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?

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

"My Father knew Lloyd George". At least he flogged the ermine openly, in a shop on the main street. The problem was that a large proportion of that money found its way directly into his own pocket. Nowadays, it would appear to be going into the parties ????, but with the promises perhaps of places on the boards, holidays abroad or other perks for the participants.


The problem is that it is not open and open to abuse and creates an unelected establishment or clique, which the prime minister seems to favour and foster. This method or behaviour reminds me of the Masons of old.

I think a second chamber has its advantages, whose membership should not be based on political allegiance. I think it could be small and probably should be elected for a defined period, (possibly 6 years), which is longer that the allowed normal government 5years.

I think who I would like to form the second chamber to contain, and think it should be elected, in order that the electorate would have a chance to remove members if they were thought not to be performing their role.

The second chamber would not be a policy forming body but a reviewing and revising chamber, with no authority other than to reflection and referral back to parliament.. Preferably made up of a cross section of the population.

The problem is the cross section.

When i see who we elect I do wonder what ever was wrong with the hereditary principle!!! ;-)
I feel certain we do need a second chamber. I just can't for the life of me work out how we could have a better one from electing people. Surely that would be a second chamber, like the first. I keep thinking that successfull business men would be better in there, but when you see some of the shinanigans they get up to...........
Religious leaders are an option, but we have seen what happens when religions fall out and the idea of a meritocracy terrifies me, as we would basically be handing over to the civil service.
I wonder if a sort of random election of ordinary joes, rather like the jury system, would work. Each citizen serving for say, 12 months, and acting as a kind of jury on government proposals.
It has its attractions, but has obvious drawbacks with referance to official secrets and the ability of people to grasp "the bigger picture" with little or no knowledge of what has gone previously. Inevitably they would end up relying on civil servants for guidance, and that is no necessarily a good thing.
Just a thought, but I do seem to find myself arguing for the status quo a bit too often for my liking.
Alan

Have noticed!

Constitution of the second chamber should/could have members of all parts of society.

Academics, legal beavers, representatives from large and small businesses, even a scattering of ex-politicians, social services. military, farming community, architects, medical and support services, civil services, old age pensioners, (at least two or three),middle age, youth groups. even some from the female species.

I would be prepared to ref the first 2-3 sessions if I had a body guard.

Not a bad idea except for the Academics, legal beavers, representatives from large and small businesses, even a scattering of ex-politicians, social services. military, farming community, architects, medical and support services, civil services, old age pensioners, (at least two or three),middle age, youth groups. even some from the female species. ;-)
I just want to go and live on a little island somewhere and drink myself to death in the company of several swedish lady athletes and a never ending supply of Cuban cigars.
Any chamber (1st or 2nd) that can provide me with that gets my vote.
Alan

You wouldn't last the evening out!!! 8-)

I could try.
Might ask MAM to sponsor it, like they have done for that guy in Vegas, and I could write a thread.
Alternatively I am considering calling it performance art, entitled death of a playboy and applying for Arts Commission lottery funding. They could (and have) spend the money on worse things.
Alan

Can we club together to pay for the small island and Swedish lady athletes?

Be my guest ;-)

My Mam wouldn't let me go there. 8-)

I will ask my Dad he might.

Looking a bit dodgy for Tory Blair don't you think?

Re the question in the header

As a result of the military intervention in Iraq do you think you are safer in Britain to-day?

No.

Is it safer in France ? Yes.

Do I think i am any less safe in Britain today?
No.
Is Iraq a reason, or an excuse? that may be a more pertinant question.
Alan

Iraq was a major provocation to militant Islamic Fundamentalism.

As Bush, Blair and his henchmen were advised before, but for their own reasons did not assess or accept the probable results intelligently. Probably beyond them in their simplistic view of politics.

They were to conceited to accept advice about the post war management Iraq and we see the consequences.

Unfortunately, this duo with the help of the present Israeli administration by their criminal actions in Lebanon have endangered World Peace and provoked World Terrorism throughout the world, especially in Britain and America.

No, we are not safer since the War on Terrorism speeches by the duo and we will waste many years and much money trying to suppress the "terrorists" who are seen by many "Arabs as Freedom Fighters".

At the end of the day it will come back to negotiation by those participants left sitting around a table.

Well, I'll plump for excuse.
Had it not been Iraq, it would be Afghanistan, or Israel or even a few cartoons in a Danish newspaper.
He who seeks terror will find it. Al Qaida had already warned of deaths but they had blamed 3 of the 4 points i have just mentioned. Israel is nothing at all to do with us. It is a local battle between Hezbollah and the Israelis. It is not within our power to do anything about it except invade and end it by force of arms. Afghanistanis are relieved beyond belief that the years of the Taliban are passed. the only ones unhappy are the Taliban. We have done to death the Iraq argument, and I still believe we were right to do as we did. The danish newspapers are out of our control and yet we had threats of mass murder on Londons streets because of it.
And to those who point to countries who were not involved in the Iraq war and say, look how safe they are. think India, Think Indonesia. Think Australia. Your point loses validity.
No. Iraq is an excuse for purveying a perverted view of religion and instilling fear and terror across the world, for nothing more than the grandisment of Osama Bin Laden. These things would happen with or without that war.
Alan