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?

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.

zscrooge - your only point seems to be that the PM misled not only parliment but the public aswell. Of course he did. They all do, he is a politician after all. The conspiracy theory that he was not linked to terrorists and posed no threat to world stability is fundametally floored. Saddam grew over the years he was in power getting bolder and bolder the longer he was in power. He started with minor atrocities such as killing entire families for dissagreeing with his policy and building slowly to whole areas who had a different beliefs, killing hundreds. Do you really think he got bored and would have ended here?
He was ammassing his huge army for a reason, and that was not just to reduce unemployment. He tested chemical weapons on his own people not for fun, but to see the effect. You would have liked to leave this maniac in power???

It may seem a little daft, but I would prefer Saddam in power than the duo of Bush and Blair. At least the former did not have WMD which he could or did use. This cannot be said of the latter two or Israel.

There is plenty of evidence that he may have had WMDs which were transferred to Syria. Even if he did not have WMDs then he soon would have had.The difference is that Sadam would have been more likely to use WMDs than the others.

Marc3254 - 16 Aug 2006 12:51 - 537 of 539
The conspiracy theory that he was not linked to terrorists and posed no threat to world stability is fundametally floored.

Evidence please.

Do you really think he got bored and would have ended here?

He did not have the capability. Read my long post above for evidence. Ditto with chemical weapons.

Haystack - 16 Aug 2006 13:22 - 539 of 539
There is plenty of evidence that he may have had WMDs
Even if he did not have WMDs then he soon would have had.

May - and evidence please
Also, no evidence that he soon would have.
I'm surprised at your lack of cogency H. - your well developed attenae for hype and spin seems unusually blunt here - perhaps it is is more attuned to deflating blue sky penny shares.

And to repeat a much earlier post, the UN did NOT sanction war. The United Kingdom and United States attempted to get a U.N. Security Council resolution authorising military force, but withdrew it before it could come to a vote after France, Russia, and later China all signalled that they would use their Security Council veto power against any resolution that would include an ultimatum allowing the use of force against Iraq. The war was unlawful and broke the UN charter.

Just my opinion. I am happy with the war with Iraq and would be happy to see some major conflict with Iran and/or Syria sooner rather than later. It will come to that at some stage and better now before Iran has more serious capabilities.

Haystacks,

Which one is it "Even if he did not have WMDs then he soon would have had."?

I really believe America and Britain have WMD, surely we should bomb them on their record.

Most are missing the point, if there had been no 9/11, there would be no troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, USA and UK had to take the war to the terrorists, and I believe they have done so sucessfully...Undesirables are being sucked into those countries as insurgents and having to fight the armed forces of the allies...

Barwoni. You don't work for fox news do you?
who trained, armed and finaced Bin Laden for a DECADE!!- have a guess.
Can you honestly say, hand on heart that the world is now a safe place, thanks to us invading Iraq?
How many Thousands of civilians dead , does it take before a policy is introduced to tackle the causes of insurgency. I.e. resolve the Israel /palestine conflict. Until you take away the ammuntion/causes, you will always have conflict.
after 3 unsucessful campaigns , you'd think america would have realised that you can't win hearts and minds by bombing the shit out of the 'enemy', all you do is make others more resentful and more likely to feel they have nothing to loose.
Saddam , should have been overthrown , when BUSH SNR was in power, instead he stopped short, due to him knowing that support for the conflict would waver/fail when news got home of the massacres along the highway out of KUWAIT. instead he hoped for an uprising in the south and North from the Kurds and the Shiites, this happened , but without western support it failed and saddam was able to freely slaughter all.
That was'nt exactly front page news over here.
If wars so great, get a gun and go over there.
believe me you will soon get the point.
Happy days.

Haystack - 16 Aug 2006 15:24 - 542 of 545
Just my opinion.

LOL. That's ok then - just keeping the bbs ticking over ;)

barwoni - 16 Aug 2006 15:41 - 544 of 545
Most are missing the point, if there had been no 9/11, there would be no troops in Iraq or Afghanistan,

That is probably close to the truth. Forget spurious justifications about WMD etc, Bush just wanted to retaliate, kick some ass for popularity and felt that US public opinion would be happy to go along - it's just a cowboy and indian film, eh. And yet, strangley enough, a lot of US opinion has woken up now to the fact that their foreign policy is intensely disliked around the world - 'don't want to be an American idiot'.

barwoni - 16 Aug 2006 15:41 - 544 of 545
USA and UK had to take the war to the terrorists, and I believe they have done so sucessfully...

Iraq is a mess - how has it dealt with terrorism? Two lots of bombings here for a start and plenty elsewhere.

Tweenie. Yes, interesting that the massacre of Kurds went on for so long before the West suddenly got a conscience.

Barwonie,

Undesirables are being sucked into those countries. I hope you don't mean the Americans and British.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, it would be well to remember that Russia withdrew from that country. Of course the Americans called the Taliban freedom fighters and armed them in their fight for freedom. Or was it oil, or a pipe line or something else.

I wonder who is supplying the Taliban now. After all is just a good business chance for some countries. Good old Republican morality.

The UN did sanction war.
The mandate, passed unanimously was very clear. It gave the right for the Allies to invade if Saddam did not immediately allow full and free access to Iraq, for the weapons inspectors. This was without the need for any further vote.
it is only the muck raking media and bent politicians seeking to rewrite their own role in history that would ahve us believe otherwise.
You must remember the French saying they may have changed their minds and would like another vote but also saying they knew there was no call for one in that original resolution.

Good thread you've got here Alan, some good points and decent debait going on. Your putting the world of investment posts to shame!!

I think I and the majority prefer the opinion of Kofi Annan and the majority of other world leaders that the Invasion of Iraq was illegal.