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?

Hewitterlan6
Much of what you say is true, -did you see the brief interview with an American terrorism expert on "Newsnight" just after the Airport closures?
He reminded us that since 1980 no terrorism outrage has been claimed to be for Religious purposes, invariably it is because attacts are being taken to the door of an agressor - some group that has 'inveded' land that they consider to be "theirs"
....I'm not sure of the facts he claims but it fits in with much we understand of the middle east and now in UK/USA...even though I believe "we" went into the middle east with the best intentions....it just happened that Saddam Hussain did controll a lot of oil....but he had been a tyrant against his own people for years.

I think the UK's "problem" is largely one of our own making - immigation is seen in terms of people "like us" and that's why we cosset the wrongdoers with excuses such as they have a British Passport - well, so have I and I can't say it holds much pleasure that my Government is operating a hate campain against the young and the elderly. If people that wqnt to visit the UK (permanently, or not) had to agree to maintain our Laws and honour the Queen as head of State, then I can't see why they shouldn't stay here and contribute to the British Nation. However, we have plenty of rougues and manipulators of the truth here already, witness a few MP's Company Directors, Accountanats and Estate Agents (to name but a few that have that Public perception..). If we can't jail company directors that falsify figures, debts, borrowings, loans and a handful of other scams that have (or will) come to light, then it really is time our Consitiution was put on paper (like the American Declaration, as a "foundation" accepted in the US for years).
John Reid has said that discussing Imigration must not be called racist - there is a real problem brewing with criminals (already here)/- comming from countries that don't have our history and whose citizens see the UK as a land of milk and honey - ripe for plunder. These 'outcasts' must never be allowed in.
If they come here to study, to help, to add to our prosperity technically or artistically - that's no problem...provided they behave "....better than the English(!)..."
For all J.Reid's faults (and maybe Opportunistic tendencies-oops!), he appears for now to be speaking some sense and maybe we should have these debates, but don't let's be suckered into believing that ID cards will do the job - the recent troubles and 7/7, 9/11 would not have been prevented by ID cards - Passports are far more difficult to forge and yet these people manages to go undetected for so long.

I agree with every word Alan-suspect that Heather can more than hold her own! She's not had much to say lately though.

Shes fallen out with me, MP.
I refused to take her to a Seikh wedding we were invited to in Coventry, because I had an important cricket match and she has not forgiven me yet!!
It may be some time before I am allowed back in the house, never mind the marital bed!!
We did win though so it was probably worth it.
alan

Can we send a few speech therapists to birmingham, I know its not true but the brummie accent makes them sound ........well........a little thick.
sorry but thats how it sounds.

It is easy to sit in our offices and critisise the policies and involvement in iraq. There was no choice, we had to go into Iraq and remove the WMD (Saddam), most of the current insurgents that are causing the trouble are NOT Iraqi people. These extremeists are comming from other countries in the name of whatever religion they like. The bias reporters fuel the situation by thier slant on events.
The only simple solution is for the real iraqi people to reclaim thier country, and take control over it. This is happening slowly, but due to lack of education within the poorer commuities it will be a slow precess.
These people have nver had a say and to suddenly give them the freedom is a shock. There are so many factions that getting them all to agree on what day it is difficult enough.

A united single state of Iraq is untenable, a futile objective. Ironically, this is the reverse of Vietnam and of course proves that the US/Britain has learnt precisely nothing.

And yet you were quite happy to have a united, single state of Iraq under Saddam? A man who gasses entire villages if they disagree with him?

A cheap shot and untrue - but consistent with the level of debate.

Marc

The only simple solution is for the real Iraqi people to reclaim their country, and take control over it. This is happening slowly, but due to lack of education within the poorer communities it will be a slow process.

This would have applied if we had not interfered in Iraq with less deaths and mutilation than is ongoing at present.


We did not learn from Northern Ireland that if the "terrorists" / "freedom Fighters" have community support they can merge into it and disappear. When this occurs
they can re-emerge at will and continue. To remove that support you have to remove or at least address the abuses which the communities (groups) feel they are suffering.

That eventually means talking rather than attempting to kill.
H6
As far as the gassing is concerned, this was with the connivance of the United States who provided the weapons and gas. America I think with their invasion and WMD probably killed and maimed many more "Iraqis! than Saddam kill of Kurds.

I think Israel wonton indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a reflection back to what the Nazis were doing in their management of the occupied countries during WW2.

I put Blair and Bush in the same category as Saddam and think that the former two should be tried for crimes against humanity.

I would not have been against the removal of Saddam if it had been done under the auspices of the United Nations. The UN while it has many weaknesses and needs changes to its constitution is the best chances of a peaceful and more egalitarian world.

A single state is not untenable, just very difficult and will be a slow process.
Winning the hearts and minds of the public is the only way forward. It worked in Northern Ireland and it will work there. The people must decide what they want and must unite to get it.
United they can, by thier support of thier own police, close down the insurgents, hiding places.
Remember its hard to move or kill a terrorist if you dont know who they are.
I agree the U.S should not be running the show over thier. They have no concept of tact and diplomacy, unless thier using a bomb to get it. The Americans have always been very slow to learn from thier mistakes. If they dont learn quickly they and all the coalition forces could get a serious kick up trhe backside.

They are already getting that kick up the bum Marc,its about time we and the yanks stop being the police force for the world bring them all home ASAP.

Not a cheap shot at all!!
You argued with commitment and no small level of eloquance that Iraq should never have been invaded, and Saddamshould not have been replaced in this way. You actually made some very good debating points in support of your argument, and now you say something that at face value appears inconsistent. Why would that be a cheap point?
I point it out, as a way of reinforcing my own view that the criticism levelled at those who supported the war is made without reference to the alternative, which is for Saddam to remain in power.
Alan

But the removal was done under the auspices of the UN. It was their resolution that called for his removal if he did not comply immediately and completely, without the need for a further vote.
He did not comply and he was removed. His non complicity was never doubted by anyone, least of all Kofi Annan.
As far as gassing was with the connivance of the US, that is no more than apologising for Saddam. If I give you a breadknife I am hardly responsible for you running it through someones ribs!! the gassing of the kurds has never, to my knowledge been disputed or blamed on anyone else.
The indiscriminate killing of civilians is exactly what our anti-terror police are stopping, and that is not done by UK and US forces.
You reiterate your stance on negotiation,addressing the issues, but that is a recipe for disaster. Give in once and you are lost. We will very soon have every single minority in our land demanding more and more and threatening to blow people up if they do not acceed. Where will that end?

woody - look at whats happening, police primacy is what currently happening over there. That means the police take the lead and make the decisions. They are then backed up by the Army until their own army has been trained and is in a position to take over.
The U.S. have been very slow in implementing this, generally because they are convinced that no one else can blow the crap out of things the way they can.
For this to be a complete success takes the people to really want it. Removing the troops would be abandonment and a very reckless move.

alan6 (sigh) When did I ever say I was 'happy' with Saddam? Your post was clearly an opening gambit, to steer debate back to your black and white vision, that there was no alternative: invasion or an evil dictator. Old ground and clearly one we won't agree on. I also reject the notion that not invading is appeasement and fruitless. Again, old ground - the alternatives have been posited before but absolutely nothing is going to convince you from your tunnel vision of politics. Robert Macnamara was utterly convinced that there was no alternative but to carpet bomb Vietnam.

Marc3254 - 15 Aug 2006 10:36 - 518 of 518

For this to be a complete success takes the people to really want it. Removing the troops would be abandonment and a very reckless move.

Yes, it would certainly be harsh. But a reckoning will have to come sooner or later; the three main groups have long memories and sadly, cannot simply be welded together because it suits the West. Sadly, that simple fact was beyond the wit of Bush and Blair but twas ever thus.

zscrooge (sigh)
Because I am convinced of my view, I have tunnel vision, yet you, equally convinced are wise?
In 519 posts no-one has yet come up with an alternative that would have rid iraq of Saddam. If you support an alternative that left him in place then clearly you consider this a price worth paying.
All I have asked since this thread started is this;
If the invasion, ensuing war, removal of saddam was such a wrong and terrible thing to do, what could we have done to ensure, with absolute certainty, that Iraq was not a threat to either the world at large, or its own people.
I ask this question be answered without any benefit of hindsight, and bearing in mind that the UN had voted for the aforesaid action, and that even as troops massed on the Iraqi border, The UN inspection teams were reporting that Iraq was not complying fully with the UN directives. You should also consider that your security personnel were reporting that WMD probably did exist, that if they did, they were a threat to your own nation, and that the only way to ensure they were no threat was to go into Iraq and seize control. You must also remember that dozens of UN demands had been ignored, and sanctions were not working and the liberal nations of the world were crying foul that the sanctions only damaged ordinary Iraqis, not the ruling cadre.
that is the problem that Blair and Bush faced. I see no alternative but to take decisive action, given those circumstances. I am prepared to look at what else could have been done, but as yet, all I read is people bemoaning what happened and quoting from others with 20/20 hindsight, yet unable to answer the simple question. What else could be done?
Alan

I've never noticed this thread before, forgive my ignorance as I've only scan read it .
Theres a lot of very interesting and convincingly argued points being made by all.
In my previous life , I have worked in Kosovo, iraq ( kuwait conflict) and have close friends who are now posted out there training their police.
I've always believed my country had the interests of the world at heart. The conflicts over the past two decades have sadly made me re-think me position and ultimately my role in it. I have witnessed first hand the cold reality of corporate politics and sadly become increasingly dissillousioned with what the 'west' really wants.
I lost friends in 9/11 and was quite happy to see a carte blanche approach to tackling 'global terrorism.'
The farce that is iraq (no WMD's) and now the current crisis in israel has made me realise that the new peace is WAR. I don't believe that the current administration in America is willing to tackle the causes of terrorism in the Middle east.
this was brought home to me mostclearly a few nights ago in a chinese resteraunt nr arthurs seat in Edinburgh. Around the table were several pissed scots, two englishmen, 3 arabs and 2 irish gents (HONEST). as always happens with beer the conversation drifted towards religion and politics.
one of the arabs made the comment,
" if the IRA were blowing up,LONDON and MANCHESTER, Why did'nt the british gov't bomb parts of NI or IRELAND itself, as thats where the support for this extremist terrorist group was.
How come the americans and the British failed for almost 3 weeks to stop ISRAEL carpet bombing towns and villages and the infrastructure throughtout all of lebanon, surely a whole nation can't be held responsible."
Well, I did'nt have an answer, that did'nt smack of ..............and i'm jewish.

I don't know where I heard it or who said it, but ..
"A GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE AFRAID OF IT'S PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID OF THEIR GOVERNMENT"
No leader should be above the law, if atrocities have been committed in other countries at the knowledge and behest of Mr's Bush and possibly Blair , they should face court.
anyway, won't be long before the icecaps melt, the gulf stream stops and we all drown then freeze... HAPPY DAYS!!!!

A6,

I saw my neighbour, who has a nice garden, sharpening his axe the other day. I am sure he is going to attack me while I am sleeping. In the past when the wind was blowing dust and leaves were blown from his garden into mine. I am sure that he place the pile of leaves were deliberately pile there and I am sure in my own mind that earlier, I saw him spraying those leaves with chemicals.

Also, when I saw him in the market the other day he scowled at me when I asked him what he was going to do with the axe and told me to mind my own business.
Also he attends a different church and has different friends.

Tonight, I am going to invade his property, kill a few of his family and plunder his garden because I am sure that he is a dangerous maniac. These actions will make me feel safer. I keep on forgetting my neighbour on the other side of me isnt speaking to me either. Perhaps I will have to take him out as well. Thank GOD I Have my God on my side.

Concentrate of SEO it needs your help!

Do try and keep debate rational and not personal. It only kills the sincerity of your argument stone dead when you get silly and try so hard to be funny.
Of course, if you had suspicions, you would phone the police. they would investigate and if they had reason to believe he was going to commit crime, he would be arrested and detained. if he surrounded himself with armed men and refused to co-operate, then the police too would arm, a stand off would ensue and eventually, if he refused to back down, force would be used to apprehend him.
Now in the case of Iraq, his neighbours had exactly the same concerns. the police (UN) tried to investigate, but Iraq (saddam) refused to co-operate and surrounded himself with armed men, threatening to kill anyone who tried to investigate further. the police (UN) armed themselves, a stand off ensued and eventually, refusing to back down force was used to apprehend him.
Your apparantly silly analogy, aimed at discrediting my views and the actions of the UK and US has, in fact exposed the fatal flaw in your argument. Unless of course you believe our police would also be wrong in their actions.
Your very silly ending has exposed the fact that you relly do not wish to debate your own question, but would rather have a cheap jibe at other posters.
Your post says so much more about you than it says about Bush, Blair or Saddam.
Alan

Also would you like to explain your reference to God.
I am an athiest, the UN contains worshippers of every God or Deity we know of and the UK parliament, while mainly christian, contains representatives of every other major religion. these two bodies voted in favour of the action.
So, was that a jibe at me, the government, the UN or are you simply saying that any act of violence is, by nature, motivated by prejudice against another creed.
It is well catalogued that any liberal argument that starts to leak plays the race / prejudice card to prevent any meaningfull discussion.