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?

Once again the usual mish mash of illogic, unsubstantiated claims and black and white thinking.

I was in the majority then and I still am now. You would have been at the front of the lynching parties because everybody agreed that blacks were subhuman.

And is my viewpoint a minority? For that to occur, people in a democracy need to be presented with facts. And even US public opinion has become more reticent.

Wanting to leave an evil man murdering his own citizens and threatening the world around him is morally very suspect.
LOL Well, the west has never done that have they? Another attempt at a cheap shot to suggest people who advocated other means than war are 'morally suspect'

It won't be long before we get a rant against the PC brigade who are making the country soft. And that's the issue here really - thinking things through is more difficult than kicking ass - it's easier to sell to an electorate and it doesn't tax the brain.

I think what I dislike more than a Sun reader or a poor young squaddie who does as he's told (and like many times before in history gets killed or shot for desertion) are the politicians and editors of certain newspapers who talk of democracy and majority rule but in reality, cynically exploit situations for their own gain, political or financial.

If we always followed majority views then we would have hanging.

We elect governments to govern and not follow public opinion. Governments are privy to information that we do not have.

In the end we have to trust them to make the right decision or elect a new bunch . Blair did manage to get re-elected despite the supposed anti-war views of the majority.

H. What's happening? I agree with that.LOL

That is the key issue - they have info we don't and we trust them to make right decisions. That democratic process went badly wrong here. If you are kind, you could argue that they genuinely believed in the threat; or like me, that they wilfully made the facts fit a preconceived strategy for war.

Ah. So now I am a racist???
Pathetic.
For anyone who truly believes that a government can or does present all facts. HELLO. Earth calling.
I thought through very deeply, my convictions and I stand by them. Of course that makes me uneducated, but I think I read a post by someone else regarding the sort of debater who throws that one out. I believe, absolutely, that without intervention, the WORLD (not just the little England inhabited by some) would be a much more dangerous place.
Just to make it even better it has upset a load of amatuer social workers.

Haystack,

Blair did get elected for his own constituency. I would be surprised if the percentage who voted for him hadn't fallen.

The British electorate voted less than enthusiastically for Labour the last time round. I think the Tory opposition was seen as appalling and a obnoxious reminder of previous Tory governments. The "Liberal" following did have some gains and may in the next election may hold the balance of power in government.

Whether that is beneficial or not remains to be seen. But it may be better than what we have now.

Alan. For the record, I do not suggest you are racist or uneducated.

You would have been at the front of the lynching parties because everybody agreed that blacks were subhuman.

And that's the issue here really - thinking things through is more difficult than kicking ass - it's easier to sell to an electorate and it doesn't tax the brain.

Fred. Yep, Tory alternative was just so poor. Incidentally, how come your judgement is so sound here but not when it comes to some investing (SEO ;))

Bloody hell - I've now got to explain my own analogies!

The first was the idea of might is right and that what everybody believes at one time does not make it right. The race part of it was unfortunate.

Second, this applies to all of us. We all tend to view events as a narrative because it is easier and we are conditioned to it (the media constructs all stories as narratives for a variety of reasons.)

Just to htrow something else into the mix, and see how wooly thinking really can be.........
What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

War is a violent way for determining who gets to say what goes on in a given territory, for example, regarding: who gets power, who gets wealth and resources, whose ideals prevail, who is a member and who is not, which laws get made, what gets taught in schools, where the border rests, how much tax is levied, and so on. War is the ultimate means for deciding these issues if a peaceful process or resolution can't be agreed upon.

The west is at war with those that wish to change our customs and values, and to appease those that wish to change those values could prove to be a major mistake..

Bush? Cigarettes? Multinational companies?

Any sensible definitions?
Or shall we assume that you would create a worldwide ban on those three.

barwoni - 18 Aug 2006 14:03 - 602 of 603

The west is at war with those that wish to change our customs and values, and to appease those that wish to change those values could prove to be a major mistake..

Can't really disagree. I'm not suggesting appeasement. But I also think invading Iraq was unecessary and made the world a more dangerous place. The two views are not incompatible.

I was being sensible and would seek to remove the first (I mean peacefully before I'm accused of anything else), warn people of the second (remember that at one time the majority assumed it was cool to smoke), and keep a careful eye on the activities of the latter.

Please, do give us the sensible definition.

We were percieved as the great satan before the war in Iraq. The powers that be have taken the fight to their doorstep and keeping many would be terrorists out of western cities......

Do not have the clean hands policy! Google that.

This criticism is that pacifism amounts to an indefensible clean hands policy. The pacifist, it is said, refuses to take the brutal measures necessary for the defense of himself and his country, for the sake of maintaining his own inner moral purity. It is contended that the pacifist is thus a kind of free-rider, gathering all the benefits of citizenship while not sharing all its burdens. Another inference drawn is that the pacifist himself constitutes a kind of internal threat to the over-all security of his state.

bawoni

I am not suggesting appeasement.

Who's Really
Killing Iraqis?

The Real 2006
'Iraq Body Count'

Iraqi civilians killed this year by Islamic Terrorists
7,714

Iraqi civilians killed collaterally by Americans
58*

I would be interested to know the figures for deaths caused by islamic terrorists in the few years before the war and compare them with now, per annum, worldwide.

As for a definition, any definition of WMD must include any item or substance which may be used to create large numbers of deaths, among the population.
any other thoughts?