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?

Snappy,

allowed it all to happen despite the wishes of the British People

Your empirical evidence for this please? As I remember it, the surveys conducted showed <50% against millitary action.
Alan

Alan,

My comments are based on the the public protests at the time and the slap that Blair got at this years general election that was attributed by many commentators as being over the war.

Why Saddam didn't let the UN inspectors do what they wanted is a mystery although I agree that he is a thoroughly nasty human being. The trial is a farce though (sorry to change the subject)

What most people who are pro Iraq war forget is that Saddam was backed by the the US & the UK in the war with Iran in which gas was used by Iraq. Saddam was a right wing westen style dictator which the US kept in power like they did with the Latin american dictators, but his downfull was to invade Kuwait which left the UK & the USA no choice put to remove him from Kuwait, because he was a threat to all the oil producing states.

It is strange or is it strange that people want to be friends of an administration who are pepared fly other "people" around the world to be tortured. I suppose this is the action of a law abiding enlightened government and would be practice by the followers even if the recipients were distant relatives.

There is a major difference between "law abiding, enlightened" and "soft touch, lets get there, fleece 'em and Wreck it" government, though both are either end of a scale.
We have moved too far along that scale and become a nation of apologists for right and proper actions and excuse finders for unacceptable actions.
I am sad to say that if my generation had been of fighting age in 1939, Adolf Hitler would have had a free flight to London and Tower Hamlets or Hackney would be bidding for who could give him the biggest and best flat.
Nobody has ever said we were wrong to go to war with a German nation who slaughtered Gypsys, Jews and Gays, yet we are so very wrong to go to war on a muslim country who slaughters their fellow (though slightly different sect) Muslims and remove an egotistical maniac who was hell bent on seeing just how far he could go before his bluff was called.
The alternative? Do just as much as he lets us and then stand on the runway at Bagdhad airport, waving a peice of paper and saying This is peace in our time.
Alan

Aldwick, good post above.

Lets not forget how the UK and US governments betrayed Saddam much in the same way our contries betrayed Bin-Laden (excuse spelling). To answer the question though should Blair/Bush be tried for war crimes then I think yes. In the same way our so called demorcratic societies have brought others to justice..

lol-total rubbish- should everyone who voted for Blairs Trotskyist hangers on who really run the country via the Unions and public services be tried?- oh yes please.

Blair was the monkey - the Organ Grinder`s still alive and well, not for long though LEFT is soooo 1900`s.

oh ps talking about democracy, 76% of the voters would bring back the death penalty, no outcry from the farties about that bit of non-democratic , non PC feeling then?

We went to war with Germany because they invaded Poland, so they say.

I would bring back hanging and start off with Dil.

Lets invade France next..

lets invade wales lol

yes lets invade Wales and execute people like Dil.

but cant see us getting past dil and his army of killer sheep.

There is little comparison between WW2 and the Iraqi war. Germany was occupying and invading other countries. Germany was the aggressor and had broken international law.

At the time of the Iraqi war, Iraq was within its own borders, and in as far as the UN was concerned was not at that time an aggressors.

They were allowed at the end of the Kuwait war to retreat to within the Iraqi borders hoping that they would be a buffer against Iran.

America has interfered in others countries politics since the WW2 eventually being laugh out of many of those countries as they beat their retreats. (As they will do so from Iraq)

The interference in those countries has been for the hoped financial or economic advantage of the USA.

This time they have bought more than they can chew. I believe it is costing the USA over 120 billion USA dollars a year for this war and Britain approximately 12 billion pounds Sterling.

I think that money could have been spent more wisely.

Good post fred.

Completely disagree.
I was comparing the men, not the wars.
If history has taught us anything, it is that if an evil dictator is given an inch, he will take a mile. This one was nipped in the bud, and quite rightly so.
If the minority of the UK who were against the war had their way then the UN and all its resolutions mean nothing. It would have been a signal to all despots everywhere that a UN resolution stating that if an order was not complied with force would be used had a subtext along the lines of - we won't really because lots of handwringing liberals will get on their moral high horse to prevent it.
Conclusion - Do what you want, we will do nothing and the suffering will continue, the threat will remain. We don't mean it and the rule of international law will only apply to moderate democratic countries who follow it by there own volition.
That would be a hell of an improvement over the current state.
As for the money, we could have used it for extra hospitals and fall out shelters for we must assume when a dictator who we suspect is building WMD does not allow free access to the rest of the world for inspection purposes, he is building them. To not assume that would be an extreme folly.
Alan

On the policy you seem to advocate I think it would be appropriate to remove forcefully Bush and his henchmen from power and put him on trial for war crimes.

Cant understand how you can infer that. The UN clearly told Saddam that unless he complied fully, openly and completely with their resoluion then force would be used. He didn't and it was.
Are we saying that the UN resolution was meaningless, the force was illegal and therefore all future UN resolutions can be safely ignored??
Saddam broke international law. I have no love for the USA at all, but at some point someone had to enforce the resolution.
Your position, if I understand it, means that Iran and Korea can do whatever they wish, regardless of the UN and we take no stance against them. Thsi leads to a better world -how exactly?
Alan

Alan - you have suprised me, a man that usually talks so much sense. There are lots of countries run by mad men are we going to invade them all, what about the Sudan?? I think the answer is no. Why, no oil or in the case of Afgasatan Bush's best mate runs a massive pipe line across the country. Ask the families of the dead troops here and the US. We all seem to of have forgot the many 100's of thousand of Iragis (they are human too) who lives have been ruined. I actually agree he should have been got rid of, but there was no planning of how all those different peoples could be brought together after the event. But that wasnt the main interest. Micheal Moorers film summed it all for me.

Never watched the film, Kivver, but I am a simple man and I believe very firmly that when a person or country openly acts outside of the law, to the detriment of other people / nations then they should be brought to book.
The policy being argued on here runs along 2 lines. Firstly the war was illegal. This is patently untrue. The 167 nations that make up the UN declared Iraqs actions illegal and that unless they ceased force would be used. I know there are a few oily international lawyers seeking to make a name for themselves by questioning this, but the facts remain.
Secondly that the world is now a more dangerous place than before. This a mare subjective question but I believe that the atrocities being played out in Sudan, Zimbabwe et al would be far worse were the leaders of these countries not looking over their respective shoulders at what the free world could do if it decided to.
Can you imagine what the world would be like if Iran and Korea had no fear whatsoever that illegal actions would bring retribution? Can you imagine what Mr Mugabe might do in Zimbabwe if all he had to fear were a few farmers?
I believe in the carrot of negotiation and inclusion, but I also believe in the stick of force when this fails as it did in Iraq.
What really galls me is the idea that Iraq was some kind of peace loving inclusive society prior to the invasion, that is now not a safe place to be. The killings are being committed by the same people who killed citizens for disagreeing with Saddam prior to the invasion. How quickly we forget the scenes of jubilation when Saddams statue was torn down.
I am even more galled when people claim that the majority of people did not back the war. Poll after poll before and during the conflict suggested just the opposite and I get very angry when a proven minority claim to be speaking on behalf of a democratic majority.
As a footnote, I see the peace loving Iraqis have yet to learn that threatening to kill innocent hostages is not a way to get what you desire. They have had free and fair elections, where the electorate is represented proportionatly, but as this doesn't suit some people, civil war has raged.
Could it possibly be that the Iraqis are very happy that they have democratic government and the freedoms associated with it and that other despots are ruthlessly destabilizing the area in order to cause the world to pause before enforcing the rule of law in the despots homelands. I think it could.
Alan