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?

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?

The war was not illegal. There was a clear mandate in place for it and another was not needed. Period. That is a fact. The resolution passed stated in no uncertain terms that full and open cooperation with the inspectorate must happen and if not the UN had authorised military force. That is one thing that cannot ever be argued.
Kofi Annan had a strange pang of liberalism that made him distance himself from his own organisations decision. If he was honourable, he would have resigned when the UN voted unanimously to pass the resolution authorising force.
To say the Iranians are simply misunderstood is hand wringing apologist nonsense. How much clearer would you like the statement. Israel should be wiped from the map. This from a government that advocated death to those who don't believe in their silly religion. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
It amazes me the double standards applied. You claim the Iranians have all these rights and are sorely misunderstood and yet you also claim, in the same post, that it is acceptable that they want shut of Israel. Have the Israelis no rights? You claim the Iranian Ayatollah to be misunderstood in his death threats and pronouncements but you would laugh if I were to ask you to afford the same privilege to Tony Blair or george Bush. That smacks, rather distastefully, of being patronising.
Gun boat diplomacy is not something i would tie myself to, but, in the event of diplomatic and political methods failing, As they did in Iraq, then force is the only answer left. This is not a first resort, it is a last resort.
if you had not noticed, the areas of the world where evil dictatorships have been ousted by force are, on the whole, peaceful and prosperous, and of no threat to anyone. The area of the world that has had bunches of liberal apologists seeking to defend them and try other means is in constant turmoil, threatens the globe either physically or financially and offers no pretence to negotiation.
To say the inspectorate should have been allowed to finish the job is a scream. They had spent over 8 years being thwarted at every attempt. They had been in and out of Iraq constantly and spent 8 years asking the UN to finally deal with it. On the eve of invasion, Saddam suddenly has a change of heart and says okay guys, come and check and gullible people everywhere thought this time he meant it. Don't make me laugh. It was another stalling tactic as he realised that he could keep his own people in check through torture and mass murder, but not the might of a UN backed force on his doorstep.
And still you fail to come up with a workable alternative. It is so very easy to criticise others but so very difficult to do any better.
Oh and by the way. What do the Celts want with England? They govern England through a Celtic premier and Celtic Chancellor, and have absolutely free right to live and work in England. Are you saying that all the non-Celts should move abroad and give their homes and businesses to Celts?
How very odd.
Alan

BTW. Bin Laden is a Saudi, whose family are as rich as Creosote. He has no need of financing by anyone. He was supported by the US to rid Afghanistan of the USSR.
I own a dog and I give it food shelter and love. If it bites my kids I will personally shoot it.
think about it.

hewittalan6 - 27 Mar 2006 19:47 - 420 of 421
The war was not illegal. There was a clear mandate in place for it and another was not needed. Period. That is a fact. The resolution passed stated in no uncertain terms that full and open cooperation with the inspectorate must happen and if not the UN had authorised military force. That is one thing that cannot ever be argued.
************************************

THOU SHALL NOT KILL THY FELLOW MEN....FOR OIL,POWER OR ISRAEL....SO ENDETH THE FIRST LESSON

Ever think of preaching that to the Hussein family who slaughtered thousand for political expediency or sport?
Thought not.
That would hurt the very poor apologists argument.
Alan

hey in answer to the question the thread... NO

Blair should fight to the end, even if he takes us with him..

we cant let these things continue, people dying for no reason at all.. all this wealth in this country and people starve or are inslaved, HSBC alone makes enought profit to feed countries several times over, but no one says anything.

Corporations massive profits should line the pockets of the poor, not make rich people even more richer..

You gonna kick it off by donating your shares to Oxfam, then???? ;-)

there should be a worldwide rule, if a company makes more than a 500,000,000 profit half should go to poverty. and there should also be a rule included, loopholes will be punishable by prison, i.e. of a company makes this profit but spends it on buying other companies then this should be treated as an offence

I said corporations not me

Destroying capitalism never fed anyone.
Ask the inhabitants of Russia, Zimbabwe, China, the old eastern bloc....................