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?

Earlier I wrote I missed out that Saddam randomly kill ---- , I feel this is what the Americans have done and are still doing ------------------------- and was questioned about my terminology.


I was referring to Iraq at the time, but below is an example of the behaviour.
This I am sure will appeal to the hearts and minds of the Pakistan people and sets an example to the rest of the world to follow.

Imagine a small peasant town in Texas being bombed and innocent children killed.

What would be the Outcry and action.

I dont condone terrorism but understand that people fight with the only tools they think they have.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4613108.stm


'Zawahiri' strike sparks protest

A missile strike apparently targeting al-Qaeda's deputy leader in a village in Pakistan has prompted Islamabad to protest to its American allies. Ayman al-Zawahiri was not in the village on the border with Afghanistan, Pakistan officials said. But the attack left at least 18 local people dead. The US military has denied knowledge of the attack, which US media reported had been carried out by the CIA. But Islamabad condemned the strike and called the US ambassador to complain. Pakistan's Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told a news conference the Pakistani government wanted "to assure the people we will not allow such incidents to reoccur". He said he did not know whether Zawahiri had been in the area at the time.


It was stated in response to I think all research facilities in Britain and America should be open to World Inspection at any time of day and night. Like their torture chambers at G.Bay.

""""THEY ARE """"


I suggest starting on the following report __ at :-

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

Guantamo Bay - a human rights scandal



The unlawful detention of enemy combatants at the US Naval Base at Guantamo Bay, Cuba has now entered its fifth year. Hundreds of people of around 35 different nationalities remain held in effect in a legal black hole, many without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits.

Many of these detainees allege they have been subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In desperation, some detainees have attempted suicide. Others have gone on prolonged hunger strikes, being kept alive only through painful force feeding measures.

Guantamo Bay has become a symbol of injustice and abuse in the US administrations war on terror. It must be closed down





It is unfortunate that the blindest are often the ones who dont want to see.

They are, refers to the nuclear installations. The rest of the response(s) made that perfectly clear.
Of course the they have been subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment would never apply to the regime that was removed, would it?
I sometimes need reminding when I read comments like that what a lovely peaceful and fulfilling place Iraq was to live in, while ruled by that cuddly old Saddam. War is a nasty business. I do not condone much of the USA actions since the war and many of my posts refer to that, but the war was necessary and required and the world is a far better and safer place for it. It has removed a maniac regime, reduced the threat of state sanctioned WMD use and of terrorists being armed with such and it has given pause to other rogue nations to think that following Iraqs lead will end in similar tears.
This is a good thing. People dying is a bad thing, as is torture, but there is much less of this under the new Iraq than there ever was under Saddam. But still you try to convince everyone that Iraq and the world were better prior to the Gulf war.
By your own petard; It is unfortunate that the blindest are often the ones who dont want to see.
Alan

Another poser for those who think the war was wrong.
It is much easier to knock an action than to defend it. Those of us who support the war have to be accuntable for mistakes that have happened in our replies and are assumed to support not only the war but the methods employed before during and since. Those of you who were opposed to it have the luxury of not having to defend any single event because the position you defend exists only in your imagination, where all things are possible.
So heres the deal.
For the purposes of this thread let us go back in time to after the UN security council had passed the resolution, but before the attack. All nations of the world had agreed the resolution that should Iraq not fully comply, then military action was allowable to enforce compliance and that no further vote was needed.
The WMD inspection teams were reporting that while Iraq were complying in part, it was not in full and they could not give any catergorical assurances on the presence or otherwise of WMD. The security services and intelligence agencies of numerous countries were reporting their belief that Iraq may have WMD capabilities, but again could not be certain. Sadddam was insisting that any use of force would be met by the tactical use of battlefield WMD, and that the inspectors could only return on his terms. No negotiation on that.
Back home a slender majority of your electorate favours military action.
This is the position of Blair, prior to the attack.
Now tell me, what would you have done that would have ensured Iraq did not have WMD, that would have made it impossible for Saddam to visit the death and destruction he visited on the Kurds somewhere else in the region and that would have ensured Iraqi citizens no longer had to fear death and torture for decades to come?
Alan.

First.
It would have been sensible for US and Britain to allow Hans Blick to continue the investigations in IRAQ as he suggested.

Second
I and seemingly the majority of the British people believed Blair distorted and lied about the WMD etc. and also the reasons and legality of going to war. Parliament and many of the country were persuaded by those falsehoods and voted with the government. This was a shameful piece of manipulation.

Thirdly.

As stated regularly I had no wish for Saddam as leader of Iraq and would have support UN moves to remove him.

But recalled his position as leader of that country was aided and abetted by America and Britain + other Western States.

An as yet I have to see, read or hear of any improvement in the living conditions of the normal Iraqis.

I believe their schools, hospitals, police and legal systems and badly functioning under appalling conditions. Their power supplies and economy is in a disastrous state.

These situations are due to the stupidity of the US and British administrator and the Gun Ho approach.

Change was necessary but not in the crazy fashion it was attempted.

As you sow, so shall you reap.

I believe this is part of the superior Christian teachings.

I feel if the 10-12 billion a year which is being used for the Iraqi war was use for AID and social development the opinion and security of the World would have been improved.

I would like to add one further piece of information, that I am not a pacifist but consider wars are a way out for fools.

I promise to try not to add anymore to this topic.

First,
Hans Blick reported to the Un that he wished to continue his inspections but that he was hampered as the Iraqis were not giving their full co-operation.
Second,
Politics is about manipulation. Others may choose to beleive that Blair was pointing out the worst case scenario. In the defence of the realm, no other scenario should be considered. You do not get a second chance.
Third,
Regime change is not a reason for the UN to take any action or impose any sanction, so they could have done nothing. Remember, the UN had intelligence that said they could not be sure and the inspectors, likewise said they could not be sure. This is a reason for action.

You talk about no improvements in living conditions. Remind us all again how wonderful life was for an average Iraqi before the war.
The problems are there, but unless a UK administrator is busy blowing himself up in market squares then it is not he who is causing these problems. It is caused by a state that was ridiculously fractured under the Hussein regime, where differing religions were taught to hate and murder each other, and accept nothing other than dictatorial power for their chosen leader.
If the money was given in aid and social developement, it would have been spent on terror and arming, and you would be here in a few years pontificating about how we supported Saddam. You cannot have it both ways. Aid and support are now being put in place, but this could never have happened under Saddam.
I consider turning a blind eye, hoping it goes away and saying you did it wrong , without suggesting an alternative to be a way out for fools.
You slate "Superior Christian teachings". Are you giving away your real reason for your hatred of Bush and Blair? That is laughable when you consider that the UK and USA fought alongside Muslims, against non-Muslim states in Eastern Europe following the upheavel of the old soviet bloc disintegrating, followed by Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Religion has nothing to do with any of it.
Still waiting on the poser I set earlier. As you are no doubt finding out, finding an alternative that would have done anything is not a realistic proposition.
Alan

More economy with the truth.

Quote: All nations of the world had agreed the resolution that should Iraq not fully comply, then military action was allowable to enforce compliance and that no further vote was needed.

Sorry. Not all nations agreed. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously on Nov 8 2002 offering Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations. It threatedned serous consequences if resloutions were not met. Thereafter, there was lots of reporting by Blix to the UN in early 2003. At the start, this was about Iraq not fully accepting its obligation to disarm. But later, reports from Blix (Feb 14, March 7) were seen as more encouraging saying that there had been significant progress and cooperation despite worries about anthrax and long range weapons. France and Germany called for more time. By mid March, 1441 was crucial. Essentially, the situation was not a clear cut as the above quote makes out. There was passionate debate about whether or not we needed a second resolution. Of the permanent, veto-holding members of the Security Council, France, Russia and China wished the inspection period to be extended, and for no military action to go ahead without a further UN resolution. Blair wanted a second resolution but when he couldnt get it, insisted that 1441 was enough.

The USA and Britain acted illegally. The full Security Coucil and not individual members should make decisions.

For more untruths and distortions regarding the war see here:
http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/legalarticles/singh.html


Quote:The slender majority favour war.
Based on manipulation of the truth by Blair.

What to do?
As the security council wanted, given Blix more time. Keep the pressure on Saddam. (Cue blood boiling from warmongers). We would have eventually found out that there were no WMD, that any old stockpiles of chemical weapons useless (short shelf life). Dictatorship would have been nasty for many Iraqis but then death and torture occurs in many places around the globe why so moral about Iraq? Why arent we invading Zimbabwe, Egypt, Iran, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Burma? The Kurds, of course were treated abysmally but for Bush and Blair just a cynical way to create sympathy and an excuse for war. For decades, the Kurds looked to the West for support in their struggle against Saddam's government. Washington's response has been classic realpolitik - using the Kurds when it wanted to hurt Saddam and then dropping them when their usefulness had run out.

War is easy. No thinking involved. Makes you think that ass is being kicked, things are getting done, action is being taken, nobody is getting away with it. Alternatives require a stronger kind of attitude and a cooler intelligence.

I would have used the money to deal with the USAs poor. http://www.laneta.apc.org/sclc/desmilitarizacion/encuentro/ponencias/honkala.htm

For more alternatives to the war
http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/html/new_alternate.plan.html


Quote: As you are no doubt finding out, finding an alternative that would have done anything is not a realistic proposition.

Like Muslim fundamentalists, such patronising and certainty is difficult to fight. It's all yours.

www.lawyersagainstthewar

The clue is in the address. I cannot consider this to be anything even remotely approaching objective. Like the documentary referred to earlier, it has a lack of balance.
Time would have done nothing if Saddam had been in possession of WMD. He had strung Hans Blix and the UN on for years. The economy with the truth was from Saddam when he promised any action would result in his unleashing WMD against allied forces.
Your post shows exactly why we are not dealing with those other countries in the same way. Too many people say that war is not an answer to anything and demonstrate for years trying to justify their position, making life impossible for the politicians who made the decision and the brave soldiers who fought.
I see you devoted a whole two lines to your alternative strategy. Give Blix more time. What for and how long. Saddam had had years to comply and hadn't. How much longer were we to give him to do as he wished. And if he still didn't comply, what then? Your approach was exactly what he was hoping for, so the UN would be powerless. Do you rule out military action altogether? If you do, then what is the point in any inspections? There would be no comeback even if they found hundreds of missiles with London addresses on them. You have ruled out action.
If money worked ( and I assume you mean financial sanctions), then why has it never worked before? Cuba has been isolated from international trade for half a century but carries on quite nicely thank you, ploughing its own furrow. Zimbabwe is under anction right now and the only effect is that life gets worse and more violent for the suffering minorities there as the majorities become more desperate to grab a slice of the remaining cake.
The certainty, my friend, is on your side of the debate. You can afford to display that because you have factual things to criticise, without having to expose your alternative to the real world. You can argue that your way is better because it never happened and never will, so any problems with it are hypothetical, as is its success.
Alan

lol@Gordon Brown, who wants everyone to fly a Union Flag in their Gordon, fair enough Gordon, make of mine what you want, up she goes, oh and the Flag of St.George next to it.

Sense at last.

No need to fly the flag of St George as well as the Union Flag when the flag of St George is already part of the Union Flag -- that's what it's all about.

Earlier in this thread I asked what we should do about the Iran situation, given that to use force would be, politically, a re-run of Iraq.
In light of the last week or so, and the amazing and unecessarily violent reaction of muslim extremists to the publication of some drawings, is anyone changing their view?
The Iranian president has condemned the cartoons, as have many muslim leaders, but appears to stop short of condeming the burning of embassies, and the threats of terrorism. if this is significant of his stance on international issues can we, with clear conscience, allow his nation to enrich uranium.
Is it still a risk worth taking, or should we act as swiftly as diplomatically possible to ensure he has no access to this technology.
In short, are we confident that if this happened in years to come, he would not arm extremists, or use arms himself?
And cos its an investment thread, should we now all be buying into oil in case sanctions become a reality?
Alan

always thought the running out of oil might cause wars and unless we do something its inevitable, US gas gazzlers, china and India swallowing more and more, people breeding like rabbits so therefore more of worlds resources are going to be needed.

We can wrap it up in what we like, Oil is the bottom line. How USA, Brittain, India, Pakistan and Isreal think they can have nuclear weopens but no else can. Why have we treated India and Pakistan differently to Iran. How much oil in those two countries?????

Do I take it from that Kivver, that you are happy for the Ayatollah to have the raw materials for nuclear weapons at his disposal?
if so, I am genuinely suprised. I know you are against any kind of military action and I respect that, but when you hear the things the Ayatollah says about the west in general and non-muslim nations in particular it does not sound like the clarion call of peace or the siren sound of moderation!
I truly believe oil is not the central political issue, and I am accused of believing war mongering politicians, but I believe that to think oil is the motivating factor is to believe the pacifist politicians. Surely Iran is a threat to security without nuclear capabilities and it is the first duty of any government to minimise or eradicate threats? I confidantly predict this will not happen by peaceful means alone, but hope and pray that the threat of the wests might will be sufficient. I am equally confident that had force not been used in Iraq, then the threat would have been empty and the Iranians would continue unmoved.
Oil is not the bottom line. We have never threatened the old soviet states or the new Russia for their oil. Neither have we made any move at Venezuala for theirs.
Hoping for a peaceful conclusion.
Alan

Just to add that the cost of action in the middle east would probably be enough to research and eventually commercialise non-oil alternatives, so to spend that much on the basis of grabbing the last (?) of the oil is probably an economic nonsense anyway.

the answer to the fuel problem lies in your kitchen cabinet, if everyone here used vegetable oil in their diesel tank, the authorities would be banjaxed- a 50/50% blend will do nicely, at about 60p a litre, unfortunately as we are a nation of cowards- cowed by years of government intervention, nannying and hand outs, few of us have the balls to stick two fingers up to Gay Gordon and his Highland Fuseless-ires- including myself, although I know a few who dare.

http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=104&i=6545

It might turn out to be a good idea to invade Iran; invading Iraq was.

al - you always talk common sense giving the other side of the argument but im not sure Iran could threaten the west from where they are. I thought missiles only had a certain range and with new technology surely they wouldnt get near us. You also said i was anti millitary, which i am not, i was against the Iragi war for the reasons i mentioned before the country is in absolute chaos, and the reasons we went to war have be proven to be lies, WMD (where are they). Are the west saying the same lies about Iran????? its hard to know what the truth is.

Do you think that if we do start running out of oil or we are rationed because these countries want to keep their own resources for their own countries the west are going to stand back and let this happen including the countries you have mentioned. By the way if we need to that for the survival of our own countries i would be behind it. Also think we need to be working much harder on our renewable sources.

I agree about the renewable resources, certainly, but I detect, in government, a simplistic thinking of looking for THE answer. I don't believe there is a THE answer. I believe the answer lies in a multi-discipline approach of Hydro, Solar, Hydrogen, Nuclear and organic solutions. None of these are capable of satisfying our needs on their own and some are stupidly expensive, but a mix and match approach may just eke out enough power at an economic enough rate to provide AN answer.
Alan

BTW. The delivery system doesn't have to be a missile. It can easily be a young bloke with a desperate desire to get his hands on a few virgins!!!
Ever read "The Fourth Protocol"?
Fiction, I know, but nevertheless possible.
Alan

It is interesting to me, that a country which has proven track record of using Atomic bombs and nuclear arm remnants in their armaments, in war outside its own borders. ie. America, has the gall to try and justify its stance that other states have not the right to their own independent nuclear research program.

America has supplied and supported armed insurrection in states throughout the world since the 1950s. Then supporting horrendous governments in those countries. (It is seeing the backlash of those actions in the South American countries now.)

As far as Iran is concerned, America and Britain supported and Iraq in its bloody war against Iran, while also providing arms to Iran. This was after it supported and instigated the downfall of an Iranian democratically elected government, replacing it with the puppet regime of the Shah, which was responsible for torture and murder of any opposition to the said government.

The international policies of America and to a certain degree Britain throughout the last fifty years has stank. The results of which we are beginning to see.


Oil will probably become a more expensive commodity and eventually to expensive to use as a basic simple energy resource. Whether or not we like it ,Nuclear energy in one from of another will be its replacement and I think every country is entitled to develop such for its own needs.


It was shown in the Iraq war that it was America and to a lesser degree Britain had the WMD and America were prepared and actually did use them.

I have the greatest respect for your views, Fred, but if WMD have to exist (and we can't un-invent them) then I feel more comfortablr with nuclear weapons existing where they do, with nations who could have used tham at any point in the last 60 years, and haven't than with a nation whose stated aim is to wipe Israel off the map.
The balance has been mantained all this time due to International governing bodies and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Something we must surely have learned over the last few years is that the Iraqs and Irans of our planet will not bow down to international pleas and pressure in pursuit of their goals. We must also have learned that in the Islamic world, death as part of a holy campaign is not to be feared and in fact is to be greeted.
Without these safety catches, and the checks and balances, I do not feel at all comfortable with the Iranian threat, and while I support dialogue, I am prepared to back whatever action may become necessary in pursuit of this threat.
History also teaches us that we can draw rights and wrongs from any historical event and use it to justify current actions. that is what keeps the Israel / Palestine thing going so well. Our historical support or otherwise (albeit recent) should not detract us from a changing world order and how to keep the planet free from nuclear devastation.
We must deal with the facts as they present themselves now, and in my opinion, a nuclear capable Iran is possibly the greatest threat we have seen since the rise of the third reich.
Do not be mistaken. An Iranian attack on Israel would draw in the majority of the world as the west defended Israel and the Arab states and Indonesian countries rallied to the defense of their Muslim brothers.
What prevents this now, is the knowledge that Israel has the capability to destroy the forces of places like Iran. If Iran had the ability to ensure Israel could not strike back for very long, they may choose to attack.
Finally, a few drawings have led to embassies around the world being torched, people killed and terrorist threats against countries like ours who did not even instigate this.
Who knows what the next apparantly innocent act will trigger a vile and extreme response? I certainly don't.
And the act was innocent. The newspaper story appeared due to the writer of childrens books having problems finding an illustrator for his latest book. The book was aimed at trying to get Danish Children to understand and sympathise with Islam!!
Ironic, but there you go.
Alan