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?

No they shouldn't be tried for war crimes.

They did the world a massive favour by removing Saddam.

If you liked Saddam so much why didn't you go and live under his evil regime ?

All the nutters and religious fanatic's are now going to Iraq to fight against our troops and they will eventually wiped out. These nutters don't want democracy full stop.

We have never been 100% safe in Britain. Remember the IRA ?
There are always religious nutters who want to destroy our way of life.

ALL the casualties NOW are because of these mad cranks who are killing innocent IRAQ's day in day out as well as the troops.

If you ask me we should go further and take out a few other dictators around the world.

Bush wanted cheaper oil for the US Economy in the years to come when it becomes scarce elsewhere. Blair was seduced by Bush (Yuck!) and allowed it all to happen despite the wishes of the British People.

The weapons inspection routine with the UN was a farce. I never beleived it at the time and was used as the pretext to invade but they never found anything.

Saddam is no angel but the do-gooder nations of this world do not remove oppresive dictators and regimes unless their is oil involved.

What a sad state of affairs. How many civilians (inlcuding lots of children) have been killed since 2003 in Iraq? The last figure I heard was 25000+ Totally sickening.

Not in my name please Mr Blair.

d'accord, ramperdil. A completely justified invasion that i have no qualms about at all.
IMHO these religious fanatics want nothing less than a conversion of the whole world to their way of life and so slapping them back down again on a regular basis is sound policy as far as I am concerned.
The allied countries do not force their ideals on any section of society, they believe in freedom of speech and the right to follow ones own beliefs within the constraint of law. These tinpot religious dictatorships do not allow for these basic liberties.
Whether or not WMD were in Iraq is irrelevant. Iraq were issued with an ultimatum from the UN that they either co-operated with the inspectorate or they would suffer force. They did not co-operate fully and suffered the consequences. How can that be "illegal"?
The world is a better place, even for Iraqis, who can now voice an opinion and get the changes they wish. The problems there now are nothing more than a smaller version of what was happening anyway, at the behest of Saddam, but without the publicity.
Alan

Snappy,

allowed it all to happen despite the wishes of the British People

Your empirical evidence for this please? As I remember it, the surveys conducted showed <50% against millitary action.
Alan

Alan,

My comments are based on the the public protests at the time and the slap that Blair got at this years general election that was attributed by many commentators as being over the war.

Why Saddam didn't let the UN inspectors do what they wanted is a mystery although I agree that he is a thoroughly nasty human being. The trial is a farce though (sorry to change the subject)

What most people who are pro Iraq war forget is that Saddam was backed by the the US & the UK in the war with Iran in which gas was used by Iraq. Saddam was a right wing westen style dictator which the US kept in power like they did with the Latin american dictators, but his downfull was to invade Kuwait which left the UK & the USA no choice put to remove him from Kuwait, because he was a threat to all the oil producing states.

It is strange or is it strange that people want to be friends of an administration who are pepared fly other "people" around the world to be tortured. I suppose this is the action of a law abiding enlightened government and would be practice by the followers even if the recipients were distant relatives.

There is a major difference between "law abiding, enlightened" and "soft touch, lets get there, fleece 'em and Wreck it" government, though both are either end of a scale.
We have moved too far along that scale and become a nation of apologists for right and proper actions and excuse finders for unacceptable actions.
I am sad to say that if my generation had been of fighting age in 1939, Adolf Hitler would have had a free flight to London and Tower Hamlets or Hackney would be bidding for who could give him the biggest and best flat.
Nobody has ever said we were wrong to go to war with a German nation who slaughtered Gypsys, Jews and Gays, yet we are so very wrong to go to war on a muslim country who slaughters their fellow (though slightly different sect) Muslims and remove an egotistical maniac who was hell bent on seeing just how far he could go before his bluff was called.
The alternative? Do just as much as he lets us and then stand on the runway at Bagdhad airport, waving a peice of paper and saying This is peace in our time.
Alan

Aldwick, good post above.

Lets not forget how the UK and US governments betrayed Saddam much in the same way our contries betrayed Bin-Laden (excuse spelling). To answer the question though should Blair/Bush be tried for war crimes then I think yes. In the same way our so called demorcratic societies have brought others to justice..

lol-total rubbish- should everyone who voted for Blairs Trotskyist hangers on who really run the country via the Unions and public services be tried?- oh yes please.

Blair was the monkey - the Organ Grinder`s still alive and well, not for long though LEFT is soooo 1900`s.

oh ps talking about democracy, 76% of the voters would bring back the death penalty, no outcry from the farties about that bit of non-democratic , non PC feeling then?

We went to war with Germany because they invaded Poland, so they say.

I would bring back hanging and start off with Dil.

Lets invade France next..

lets invade wales lol

yes lets invade Wales and execute people like Dil.

but cant see us getting past dil and his army of killer sheep.

There is little comparison between WW2 and the Iraqi war. Germany was occupying and invading other countries. Germany was the aggressor and had broken international law.

At the time of the Iraqi war, Iraq was within its own borders, and in as far as the UN was concerned was not at that time an aggressors.

They were allowed at the end of the Kuwait war to retreat to within the Iraqi borders hoping that they would be a buffer against Iran.

America has interfered in others countries politics since the WW2 eventually being laugh out of many of those countries as they beat their retreats. (As they will do so from Iraq)

The interference in those countries has been for the hoped financial or economic advantage of the USA.

This time they have bought more than they can chew. I believe it is costing the USA over 120 billion USA dollars a year for this war and Britain approximately 12 billion pounds Sterling.

I think that money could have been spent more wisely.

Good post fred.

Completely disagree.
I was comparing the men, not the wars.
If history has taught us anything, it is that if an evil dictator is given an inch, he will take a mile. This one was nipped in the bud, and quite rightly so.
If the minority of the UK who were against the war had their way then the UN and all its resolutions mean nothing. It would have been a signal to all despots everywhere that a UN resolution stating that if an order was not complied with force would be used had a subtext along the lines of - we won't really because lots of handwringing liberals will get on their moral high horse to prevent it.
Conclusion - Do what you want, we will do nothing and the suffering will continue, the threat will remain. We don't mean it and the rule of international law will only apply to moderate democratic countries who follow it by there own volition.
That would be a hell of an improvement over the current state.
As for the money, we could have used it for extra hospitals and fall out shelters for we must assume when a dictator who we suspect is building WMD does not allow free access to the rest of the world for inspection purposes, he is building them. To not assume that would be an extreme folly.
Alan

On the policy you seem to advocate I think it would be appropriate to remove forcefully Bush and his henchmen from power and put him on trial for war crimes.