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?

But leaving him to get on with it was to sentance thousands of Innocent Iraqis to death by torture and the survivors to fear and poverty. It was to allow a homocidal madman to continue with the weapons programme he bragged about and just cross our fingers that he was lying.
For me, that would have been a deriliction of our duty to protect the weak and vulnerable.
If we applied that argument consistently, then Europe would have been divi'd up between Hitler and Mussollini, the Falklanders would have lived under the Argentine Military Junta, God alone knows what the Kosovans / Serbs / Croats would be going through, the entire far east would be under Nippon rule, Spain would be a communist hell hole under Franco instead of a holiday destination and a prosperous nation. The list is endless.
What we would certainly end with is a morass of states, ruled by the ruthless doing whatever they wished because "we wouldn't go there".
The rest of the world argument is something of a red herring. Those that knew best (the immediate neighbours who had most to fear, and in most cases hate the west) welcomed us with open arms and supported the efforts. they knew only too well the regime we were dealing with.
No. The "not our problem, Guv" approach is not really an alternative.
Alan

dont forget the preceedent it sets and all the other mad mullers around the world, which country is next, the sudan, zimbabwe, and lots more im sure you could roll of the tougue.

But the other precedent is to give carte blanche to every leader to do as they wish.

so why irag and not sudan then whoes muderous regime could be argued to be worse than irag, oh i forgot no oil in the sudan.

No. There is no reason to suspect the Sudan of developing WMD. There was every reason to suspect Iraq of same.
The oil issue is a smokescreen. It has cost more to the UK and USA to prosecute the policy than could ever be gained by controlling the Iraqi oil (most of which is in Kuwait anyway).
Alan

Do you think there is an element of paranoia in USA/Blair and others view of the world?
After all paranoia could be said to be projection of ones own covert or overt motivations.

Just asking?

Do you think there is an element of paranoia in USA/Blair and others view of the world?
After all paranoia could be said to be projection of ones own covert or overt motivations.

Just asking?

Not in the Blair camp, and not in the USA camp over this issue.
The USA are famously paranoid of all things that are not Moms apple pie, but in this instance I sincerely believe that the Allies made the only decision open to them.
It is not a nice decision, but it had to be made. The alternative was indecision, which is exactly what Saddam, and others who were watching wanted.
Had we gone the French/German route of no action, then the brakes would be off. their would be no threat, and therefore no control over Iran / Sudan / Israel / Zimbabwe / Korea et al. All the other loose canon states.
The Tyrant is a bully by nature. If you turn the other cheek and walk away, the bullying gets more intense. If you stand up to him, you may well get a bloody nose, but you discover he is a coward and the bullying stops.
The world really is like a school playground in this respect.
I know we disagree, Fred (hopefully respectfully), But negotiations with Iran continue, and I believe Iran would have told the world to piss off if we had been unable to deal effectively with Iraq. After all, what would be the Iranian motivation for negotiation?
Alan

The Tyrant is a bully by nature. I agree, but who is the big boy with all the weapons and using them to further their immediate desires.

This is the nub of the disagreement, in many ways.
I believe the desire of the UK/USA and others action was to try to protect the world from Iraq sponsored terrorism, ensure that no WMD were available to that regime and give Iraq a chance to throw off the tyrannical yolk, become free and more prosperous.
You believe it was done for the oil. I cannot find a good economic or political reason for this, but on that point we must differ.
The economic cost of the war has far outwheighed the savings on getting oil (or an alternative) elsewhere, and most of Iraqs oil is under kuwait anyway (which is why Kuwait was invaded by them in 1991).
If the war was as illegal as you claim the political risk of offending all the other oil producing nations and losing out to them diplomatically would be too great to allow for the action.
For my money, Saddam and the Iraqi regime were the bullys, albeit of the very weakest kids in the playground. The allies have used their strength to stop that bullying and send a warning to other bullies that it will not be rolerated.
Alan

It matters very litle whether Iraq had WMD as they would have had. It was only a matter of time. They had the cash and the will to develop them or buy them.

hewitt - "the war was not illegal."

So that makes it OK, then? Whether it was legal or not is really immaterial, isn't it?

The occupation of France by German forces in 1936 was not technically illegal either as the correct papers were signed asking Germany for protection- and Marshall Petain acquiesed with Germany to run his country.
However, acts by the French resistance to kill German soldiers and to allow Allied soldiers to escape were illegal. Do you condem them?

It seems to me that your lumping all Iranians or all Iraqis or all muslims together as legitimate targets for killing, is just as bad as muslim extremists lumping togther all Westerners for the same reason.

You make a good point about offending other oil-producing nations; the fall-out from this is, I suspect, still to come. I have a brother who has lived in the middle East and still lives in Africa, and he insists that Arabs will avenge each other even though they may hate each other. Revenge is a dish best served cold...

Maggot I think your last statement is unfortunately true. I think the feeling with many there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I think a major thorn in the side will be Israel. How that will play out nobody knows.

Maggot. The war was not illegal. There. Said it again. It was mandated by UN resolution 1471. No argument over that. The argument comes from those who falsely label it an illegal act.
Quite where you gain this strange idea that i am some kind of closet racist is beyond me. I lived and worked in the middle East for some considerable time. I hold the people of Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Oman, Ras Al Karmah, Kuwait and many other places I was proud to call home very dear. Back in the UK 2/3 of my salaried, non-director level staff are muslim and seikh. I have absolute non-racist pedigree that is beyond question.
i have merely pointed out that the leaders in some of those areas are not to be trusted with potential WMD. The Iranian Ayatollah should not be trusted with any weapon. It makes no difference whether he leads Iran or Switzerland in my book. It has nothing to do with his race, creed, colour, religion or nationality. it is about his declared aims.
Earlier there was a post claiming the correct thing to do was leave well alone in Iraq. I have done a little reading this evening to see if this is justifiable. I have deliberately avoided the books from anyone who has a position or opinion to defend.
After the first Gulf war in 1991, sanctions were imposed on Iraq by the UN to prevent a build up of arms, both WMD and traditional. I am assuming here that the economic sanctions were supported universally. The sanctions referred to all trade except healthcare, food and agricultural supplies. This was to prevent Iraq being in a famine situation.
Reports from the UN suggest that the allowed imports of food and medicines were illegally exported to provide for armament spending. Saddam, his family and his supporters lived lavishly.
Heres the rub. The Al-Mustansiriyia University of Baghdad reports the civillian death toll of Iraqis, from the start of the second gulf war to now as "around 100,000". This is an obscene figure. It is about 99,999 more than we would wish to see (sorry, but I don't much care about saddams fate).
The United nations Food & Agriculture Organisation report of December 1995 addresses the number of Iraqi civillians who had died needlessly due to starvation, malnutrition or lack of basic medication since the end of the first Gulf War. It reports the figure to be "around 1 million, with more than half these deaths being children under the age of 5".
It seems to my simple way of thinking that the war has made Iraqi life expectancy rise!!
Yes, conditions are very bad. yes there is violence of the type we could not contemplate. Yes it is not safe to go to the market to buy bread. I agree with all these things. But surely you must agree these figures are fairly damning reading for those who argue we should have left the sanctions in place and let the inspection team get on with it. And had we let the inspection team get on with it we had to leave the sanctions in place. How else would we bribe and cajole and persuade Saddam to co-operate?
So there you are. Simple evidence that Saddam saw death on a grand scale as a price worth paying to enjoy his grandiose living and his notoriety and infamy.
If we accept those figures (and why should we not) then surely we must accept that we had to do something quickly and decisively and however distasteful in order to bring about an end to the death and misery, not of thousands but of millions, that Saddam had inflicted on that country.
Alan

AL - why do you think the majority of europe decided to keep well away??? How is France or Germany different to Britain when it comes to the threat from Saddam.

France are famous for being chicken in any conflict. They also had many business interests in Iraq and many have suggested that they help break the oil embargo.

Europe have no appetite for a fight. They turned the other way during the Yugoslavia and Kosovo attrocities. ]

Too little and too late - appeasement again!

Similar response to haystack - if a little more diplomatic!!!
The german nation, for very obvious reasons, have an arms length attitude to armed conflict. The memories of the 1st half of the twentieth century and the embarassment they feel is too deeply ingrained. Just my opinion, but a little like the german student Harry Enfield used to do so well. Stereotypical? Probably, but most stereotypes have a little basis.
The French are a little more difficult to understand.
BTW. If we disregard the French and Germans, and of course the Swiss who remain neutral on everything but meusli, almost every other nation was represented in the war.
The role call of serving troops includes such political and military powers as Kosovo, Spain, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Italy and others that i read about today in the Baghdad University paper. I will try and find it again to check those facts.
I grant you they did not send thousands of troops, armed to the teeth, but they did send soldiers to assist with the effort, often as specialists in certain areas.
Alan

Kivver,
Just to complete the list for Europe (though my geography on exactly which countries are in Europe is poor and my spelling worse);
Add;
Bulgaria
Estonia
Hungary
Kazakhistan
Latvia
Poland
Slovakia
Ukraine

Outside of Europe you can add others you did not know were there including thailand and San Salvador(!)
Alan

I think I believe Kofi ANNAN, the opinion of the majority of the United Nation, and the majority of Europe that the war was illegal, ill thought out, badly prepared for with no thought for the consequence and was more to do with America trying to extend their power of influence, protect future oil supplies and little to do with the wealth fare of the Iraqis.

Our views will differ but the results are before us.

But for many the world is now a more fearful place than before the Iraqi invasion and the pockets of many American arms companies filled. That excludes the funds gone missing.

You are entitled to your opinions.

I think that Kofi ANNAN has been one of the weakest and ineffectual leaders of the UN in a long time. I suppose it is only fair as he reflects the weak and ineffectual nature of the UN.