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?

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.......

StarFrog, I doubt that anything could resuscitate Blair as a prime minister.

I think he has B. the Health Service by indiscriminate and misspending of cash.

Caused lack of coordination of the services and miss-organisation.

The same applies to Education with the destruction of the vale of University education and lowering standards of School Qualifications. Disillusioning of the staff of the various entities

The misspending of money on the transport system.
.
Chaos in changes of laws regarding terrorism and Immigration.

The disillusionment of many in the Civil service.

This is just a short list of his failings and does not even address his foreign policy disastrous career.

This was all managed with an overwhelming majority when the "labour party" were elected.

Unfortunately, I think he is is destroying the the labour party and the longer he remains the more likely the labour party will be rejected at the next elections.


His period of strutting the world stage should be over and allow him to spend more time with his family and reflections.

And of course, Fred, Blair was the man who actually misspent the Health Service money, failed to bring up our children properly, was useless as a teacher, etc, etc, etc.

He made false promises, operating on belief in himself, failed to take informed advice from those with more experience in their particular fields.

This led to the apathy in support services, civil service and other organisations.

He has also led to the lowering world opinion of Britain.

It is unpleasant to have as PM a person who is considered by many as a liar and are not prepared to trust what he states.

He behaved in my opinion with delusions of grandeur and yet is another failed messiah.

It is time for him to go.

He's not the messiah...........
He's a very naughty boy!
:-)

A very naughty boy? Sure.
Must go definately.
His biggest crime was getting caught, all politicians talk bollocks. He did it in style and was caught out. I have never been a red supporter, this whole business is a good example why, for a better example read my post a long while ago about the civil war in Zaire.
Blair hasnt made a decision that really affects us, the people, since he's been in power. He is to scared of upsetting a minority to make a decision that benifits the country.
He needs to grow a set.

...and heres me thinking it was just a monty python quote.
He's a politician, he lies. Will be no better or worse than his soon to be replacement.
All I wany is the UK to be a UNITED KINGDOM. lead by example. Not preach/pamper to the whims of others.
if we had said, we're going to war in iraq to depose saddam- I would'nt have had a problem with it. The damage was done when no WMD's were found- (for gods-sakes they did'nt even have the nonce to plant some~).
Morals , please were talking about politicians.
LOL

Going to war was an attempt at winning another election.
I Agree we should have gone, blair hid the facts because he didnt have the gumption to be honest. The whole WMD question to me is irrelevant, they got rid of Saddam a WMD on his own.
The people there have never had real freedom, its hard for them to suddenly have it. We take it for granted. This mixed with primary school level education makes it hard for the real people to grasp our systems of government, and to see a real future.

How many in this country "grasp our system" etc. ?

lol

Marc

They understand it but they'll never have it!

The rival Islamic factions will keep fighting each other, killing millions (including foreign troops) and eventually create seperate states from the wrecked remains of Iraq. We should pull out and leave them to it before all our troops are sacrificed to this lost cause.

Islam "the religion of peace"