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?

"I am not going to give you a number for it because it's not my business to do intelligent work." --Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked to estimate the number of Iraqi insurgents while testifying before Congress, Feb. 16, 2005

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

"F**k Saddam, we're taking him out." President Bush to three U.S. Senators in March 2002, a full year before the Iraq invasion

Still feel in safe hands?

I don't give a rats arse whether the war in iraq is justified or not, I don't care how many arabs die daily, I could'nt give a shit about afganistan.
However, I do care about the cumulative effect of a bunch of warmongering god-botherers planning their own personal armageddon/rapture..
We are truly fucked.
forgive the language.

HAPPY DAYS :-)))

If I were young enough, I would be fine being at the front. We owe it to our children to ensure our world is not left in the hands of Saddam, Mugabe et al, because we were so damn busy worrying about our conscience and holding talks and more talks they just did what ever they wanted. That is the true consequence of issuing ultimatum and then not following it through when those you issued against refused to comply with the will of the rest of the world.
I'll take the consequences of a war, and the mess after it, anytime rather than wake up one day to find we are totally powerless in the face of those idiots.

tweenie,

People can "planning their own personal armageddon/rapture" as long as they do it and keep it to themselves and leave the rest of us alone. Of course, that's wishful thinking, so most of us had to be bothered. But for those hoping to profit from Armageddon or to speed up the recovery after the inevitable, they must practice and encourage the opposite to the prayer of Saint Francis. The signs favour the Apocalypse.

hewittalan6, "We owe it to our children to ensure our world is not left in the hands of Saddam, Mugabe et al". Quite right. But they are both puppets setup and supported to do the dirty works of ...

?????
alan. It's the half hearted attempts that are being made that frighten me.
We invade iraq, then spend a lifetime rebuilding it. We want to sort out isreal/palestine- yet have'nt managed it.
WHY????
because it does'nt serve a purpose to.
Better to have lots of wars , make a few bucks, look good on tv etc.
If we really wanted world peace and were willing to "DO WHAT IT TAKES"
we'd have bombed the absolute shit out of IRAQ, then nuked it . then given Israel/palestine 24 hours to sort their shit out or else- they get the same.
A clear message would have been sent to the rest of the world.
COMPLY- resistance is futile........... this leadership things a doddle.

Now i'm really scared.
:-(

Fred, keep up the good work. I know it must be difficult dealing with such a ragbag of pompous inncacuracies 24/7. Esepcially for a half-wit such as yourself. ;))

Still in a tiny minority.

Even a novice politician can easily find a point somewhere between forging consensus and showing leadership to justify any positions, actions and inactions.

Scrooge, Having have half a wit is better than being witless. And all that is needed for many.

The half wit like the jestor often saw and understood that which others didn't.

Dillusional (apologies for poor spelling). When the world knows one thing and a very small minority believe another it can be a very difficult thing to cope with.
Strength is often found in support from the few others in the minority, but this addresses neither the facts , nor the issue of the reluctance to accept that the members of the minority may well be wrong.
Those seeking a world without violence and war live in utopia. It can never happen. Ever. Thats it. Cope with it.
the real danger is that in trying to avoid violence and wars you give support and strength to the violent dictators who would rule that way.
if you were Kurdish, you may have a little sympathy with Pastor Neidemier (Spelling wrong again I am afraid), for when a despotic ruler declares all "Freds" to be a sub-human enemy of the state who deserves nothing but slavery and death, who will be left to stand up for you, fred? We will of course, be left arguing other whether we should do anything at all, while all "Freds" are condemned to torture and death.
I prefer the idea of asking "this is how people are, how do we change it" rather than the apologists view of "this is how people are, how do we change them?"

How do we change the attititude of the US and Uk?? The problem is its not just the minority who condemn people to death. I do think the majority of both armies are fantastic and brave and do a great job but the list of despot things our armies have done is pretty long (My Lai) read http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Narrative/Crandell_Winter.html The US also once supported Saddam. How can we condemn the things other have done when we do excatly the same??

barwoni are you kidding???
I try not to knock our colonial cousins but canada as an armed force couldnt kick a football never mind anyone leses arse. They struggle to assist the UN in any positive way.
Canada - nice country - nice people - usless armed forces.

Exactly my point Marc, they could still kick Irans arse........

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=25

Hi Kivver,
many reasons. The big one being that the sons should not have the sins of their fathers visited on them.
There are any number of things we have done in tha past that we would not countenance now. Slavery, women as chattels, torture for religious belief etc. etc.
If a mistake is made (and arming Saddam was one) do you not believe that we should learn from it? Or should we blindly go on supporting it, rather than moving on and trying to get it right?
And that point of view continues to the war with iraq. Saddam should have been taken out in the first war. The second war was inevitable from then on, as there was never any way he would stand by the treaties he signed and the rules placed on him by the UN. We made a mistake.
We made a mistake with economic sanctions. We were naive to believe that they would affect the ruling cadre. Instead we should have known that it would be the poor, the illiterate, the women and children who would suffer worst.
The mistakes go on. We are badly misjudging Iran and Korea and Zimbabwe. While we show them any sign of weakness in our resolve to ensure a planet free from people fearing their own government and their neighbours, they will continue to play at brinksmanship, and exploit that perceived weakness, just as Saddam did. While we openly discuss withdrawels due to terrorism, we strengthen the terrorists.
The question is whether there is an alternative to force. I wish there were, but when a bully goes unchecked he only gets worse. When a bully sees those who oppose the bullying fighting each other, he knows that he has won.
This board has been polarized. I have never argued that there is not any other way. There is. I have argued that no-one has presented a better way. We have a camp who deplore war at any cost, but while they find opinions why the war should not have happened, or how we did it wrong, there has been no offer at all of any other way, that had not been tried already, and failed.
Talking failed. Sanctions failed. What is left. that is the question.
Alan

Hi Alan, do we ever learn from it though?? i think what you are saying is dont hold todays armies responsible for things that happened in the past, but we are still doing the same today. The ex-iragi vets who marched to the south in the US says it all.

Talking of another way, why dont we as the UN, do it as it should be, EN MASS, and stop phaffing around. Many armies joined together US, UK, France, Spain, etc, etc go to Afghanistan, Isreal (cus they break many sactions dont forget) and Iraq and do the job quickly and properly, then perhaps we wont lose so many soldiers doing what many of see, as not making much progress.

Thats the annoying thing, Kivver. En Masse we agreed at the UN to use force. It was when the chips were down that some countries cowered away from it, and that has led to the problems.
It also occurs to me (and I keep asking), if a country with that many people in it are that fed up with the allies and that desperate to get rid of them, why are they running into market places and shopping streets to blow themselves up?? The violence is infighting among the various factions. We would have had this anyway, perhaps 20 years away, when Saddam finally died (or was ousted by a civil war). It is not caused by The US, the UK or anyone. The war may have hastened it, but it would have been inevitable.
Anyway, good to see you're still around, kivver. Long time no hear!!
Alan

great comment i fully agree alan.

It seems to me that America having stirred up parts of Afghanistan have started to extradite themselves.

Perhaps I am wrong again!

It is interesting to me that while Blair thinks the price paid with British lives in Afghanistan and Iraq is worth while I don't think he has any members of his family in the front line.

Perhaps when he is kicked out of office he will volunteer for front line duties with his cohort Bush in tow.

Fred - Why should he have members of his family in the frontline. Would this make him (or anybody else for that matter) a better Primeminister?

And as unpopular as this is surely going to be, I think that it is probably worth remembering that those individuals that elected to take a career in the Armed Services should have always been aware that there might come a time when their services were called upon. After all, they are well paid (even in times of no conflict), get extra bonuses when they are in a war zone (though not necessarily active in it) and of course do get extremely good pensions that are protected and index linked, regardless of whether they ever see action or not.

Probably just alienated myself from half the readers out there, but.......