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?

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.

The analogy was not intended to be funny.
At the end of the day the majority of motivations are are primitive. To expose motivations for actions it is necessary to simplify them.

The actions expound bear more relationship to behaviour at the OK coral and the present gun ho American Administration. The latter's actions and behaviour is being condemned by the majority of world, unfortunately Britain is being associated with them is also condemned.


I am to an atheist and have been since childhood (but still admire and respect those who have the ability to believe as long in a "morality" on respect of others and tolerance. Also grateful for many belonging to religious groups for the work they have done to help those less fortunate than themselves.

But one of the basic instincts is the "herd" instinct which can portray itself by religious grouping, football team allegiance, party or social grouping.

Many leaders use this instinct to advance their causes, even though they may not have any real belief in the ideology they seem to be projecting.

As far as baiting you is concerned, you have pointed out, in many different ways that you are a "big boy" and prepared to give and take.

If you rise to the bait, so be it.

But would the police course of action be wrong? To continue your analogy.

First time I've seen this thread. Even so I'll answer the question posed in the header, even with the added benefit of hindsight.

A resounding NO from me.

hewittalan6 - 15 Aug 2006 17:15 - 520 of 524
zscrooge (sigh)
Because I am convinced of my view, I have tunnel vision, yet you, equally convinced are wise?

Thats the wisest thing youve said on this thread. ;)

'We had no other choice is the mantra.' That is all predicated on the idea that the facts of the choice we were given were correct. Sadly that was not the case. And lets not think that this is hindsight the facts were well known and documented before the war (the US has a freedom of information law).


Objections to war twofold.

1.The basis and justification for war was flawed and in my opinion, knowingly and cynically so.

The intelligence community on both sides of the Atlantic did not rate Sadam as a threat that required war. In short, there was a mountain of evidence available to Bush and Blair (before the war) that suggested war was not appropriate. For whatever reason, that evidence/intelligence was ignored, spun or exaggerated by the two of the most powerful men in the western world. Once the public had been fed the sexed up case, the rest is history and we all pay the price.

Inspections worked
According to Blix, "More weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under
[the disarmament process] than were destroyed during the [first] Gulf War.

Sanctions restrained Iraq's weapons development programme
In his State of the Union address President Bush claimed that "nothing to date
has restrained him [Saddam Hussein] from his pursuit of these weaponsnot
economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile
strikes on his military facilities." In reality, sanctions were successful in blocking specific Iraqi attempts to import specialized materials and goods that could be used for developing prohibited weapons. According to the September 2002 British report, "UN sanctions on Iraq were hindering the import of crucial
goods for the production of fissile material." As long as sanctions remained
effective, according to the report, "Iraq would not be able to produce a nuclear
weapon."

Iraq cooperated with the inspectors
In the months prior to war Iraqi officials provided substantial cooperation to
renewed UN inspections. The monitors had unfettered access to all sites and
complete freedom of movement. Even Saddam Hussein's palaces, previously off
limits to UN officials, were opened to inspection. According to Blix, "the most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect." Blix reported that "prompt access . . . has been given to inspection teams." This "open doors policy," as Blix described it, was "an indispensable element of transparency and a process that aims at securing disarmament by peaceful means."

No weapons found
In his January 2003 State of the Union address President Bush referred to tens
of thousands of litres of anthrax and botulinum toxin and hundreds of tons of
sarin, mustard gas, and VX nerve agent. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
asserted in his February presentation to the UN Security Council that Iraq was
concealing efforts to redevelop weapons of mass destruction. In more than 700 inspections prior to the U.S.-led invasion, UN investigators found no evidence of these alleged weapons of mass destruction. Blix noted in his 27 January update to the Security Council that previous UN reports on Iraqi weapons "do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq."

No evidence of Iraqi nuclear weapons activity
In his State of the Union address President Bush stated that "the British
government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa." Investigations into these charges by the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed that the supposed documents upon which the claim was based were crude forgeries. The signatures on the documents were fakes, and the letterhead belonged to a military government that no longer existed. CIA officials expressed scepticism about the assertion, but the president and senior White House officials nonetheless repeated the claim in their public remarks. Intelligence officials in the United Kingdom agreed subsequently that the
documents were fabricated. President Bush said in Cincinnati on 7 October that aerial photos of the former Tuwaitha nuclear weapons complex "reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past."
UN inspectors visited Tuwaitha numerous times December 2002 through March
2003 and "found no signs of nuclear activity at any of these sites."

No evidence of an active chemical and biological weapons programme
In his State of the Union address the president cited the large volumes of chemical
and biological agents produced by Saddam Hussein and repeatedly declared: "He
has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has
destroyed it." UNSCOM orted in 1997 that "considerable quantities of chemical weapons,their components and chemical weapons-related equipment have been
destroyed by Iraq and UNSCOM." UN inspectors destroyed all of Iraqs known chemical and biological weapons production facilities. In the months prior to the war UN monitors conducted hundreds of inspections of possible chemical, biological, and missile sites in Iraq and found no evidence or documentation confirming the existence of the alleged chemical and biological stockpiles.
According to an investigative report in U.S. News and World Report, the
Defense Intelligence Agency issued a classified assessment in September
2002 stating "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and
stockpiling chemical weapons."

No evidence of mobile biological weapons labs
Secretary of State Powell claimed that Iraq developed mobile biological weapons
laboratories. Powell said that the United States had "firsthand descriptions of
biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails." He cited Iraqi defectors
associated with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) as sources for these charges.
He offered no physical or documentary evidence, however, providing only an
animation to depict such facilities. After the war U.S. investigators discovered two trailers that it claimed were mobile weapons labs, but no biological or chemical agents were actually detected in the vehicles and independent experts cast doubt on the claim. A former senior UNSCOM inspector told a reporter for the Los Angeles Times in September 2002 that his inspection teams searched for such mobile labs
from 1993 to 1998 without success. "I launched raid after raid," he said. "We
intercepted their radio traffic. We ran roadblocks. We never found anything. It
was just speculation."

Working from flawed data: Unreliable defectors and coerced testimony
A significant portion of the intelligence used to make the case for war on Iraq
came from Iraqi defectors, including former weapons program scientists,
engineers, and intelligence officials. "There is tremendous pressure on [the CIA] to come up with information to support policies that have already been adopted," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former senior CIA official and counterterrorism expert. "The [INC's] intelligence isn't reliable at all," said Cannistraro. "Much of it is propaganda.
Much of it is telling the Defense Department what they want to hear. . . .
A transcript detailing the 1995 debriefing of Kamel by officials from the IAEA
and UNSCOM was leaked to Newsweek and reprinted in early March 2003.
Kamel told the inspectors eight years ago that he had overseen the
destruction of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs. The claim
was corroborated by a military aide who defected with Kamel. Newsweek
reported that the CIA and its British equivalent MI6 were subsequently
informed of the debriefing.

No proof linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and September 11
The Powell presentation attempted to link the Iraqi government to the Al Qaeda
terrorist network. Powell claimed that "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist
network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama
bin Laden." He asserted that the network was training its operatives in the use of
deadly toxins, and that Iraq provided "active support" for these efforts.
President Bush tried to connect Iraq to September 11. In his State of the Union
address the president asserted that Saddam Hussein "could provide one of his
hidden weapons" to Al Qaeda or other terrorists. The president evoked the grim
specter of Iraq supplying deadly weapons to terrorists: "Imagine those
hijackers . . . armed by Saddam Hussein . . . to bring a day of horror like none
we have ever known." No credible evidence has ever been presented linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. Powell's claims about an Al Qaeda cell in Iraq were never substantiated. In an issue brief to Congress Kenneth Katzman reported "FBI Director Robert Mueller said in early May 2002 that, after an exhaustive FBI and CIA investigation, no direct link has been found between Iraq and any of the September 11 hijackers." Veteran CIA analyst Melvin Goodman summarized what many in the intelligence community on both sides of the Atlantic believe. "I've talked to my sources at the CIA," he said, "and all of them are saying the evidence [of a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam] is simply not there."
The former chief of Pakistan's spy agency declared, "Ideologically and
logically, they [Iraq and al-Qaeda] cannot work together. . . . Bin Laden and
his men considered Saddam the killer of hundreds of Islamic militants."

U.S. and UK intelligence officials disputed Powell's claim of an Al
Qaeda-Baghdad connection.
A British Ministry of Defense intelligence report written in January 2003 and leaked to the BBC concluded: "While there have been contacts between Al-Qaida and the [Baghdad] regime in the past, it is assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideology."
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw conceded during questioning in parliament
on 5 February that he had seen no intelligence that Saddam Hussein was
harboring Al Qaeda operatives. The London Observer noted on 9 February that "For months British intelligence officerslike their counterparts in the U.S.have been insisting that there is no hard evidence of a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, while at every turn their political masters have been insisting the opposite."
Intelligence sources told the BBC on 5 February that there was growing disquiet
at the way in which the work of the intelligence community was being politicised
to make the case for war in Iraq.


2. There were alternatives.

Given that the threat had been exaggerated, viable alternative options were available for neutralising the Iraqi weapons threat and countering the risks of international terrorism. These options include a more vigorous and effective inspection regime, an enhanced system of military containment, and strengthened deterrencecombined with continued coercive diplomacy. Reputable evidence of
prohibited material held by the Iraqis could have been be dealt with in a number of coercive ways short of war, including targeted air strikes. Such approaches would have provided robust security assurances, while avoiding the risks and costs of war, and would have better served the goal of disarming Iraq through the United Nations.

Navajo, are you suggesting that we use Churchill's solution for Hitler and other Nazi leaders. that Bush and Blair should be shot on sight!?

A6, I believe there used to be attempts by the police to use a siege policy which more often than was not successful and didn't lead to mayhem and death.

The idea was to contain the problem and resolve it.

I am not advocating a submission to "terrorist activity" but I think there are different parts to preventing it in the future:-

1) preventing"
2) to apprehend those involved and likely to carry out violent activities against society in general.
3) addressing the provoking factors which stimulate the "offensive" actions.

The latter is the most important, as it removes the nurture for future "delinquents".

No Fred I'm not. As I see it neither Bush or Blair have done anything they could be charged for.

How about lying to the public? Ah, yes, I see your point - they are politicians.

navajo//completely agree///

And thats how the story goes.
People agree on what happened, or disagree with what happened.
The very simplest resolution to this is to ask what a democratic view is of the events.
The democratic view of the time was that the majority of elected representatives to both the US and UK houses advocated and supported military action. The UN unanimously voted for it. Of course I realise that Blair and Bush are politicians who lie and cheat whereas Blix and Annan are politicians who do not(!) (does anyone really believe that elevation to the UN means you become a whole new breed of politician, incapable of skewing events and concealing facts to your own political advantage? You do!! Incredible!).
majority rules therefore the action cannot have been wrong.
I strongly suspect that even now, with a bleeding heart media on the case, the silent majority would still say we did the right thing, but that the aftermath has been badly thought out. I have not disagreed with that.
Alan

hewittalan6 - great coment and very well put. I agree completely, as a ex soldier who served in iraq, I can honestly say they was no alternative to aggressive action. I have no doubt that WMD's did exsist, and were moved in the months Saddam had to prepare. Action was a last resort and it was used as such. I would love to here of an alternative that would have had the same or better effect.

You're not listening again and shifting uneasily. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing - that's a weak cop out - there is abundant documented evidence (some of which I listed above), available before the war to political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic, clearly showing that Saddam was not a significant threat, did not have WMD and that there was no link to Al Qaeda.

A democrative view is of course what we all believe in - would that it were the case. It is utterly naive to believe that the public and other MPs were presented with the facts. If the problem in Iraq was not intelligence but the way information was selectively interpreted and misrepresented, this raises doubts about the integrity of political decision making. If U.S. and UK leaders presented false or misleading information to their legislatures and world opinion, this threatens the very foundations of democracy. Of course, this is not the first time such machinations have occurred. Sir Anthony Eden, PM during Suez, lied to the House of Commons denying any foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt, when of course he, along with France and Israel Israel hatched a plot so that Israel would attack Egypt as a bogus pretext for the British and French to invade as protectors of the canal.

It's an interersting parallel; hysterical fears whipped up by a PM, ignoring Foreign Office/intelligence advice, overestimating the threat, manipulating evidence to suit a predetermined course of action, lying to parliament, a final outcome that leaves us no better off.

"Why is this lying bastard lying to me?"
Because he's a politician and thats his job.