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?

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

Kofi Annan is no doubt an honorable and clever man. However he is not qualified to pass judgement on the legality of the war. I'm not trying to be funny but if you look at his biography I believe he has a degree or something in office management.

What are Bush's qualifications for the most powerful man in the world? Specialist in stories about goats?

It doesn't matter. You can be assured both Bush and Blair took legal advice from highly qualified people before the war.

Blair is a lawyer and you can look up Bush's qualifications in a search on his biography.

The most important qualification is an electorate.

The electorate give them the mandate to govern. That's what they're paid for. If such a vast majority were against the war and subsequent foreign policy both Bush and Blair and their parties could have been voted out of office at the last elections.

People agree with Democracy, providing democratically elected leaders do what they personally want. As soon as they do not, then they suddenly become supporters of a different electoral college.
well known fact.
In actual fact. the democratically elected leaders of the world, met and voted at the UN for use of force, in a democratic process. Apparantly this can be safely ignored on the basis of one unelected, non-democratically responsible individual, and there opinion.

Morning all,

Saddam was one of the worlds biggest sponsors or terrorism. He used his cash to finance many small terror groups and provided them with not only the logistics but areas in which to train. Some of these groups later went on to join what is now called the Al Qaida. A link between the two I think.
I it common knowledge that Saddam used these groups to further his own aims and to smuggle chemical and biological componants around. The componants on thier own are harmless but when combined can form deadly chemical and biological cocktails.
The reports from the instectors and military in Iraq state that they have found no chemical weapons. Correct because they do not become a weapon until all the componants are in the same place and are mixed correctly.
You say there is no evedence that he had WMD's. ARE YOU BLIND!!! Please explain what was used to wipe out hundreds of kurds in the north of iraq. cant wait to hear your limp justifacation for that one.

I wonder why it took Goldsmith a few attempts at drawing up his bit of paper on the legallity of the IRAQ invasion.

I wonder why his conclusions were not published.

I wonder what Blair was hiding behind.