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?

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

H6 You are entitled to plump for the terminology, which supports your cause.

A little time ago I think you seemed to advance the opinion that the invasion of Iraq by America and Britain was a successful and that the aftermath would also be a success. To many this would appear not to be so.

We are involved in the Israeli Lebanese conflict due to Blairs close association with Bush and his permitting of WMD passage through this country to support Israel in yet again another criminal and futile war.

Remember America has supplied Israel with much of its weapons of mass destruction as they did Saddam when he used to suppress his own countrymen and to enter a war with Iran etc..

Blair is responsible in that he is not condemning the criminal actions of Israel in the disproportionate use of force in Lebanon. The Arab States and the world had noted his and America reluctance to do so. I think, one of the reasons for not doing so (amongst other factors,) is due to the large financial backing that the Jewish community gives to the political parties in America. (The Jewish Lobby.) Similar pressure may be being exerted on Blair, especially some of his previous actions may be leading to the bankruptcy of the Labour Party.

The majority of people through out the world see the actions of America and Britain in invading Iraq, coupled with the criminal disproportionate force use by Israel in Lebanon as provoking and probably leading to further conscription to the various groups of Militant Islamic Fundamentalists.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, I do not feel we are in receipt of true information as yet of the real state of that conflict. I hope that the intervention may lead to a peaceful stage in that countrys history and lead to its independence and national development. But I think a claim that the war against drugs and the Taliban is successful is still in doubt.

I think if you check Australia was involved in Iraq. It would be reasonable to consider whether there are other factors of disagreements between the Indonesians and Australia.

Also, it may be reasonable to check the background motivation for the terrorist actions in India and Indonesia. We are labelling them terrorists, but indigenous populations many see them as Freedom Fighters.

It seems to be reasonable to consider the forced settlement of borders by British governments on Pakistan, Kashmir and India as part of the problem. This is part of the underlying disagreements and the resort to violence there.

Before condemning the terrorists for the use of violence and murder I think it would be reasonable to examine the violent examples demonstrated by America, Britain and Israel over recent years.

Also, one should recognise the attempts by America, to diminish the authority of the United Nations and yet ultimately call on them to bail them out and to police the chaos they have created and allow them to go home.

The United Nations with all its weaknesses would still seem to the route to decent world society.

Religion is often the flag under or around which the discontented congregated to voice their discontentment.

The way to deal with deal with these situations is to address the underlying grievances

As you say, fred, one of the wonderful things about our fair country is the ability to express ourselves as we wish and disagree freely. I still believe iraq will turn out right, just as I believe, and have stated in the past, the yanks are entirely the wrong people to be there now.
The startling thing about it all is that in Iraq, people are happy to throw facts and figures around, opinions and statistics and quote from any and every source to support their argument. When it comes to the more clear cut areas, the reasoning descends to "we are not in receipt of true information yet". If I put that to support my stance then you would, quite rightly, shoot me down in flames!!
The words disproportionate force are bandied around over Israel, and to be fair, i know not how one defines disproportionate. Acts of war are committed and Israel retaliates. Who stuck first is one even historians cannot agree on, for it goes back millenia. The problem is that Israel is a country, and those committing an act of war have a higher alleigance. Where then, do israel retaliate in order to remove the threat to their innocent civilians? if you agree that the first responsibility of any government is the defence of its nation, it must have that right.
Terrorists are cowards who, as you say, use religion as a flag to hide behind, but we must not let this succeed,lest anarchy reign worldwide. We must look beyond the flag of convenience and root them out.
I am no great fan of Israel, nor am I of Lebanon or the surrounding Arab states that perpetuate the idea that there must be no jewish state in the region. If I knew the answers there then I would be a great world leader, but I do defend the right of any nation to defend itself.
Australia may well have been very lightly connected with the Iraq war, I am not certain. I am certain, however,that Indonesia was not directly linked. Indonesia is also a Muslim state, so to claim that Al Qaidas cause is an Islamic one is false. It is one of global terror and domination. it is a fear and repugnance of western values.
The splitting of India / pakistan was wanted by the various religions of that continent. The argument is over the precise nature of the border. Wherever it was put, there would be dispute. We have seen this even in our ancient isle, over the precise nature of places like berwick-upon-Tweed and Todmordon. To blame a government and a nation some 50 years later is a little rich.
we come back to the age old question. How do we, and the Israelis, fight global terrorism. We have witnessed first hand that unpredictable things like harmless cartoons can lead to death threats and terrorism. We know that the demands of the terrorists are impossible for us to comply with and they refuse entirely to negotiate on the demands. What then is left, other than to hunt them down and remove them from society?
To go down the path of appeasement means no more Israel. No more UN. No more Nato. No more freedom within our own country. To negotiate means that we encourage every minority group, every disenfranchised handful of people and every group who disagree with an alternative view of life to take up arms. In short we make a bad situation worse. Any show of weakness is to encourage this.
Finally, I would submit that it was not the USA who diminished the authority of the UN. It was those couple of countries who vetoed the demands of the majority of the UN. Those couple of countries who, when the chips were down, did not have the courage to sanction the action that the majority of the UN had voted in favour of. They took the easy option of hoping it would go away rather than take tough decisions, and now the world pays the price.
There is no defence for terrorism. War is justifiable. terrorism is not. It is cowardly and despicable and I will not act as an apologist for the Bin ladens of this world. The right and proper way to create changes is through debate, reason and the ballot box. This has not worked for the extremists. it never does. I would welcome the forces of Al qaida to present a party, with manifesto and candidates in every nation across the globe. they will not because their beleif is not for democracy, but for the rule of fear. Where they do hold sway, there is no political movement. there is no debate. Disagreement means torture and death. so how do we negotiate with these people and find out what their grievences are? We cannot. And do you really think that withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan and stopping any support for Israel would appease them and make us safe? Of course not. They would move on to the next demand, bouyed by the knowledge that we would give them whatever they ask for.
As you said fred. We are all entitled to our opinion, and I respect yours, but I cannot agree with it.
alan