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?

"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.

hewittalan6 - 16 Aug 2006 19:37 - 549 of 550
The UN did sanction war.
The mandate, passed unanimously was very clear.

What are you talking about?

The majority of the UN did not support the war. Resolution 1441 does not permit war - even the UK realised that and attempted right up to the last few days to seek a further mandate for war.

Poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out unilaterally by America and its allies did not rise above 11 percent in any country. Support for a war if mandated by the UN ranged from 13 percent (Spain) to 51 percent (Netherlands).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq

March 2003
A Gallup poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.

[edit]
April 2003
A poll made by Washington Post and ABC News found that 72% of Americans supported the Iraq War, even without finding any chemical or biological weapons.

A poll made by CBS found that 60% of Americans said the Iraq War was worth the blood and cost even if no WMD are ever found.

May 2003
A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war. [1]

1441 specifically said there was no need for another vote. If the conditions were not met then it authorised force.
The UK sought another vote, you are right there, but not for the reason you state. The UK sought another vote to send the clearest possible signal to Saddam that talking time was over. The majority of the UN supported the idea and said they would vote in favour. A couple of very weak minded countries, with their eye on their ethnic population and overseas interests promised to veto it and scuppered any chance of the vote happening.

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time".

Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.

The UN chief said in an interview with the BBC World Service that "painful lessons" had been learnt since the war in Iraq.

"Lessons for the US, the UN and other member states. I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said.

'Valid'

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

You can not have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now

Kofi Annan


Annan interview excerpts
UK Colonel accuses Allies

Mr Annan's comments provoked angry suggestions from a former Bush administration aide that they were timed to influence the US November election.

"I think it is outrageous for the Secretary-General, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the BBC.

"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference."

A UK foreign office spokeswoman said: "The Attorney-General made the government's position on the legal basis for the use of military force in Iraq clear at the time".

Australian Prime Minister John Howard also rejected Mr Annan's remarks, saying the legal advice he was given was "entirely valid".

The BBC's Susannah Price at UN headquarters in New York says Mr Annan has made similar comments before.

He has said from the beginning the invasion did not conform with the UN charter - phrasing that was seen as a diplomatic way of saying the war was illegal.

Our correspondent says Mr Annan's relationship with the US might be made a little uncomfortable for a while following his comments, but both sides are likely to want to play it down.

US President George W Bush is due to speak at the UN General Assembly next week.


Iraq elections

Mr Annan also said in the interview the UN would give advice and assistance in the run-up to the elections, but it was up to the Iraqi interim government to decide whether such a vote should go ahead.

He warned there could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now".

The UK foreign office spokeswoman said there was a full commitment to hold elections in January.

Election and political party laws had already been passed and an independent electoral commission established.

"The task is huge and the deadline tight, but the Iraqi people clearly want elections," she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm