Fred1new
- 07 Dec 2005 16:40
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?
hewittalan6
- 11 Sep 2006 20:08
- 801 of 1327
Indeed not. The maiming and slaughtering of women and children in Iraq by Saddam and his sons was legal in that country. It was not right.
There is still no getting away from the fact that the UN gave a unanimous mandate for the action. This was before any of the sexing up and other alledged lies happened. If the UN gave its blessing, it could hardly claim illegality afterwards.
The challenging of the allies actions is no more than most challenges to international law. It is a way for lawyers to make a lot of money for themselves and publicity to further their career. It has nothing to do with truth or justice.
Alan
hewittalan6
- 11 Sep 2006 20:09
- 802 of 1327
It was legal. you saying you are in the majority is simply not true!! The war was mandated by the UN. there can never be an argument on that because the mandate is in black and white for anyone to inspect!!! Its the stuff of ostriches to claim otherwise!!!
zscrooge
- 11 Sep 2006 21:05
- 803 of 1327
LOLS! Same old record, half-truths and monumemtal pompous patronising.
Sounds like a BNP/UKIP broadcast at times.
I see Bush is getting desperate about mid-terms. He's now hoping to pass a bill that would legalise the military tribunals the Supreme Court had found unconstitutional in June, allow an elite squad of the CIA to continue Geneva-banned coercive interrogations, and grant retroactive legal impunity to all civilian officials who had authorised torture and war crimes since 9/11.
He will also talk of "coercive interrogation techniques" rather than torture.
explosive
- 11 Sep 2006 21:38
- 804 of 1327
There was a time when slavery, being homosexual or able to vote if your a woman were all illegal. The law changes and evolves with every generation. The war may be seen to be legal now but has yet to be tried. In ten years time, if tried will people still think this was a legal war?
hewittalan6
- 12 Sep 2006 07:37
- 805 of 1327
Address the facts. the war was legal and morally justified. Future generations not liking something is not a reason to not do it.
Of course the law evolves. That is its nature. Is your proposal to retrospectively prosecute people???!!! Should I be fined for driving and using my mobile in the dys prior to its banning? Of course, murdering and torturing 8000 kurds in one sitting was illegal then and now, but we should have ignored it.
aldwickk
- 12 Sep 2006 08:04
- 806 of 1327
The war is not seen to be legal now . How many countries in the world is it morally justified to go to war ? Zimbabwe and a host of African states, Burma Ect:
In Zimbabwe white farmers were being killed many of them British born, Why didn't Blair invade Zimbawe ?
hewittalan6
- 12 Sep 2006 08:18
- 807 of 1327
If you could read, you would see I had been arguing for action in Zimbabwe.
Please furnish empirical evidence for your assertation that the war is not legal. Empirical, not heresay, or journalistic claptrap.
Marc3254
- 12 Sep 2006 09:58
- 808 of 1327
Fred - Just to clarift things for you. The war was justified, legal and very much needed. I admit there are a handful of soft, tree hugging liberals who were a little worried that the iraq soldiers were fighting under duress, and did not have access to a teddy bear during the important years of thier youth.
There is no doubt that SH was a tyrant and a major risk to world stability. There was no alternative. He had played and manipulated the UN for years, while gassing and murdering at will. He had to go WMD's or not.
Fred1new
- 12 Sep 2006 10:06
- 809 of 1327
Oh for the simple life of certainty and beliefs.
Do they still print Boy's Own?
maddoctor
- 12 Sep 2006 10:54
- 810 of 1327
CNN yesterday said it all in one word "BARBARIANS"
aldwickk
- 12 Sep 2006 11:08
- 811 of 1327
Hisatwittalan6
Empirical ? thats a big word for somebody who spells hear as here.
Goldsmith said it was not legal and the Army top brass didn't think it was.
hewittalan6
- 12 Sep 2006 12:33
- 812 of 1327
Apologies for the stalker. He lives alone and his only fun in life seems to be following me around, name calling and proving how insignificant he is. Sad really, but there you go.
I'm not going to allow a grown ups discussion to be debased by this kind of irritant, so please understand if I decide not to reply to him. It is not that I have been stumped by the local primary school retard. It is because replying encourages him to display the things he does not possess, such as wit, wisdom and an IQ in positive figures.
This thread has had mature debate way beyond his comprehension and I do not wish his like to destroy it.
End.
Alan
Fred1new
- 12 Sep 2006 13:04
- 813 of 1327
H6, Are you becoming paranoid? Well you would be in good company with Blair and Bush.They had similar delusions and communication with their God. But it may have been started with people following them around.
hewittalan6
- 12 Sep 2006 13:14
- 814 of 1327
No Fred. If only it were that simple.
there are a few threads to which I contribute frequently, and this idiot follows me onto each and every one to try and insult me. Unfortunately his insults show him to be a buffoon that tries the patience of all who come into contact with him.
So I have decided to ignore him and trust the old saying that to let a scab get better, you should just stop picking it.
Alan
barwoni
- 12 Sep 2006 13:14
- 815 of 1327
The notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad is at the centre of fresh abuse allegations just a week after it was handed over to Iraqi authorities, with claims that inmates are being tortured by their new captors.
Staff at the jail say the Iraqi authorities have moved dozens of terrorist suspects into Abu Ghraib from the controversial Interior Ministry detention centre in Jadriyah, where United States troops last year discovered 169 prisoners who had been tortured and starved.
An independent witness who went into Abu Ghraib this week told The Sunday Telegraph that screams were coming from the cell blocks housing the terrorist suspects. Prisoners released from the jail this week spoke of routine torture of terrorism suspects and on Wednesday, 27 prisoners were hanged in the first mass execution since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Conditions in the rest of the jail were grim, with an overwhelming stench of excrement, prisoners crammed into cells for all but 20 minutes a day, food rations cut to just rice and water and no air conditioning.
Some of the small number of prisoners who remained in the jail after the Americans left said they had pleaded to go with their departing captors, rather than be left in the hands of Iraqi guards.
"The Americans were better than the Iraqis. They treated us better," said Khalid Alaani, who was held on suspicion of involvement in Sunni terrorism.
LOL
Fred1new
- 12 Sep 2006 13:31
- 816 of 1327
Americans looking on or is it another place for rendition.
potatohead
- 12 Sep 2006 13:56
- 817 of 1327
in answer to the title of the board.. the whole country voted for blair, therefore the whole country should be held to account, bit late complaining about it, had your chance to vote him out in the elections..
Fred1new
- 12 Sep 2006 14:20
- 818 of 1327
I tried to but not many followed my voting pattern.
aldwickk
- 12 Sep 2006 15:41
- 819 of 1327
Thetwittalan,
"the things he does not possess, such as wit, wisdom and an IQ in positive figures."
Thats rich coming from someone who has watched his investment in SEO drop from 30p to under 4p, without cutting is loses, thats a very unwise thing to do, he must have a IQ to match his shoe size .
aldwickk
- 12 Sep 2006 15:52
- 820 of 1327
Goldsmith said it was not legal and the Army top brass didn't think it was.
Thetwittalanaged6,
Does not or more likely cannot give a answer.