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?

hands up those who are sick to the bollox of hearing about Islam, the news on BBC
Radio 4 I clocked in the car today- the first 6 YES SIX,sub-headlines were about Iraq, Indonesia, Islamic terrorism, etc. etc. , the BBC is totally obsessed by this lot, for Gods sake lets have some balance, Church of England, Presbyterian Church of Scotland,Wee Frees, Jews, Hindus, Catholics, Budhists etc, etc, lets unite and put an end to this rubbish.If some twat holds up a banner threatening to kill me I really don`t CARE what he represents, lock the pillok up and throw away the key.
What have we allowed to happen?- and I was called a racist on ths bb for daring to opine the view which 80% of a poll in the Sunday times of we Brits confirms, and they wonder why the RightWing are popular.

All this publicity on Muslims and their problems are going to cause even for problems among the rest of the community, according to polls taken by the Sunday Times today.
A big percentage of people polled were of the opinion that it was getting, and going to get even more difficult for Western people to come to terms living alongside the Muslim community.
Trust is going out of the window, and with the authorities bending over backwards to not upset them will find there will be some kind of backlash eventually.

Exactly- take away the oxygen of publicity, lets hear about some native stuff, rugby, hunting , the demise of PC, and Blair, the fall of the Labour party, nice things, and leave London to the City papers- who cares what goes on in that poxy place anyway, filthy, full of illegals,terrorists, muggers, dole thieves, foreigners and sexual ambivilants.

There is some confusion over the right to nuclear power versus the possession of nuclear weapons.

The declared nuclear weapons states are the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, India and Pakistan. Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, but has not been observed testing a weapon nor has she admitted to possessing them. North Korea may have them. There was a rumour years ago that South Africa under the apartheid regime colluded with Israel in the development of nuclear weapons.

There are two basic types of nuclear weapon: the fission bomb, commonly called simply the atomic bomb which releases energy by nuclear fission of (Uranium-235 or Plutonium) and the fusion, or thermo-nuclear bomb, commonly called the hydrogen bomb which releases the energy produced by nuclear fusion (as in the Sun). The latter is immensely more destructive than the former. A fusion bomb contains a fission bomb as its trigger (to produce the energy needed to cause nuclear fusion).

There is no prohibition on the possession of nuclear power plants providing that the country operating these facilities permits the IAEA of the UN the right to inspect the deployment of the nuclear fuel (which is always fissionable material such as U-235). A by-product of uranium fusion is plutonium which is ideal for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Accounting for all this material under international inspection helps to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

If Iran agreed to such inspection, it would have the right to operate nuclear power plants (which is what it says it wants). You may have doubts about their intentions, of course, given their hostility to the West, their declaration about Israel, and the odd fact that they are sitting on the world's fourth-largest oil reserves.

Yep. I have serious doubts.
There is also the smokescreen about delivery systems and the finding of WMD.
Delivery systems come in two guises. The Multi billion dollar missile type that is easily detected and the 4.99 Argos rucksack.
If I remember my rather shabby "O" Level physics correctly then all one requires for a very respectable bomb of the Atom variety is a lump of Uranium 238 about the size of a football and a method of forcing it under extreme pressure. A crude way is to place it in 2 halfs in a metal cylinder, with simple explosives at one end. The halfs are smashed together and the chain reaction is started.
If this is the case then there could be shedfulls of it in any country and they would be almost impossible to find.
The essence of it is that a fairly trivial amount of depleted uranium, a modestly educated scientist, a passable engineer and a guerilla approach to terrorism is all that is required to spark a major world incident. I believe that Iran have all but one of these ingredients and a declared aim to wipe countries and ideoligies off the map.
I would not feel confident if we handed them the last of these requirements.
Finally, you are right, MM. If the wish is entirely peaceful, then what is the great problem with the UN overseeing it? They do so in ALL countries with nuclear power. What makes Iran a special case?
Alan

We can only blame governments for the mess of multi-culturalism; to allow totally uneducated and predominantly (lets not mess with PC words) thick people into this country, that was the start of the rot.
In defence of the troublemakers e.g. the half-wits with their " kill WASPS"banners, in London, one can hardly blame them, they have not been tutored in the ways of our country , many don`t even speak English, I am convinced that they don`t know that they are hateful,nobody had the balls to tell them what they did was at least considered to be illegal- that is the depth of their ignorance.In fact I suspect that the dimmer ones probably think this is an Islamic country and we are the outsiders- not so daft when you remember that some 5m Americans thoiught that the UK had invaded Ulster during the troubles!
Add to that the fact that they have been brain-washed by even thicker "priests" , and , well its a simple as that.
Take a bunch of skin-heads to an Islamic country, tell them they are advancing the cause of white supremacy, give them banners appropriate to that,fill them up with drink and drugs, they won`t act any differently, well not until their heads hit the deck- notice the subtle difference in the treatment of such morons though!

Alan: Fortunately, the refinement processes involved in distilling sufficient U-238 (from the naturally occurring and mined U-235) to produce a bomb, coupled with the engineering precision needed to bring the critical mass together rapidly enough using shaped charges to cause a nuclear explosion are sufficiently tedious to render an amateur attempt pretty unlikely. It takes the sort of effort that a state-funded programme requires. However, the world is full of surprises.

mm I feel Iran has as much right as Israel, America, Britain, France etc. to have an "Atomic Weapon". I may not like it, I don't like any of the fore mention having nuclear bombs of any description or other.

I do not feel that the "west" has any more right to inspection of nuclear sites and research centres in Iran than Iran has to inspect similar sites in the aforementioned states, unless done by mutual agreement.

Suggest if you haven't read it Jon Snows' recent book "Shooting History" it is alarming what friendly nations get up to.

At the moment I think the Bush and Blair mentality and approaches to world problems are going to provoke more and more problems.

Fred:

I do not feel that the "west" has any more right to inspection of nuclear sites and research centres in Iran than Iran has to inspect similar sites in the aforementioned states, unless done by mutual agreement.

Indeed -- but it's not the "west" that wants to inspect Iran -- it's the UN agency the IAEA, which inspects the rest of the world's peaceful facilities. That's how the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is supposed to work.

You have to view the historical context -- nuclear weapons were developed in one age in a desperate world war followed by a bipolar cold war. The dangers of proliferation became apparent more gradually and most civilised states signed up to a set of rules that permitted the peaceful use of nuclear energy with some degree of assurance that weapons would not be developed surreptitiously.

Under the IAEA of the UN, Iran already has an overview of other states' nuclear fuel dispositions -- it's Iran that is refusing to submit to the same rules.

i also see the british soldiers were covering themselves in glory, sick of hearing savages live all around the world apart from britian and the west.

Personally, I'll reserve judgement on that one.
The last time the media was full of "evidence" of British troops committing tortuous acts it led to front page apologies and editors getting sacked. Many people who jumped on the "I told you so" bandwagon ended up with egg on their faces.
I cannot justify that sort of treatment and do not condond it, but I do understand it. We do not, yet know the facts of the case and the last time we had a case like it presented makes me somewhat cautious in passing judgement.
Even if (and I think it will) it proves to be true, a video starts at a point in time and finishes at one. While not excusing the actions, whatever preceded it may provide mitigation that we should not be too quick to condem, though equally it may not.
While many are suspicious of any pronouncement eminating from a pro-war politico, I hope you understand that I am equally suspicious of the pronouncements of the anti-war press.
Time will tell.
Alan

PS.
Our MOD will investigate and if necessary punish. They will not accept behaviour like that.
Wonder what Saddam did about the guards responsible for the torturing of Bravo-2-Zero and the beating up and dragging through the streets of the captured pilots.
Perhaps we should judge not on individual acts, but on the nations response to those acts. It may give us a truer picture of what is acceptable to the regimes.

we give them a kicking, they behead us (slowly with knives) or blow us up,they also beat women with big sticks, and stones , just a thought

MM I did know that the inspection was via UN.
Do the USA and Britain open up all its atomic research facillities for inspection?

The ""reported" action of the British Troops in Iraq was stupid. But the "attitude" of those who performed the acts is that which had peremeated down from the leadership. Once again the latter will probably escape reprimand.

Fred,
Yes we do open them up.
As for the attitude permeating down, does the same apply to the inhuman torture of captured troops, the holy jihads, the suicide bombing of schools and marketplaces by the Iraqis?
If it does, then that alone justifies the allied desire to rid the world of the leadership of Saddam, just as you wish to rid Britain of the leadership of Blair, and the USA of Bush.

a kicking???? with sticks and gun butts and not just a few kicks holding them down while kicking them in the head, it wouldnt suprise me if some of those people, yes they people just like you and me, have permanent injuries. i once saw a bloke get killed with one punch, another friend is permantly mentally disabled after getting a kicking for trying to stop a fight.

6, It may justify the wish to remove Saddam and his cohorts, certain Islamic leaders, Blair and Bush and some of their cohorts. But it does not justify the method or way in which they attempted to do so. The results are appalling and has provoked or motivated a large portion of the world to be "against" Britain and USA even when their actions may be well intended.

Bush and his cohorts I think were and are corrupt. Blair I think is an articulate fool who has forgotten his said basic "Christian Morality".

I can understand the fear and irritation of crowd violence, but the response of "train" troops in the way shown or has been portrayed provides succour for the initiators of the riots.

The actions of the troops was away from the riot and the response disproportionate in this case.

Fred,
I make no attempt to justify the unjustifiable. I seek to understand and compare. The point remains that as a nation, the majority are appalled at this kind of treatment of captured soldiers or insurgents or rioters. As a nation, many other states accept and even support this.
This is what, rightly or wrongly, gives the west the moral high ground and underlines the role of western organisations such as NATO as global policemen. Muslim states, as we have seen recently, are not in any position to complain of disproportionate responses.
Blair and Bush may well be corrupt, but I am yet to hear any convincing argument for not enforcing the worlds will on Iraq, and I am also lost for reasoning on not forcing Iran to toe the global line.
As I stated earlier, one positive I really do believe has come from the Iraq war is that Iran must take the UN threats, if they come, seriously, and surely it is in the best interests of the whole world that the UN does issue the sternest possible threats to Iran. Had we let Iraq alone, then heaven only knows how much scorn Iran would treat the UN resolutions with.
Alan

Moral Highground, America's Treatment and Torturing of prisoners. Mass killing of civilians, depleted nuclear material in weaponary, Phosphorus shells, attempting binding contracts for oil and reconstrution in IRAQ on a puppet goverment.
Manipulation of UN by cohersion and economic threats. Invasion or equivalent of multiple countries over the last 40 years. Its avoindance of responsibility in acting to curb CO2 emissions etc . Unfair or unhelpful agricultural policies. AND SO ON.

What MORAL HIGH GROUND.

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the role of Britain or the wider world, not the USA take on world affairs.
If however we wish to simply list a diatribe of world events from the perspective of their value to humanity, then we can start with Lockerbie, the twin towers, Iranian embassy seige, Human shields, London bombings, Burning of embassies, suicide bombings by palestinians, torturing and massacre of political dissidents, Bali bombings, Indonesian bombings, madrid railway bombings, shoe bombings, the treatment of women throughout the arab world, Kurdish gasings, beheadings, and on and on and on.........................
If we seek a balance sheet approach to who is whiter than white, the answer is nobody. If we look to see who is the least grubby, then I think we can claim the moral high ground, even if the high ground is quite low!!
BTW, depleted Uranium in weaponry is used in the main for weaponry of a defesive nature, such as "Goalkeeper". This does not make its use right, but it is rarely used in weapons of aggression.
The point remains. Allowing Saddam to continue on his chosen path, and by default, allowing Iran to continue unabated on their declared path would benefit the world how?
The government in Iraq was elected by vote, overseen by the UN. The vote was less than perfect, as one would expect in the circumstances, but how is this a puppet government.
Alan