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?

Wonder if they'll find my spare car keys? I can't find 'em anywhere.

Im with you really haystack, and think these conspiracy theories are silly. jfk, the moon landing, princess di's death, nothing sinister. Though i do think the Villa fans have been putting something in Steve Bruces tea.

Never mind Kivver. I have heard a rumour that a lottery winner has offered to buy Birmingham City a new player with his winnings. A much better player than those they have already.
He has also promised to buy the entire club, if he gets another 3 numbers next week.
Alan

Haystacks, from your picture they looking from the "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Did anyone ever read the report from the UN inspectorate that discussed a visit they made to a suspected chemical manufactory?
Simply, they turned up unannounced to do an instant spot check, as allowed by the UN treaty. The site was very quiet, with very few staff and very little in the way of any obvious work being done. They were told that an instant inspection was not possible and would they kindly wait in a reception area.
They were made comfortable and provided with food and refreshment for their 3 hour wait.
The room overlooked the main highway in that part of Iraq, and as time wore on they saw (and probably didn't believe they saw it) dozens of lorries in convoy, turn off the highway, drive to the factory, get loaded, and then drive away.
As soon as the last lorry left, the inspectors were given the grand tour and allowed free access to check whatever they wished. What they found included several empty laboratories, and machine rooms that showed signs of recently removed equipment, and a few empty safe storage areas.
Now, while I will agree that no WMD were found in Iraq, that is not the sort of behaviour likely to make a worried world feel comfortable. Thsi inspection was one of the very last done prior to the war, and was against a backdrop of threats.
The point is, the inspectorate could only report the facts of the case, which were that they had been delayed by a not unreasonable 3 hours, had seen lorries entering and leaving the factory, had inspected a half empty factory and could find no evidence of any WMD facilities.
I for one, would read the above and my first reaction would be that they had something and were hiding it. This would be strengthened by the countries leader promising to use WMD if he were attacked.
Under these circumstances it is not unreasonable, for a foreign power, to deduce that inaction would probably be the worst option.
As a footnote, even though WMD have not been found, how hard is it to hide something the size of a biscuit barrel in a country the size of Iraq, which is mainly desert? Yes the production facilities are traceable, but with chemical and biological weaponry the equipment is much the same as that for medicines and industrial chemicals, and for nuclear capability the equipment is a holdall stuffed with roubles and a contact in the Russian Mafia!!
Still think they had stuff.
Alan

There is some evidence that the Russians helped move the WMDs to Syria befeore the war started.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is due to take off in 2008 and will spend at least a year taking various photographs of the surface of the moon, including the landing sites of the four manned Apollo moon landing missions.
The pictures will be detailed enough to reveal the footprints of astronauts including Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong, as well as the famous Stars and Stripes flag that they raised on their Apollo 11 mission in 1969.

Japan is planning a similar mission which will also reveal details of the landing site. (SELENE is a lunar surveyor that Japan hopes to launch in 2008. The name is short for SELenological and ENgineering Explorer.)

India has announced that it plans to explore the Moon and will send an unmanned probe there by 2008. The project's main objectives are high-resolution photography of the lunar surface. (it is also being used to find good sites for Lunar Indian restaurants)

Don't forget that the Russians tracked the moon mission in 1999 and nothing would have given them greater pleasure than to expose a hoax.

Kember says the Iragi people is where his sympathys lie and say they deserve the basic standard of living they were promised.

Hew6, Suggest you obtain copy of Robin Cook's book "The Point of Departure" which gives an "insiders" insight of workings of government in the modern era. With details of the lead up to the Iraqi fiasco and his resignation.

I think it is probably an honest expose of that period.

I may be interesting that, if the Medic who refused to serve in Iraq is found guilty of disobeying an order will appeal against the Military Courts findings and takes his case to the court of appeal.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Kember and his kind. He has put himself in harm's way and caused lots of trouble in the process. It is a pitythat we wasted effort in rescuing him.

Completely agree with Haystacks last post.
Fred. Never did an author have more to gain by pushing his version of events and his story than the late Mr Cook. Top marks for being honourable by resigning over an issue he felt strongly about, but that hardly qualifies anything he writes or says on the subject as impartial!
The medic concerned has, IMHO, no right to refuse to serve anywhere. In older parlance, he "Took the Kings Shilling". Did he believe that armed service was all about training exercises and learning to ski? It is about doing the bidding of your country, whether you agree with it or not, and being shot at. That is your job. If he had qualms about this then I suggest he would have been better on the medical ethics committee of the GMC.
Mr Kember was held hostage by those lovely cuddly people he was trying to help, by peaceful means. If this is the way a committed peace activist on the side of the Iraq people is treated, then it is no suprise that soldiers, armed to the teeth get attacked. Yet perversly, the soldiers are achieving what Mr Kember desires.
Credit to the brave soldiers who rescued him. Unlike the medic, they had no pang of conscience. They carried out their orders and rescued a man who was undermining their efforts. The man has since been ignoble enough to not even acknowledge their efforts or thank them that he may now return to his family.
Alan

Kember has said 'thank you now that he is back in the uk and realises the fuss that has been caused by his lack of gratitude.

"On Friday, head of the British Army, Gen Sir Mike Jackson, said he was "saddened" there did not seem to be any gratitude after the rescue of Mr Kember, James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32."

Why would they want any thanks. That's what they're paid to do - follow orders of senior officers who follow orders from politicians who do anything to maintain power in the eyes of the electorate.

Kember is clearly a man who cares little for himself but more for his wife and justice.

as some of these posts confirm , humans lack humanity. MOST Iraqi people are people just like you and me. Sisters, brothers, fathers aunts etc etc Lets just have a massive free for all, and all the very strongest survive and put the weaker humans where they belong serving us stronger ones. If it is too expensive or too much trouble lets just despose of em. if you cant beat em join em.

What most of these posts confiem, kivver, is that no-one wants a massive free for all.
What we have is the traditional disagreement as to how best to achieve exactly the same aim. If one were to post on here that the perfect world were one that had no violence or war, and consistant peace, there would be no dissenters. The problem is that many areas of the world are ruled by mad and corrupt men. Some may say "Yes, the UK and USA are", and indeed the header confirms this. I don't believe for a moment that anyone here would argue that Saddam, Al Qaieda, the Taliban or the latest Ayatollah in Iran are full of moral fibre and are decent and sane human beings. But how do we deal with them?
The politics of peace campaigners assume that dialougue will win them over, or perhaps trade embargos and financial pressure. That hearts and minds will be won by freezing them out of world communities. This has never worked. It did not really work with South Africa or Cuba (and these states are nowhere near the monstrocities of the other list), it is not working in any of the African nations such as Zimbabwe, and was a complete failure in Afghanistan.
The politics of the diplomat are to befriend the oppressed and help them overcome the tyranny themselves. This often works, but what happens when the oppressed become the oppresssors? What happens when you deal with an Iranian threat to peace by financing and arming Iraq? Or when the Russian threat is solved by Arming and Financing Afghanistan? As all the peace campaigners cry out. "You can't turn against a country you armed".
So what options are left?
Simply appeasement, ignore the atrocities because it is not our problem or enforce the will of the world.
I submit that the true humanitarian approach is the one that ends the suffering most quickly.
Please believe me, I would be very happy for there to be peacefull solutions available that are shown to work. History shows us they never do in the end.
I would agree the USA were naive in believing that removing Saddam would end the problems, as was the UK, but not nearly as naive as anyone who believed that sitting at a table chatting to Saddam would change him.
The real problem, as always, is poverty. terror comes from poor young men angry that the world is run by rich old men. There are notable exceptions, such as Osama Bin Laden, but his footsoldiers are those poor young men. Unfortunately, financing the poorest nations does tend to end in armament and corruption, as many an African nation can testify.
So the long term solution, unpalatable as it may be, is the force of arms to lance the boil of tyranny, followed by democracy and financial support. When the people of a country feel the benefits in their everyday lives, then peace will truly exist. For evidence of this, can anyone name the last democratic and prosperous country to engage in acts of terrorism or international aggression either at home or abroad?
(Hint - with the exception of Northern ireland you may have to go back 70 years).
In conclusion, no I don't support any free for all, but I do support the realism that problems must be dealt with in a fashion that may work.
Alan

H6, I take it that you haven't read Cook's book. If you have then you it can't be the same book as I read. It it appeared to be an informed diarist of the motivation and in events around and about Iraq. But I suppose I like informed opinion.

At the end of WW2 many German officers and soldiers were hanged for "following orders" they were informed that the orders were "illegal" and should have been disobeyed. The medic appears to believe that was what the instructions were illegal and appears to have acted accordingly. The jury is out.


America has support terrorism, corrupt governments, insurrections and murder in Latin America and the Middle East from the 1950s. (With very little success and generally leaving those countries with their tails between their legs and the countries in chaos and misery. Suggest reading John Snow's "Shooting History" and John Simpson's "News from No Man's Land". Probably you will find their information biased or ill informed.

I don't think Britain won a war in Ireland by force, but by giving equal rights to the "Catholics" and have ended up negotiating these changes over a long period of time.

In South Africa the Ruling Class ie, the "Whites" realised that the could not hold on to power by the gun and ended up negotiating themselves out of a position they could never maintain. Thus attempting equal rights for a suppressed majority. Hopefully, eventually there will be peace and calm there, and the quality of life for all will be improved.

The neo-con view of the world is not sustainable.

Fred - like what you say and from a fellow brummie, probably one of the reasons we live in such a great and peaceful city, lol.

Talking of ''oppressed become the oppresssors'', is that how we see Isreal??? i think that senerio probably sums up ''the self presveration'' ethos. And food for thought for the future, with dwindling commoditities, oil supplies etc etc if world leaders dont take the bull by the horns and try to sort out worlds problems, i fear for the future.

"brummie, probably one of the reasons we live in such a great and peaceful city,"

Birmingham must be the ugliest city in Europe, second only to Frankfurt which is its twin town.

Fred1new - 26 Mar 2006 12:37 - 388 of 390


The neo-con view of the world is not sustainable.


In reading the posts here I was just about to post exactly that. Spot on.

And neo-con intellectuals and aplogists themselves are running for the hills or changing their minds.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2097307,00.html