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?

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

I see Cheney's shot somebody. Maybe he thought he was in Iraq and was getting excited. I'd understand it if he'd shot himself in the foot.

I agree with blinger about the BBC's obsession with Islam. It's alright for them to have blatant anti-semitism and anti-western stuff in the mid- east but we always have to be whiter than white. If the justification is that we should endure this double standard because we are democracies and should take the moral high ground then this is insulting in a different way because it reveals we don't view them as equals.

While I'm on my hobby horse, I'm a little concerned about some of the motives of right wing newspapers in Britain to get at Blair. I saw a journalist from the Mail say a few years ago that the real reason behind constantly getting at Blair was that it would be easier to win an electon against Brown if he was in charge. I'm a bit concerned that some papers are going to start quite a divisive Scottish, English policy if/when Brown becomes PM. The only people this will benefit will be the Conservatives and the SNP, which is fine if you're the Telegraph, Sun, Mail etc. But the implication will be that a Scottish PM can't govern Britain and it'll leave Scotland questioning it's position in Britain as unequal partners. I have no doubt that in Conservative think tanks they will be weighing up the odds of "letting Scotland go". I know most people in Britain live in harmony happily with each other but if Britain was minus Scotland the Conservatives would always be guaranteed power or at least coalition power in Westminister, I'm sure this has crossed their minds. In the past the oil was too important to give up but now some tories may be tempted to "let Scotland go" after having been out of power for a longer period than expected.

I think an Iranian war will be coming soon

Apparantly Cheney shot Bush through the head, narrowly missing his brain by about 6 feet.
;-)

or sequel to Iraq Gulf war

Whats your take on it though, hyle?
All views welcome. One of the few threads where you are unlikely to be derided for having a different perspective on things.
Alan

When the Army guys who gave the teenagers a kicking (2 years back?) are brought to trial- and I bet 100% they will be found guilty-can we please forget Asia Minor for a week or so and have the media, government, judiciary, loony-left etc., give the same prominence to the UK muggings, happy slappings etc.,then build some more prisons, and make our streets as safe as they once were.
So it`s risk death or wounding for your country , break the law and have a 99% chance of being gaoled, against--- staying at home dealing drugs, drawing dole , benefits etc., beating people up for kicks, and having (I think the fig. is correct) a 7% chance of being caught- oh and if caught a severe 100 hours of cleaning church window,

mad!!!!

I don't think the USA has any option but to disable Iran by one method or another. Their anti Western influence is spreading throughout the ME and especially within Iraq and Syria.

Some Arabs are of the opinion is that the USA will take out the oilfields close to the Iraq border which comprise 90% of Irans output and which would be tactically possible..

After viewing this site http://www.jihadunspun.com/home.php I think I have to accept the fact that we are already at war!