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?

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

I see no evidence that the neo-cons are having any change of heart or mind. The US seems as determined as ever in its direction. It looks more like the Democrats are in disarray having moved too far to the left. I am expecting a major confromtation with Iran.

Fred, The view of the world that runs along the lines of "lets have a bit of a chat and a stern word with these people" is not sustainable!
You talk about majority in relation to South Africa. What about the majority in Iraq who wanted Saddam out. What about the world majority who wanted Saddam out?
I have read Robin Cooks book and I don't subscribe to the informed opinion idea. I do subscribe to the idea that politicians of all walks only write books to show how they were right all along and everyone else was a blithering idiot. That is human nature.
Britain never gave unequal rights to catholics. How could they negotiate a peace by giving them something they already had?
And on the subject of Ireland, peace came about because the terrorists finally realised that terrorism was not getting them anywhere. It was only making their country poorer.
Our armed forces and civillian police hunted the terrorists down, wherever they were and arrested them. Where gunfire was used, our troops returned fire, and innocent people were caught up in it all and died. But it worked.
We are doing the same, on a larger scale in Iraq.
Your analogy with the German officers of WW2 is offensive. these men knowlingly slaughtered millions of civillians, with no military target in mind, just a political one. Nobody in command has asked this medic to kill thousands of civillians for the sake of poitics. Where he has been asked to take part in armed action, it is in the defence of his fellow soldiers and in prosecuting the attacks on military targets.
The politics are not those of "Neo-con", they are of realism.
Those that attack the position taken by those who have chosen to take a difficult but necessary desicion, do so without a single idea on a workable alternative.
It is a very simple question really. What do you do with someone whose position is a threat to those around him and who refuses to compromise?
We are about to face the same dilema in Iran. The Ayatollah would be very happy to do exactly as he pleased if he thought the worst that would happen is a stern talking to!!
Books?? What makes these magically informed and unbiased? What gives the author a superhuman ability to have magnificent 20 20 vision and no preconcieved ideas? I prefer to base my politics on my own logical approach to human nature, rather than jump on the coat tails of someone desperate to sell books. If we believe the written word to be sacrasanct and beyond ill-informedness and bias, then we must believe what the Sunday Sport has to say!!
No thanks. I will deal in realism, and a realisation that my abhorance of violence is unfortunately not shared across the world.
Alan

I fully expect violence of some sort to start again in Northern Ireland when the Republicans realise that they won't get what they want.

There is not the slightest chance of a united Ireland or of real power sharing. Any move in that direction would produce a very strong reaction from the Unionists.

The previous violence stopped partly because the leaders were getting too old. A new generation of terrorists may spring up again.

loved your comments about bham being ugly, it has always had that perception, and not helped by the concrete jungle the old 'bull ring'' which thankfully as now been knocked down. Bham has been redefining itself over the last 10 years, new buildings are flying up everywhere residential and business. eating houses, gentlemens clubs, pubs , night clubs. It is a great city to live in, just need the football team carrying the name of the city to improve now.

I bet the brummies and ginger haired people are thankfull for the illegal immigrants and foriegners who take everybodies insecurities flak because if it wasnt for them im sure we'd be the next in line to be blamed for all the worlds problems. Nothing to do with power and greed of course!!

Its a long time since I've been to Birmingham (about 20 years). When I was there it looked like it had been designed by a Lego salesman. ;-)
Everyone loves their home city. I adore Leeds, even though I know its a shithole really.

I went to Birmingham not long ago and it hasn't changed much. One of the worst things is the terrible road system. It reminds me of Croydon.

absolute baloney, if i knew how to cut and paste pics onto here (im sure someones going to show me) i would show you just how much it has changed. I trully believe its a great city and not a shit hole (though some areas need avoiding). back me up fred!

at least birmingham will be around when the seas rise...London will be under water in 10 years and property prices will dive to zero..get out now

maestro's deramping London , don't sell your houses he wants to pick them up cheap !!

95,000 Kensington 2016 ,

LOL

Take away the Bay trees and the ground floor ,still good value.

There was an interesting article by Simon Jenkins "Blair's fundamentalism is the real enemy of western values" in The Sunday Times. Don't agree with all his positioning but he appears to have a fairly accurate assessment of the present situation.

H6, Thankfully, I think you and I will differ. As is said "nobody is as blind as those who don't wish to see, until they walk into a brick wall". Iraq is America's and Blair's brick wall.

I remember Birmingham when it was far worse, at least it is continuing to improve since I first arrived here.







I hasten to add the improvement is not due to my arrival.

Still no suggestions as to an alternative course of action that would have resulted in a happy Iraq, with fulfilled citizens free from fear and tyranny, then Fred?
That is the real acid test. The question is not whether the course taken was the right one, it is was another and better course available, that would have achieved the desired effect? Unless of course you believe Saddam should have remained in power, in which case you are in a very tiny minority.
There is a grave danger of anti-Blair and anti American sentiment finding an outlet in lambasting them for their actions even though there was no way the worlds requirements for absolute certainty that Iraq was not a threat could be achieved another way.
Proposals for a bloodless revolution below please.
Alan

jimmy b - 26 Mar 2006 22:53 - 400 of 405
maestro's deramping London , don't sell your houses he wants to pick them up cheap !!


LOL!


Fred "nobody is as blind as those who don't wish to see" - aye, you can scream til yer blue in the face ...LOL

H. Sadly you are right about Iran - hawkish attitudes are alive and well in the Whitehouse and they are stupid enough to do it. Vietnam has taught them nothing.


As many Americans themselves are finally beginning to understand, it is a good thing at times to mind one's own business.