John,

A tin foil hat also helps to keep those nasty beams out of your head too!

Tony Blair must be prosecuted, as should George Bush and John Howard.

I suspected this day might come, if I lived long enough.

There is, finally, a topic upon which I can completely agree with John Pilger.

Excuse me for a moment, I think there must be something in my eye...

John Howard was George W Bush's right hand man.
It was John Howard who took Australia's SAS into Iraq BEFORE the ultimatum for war given to Saddam Hussein had expired and conducted a Turkey Shoot in the dead of night with sofisticated night-vision weapons shooting Iraqis by surprise with devastating results. A War Crime.
The Citation given to Trooper X by Howard for his gallantry in this operation reads as a chilling account of this episode.(See Link Below) Trooper X was one of 150 SAS troopers on the ground that night, so multiply Trooper X's assaults by at least 100 times and the true picture of that massacre will occur.It is interesting that Trooper X could not be given his real name.
Also in my opinion John Howard, by breaking the ultimatum given by George Bush to Saddam Hussein, John Howard has made Null and Void this tenuous premise that going to war was legal.
John Howard should be charged with war crimes. All is documented. http://johnwinstonhowardandtheiraqwar.blogspot.com/

I don't blame Blair.

The trinity of evil was Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. If anyone remembers, Blair had no intention of going to war and was resisting. Along came Bush & Co, and coerced Blair into a war. If you remember correctly, GWB and some cronies went over to the UK to get Blair to join-in their game.

Blair finally conceded, and looked more pale than usual, certainly stressed and pressured, and the UK found themselves involved in an unjust war. It was my opinion at the time, that he was under duress.

You gotta also remember that Blair had supported Clinton, only for that to virtually blow-up in his face, so supporting American presidents, wasn't high on his agenda, but rather, he was reticent to involve himself.

The article should read, "Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be hung as war criminals."

You gotta also consider this...GWB in his declaration of war said, "you're either with us or against us." By definition, he made it a world war, and went around the planet coercing support. He didn't have to do any coercing here, as Howard was in Washington on the day of 9/11, and saw the Pentagon damage first hand. Howard couldn't offer Australian support quick enough, but does anyone suggest that he be tried as a war criminal for engaging Australia in an unjust war? No.

The American people were duped. The British and the Australian people and governments were duped. All the countries of the "Alliance of the Willing", were either duped or coerced, or both.

If you also remember, many "free-trade" agreements were also signed and deals done at the same time...all part of the coercion...."if you want this, then you have to contribute that." They had to romp around the planet to drum-up support, culminating in Colin Powell's presentation of WMDs at the UN...he was the most credible person to make the presentation, and he felt that he had lost his credibility afterwards when he learned of the facade of WMDs. So he resigned.

One of the benefits of the campaign against terror was the outlawing in the US of funding terrorism.

It ended the funding of the IRA in Northern Ireland from the Catholics in Boston, NYC for a start, and quickly ended the "troubles", which PM Blair quite rightly signed up for. The media were all self righteously pursuing what "they" thought was important to their personal belief systems, the pursuit of the USA and their allies (we are an ally, and expect the same if we're in need) who were bringing peace and justice (retribution) by other means than sitting around at yet another unproductive gabfest.

If you want to pursue those who signed up to the war, and in Iraq and Afghanistan they were legal under UN resolutions, (so stop the crap about "illegal" war, it just shows your prejudices), then you have to pursue all of the participants in bringing their countries to war.

PM John Howard had the support of the opposition at the time and was following the example 10 years earlier of PM Bob Hawke going to war in Iraq .. is anyone pursuing Bob Hawke? If not, why not .. again your prejudices are showing you only want to pursue conservative leaders in Australia.

What of PM Rudd, who continued the war in Iraq, though reduced the troops, who continued the war in Afghanistan and increased the troops, add PM Gillard to the list, we're still there.

So while you're all gnashing your teeth (or gums, i.e. toothless) about PM John Howard, why have none of you mentioned the 2 following PMs?

Iraq and Afghanistan are wars that needed to be fought, history will see it that way and not through the eyes of whining hand wringers who just "want to talk about it!", the Taliban and the former Iraqi regimes have no time for weakness.

You either stand up to these people or you let them be, if you let them be, don't complain.