The most valuable commodity in the world is hindsight.
Of course, many have been slaughtered in various wars but, equally, it must be said that many of them laid down their lives that future generations should be free.
I really don't think that revisiting Hiroshima or Dresden is particularly useful. I don't think there are many on here that experienced WWII. If you lost loved ones during the Blitz, you'd have no hesitation in supporting the Dresden raids.
The problem, as always, is down to power and the corruption thereof. If there had been no Hitler, there would have been no WWII. If there had been no Saddam, there would not have been the Gulf Wars. The problem is that when fanatics are able to assume power, violence will ensue. To ensure peace in the future, it is necessary to maintain power with the people. That is why the political elites of this day and age are so dangerous. They may not look like Hitler or Saddam or Pol Pot, but when they assume total executive power, the ramifications are hugely frightening. The current disconnect between the masses and the political class is therefore a worry.
That said, sometimes wars are just necessary. It's a fact of life. The same logic applies, albeit on a much simpler level, when law enforcement officers are required to resort to violence themselves when dealing with psychopaths. Violence is rarely the answer, but sometimes it is the only valid response.
Just my two-penneth. 
I agree with almost all you're saying here. I don't have any sympathy for the point of view that says the Dresden bombing was a war crime, ignoring what was done to Coventry. I can't say I lost loved ones in the blitz, because I was born six months after the war in Europe finished. But my family come from Holland, and I'd have a lot more relatives today if almost the entire Dutch contingent hadn't been carted off to the concentration camps.
Nasty things happen in wars. But once the war is over, the world needs to get on with the peace. I'm appalled by the fact that "war criminals" are being prosecuted 60 years after the war - what's the point? And while I do have a lot of sympathy for the families of the service personnel who lost their lives, I must point out that these people joined the Armed Forces, not the village flower arranging society. To a complete outsider with no military experience whatsoever, it looks to me like getting killed in a war is an occupational hazard for soldiers, and no amount of bitching about the reasons for the war is going to change that
The Iraq war was probably inevitable Saddam made to many enemies both internally and externally. If the USA and UK had not intervened when they did, I think it's quite likely that Israel would eventually have taken some sort of action, and that would have been a disaster on a much grander scale.
Let me make it clear - I absolutely detest Tony Blair. But watching the news last night, I realised that I detest the rent-a-mob outside the hearing building even more. And I detest Gordon Brown even more than that. I don't think Blair has been honest, I don't think that we yet know, or will ever know, the real reasons for his actions, but I don't think there was any way the world could have avoided what happened.
Sorry - too many points - not very coherent. I'll do better next time. 
Not necessarily in its present manifestation J. I would have thought that a regional conflict was the more likely result following a response by Israel to the perceived threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme - although the increased threat levels posed by some in Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories could well have produce the same response.
Saddam's reach as far as Israel is concerned was, I believe, modest. I feel that the United States had a clear intention of establishing a powerbase in the region to be better placed if they needed respond to the looming threat from Iran. As a result, the excuse for invasion offered to the United Nations probably bore no relation to the true motivation of the US administration.
What has changed? – Yes, Saddam has been removed from power but Iraq has been all but destroyed and, in the absence of the very large US security presence there at the moment, would in all probability descend into outright anarchy with dire regional consequences.
The British presence unfortunately doesn't seem to have had much impact when compared to that of the US commitment. In the end a retreat from Basra seems to be the culmination of our contribution. Such is the intractability of engaging in asymmetric warfare even the US forces have eventually been fought to a stand still.
This seems to have been an ill-conceived operation, poorly planned for the long term and constructed mendaciously by some hawkish minds within the then US administration. There was, in my view, no need for British involvement at all.
Concerning war crimes there is every point in expecting people to answer for their actions as I feel that it’s unhealthy for society to ignore such activity – if we do, is there any point in having a system of justice?
Author
Topic: The IRAQ inquiry Part2 (Read 2815 times)