cosmopolitian. I am quite worried we seem to becoming more 'americanised' ('a dumbing down') in this country and i wish it would stop.

Another question but probably need months to answer it. What about Isreal?

Ald,
What is interesting to me is the number of cover ups of the British and American Administrations which are unfolding. Not only the "sexed" up dossier.

Also the attempts to suppress information from around the build up to war.

I also feel this country to be humiliated by being led by what the majority view as a liar. It doesnt say much for New Labour or the people of this country.

If you really believe the US and the UK are just in this action, 1st consider who supported saddam when they majoirty of attrocities were being committed the US and the UK, they turned a blind eye when he used gas in the war against iran and against the kurds. Sadam was armed to the teeth by the US and the UK in full knowledge of what this man was like just like Suharto in Indonesia and many other brutal dicatators. If you believe in justice what do you think should be done to politicians that backed this man. The West created Iraq, and have totally screwed that country. If you look at the US behaviour regarding Israel there is a total disregard for human rights, the US has vetoed countless actions against human rights abuses by their allies. Power is power and that is the reality, the US dont give a toss about the UN or human rights, and they are now responsible for the death of thousands when they suppoted Sadam and today for the complete mees which even some republicians are now questioning. Both and UK troops have murdered and committed torture against innocent Iraqis and BUsh and Blair should stand trial for their actions.

fred - oh as if the conservatives would have been any different, they have already given there full support. They probably would have wanted to be harder. Only the lib-dems were against the war.

The conservatives gave there full support based on the lies by Blair.

Fred,
I have no recollection of the UK or USA unleashing WMD's on their own people because they worshipped God in a slightly different way. Iraq did.
As i keep saying I have no truck with America. I am deflated by the way they act on many things but this thread was to address whether the war in Iraq was legal and the point is, it was. The un resolution gave clear sanction to invade because of a percieved threat to world security. Whether the threat was real or not is neither here nor there. The compliance was not there. For the security of the world, all other nuclear nations are inspected with alarming regularity. Should Iraq be exempted?
I also think our biggest problem, both domestically amd internationally is to give too much respect to things most people would find abhorrant, and we accept a lack of respect back.

Aldwick. Please read my posts. At what point did I say nobody told any lies? What I said was the reason we went to war was nothing to do with the lies of anyone.
What planet are you on, dear chap, a non-English speaking one?
Alan

Aldwikk - dream on. power and oil were behind the lies, as if they tories would have been any different. How many tory mps are on boards of companies?

Kivver, the conservatives have earnt a warm place in my heart.












Hell!


Davea3, I agree with the sentiments in your posting. Besides the actions which have and are taking place it is the B. Hypocrisy of some of the political leaders which angers me.


But I have this stupid belief that it doen't have to be like it is.

Dave,
The Uk may have been implicit in supplying arms to the man in the full knowledge of what he may do with them, but your argument runs along the lines of we made a mistake in the past and now should do nothing to put it right.
If I am right with the timings the weapons sales to him were sanctioned by a Tory government so it is a little rich to take a later Labour PM to task over it and say that if we did that then we shouldn't do this. Times, personalities and situations change.
Alan

Many actions are carried out in the name of religion, by many who understanding the religion is compliant with their own desires.

Beliefs rather than thought are Very Dangerous.

tens of thousands of people are dead today who would have been alive, for wmd that everyone knew didnt exsit, and so what if he did he was the us pupet in the iranina war and in the 1st gulf war rumsfeld told sadam they wouldnt object if he invaded kuwait dont confuse morality with the motives of corrupt politicians, if the us cares about human rights then they would not have vetoed actions in the un against israeli human rights abuses against the Palastinian people, the us also refused to sign up to the international criminal court, they supported sadam hussain, mobuto and many other scum bags and are the worlds biggest arms exporter.

Alan et al (ahem)

Interesting thread. Just spent the last 55 minutes composing a 1200 word rant on this very subject. Have shredded it. What a load of bumf.

It all boils down to a few things. It's like being back in the playground.

You are not playing my game. I made up the rules. If you don't like it, do not play - else tough. I am six foot six, have more friends who are weak followers and you are alone. When we have influenced enough of your neighbours and friends by giving them sweets paid for by your dinner money which we stole earlier, and flattering their egos, they will rise up with us to annihilate you (and thus not have the inconvenience of having to listen to your cries of foul) or we will subjugate you and you will be our bitch, cowering in the corner and grateful for any scraps thrown in your direction (for as long as you continue to please us).

Do not even think of crying to the headmaster. We pay his salary. If he sympathises with you, that is ok. If he tries to expel us, we will tell the School Governors that your son has been stealing from the tuck shop. No smoke without fire, eh?

Be assured although you may be in pain at the moment, when you leave school, all this will be behind you. In the adult world of international diplomacy, people just don't act like that. Do they?

The UN based they decision on the lies of Bush and Blair, so that makes the decision illegal on that one point alone.

Aldwick,
The un based their decision on the reports of the nuclear inspectorate and the intelligence gathering of 167 nations.
I'll say it again. The mandate was simple and passed by all nations. Let us have free and full access to the sites we desire to see or we will use force. The inspectorate reported they had not had full and free access and force was used. If any lying was done at the UN it was done long after the original ultimatum and therefore, by any application of logic, any lying was both unneccessary and could have no effect on the original resolution.
Was the war illegal? No. Did politicians on both sides use language to advance their case? Yes. Its called politics. Was there any lying from the anti-war brigade? yes. Is this being used to make them out as monsters? No.
It will always be easier to argue for the Status Quo, as those who do not make the decisions can alays rely on supposition about what might have been. Those who make the decisions have to rely on the outcomes afterwards.
Had the PM not gone to war when he did, he would have been acting against the wishes of the majority of the electorate, which is very undemocratic, and may have had to deal with attacks on the western world that international sources insisted at the time were a possibility, having been seen to back down from Saddams brinksmanship.
I supported his decision at the time and still do now. To judge with the benefit of hindsight is a disservice.
Alan

Alan

What is that modern phrase? Oh, yes - 'On-message'.

Nam

Nam,
?
Alan

Alan

Yesterday, Alan Pinter spoke of 'suffocating moral criticism' in his Nobel speech.

Language can be the prostitute which we use to fuck others and pleasure ourselves.

If wars - asymmetric or otherwise - are being fought, that is a failure at all levels of personal and professional responsibility by those who wield the power to inluence others. Those who seek to justify their behaviour are usually those who NEED so to do.

Power needs violence in order to self-justify. Entities need power because they are lacking and feel a 'need'. This is the problem of language. What those who lack (the power-seekers) are missing is the UNDERSTANDING of the difference between what is WANTED and what is NEEDED.

It is a selfish act therefore to want something when it isn't truly NEEDED, no matter how it is dressed.

Hope that explains (a bit). That is all I WANT to say on this subject. (the selfish inadequate egotist that I am).

Nam

Still all at sea this end Nam, on which side of the fence you find yourself.
Your earlier analogy of the playground bully can be read as the Un being the bully or as Saddam being the bully, with the Un acting as the Headmaster who has had enough of the bully ruling the roost.
The quotes from Alan Pinter could similarly be read as lambasting the western Governments for aggression in place of understanding or as an attack on how power breeds violence. Let us not forget then that the power the Allies wielded was borne of the will of the entire planet in passing the resolution. The power Saddam wielded was born of fear.
I know not who I am quoting but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

PS I just looked resolution up in a dictionary and it means to be resolved to do something. It doesn't mean to have a chat and change our minds later. It should be read as a promise to take a certain action for a certain set of circumstances. The circumstances arose, the action was taken. If anyone does not like the action, their beef is with the UN who passed the resolution, not those who enforced it.
Alan

Alan

Arse load of splinters at this (my) end!

Must be on the fence.

Typical.

Nam

(ps- only first quote Pinter)