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?

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)

Pinter said he had an arseload of splinters!!!!!

I am very happy for you to be on the fence. Under vitriolic attacks for my reasoning I sometimes wish I was.
I have the utmost respect for any persons point of view, for, against or undecided. I have no respect whatsoever for those who deliberately twist the things I say and misrepresent them, finishing by mildly insulting my intelligence.
Fortunately there appears to be very few individuals of this type on these boards and I rejoice in that.
Nuff said.
Lets get back to Bazas jokes on the NOWT thread
Alan

My brain hurts!

Nam

You definitely need the NOWT thread then. You can leave the brain at home, plugged in for re-charging.
alan

Cheers me dear

Nam

Religion anyone???

(Only joking. I don't think I could stand it!!)
Alan

Hewit, you may recall the below and BLair and Bush haste to go to war because they new the reasons they were parading for "war" were lies, false information and propaganda. Unfortunately many people were taken in by it or went along with it for their own gains. Ie. ramping.

United Nations Security Council members have called on the Bush Administration to allow UN weapons inspectors to return to Iraq to certify whether Baghdad possessed biological and chemical weapons before the war.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
But their plea was shrugged off by President George Bush, who vowed to "reveal the truth" about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
++++++++++++++++++

The call for a resumption of UN inspections, which was endorsed on Thursday by an overwhelming majority of council members, including Britain, America's closest military ally, came as the Bush Administration faces charges by members of Congress and some intelligence analysts that it may have exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq to justify the invasion.

It also reflected a growing consensus in the 15-nation council that the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) should test US and British claims that Iraq continued to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"The disarmament of Iraq must be verified and confirmed by UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency on the ground and in conjunction with the coalition," France's UN ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, told the
Security Council.

Fred,
We still debate at cross purposes. I am defending the point that we were right to go to war. The reason why we went to war was never because Iraq possessed any such weapons. It was because we feared they did and were not allowed to determine the truth. The ownership of or developement of these weapons is a side issue. The issue was whether we should allow any country to prevent independant inspectors to verify or disprove the allegations. The otherthrow of Saddam was to allow the inspectorate to perform its duty without hinderence, and in this it succeeded.
The fact of not finding anything is irre;evant to the choice of whether the Mandate should have been enforced. Even as troops massed on the Iraqi border Saddam could have invited them, unmolested, to enforce the mandate. He chose to stand and fight.
As an innocent man, if the police turned up on my door demanding to search my home, I would resist. When they came back with a warrant I would protest, but I would not threaten to kill any who came into my home. If I was expecting them and barricaded my home, armed myself and awaited their arrival would you defend my actions as being reasonable? Would you cry foul if they used force to prosecute a perfectly legal warrant? No. Neither would anyone else.
Alan

Hewitt, I have just reported to the police that I think I saw you buying a parcel of fully grown hemp seeds in Handsworth and visiting a Mosque in Balsall Heath. I also know from the past that adamant about your support for terrorist actions and have used a shotgun which you are not declaring any longer, but was seen cleaning it the other day. I think that you should be investigated immediately and I don't think any denial by you should be accepted.
As I am a pillor of society a given helpful information to the police on many occasions I think they should act.

If necessary they should break in and shoot to kill.

Not finding anything is irrelevant.


My wife was brought up under a communist regime where actions like the above were acted upon. Some of her relatives were imprisoned on similar bases as above.

Fred,
This is kind of the situation that was occuring in Iraq prior to Saddams demise, yet you argue it should have been allowed to continue.
The scenario I suggested was based on the practises of a civilised and moderate nation. I think that is a fair comparison to the actions of the UN.
I would abhor to be treat in the way you describe and this is another reason why the war was legal and justifiable.
Alan