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?

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.

zscrooge. There is a salient point here though, with Iran.
If the diplomatic attempts to stop them enriching uranium fail (as it seems they might), what do we do then?
Am I to understand that the piece campaigners will demand a no action approach, and threaten that any military action will be viewed as illegal?
Doing nothing will increase the chances many times over that there will be precious little peace to campaign for as an Iran that threatens publically to wipe nations from the face of the earth becomes a nuclear power with the capability to do just that.
If you are comfortable with the Ayatollah having those capabilities, so be it. Many nations would be terrified. To allow unregulated enrichment of uranium in that most unstable of countries would be a massive dereliction of our duties to seek a peaceful world, but if Iran refuse a negotiated settlement, what then?
As the old saying goes, If you would seek peace, prepare for war.
Alan

Why are the Iranians less fit to have Nuclear Weapons than a Country (and fawning henchmen), which has a proven record of using them also of supporting illegal and terrorist actions in numerous countries throughout the world be denied the possession of them.

American and Britain are led by corrupt administrations with little respect for International or National law.

Because Iran is a sponsor of terrorism andis a destabling in fluence in the Middle East. There would seem to be a likelyhood of Iran using a nuclear weapon against Israsel. The US and UK both follow international law. The invasion of Iraq was done with a UN mandate.

Because Iran is an aggresive force, who have pledged to wipe another country from the face of the planet. Because Iran sponsors state terrorism. Because Iran supported the idea of assasinating those who published a few silly cartoons..........and on and on.
The only time a nuclear weapon was used in anger was to end a brutal war swiftly. I do not agree with nuclear arms and i do not condone their use in any way or for any reason, but Iran has pledged to wipe an entire population from the map because they disagree over which particular outmoded belief system they should follow, and destroy other countries because they disagree over what free speech actually means.
I think thats a few good reasons to be going on with why Iran should not be allowed nuclear capabilities, but again, instead of merely criticising, please show us the alternative.
Alan

And please, let us know which nations are so superior to the UK in their respect for national and international law. There will be a mass migration there, but I suspect the only place such a regime exists is in Utopia.
Alan

America has being practicing terrorism since the fifties. I think they were the main financial supporters of the Taliban Precursors of AQ. The bombing and destruction of Iraq by the coalition was hardly constructive and in my opinion unnecessary and premeditated murder.

.

And your alternative in Iraq is........................

BTW. I did cover in an earlier post that supporting some regimes to oust others was not an alternative that worked, as in Afghanistan against the USSR.
AQ is not Afghanistan in origin, it is from Saudi, but was run out of Saudi as they do not support terrorism. It found a home in Afghanistan where religious ideology took precedence over common human decency and simple common sense.
Alan

H6,

America has being practicing terrorism since the fifties. I think they were the main financial supporters of the Taliban Precursors of Al-Qaeda. IE, financing Ben Laden. Yet another example of Americas international understanding and failure of its foreign policies.
The bombing and destruction of Iraq by the coalition was hardly constructive and in my opinion and the opinion of others unnecessary premeditated murder.

The Americans and Blair carried out and illegal war against Iraq on completely false premises against the advice of the United Nations, who requested further time to carry out inspections.

(I think both USA and Britain were almost laugh out of the United Nations when they provided their evidence of Saddams weapons production and didnt dare ask for a specific mandate for the invasion which was declared illegal by Kofi Annan)

What was interesting was the proposal by the USA and Blair is that if Saddam gave way to inspections etc. he could remain in control. The war was not about replacement of Iraqs government. etc.. so it was said. (B.S.)

Application and implementation of law in this country is in general good compared with many regimes, But it will be interesting to see the outcome of the investigation into the slush funds for ennoblement and also whether the Fraud Squad is allowed to investigate to see the facts about the said slush fund set up by BAE to bribe the Saudi Royals, which, it is said was condoned by the government of this country. There are suggestions that there are attempts to inhibit due process.


As far as dealings and negotiating with Iran or other states are concerned, the first thing would be to accept that their opinions and rights are to be respected, but remain open to negotiation.

The second would to be not so patronising.

The third would be to accept their borders and the right for them to be governed by their own.

I think the translation of what the Iranian Prime minister said was to wipe Israel off the map. Not to kill the occupants of the area ruled by Israel.

I think this is unlikely to occur but I would be one of the first to claim England belong to the Celts and that they should be able to occupy their father land. (The time scale I think is similar.)


At the end of the day these problems have to be solved for the benefit of the people not the friends of the executives who start the war


Gun Boat Policy belongs which you seem to advocate is of a past age and didnt work then and will not work now.

Where has the $11 billion gone?

Unfortunately 'gun boat diplomacy' is the only thing that many regimes understand.

I think we need more of it. The UN has no teeth any more than Europe has.

They both stood by as Yugoslavia was torn apart and attrocities were comitted.

Then they did it again while Kosovo suffered the same fate.

We need to be quicker to act not slower!

Only just come across this thread.
From one of the earliest posts: "IMHO these religious fanatics want nothing less than a conversion of the whole world to their way of life ..."

Err, are you talking about some muslims, or two particular Christians named Bush and Blair?