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?

Religion anyone???

(Only joking. I don't think I could stand it!!)
Alan

Hewit, you may recall the below and BLair and Bush haste to go to war because they new the reasons they were parading for "war" were lies, false information and propaganda. Unfortunately many people were taken in by it or went along with it for their own gains. Ie. ramping.

United Nations Security Council members have called on the Bush Administration to allow UN weapons inspectors to return to Iraq to certify whether Baghdad possessed biological and chemical weapons before the war.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
But their plea was shrugged off by President George Bush, who vowed to "reveal the truth" about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
++++++++++++++++++

The call for a resumption of UN inspections, which was endorsed on Thursday by an overwhelming majority of council members, including Britain, America's closest military ally, came as the Bush Administration faces charges by members of Congress and some intelligence analysts that it may have exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq to justify the invasion.

It also reflected a growing consensus in the 15-nation council that the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) should test US and British claims that Iraq continued to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"The disarmament of Iraq must be verified and confirmed by UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency on the ground and in conjunction with the coalition," France's UN ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, told the
Security Council.

Fred,
We still debate at cross purposes. I am defending the point that we were right to go to war. The reason why we went to war was never because Iraq possessed any such weapons. It was because we feared they did and were not allowed to determine the truth. The ownership of or developement of these weapons is a side issue. The issue was whether we should allow any country to prevent independant inspectors to verify or disprove the allegations. The otherthrow of Saddam was to allow the inspectorate to perform its duty without hinderence, and in this it succeeded.
The fact of not finding anything is irre;evant to the choice of whether the Mandate should have been enforced. Even as troops massed on the Iraqi border Saddam could have invited them, unmolested, to enforce the mandate. He chose to stand and fight.
As an innocent man, if the police turned up on my door demanding to search my home, I would resist. When they came back with a warrant I would protest, but I would not threaten to kill any who came into my home. If I was expecting them and barricaded my home, armed myself and awaited their arrival would you defend my actions as being reasonable? Would you cry foul if they used force to prosecute a perfectly legal warrant? No. Neither would anyone else.
Alan

Hewitt, I have just reported to the police that I think I saw you buying a parcel of fully grown hemp seeds in Handsworth and visiting a Mosque in Balsall Heath. I also know from the past that adamant about your support for terrorist actions and have used a shotgun which you are not declaring any longer, but was seen cleaning it the other day. I think that you should be investigated immediately and I don't think any denial by you should be accepted.
As I am a pillor of society a given helpful information to the police on many occasions I think they should act.

If necessary they should break in and shoot to kill.

Not finding anything is irrelevant.


My wife was brought up under a communist regime where actions like the above were acted upon. Some of her relatives were imprisoned on similar bases as above.

Fred,
This is kind of the situation that was occuring in Iraq prior to Saddams demise, yet you argue it should have been allowed to continue.
The scenario I suggested was based on the practises of a civilised and moderate nation. I think that is a fair comparison to the actions of the UN.
I would abhor to be treat in the way you describe and this is another reason why the war was legal and justifiable.
Alan

Hewit. I have never argued against intervention in Iraq. Only under whose auspices and in which way.

So if we accept that Saddam was never going to allow intervention from anyone, and that the UN was hamstrung by the French and Germans, who was there left to oversee it and which alternative to force was there?
Alan

It has been a high price to pay to let a few people go and seach for WMD's based on what turned out to be lies. And lets not forget Bush had already made up his mind to invade Iraq in September with or without the UN.

Now we get to the nub of the argument, Aldwick. At what point do we say "The price is Right".
Before we start, let us be clear on a couple of points. More Iraqis have died at the hands of Saddam than because of Allied military action. More Iraqis have died as a result of the actions of the post war "freedom fighters" than were killed by allied actions.
So, logically, this leads us to presume that the least guilty are the invading allies. It also leads us to assume that the death toll may have been lower, short term, if we had not intervened, but would have continued unabated for much longer, and therefore been higher in the longer term. The unrest and violence you see now is not a result of allied occupation. It is a result of the warring factions within that society trying to fill the void left by the dictator, adn would have happened no matter how saddam went, be that otherthrow, capture or death of old age. it was inevitable that a civil war would erupt as his supporters fought with the downtrodden factions who had been victimised for so long.
This logical train of thought leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the demise of the regime would be surrounded by bloodshed regardless of the hows and whens, but the regime was drenched in blood anyway and the longer it survived the greater the total of casualties.
It is not a thought process that will give anybody a lovely warm feeling of a job well done, but it is an accurate desfription of a job that had to be done. Neither is it a comforting thought for those who lost loved ones, but it is a sober fact of having to deal with madmen who shoot and torture people as a game on an otherwise boring Friday afternoon.
I am yet to hear a convincing argument that the world would be better off had the war never happened, but I am open to being convinced.
Alan

ah but who killed the most brits over the 2 gulf wars, the iragis or the US?

Yeah, we know.
Little known fact that during the vietnam war more Americans died of gunshot wounds in America than did in Vietnam!! true!!

Well, I was going to join in here but as it's become an anti-American diatribe of the most predictable kind I don't think I'll bother.

There is something particularly unedifying in a bunch of Brits trying to outdo each other in their verbal abuse, condemnation and villification of the United States.

oh no micro, i think they have a lot to be proud of ..............uuuuuuuuummmmmm........................................ im still thinking and will get back to you. Think your last statement is just little over the top.

MM,
I have not been taking part in an Anti American diatribe. I have been trying to logically argue a point, but I do have a dislike for the Yanks, but that is a seperate matter based on fiscal policy, environmental selfishness and a desire to foist a corrupt culture on the rest of the world.
Alan

Kivver and Alan:

Your posts make my point more eloquently than I ever could.

You want to listen to a proud american Micheal Moorer, he puts it better than i ever could.

or my sporting hero Muhammed Ali.

MM,
You sound as if you are trying to say that to dislike something American is a sin! Surely you could not mean that? I feel certain that you would allow your fellow posters an opinion and not merely reply that their opinion makes them unworthy of any possible hint of intelligence or rationale.
Now i am quite prepared to discuss with anyone why I am no fan of the American Dream, but the level of debate must surely be higher than a starting line of "Anyone saying bad things about America has rocks for brains".
This, however is not the thread to discuss it on. I am just amazed that you feel my pointing out areas of American idealism and philosophy that I disagree with makes me, somehow, an ignorant and rabid anti-american.
Alan

Alan: And where exactly did I say "Anyone saying bad things about America has rocks for brains"? So you don't come over as rabidly anti-American when you make a statement like " but I do have a dislike for the Yanks, but that is a seperate matter based on fiscal policy, environmental selfishness and a desire to foist a corrupt culture on the rest of the world."

Is there anything American that you do like or admire?

So you agree with Micheal then.