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?

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.

Fred1new - 29 Mar 2006 00:17 - 465 of 466
I think I believe Kofi ANNAN, the opinion of the majority of the United Nation,

The Majority (In fact unanimous) voted for resolution 1471 authorising force.

and the majority of Europe that the war was illegal,

See above

ill thought out, badly prepared for with no thought for the consequence

Not going to disagree with the fact the strategists had a lot of it wrong.

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.

See earlier post. The oil issue is a smokescreen. The welfare of Iraqis is an extremely welcome bonus and on its own has justified the war.

Our views will differ but the results are before us.

Indeed they will, Fred. The facts are before us. 100,000 dead Iraqis during and since the war. many dead due to their countrymen targeting them for being the wrong branch of their religion or supporting the wrong political party. 1 million dead between the end of the first gulf war and Christmas 1995 due to the horrendous treatment meted out by Saddam na dhis henchmen and the complete disregard he showed for human life in his pursuit of meglamania.
Alan

Had there been bulletin boards at the time, I assume there would have been exhortations to prosecute war against Stalin and subsequent Soviet leaders.

Indeed there would, zscrooge.
Having said that, there would also have been many posts urging Churcchill to be tried for his treatment of the Germans. Indiscriminate bombing of cities etc. and his decision to take us to war over a country that was nothing to do with us, being invaded.
The great thing about it is that we disagree. It would be a very boring world if we all agreed on everything.
alan

it sounds like kofi was excatly right, i agreed with the removal of saddam,, it was the way it was done. Anybody with an 1/8 of intelligence can see there was follow up plan after his removal and if there was it has failed miserably. That was the reason many of us didnt want us or the USA to go there in the first place because exactly what we thought would happen has happened. At least alan has showed some regard of the difficulty the Iraqi people are going through and hopes/thinks it will get better at sometime (i hope he is right). Haystack shows no sympathy or empathy and I refer back to my post where i said lets just have world where the strongest survive and you if dont agree with big hardman haystack (with absolutley no insecurities or the need to feel superior to make himself feel better) you will be shot or gassed.

hope you saw the report on newsnight tonight. A load of US soldiers who have been on tour in Iraq did a march to New orleans. These are soldiers who have taken part in atrocities over there and are marching to express their regret and disgust at what is happening. Described everything i thought would be happeneing. Indiscriminate killing, beatings and torture. One example where the soldier admitted killing innocent Iraqis by the roadside and then throwing a shovel by the side of him to make out he was digging a hole to plant roadside bombs. He said this was a regular occurance. These soldiers are finding it almost impossible to live with themselves and are getting very little support back home. They are also incouraged not think of the iraqi people as people but animals. They said this made it much easier for them to kill them. It was a very sad piece with some of them breaking down and crying for what they a seen and done. bloody big soft poofs eh haystack!

If they can't try bliar ("trust me guys"or "ordinary guy") for war crimes, I wonder if they will get for flogging the ermins for cash.

How much is Earldom worth on the market at the moment!!

Kivver,
If these reports are true then of course they should be punished. Of that there is no question. As should whoever gave the order to act in this way. The Armed forces are no different to any other population in that there are those who will act outside the law, whatever their rank, but in war or peace it is unacceptable. Therein lies a great truism. Certainly the british forces, and I hope the US forces, will prosecute the offenders where they are guilty. Many other regimes, the Iraqis included, would see no problem in it. One of the jobs of the republican guard was to round up suspects to give Hussein junior a bit of target practice.
Fred,
I haven't kept up on that one. To be honest I haven't got further than the headlines. It could probably belong in the newspaper at any date of your choice from LLoyd George to now.
From my understanding of the Lords, there are 5 types in there. The Law lords who have got there through the legal ranks but who never vote on political matters, the religious lords representing the church, the heredetaries who never attend anyway, the retired politicians who debate politics and don't get involved in the legal processes, and finally the rest. Among the rest you would be very hard pushed to find a single one who has not been a financial supporter of one party or another over the last 40 years, or who has not been a very influential figure on behalf of a government to gain their reward.
Yeah, its wrong. Of course it is. It is also accepted practise in Whitehall. We have now just become very suspicious of it. I find it hard to work out what would be the best course of action.
The republican in me would want to see the house finished. The common sense part tells me it prevents or modifies some of the more ridiculous legislation. If we keep it, who sits there? Elected? No different to the commons then. Appointed? how do we make sure appointments are not reward for favours recieved?
A tough one. But peerages should not be for sale or for past favours.
Alan