Iraq now 'finished' for United Kingdom

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8026136.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War




A ceremony has been held in Basra to mark the official end of the six-year British military mission in Iraq. UK combat operations ended as 20th Armoured Brigade took part in a flag-lowering ceremony with a US brigade.
In London, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said a new chapter in relations between the two countries had begun.
Earlier, a memorial service attended by Defence Secretary John Hutton took place in Basra for the 179 UK personnel who have died during the conflict.

The focus was a memorial wall featuring the names of the 234 UK and foreign troops and civilians who lost their lives under British command in Iraq.

We are now a peace keeping force in the Republic of Iraq, so it now seems as though the Iraq invasion is now over. In my opinion its a blot on our history and was an illegal war which both the British Government & Bush Administration lied over to gather public support, in which many of our civil liberties have now been lost in the hysteria of the aftermath of 9/11.

Iraqi's now face a possibly unstable future in which they did not have under Saddam Hussein, and women and other groups in Iraq such as homosexuals now fear that tougher muslim laws will now punish them/hold them back in Iraq, whereas before it was one of the most liberal middle eastern countries in terms of equality.

Such a waste of life, in which our moral authority has been seriously damaged. Estimates range from around 600,000 to 1,000,000+ people have died as a result of the Iraq invasion.

[Monopoly]

Yeah, about six years too late.

[Bun]

hang on for a sec, you believe iraq would be better with saddam hussein?*Removed*


Edited by ,Jess, (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not be rude.

[-:Undertaker:-]

hang on for a sec, you believe iraq would be better with saddam hussein? *Removed*

You believe Iraq is now better as a fragile country in which terrorists now use as their base, whereas under Saddam Hussein they didn't?

You believe American oil companies in control of Iraqi oil will help Iraq?

You believe the shiite muslins who are now incharge (whos branch of islam tends to be much harsher on women and other sections of society) is a good thing?

If you actually read into the Ba'ath regime they did a lot of good, yes they were strict and did some awful crimes, but i'm afraid you can't control a middle eastern country that is not strong, just look at Pakistan since Musharraf left office. Saddam built up Iraqs' infastructure from nothing making it one of the most progressive middle eastern countries, not only that but he allowed women to wear western clothes and to be able to have higher jobs like men. He also took a different, more soft line on homosexuals compared to Iran where they are hanged. He also abolished the Sharia courts which are notorious for favouring out-of-date tradition muslim laws which favour men over women.

I am capitalist and conservative, but when it comes to the Middle East arab socialism such as the one Saddam Hussein implemented, it works. Until you actually look into his regime as a whole and compared to some other countries in the middle east and around the world, then you haven't got any base to build an argument up on.

[GommeInc]

I'm not entirely sure what Saddam Hussein did. One moment it was a look into weapons of mass destruction, the next a Prime Minister got hung for, well, no reason as far as I saw it. It's strange because I think I can remember him coming the UK talking to whoever was the Prime Minister and he seemed like a decent person.

If Iraq is better now, I would of loved to of seen what Iraq looked like in the past...
Posts merged by PaulMacC (Forum Super Moderator): Due to forum lag.

[nvrspk4]

I find it interesting that you call it illegal...you can call a war unjustified perhaps or claim that the administration lied about it...but illegal? Hardly :P

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator...but its debatable whether its our place to waltz around invading countries just because we don't like how they take care of business.

Well in my mind its not even a debate, but for some it is.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I find it interesting that you call it illegal...you can call a war unjustified perhaps or claim that the administration lied about it...but illegal? Hardly :P

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator...but its debatable whether its our place to waltz around invading countries just because we don't like how they take care of business.

Well in my mind its not even a debate, but for some it is.

As the United Nations didn't give consent and was lied to by the Bush administration, its similar to when North Korea have sanctions because they fire nuclear weapons, its 'illegal' or 'unjustified' in the eyes of the United Nations.

As for Saddam Hussein, of course he was, compared to our governments; brutal, harsh and not democratic at all. However if you look at his home policy and look at Iraq before and during his regime whilst also comparing it to Iran and Saudi Arabia it makes Saddam look like a powerpuff girl. If we could have democratic, fair and stable governments in the Middle East it would be wonderful and hopefully one day that will happen, but now in this world and in reality i'm sure Iraqi women, homosexuals and other groups would rather have more freedom than death, which they face in neighbouring states like Iran. Iran is democratic yet was much more harsh than Iraq in which women can be arrested or told to stop wearing western clothes, in which teenagers are publically hanged for being gay.

My opinion on his regime may be out of the ordinary and I too used to think he was the worst man on the planet thanks to western media, but now looking at his neighbours and comparing to other dictators, he was on the whole, a good dictator.


I'm not entirely sure what Saddam Hussein did. One moment it was a look into weapons of mass destruction, the next a Prime Minister got hung for, well, no reason as far as I saw it. It's strange because I think I can remember him coming the UK talking to whoever was the Prime Minister and he seemed like a decent person.

If Iraq is better now, I would of loved to of seen what Iraq looked like in the past...

He was infact someone who would listen and tred carefully around the United States. Before the invasion of Kuwait (which was operated because apparently Kuwait were slant drilling) Saddam called an American offical to his palace and asked if Iraq was to invade Kuwait/take military action, would the United States intervene? - the answer he got was something like the United States does not wish to intervene in Middle Eastern politics or war - Saddam saw this as the go ahead, as America had not threatend to intervene in the war, but America later went back on itself. He wasn't perfect, but was a damn lot better than Robert Mugabe, Irans Presidents and Saudi Arabian leaders.

I agree, where are the weapons? - there are none, it was a complete cover up and the war cannot even be defended in my eyes, otherwise if we were to go on a culling of all governments we did not like, we'd occupy around half the world.

[Jord]

RIP 179 Men That Layed Their Lifes Down For Britan

You made me proud :'(

[Alkaz]

Estimates range from around 600,000 to 1,000,000+ people have died as a result of the Iraq invasion.
Why highlight that? How many millions of people did Saddam Hussein whilst he was dictating over them? I doubt it was anywere near that figure. In six years since we invaded and how ever many since he was killed I wonder how many he would have killed if we handn't invaded? I suspect many more than that number killed in the war. Iraq was good for me.


its debatable whether its our place to waltz around invading countries just because we don't like how they take care of business.
Maybe but thats how we got our empire which we should never have given back.

[Jordy]

Maybe but thats how we got our empire which we should never have given back.The empire is easily the best bit in our history (Although some parts of World War II were also phenomenal) but I'm afraid it was right to split up. If we didn't allow the empire to split up, they'd of just removed themselves. It split up just after World War II, our army was obviously over-stretched and we were a very poor country, we'd been battered by the war, we just couldn't afford to keep pouring money into the empire (bare in mind we'd already stole most the good things from the empire) and we had no means of controlling the empire anyway.

If we continued the empire I assure you that Britain would look nothing like it does today.

[Clowgon]

We have the Americans on our side if there is any other future wars! Surely that's a good thing? I'm kidding.

It's cost us £7 Billion a year - The invasion of Iraq, so i hope the government will use the rest of the money which is meant for the war for things like the Public sector.

I think loads of things have changed since the invasion of Iraq. Since the invasion there were 20-30 bombings a day, now current there's only 1-2 that are taking place a day. I would say that's a big difference!

The country is not going to be perfect "overnight" these things take time.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why highlight that? How many millions of people did Saddam Hussein whilst he was dictating over them? I doubt it was anywere near that figure. In six years since we invaded and how ever many since he was killed I wonder how many he would have killed if we handn't invaded? I suspect many more than that number killed in the war. Iraq was good for me.


Maybe but thats how we got our empire which we should never have given back.

As I said Saddam Hussein was nowhere near perfect, but many of those killed were to keep the regime healthy and strong otherwise if your not tough in a middle eastern country, you just get toppled. Iraq was good for you? - was it good for our reputation, for the dead soldiers, for their families, for the Iraqis who were innocently killed and for their families?

We invaded Iraq on a complete lie, and there is no denying it.

As I said before, before you go screaming about how evil Saddam was, maybe try and compare him and read up about him compared to Saudi Arabia and Iran because it makes him look like a sugar plum fairy.


The empire is easily the best bit in our history (Although some parts of World War II were also phenomenal) but I'm afraid it was right to split up. If we didn't allow the empire to split up, they'd of just removed themselves. It split up just after World War II, our army was obviously over-stretched and we were a very poor country, we'd been battered by the war, we just couldn't afford to keep pouring money into the empire (bare in mind we'd already stole most the good things from the empire) and we had no means of controlling the empire anyway.

If we continued the empire I assure you that Britain would look nothing like it does today.

Exactly, the Empire essentially went bust thanks to World War II. I think if World War II hadn't occured we would of still had our Empire, sadly though that is not how history took its course.


The country is not going to be perfect "overnight" these things take time.

The country faces a very unstable future, the Ba'ath regime offered stability and fairness compared with other groups, I think we'll see many topplings/weak governments in Iraq which will hold back its progress.

[:Technical]

Now what will happen is they will take the troops from Iraq and put them in Afghanistan and they Taliban will retreat to Iraq again and they will get stronger.

[nvrspk4]

As the United Nations didn't give consent and was lied to by the Bush administration, its similar to when North Korea have sanctions because they fire nuclear weapons, its 'illegal' or 'unjustified' in the eyes of the United Nations.

But in effect all war is due to things that are "illegal". What really gives the UN the power to sanction war. As a matter of fact, nothing does. A war occurs because you feel that the laws have been broken and diplomacy will no longer work, thus you eschew the entire system that the UN is the crux of. The UN simply tries to maintain some vestige of legitimacy by going "ok we're useless at this point you're allowed to avoid us."


As for Saddam Hussein, of course he was, compared to our governments; brutal, harsh and not democratic at all. However if you look at his home policy and look at Iraq before and during his regime whilst also comparing it to Iran and Saudi Arabia it makes Saddam look like a powerpuff girl. If we could have democratic, fair and stable governments in the Middle East it would be wonderful and hopefully one day that will happen, but now in this world and in reality i'm sure Iraqi women, homosexuals and other groups would rather have more freedom than death, which they face in neighbouring states like Iran. Iran is democratic yet was much more harsh than Iraq in which women can be arrested or told to stop wearing western clothes, in which teenagers are publically hanged for being gay.

I realize this is a terrible analogy to draw but Hitler was much the same way, Germany was a hellhole before he came to power. He really did a lot for the Germans but killed others much like Saddam catered to the minority Sunni and killed scores of Shia and banned their festivals. I realize the scope is massively different but the principle is the same...what Hitler did was not ok even if he made things better for the Germans.

That being said, we did not go into war with the Germans because of what they were doing to the Jews, we were clueless for the longest time.


My opinion on his regime may be out of the ordinary and I too used to think he was the worst man on the planet thanks to western media, but now looking at his neighbours and comparing to other dictators, he was on the whole, a good dictator.

He was infact someone who would listen and tred carefully around the United States. Before the invasion of Kuwait (which was operated because apparently Kuwait were slant drilling) Saddam called an American offical to his palace and asked if Iraq was to invade Kuwait/take military action, would the United States intervene? - the answer he got was something like the United States does not wish to intervene in Middle Eastern politics or war - Saddam saw this as the go ahead, as America had not threatend to intervene in the war, but America later went back on itself. He wasn't perfect, but was a damn lot better than Robert Mugabe, Irans Presidents and Saudi Arabian leaders.

I agree, where are the weapons? - there are none, it was a complete cover up and the war cannot even be defended in my eyes, otherwise if we were to go on a culling of all governments we did not like, we'd occupy around half the world.

Yes, it was a lie, and the bold sentence is my point. I don't agree though that he was best of the worst :P

[Hushie]

Iraqi's now face a possibly unstable future in which they did not have under Saddam Hussein, and women and other groups in Iraq such as homosexuals now fear that tougher muslim laws will now punish them/hold them back in Iraq, whereas before it was one of the most liberal middle eastern countries in terms of equality.
[/B]

Oh yeah, because criminalising homosexuality was REALLY liberal

[Ardemax]

im sorry but this seems another one of your stupid arguements.
you try living in iraq when sadam hussain was in power, then give us a debate, ok? :)

[:Technical]

Iraq was not okay with Sadam Hussain there. They told the British and US press that one minute he could be okay then the next he would make them do things they didn't want to do or they would be punished. They had to be apart of his army if he asked them or they suffered either death or a painful punishment. He also used them for their houses etc etc.

The main point is that Sadam was not a nice person. When he was at Iraq they hated him. Leave the law enforcing to the Police - not Sadam.

[Clowgon]

Sadam hussain was a misery to the people of Iraq. Sadam committed war crimes against humanity. The people of Iraq were scared of him, frightened of speaking out, knowing what would happen if they did. Who knows what the world would be now if it wasn't invaded.

I don't think Invading the Country has made Terrorists more wanting to shed blood in the Western Countries.

A few years ago Terrorism was a bad disease, it was breading heavily especially in Iraq/Afghanistan. We had to invade those two countries in particular as they were the main territory for "Terrorist actives"

The NATO's has done the country good by invading it!

The Country was on it's knees when it was invaded. Westerns couldn't invest in the country as it was too dangerous to do so.

Now people are investing in Iraq, setting up businesses which is good a good thing, as it's giving the people of Iraq the opportunity to get a Job.

[lew!]

The reasons why we started that war were completely ridiculous, and as a result, 234 People have lost their lives, with many others who may as well of due to their injuries.

[:Technical]

In my opinion with expierence, war is pointless. Why cant everyone just get along?
It annoys me.

[Jordy]

In my opinion with expierence, war is pointless. Why cant everyone just get along?
It annoys me.It's probably because you're not informed about any history, wars, politics or current affairs to any extent what-so-ever as to why you'd come out with a ridiculous comment like that which is typical from a misinformed outsider.

Should we of just let Hitler carry on invading Europe and not resisted, when he finally conquered the whole of Europe and then went after Britain, should we of just surrendered and handed it to them?

I'm not quite sure what works best in the Middle East, the monarchies are quite easily the most stable places within the Middle East but they're generally too strong on Sharia Law. Jordan is probably the most stable I'd say and it's managed it with out any oil and democracy.

[:Technical]

No I think you have picked me up wrong, Jordy.

I meant all as humans - why fight? Its pointless, if everyone got along the world would be a better place.

But obviously we all had to fight as you get some evil people so we "stuck up" for ourselfs.

[newWORLDorder]

No I think you have picked me up wrong, Jordy.

I meant all as humans - why fight? Its pointless, if everyone got along the world would be a better place.

But obviously we all had to fight as you get some evil people so we "stuck up" for ourselfs.No **** sherlock :rolleyes:

[Ardemax]

The reasons why we started that war were completely ridiculous, and as a result, 234 People have lost their lives, with many others who may as well of due to their injuries.


if we didn't step in it would've been a whole lot worse

[GommeInc]

if we didn't step in it would've been a whole lot worse
Wasn't it the UK who taught the Iraqi military/police what to do? I think some are still going to stay there to help with the marines.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But in effect all war is due to things that are "illegal". What really gives the UN the power to sanction war. As a matter of fact, nothing does. A war occurs because you feel that the laws have been broken and diplomacy will no longer work, thus you eschew the entire system that the UN is the crux of. The UN simply tries to maintain some vestige of legitimacy by going "ok we're useless at this point you're allowed to avoid us."

I realize this is a terrible analogy to draw but Hitler was much the same way, Germany was a hellhole before he came to power. He really did a lot for the Germans but killed others much like Saddam catered to the minority Sunni and killed scores of Shia and banned their festivals. I realize the scope is massively different but the principle is the same...what Hitler did was not ok even if he made things better for the Germans.

That being said, we did not go into war with the Germans because of what they were doing to the Jews, we were clueless for the longest time.

Yes, it was a lie, and the bold sentence is my point. I don't agree though that he was best of the worst :P

The United Nations the USA stresses and uses so often, yet when the United States wishes to do something it just ignores the UN ruling, i'm sorry but that just is hypocrisy at its worst. The United States cannot maintain its moral high ground constantly verbally attacking North Korea and Iran for breaking UN sanctions/resolutions when it supports Israel and just ignores resolutions that apply to itself when it sees fit. I support the United States so much and believe the United Kingdom should be very close to the United States, but in the future when the Peoples Republic of China is stronger the United States needs to be able to say they have kept democracy and being fair at the foremost of their foreign policy, and at the moment that hasn't been the case.

The point is though, Shia are often conservative muslims which are the worst type in the middle east, that would of ment a much harsher regime in place like the Iranian revolution in place in Baghdad rather than the quite liberal (in middle eastern terms) Ba'ath Party in Baghdad. As I said he was no angel, and I wish the best for the middle east, but Saddam did a lot for Iraq, was quite liberal and for the most part, kept away the brain drain which Iran is experiencing thanks to the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The United States and United Kingdom were quite friendly to the regime of Saddam as he was rational, eager to co-operate and was a buffer to dangerous arab conservativism.


Oh yeah, because criminalising homosexuality was REALLY liberal

According to what I read, he attempted to keep it as liberal as possible given the middle eastern views on homosexuality, until the Iraqi government voted/decided in the early 2000's to make it illegal, to the dismay of Saddams arab socialism. You can see it in women aswell, in Iran police drive around telling women to buy arab clothes, whereas in Iraq under Saddam westernism was encouraged, often by himself when he wore western suits and western clothes.


im sorry but this seems another one of your stupid arguements.
you try living in iraq when sadam hussain was in power, then give us a debate, ok? :)

It seems to me like another one of your stupid attempts to try and get one over on me in an argument, in which you do, and always will, fail. I have studied Iraq and read as much as I can on the subject, as at times in the past I had supported the invasion and I had flipped many times on the subject when younger, however now I have come to a reasonable conclusion on the topic of the Ba'ath regime. I am keen in history and politics, and therefore I use a wide range of examples and evidence to support my claims, such as the United Kingdom in the 1970's compared to the 1980's and of course, the Ba'ath regime and neighbouring countries.


Iraq was not okay with Sadam Hussain there. They told the British and US press that one minute he could be okay then the next he would make them do things they didn't want to do or they would be punished. They had to be apart of his army if he asked them or they suffered either death or a painful punishment. He also used them for their houses etc etc.

The main point is that Sadam was not a nice person. When he was at Iraq they hated him. Leave the law enforcing to the Police - not Sadam.

You mean like in World War II when British soldiers who refused to fight were shot? - i'm afraid when you have Iran at your doorstep and your fearing an invasion by a hardcore islamic republic, you do everything to keep displine and order in your military and government. As I have said before, do you think if governments (especially in the middle east) gave their soldiers the option not to fight would get anywhere? - no they wouldn't last a minute.

He wasn't nice at all, as for the Police you only have to look at countries like Zimbabwe and Pakistan in which governments are torn apart/have to give the police special priveldges if they are too powerful, this can be seen in the cases of Robert Mugabe and Pervez Musharraf. To be strong and to stay together without being invaded/having a coup in the middle east, you have to be harsh and cruel.


Sadam hussain was a misery to the people of Iraq. Sadam committed war crimes against humanity. The people of Iraq were scared of him, frightened of speaking out, knowing what would happen if they did. Who knows what the world would be now if it wasn't invaded.

I don't think Invading the Country has made Terrorists more wanting to shed blood in the Western Countries.

A few years ago Terrorism was a bad disease, it was breading heavily especially in Iraq/Afghanistan. We had to invade those two countries in particular as they were the main territory for "Terrorist actives"

The NATO's has done the country good by invading it!

The Country was on it's knees when it was invaded. Westerns couldn't invest in the country as it was too dangerous to do so.

Now people are investing in Iraq, setting up businesses which is good a good thing, as it's giving the people of Iraq the opportunity to get a Job.

What would Saddam of set off his magical non-existent WMD if we hadn't invaded?, and in that case why didn't he set them off when his regime was falling in Baghdad. You are living in fairytale land.

The country is now a haven for terrorists, its even been admitted by the governments of Washington and London. Before the invasion there was no terrorist activities in Iraq because Saddam simply wouldn't allow any organisations (such as arab conservative terrorist groups) like Al Queda to flourish in Iraq as they were a threat to his regime.

In that case then, if you think overall NATO has done a good job in Iraq then i'm sure your up for invading the Peoples Republic of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and countless other states around the world so we can do a 'good job' there, but we know we won't because them countries have the capability to fight back whereas with Saddam we knew he didn't.

Iraq was on its knees because of the sanctions George H Bush put on the country, and considering all of that Saddam still managed to hold the country together and prevent it from plumetting into Civil War.

Invest in a country which is full to the rim with terrorism? - the only investment thats going on in Iraq is the oil fields being given contracts to members of the Bush Administration who happen to have close links with oil companies, George W & H Bush themselves (watch Farenheit 9/11 for a interesting insight). The workers/engineers are also mostly foreign and are driven to work in convoys guarded by the US military - you call this investment?, then again you say Margaret Thatcher ruined this country so you obviously have no understanding of the word.


if we didn't step in it would've been a whole lot worse

What would Saddam of killed us all with his 45 minute magic bombs that happen to not exist?

Get real.

[alexxxxx]

now to save them £s.

[Ardemax]

The United Nations the USA stresses and uses so often, yet when the United States wishes to do something it just ignores the UN ruling, i'm sorry but that just is hypocrisy at its worst. The United States cannot maintain its moral high ground constantly verbally attacking North Korea and Iran for breaking UN sanctions/resolutions when it supports Israel and just ignores resolutions that apply to itself when it sees fit. I support the United States so much and believe the United Kingdom should be very close to the United States, but in the future when the Peoples Republic of China is stronger the United States needs to be able to say they have kept democracy and being fair at the foremost of their foreign policy, and at the moment that hasn't been the case.

The point is though, Shia are often conservative muslims which are the worst type in the middle east, that would of ment a much harsher regime in place like the Iranian revolution in place in Baghdad rather than the quite liberal (in middle eastern terms) Ba'ath Party in Baghdad. As I said he was no angel, and I wish the best for the middle east, but Saddam did a lot for Iraq, was quite liberal and for the most part, kept away the brain drain which Iran is experiencing thanks to the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The United States and United Kingdom were quite friendly to the regime of Saddam as he was rational, eager to co-operate and was a buffer to dangerous arab conservativism.



According to what I read, he attempted to keep it as liberal as possible given the middle eastern views on homosexuality, until the Iraqi government voted/decided in the early 2000's to make it illegal, to the dismay of Saddams arab socialism. You can see it in women aswell, in Iran police drive around telling women to buy arab clothes, whereas in Iraq under Saddam westernism was encouraged, often by himself when he wore western suits and western clothes.



It seems to me like another one of your stupid attempts to try and get one over on me in an argument, in which you do, and always will, fail. I have studied Iraq and read as much as I can on the subject, as at times in the past I had supported the invasion and I had flipped many times on the subject when younger, however now I have come to a reasonable conclusion on the topic of the Ba'ath regime. I am keen in history and politics, and therefore I use a wide range of examples and evidence to support my claims, such as the United Kingdom in the 1970's compared to the 1980's and of course, the Ba'ath regime and neighbouring countries.



You mean like in World War II when British soldiers who refused to fight were shot? - i'm afraid when you have Iran at your doorstep and your fearing an invasion by a hardcore islamic republic, you do everything to keep displine and order in your military and government. As I have said before, do you think if governments (especially in the middle east) gave their soldiers the option not to fight would get anywhere? - no they wouldn't last a minute.

He wasn't nice at all, as for the Police you only have to look at countries like Zimbabwe and Pakistan in which governments are torn apart/have to give the police special priveldges if they are too powerful, this can be seen in the cases of Robert Mugabe and Pervez Musharraf. To be strong and to stay together without being invaded/having a coup in the middle east, you have to be harsh and cruel.



What would Saddam of set off his magical non-existent WMD if we hadn't invaded?, and in that case why didn't he set them off when his regime was falling in Baghdad. You are living in fairytale land.

The country is now a haven for terrorists, its even been admitted by the governments of Washington and London. Before the invasion there was no terrorist activities in Iraq because Saddam simply wouldn't allow any organisations (such as arab conservative terrorist groups) like Al Queda to flourish in Iraq as they were a threat to his regime.

In that case then, if you think overall NATO has done a good job in Iraq then i'm sure your up for invading the Peoples Republic of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and countless other states around the world so we can do a 'good job' there, but we know we won't because them countries have the capability to fight back whereas with Saddam we knew he didn't.

Iraq was on its knees because of the sanctions George H Bush put on the country, and considering all of that Saddam still managed to hold the country together and prevent it from plumetting into Civil War.

Invest in a country which is full to the rim with terrorism? - the only investment thats going on in Iraq is the oil fields being given contracts to members of the Bush Administration who happen to have close links with oil companies, George W & H Bush themselves (watch Farenheit 9/11 for a interesting insight). The workers/engineers are also mostly foreign and are driven to work in convoys guarded by the US military - you call this investment?, then again you say Margaret Thatcher ruined this country so you obviously have no understanding of the word.



What would Saddam of killed us all with his 45 minute magic bombs that happen to not exist?

Get real.


lmao I always try to get you in arguements and I always fail? hmmm, nty.
you don't think mr. hussain would've done any damage if we didn't step in, alright, I think you'd be hanged.

[-:Undertaker:-]

lmao I always try to get you in arguements and I always fail? hmmm, nty.
you don't think mr. hussain would've done any damage if we didn't step in, alright, I think you'd be hanged.

What are you talking about?
I suppose I and yourself don't have any idea what your talking about because not only do you reply to my informed and well based arguments with one liners, but you also don't even explain your own point.

How could Saddam Hussein of done any damage with his non-existent nuclear weapons?

You answer me that.

[Ardemax]

What are you talking about?
I suppose I and yourself don't have any idea what your talking about because not only do you reply to my informed and well based arguments with one liners, but you also don't even explain your own point.

How could Saddam Hussein of done any damage with his non-existent nuclear weapons?

You answer me that.


you don't need nuclear weapons to harm your own people.
stop thinking you're all it.

[cocaine]

your debates are pointless lol, life with and without saddam would still be crap.

[alexxxxx]

he's just learned about some political thing from reading his dad's daily mail and thinks he's an economic expert from GCSE Economics.

These arguments are a bit pointless tbh. You don't know how it was like living in Iraq because you weren't there then and you aren't there now. End of.

[-:Undertaker:-]

you don't need nuclear weapons to harm your own people.
stop thinking you're all it.

Can you tell me since when were you part of the Ba'ath regime and were you get your sources from, Saddam was no threat to the west or even his neighbours and Iraq internal security at that time was as safe as it had ever been in Iraqi history since the British Mandate.

I want you to debate/discuss this with me, if you think your right then debate your point instead of posting comments which have nothing to do/do not match the discussion that is going on.

I will ask again, what signs according to you showed that the Ba'ath regime was planning a mass crime against humanity or was near collapse in Iraq? - and also, why did the United States, United Kingdom and Kingdom of Spain stress the WMD claim and not stress they were going into Iraq to stop a civil war erupting?



he's just learned about some political thing from reading his dad's daily mail and thinks he's an economic expert from GCSE Economics.

These arguments are a bit pointless tbh. You don't know how it was like living in Iraq because you weren't there then and you aren't there now. End of.


Then don't take part, no one is making you, i'd rather you didn't because everytime you do you either stop replying (as is the case with the other debates) or you bring up the Daily Mail which has nothing at all to do with the subject.

If we needed to live through every historical event and be there to have an opinion on it, then we'd be unbiased about the Third Reich and we wouldn't have any political/historical opinions at all.

[Ardemax]

Can you tell me since when were you part of the Ba'ath regime and were you get your sources from, Saddam was no threat to the west or even his neighbours and Iraq internal security at that time was as safe as it had ever been in Iraqi history since the British Mandate.

I want you to debate/discuss this with me, if you think your right then debate your point instead of posting comments which have nothing to do/do not match the discussion that is going on.

I will ask again, what signs according to you showed that the Ba'ath regime was planning a mass crime against humanity or was near collapse in Iraq? - and also, why did the United States, United Kingdom and Kingdom of Spain stress the WMD claim and not stress they were going into Iraq to stop a civil war erupting?



Then don't take part, no one is making you, i'd rather you didn't because everytime you do you either stop replying (as is the case with the other debates) or you bring up the Daily Mail which has nothing at all to do with the subject.

If we needed to live through every historical event and be there to have an opinion on it, then we'd be unbiased about the Third Reich and we wouldn't have any political/historical opinions at all.


He was a threat to his own people and a possible threat to us, it was our duty to help.

Now will you stop taking Saddam's side?

[-:Undertaker:-]

He was a threat to his own people and a possible threat to us, it was our duty to help.

Now will you stop taking Saddam's side?

He wasn't a threat to his own people at that time as nothing had occured in the country for many years and the regime was stable along with the military, police and government.

He wasn't a threat to us, because he had no military capability to launch an attack on his neighbours, let alone the west. Are you claiming he had nuclear weapons now?

I'm not taking his side, as I have said before of course he was brutal. In history and politics to have an opinion you look at other situations and neighbouring countries to reach a reasonable opinion, I would like the whole middle east to be able to have elections and democratically elected governments like ours, but that isn't reasonable as shown in Pakistan.

[alexxxxx]

Then don't take part, no one is making you, i'd rather you didn't because everytime you do you either stop replying (as is the case with the other debates) or you bring up the Daily Mail which has nothing at all to do with the subject.

If we needed to live through every historical event and be there to have an opinion on it, then we'd be unbiased about the Third Reich and we wouldn't have any political/historical opinions at all.

Which one didn't I reply to? And also, the Iraq war is a recent event, detailed infomation on the Nazis, how they operated, the atrocities they commited have been documented over along time. The (latest) Iraq war is relatively recent, therefore a long-term view of the conflict, the state of the nation before and after the event has not been observed. I don't know for sure if it is better than before and neither do you.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Which one didn't I reply to? And also, the Iraq war is a recent event, detailed infomation on the Nazis, how they operated, the atrocities they commited have been documented over along time. The (latest) Iraq war is relatively recent, therefore a long-term view of the conflict, the state of the nation before and after the event has not been observed. I don't know for sure if it is better than before and neither do you.

Monarchy or Republic.

Of course, with time more things are revealed as is the way with history. However i'm afraid we're in 2009 right now and not 2019 and therefore with the evidence and events that have occured since 1920 when the British Mandate was formed after the Ottoman Empire fell after World War I. No one can ever be 100% sure, because as with history and politics different groups of people always fair better than others, however I can have a constructive opinion on the Ba'ath regime and the middle east.

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 Iraq is now more dangerous to us, and how do I draw this conclusion? - because not only do the United States and United Kingdom and Turkey all have problems with Al Qaeda there now, but also because before that Iraq had nowhere near, if not none at all terrorist attacks occuring.

The you weren't there claim whenever used in a discussion/debate points towards the other side not having an opinion on the subject or the other side lost for words. Of course I wasn't in Iraq, but neither was I in the Third Reich, Soviet Union, British Empire and so on but I still have an opinion on them and i'm totally allowed to.

[alexxxxx]

Monarchy or Republic.

Of course, with time more things are revealed as is the way with history. However i'm afraid we're in 2009 right now and not 2019 and therefore with the evidence and events that have occured since 1920 when the British Mandate was formed after the Ottoman Empire fell after World War I. No one can ever be 100% sure, because as with history and politics different groups of people always fair better than others, however I can have a constructive opinion on the Ba'ath regime and the middle east.

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 Iraq is now more dangerous to us, and how do I draw this conclusion? - because not only do the United States and United Kingdom and Turkey all have problems with Al Qaeda there now, but also because before that Iraq had nowhere near, if not none at all terrorist attacks occuring.

The you weren't there claim whenever used in a discussion/debate points towards the other side not having an opinion on the subject or the other side lost for words. Of course I wasn't in Iraq, but neither was I in the Third Reich, Soviet Union, British Empire and so on but I still have an opinion on them and i'm totally allowed to.

I actually agree with you, I believe we probably are more in danger and I believe all the war did was give oil companies contracts. And it probably is a more dangerous place. Just stop acting like you know what it's like there, you don't know the majority of Iraqi's views and you don't live there. There will be those who are better off and those who are worse off. You can't tar everyone with the same brush, it's cliché but true.

[Ardemax]

He wasn't a threat to his own people at that time as nothing had occured in the country for many years and the regime was stable along with the military, police and government.

He wasn't a threat to us, because he had no military capability to launch an attack on his neighbours, let alone the west. Are you claiming he had nuclear weapons now?

I'm not taking his side, as I have said before of course he was brutal. In history and politics to have an opinion you look at other situations and neighbouring countries to reach a reasonable opinion, I would like the whole middle east to be able to have elections and democratically elected governments like ours, but that isn't reasonable as shown in Pakistan.


you contradict yourself

and since when did i type the words apart from the following quote, "Saddam Hussain had nuclear weapons".

tyvm

[-:Undertaker:-]

I actually agree with you, I believe we probably are more in danger and I believe all the war did was give oil companies contracts. And it probably is a more dangerous place. Just stop acting like you know what it's like there, you don't know the majority of Iraqi's views and you don't live there. There will be those who are better off and those who are worse off. You can't tar everyone with the same brush, it's cliché but true.

Your correct, because some people such as the Kurds who want an independant state will be over the moon Saddam and the Ba'ath regime are gone, they probably wanted nothing better. I am looking at the bigger picture, in which some people are still fooled by the image the Bush Administration created of some mystic titan rogue state with WMD capable of reaching the west in 45 minutes, which we all know now to be complete nonsense.

He was brutal and harsh of course, but theres harsh for a reason and then theres harsh for idealogical purposes, namely, Iran.

[Clowgon]

What would Saddam of set off his magical non-existent WMD if we hadn't invaded?, and in that case why didn't he set them off when his regime was falling in Baghdad. You are living in fairytale land.

The country is now a haven for terrorists, its even been admitted by the governments of Washington and London. Before the invasion there was no terrorist activities in Iraq because Saddam simply wouldn't allow any organisations (such as arab conservative terrorist groups) like Al Queda to flourish in Iraq as they were a threat to his regime.

In that case then, if you think overall NATO has done a good job in Iraq then i'm sure your up for invading the Peoples Republic of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and countless other states around the world so we can do a 'good job' there, but we know we won't because them countries have the capability to fight back whereas with Saddam we knew he didn't.

Iraq was on its knees because of the sanctions George H Bush put on the country, and considering all of that Saddam still managed to hold the country together and prevent it from plumetting into Civil War.

Invest in a country which is full to the rim with terrorism? - the only investment thats going on in Iraq is the oil fields being given contracts to members of the Bush Administration who happen to have close links with oil companies, George W & H Bush themselves (watch Farenheit 9/11 for a interesting insight). The workers/engineers are also mostly foreign and are driven to work in convoys guarded by the US military - you call this investment?, then again you say Margaret Thatcher ruined this country so you obviously have no understanding of the word.


USA/UK Govuerment was misleaded about Weapons of mass destruction, they were meant to believe that Saddam had WOMD becuase intelligent officials from both the UK and USA had be informed by one of Saddam Hussein's officials that he had "Weapons of mass destruction"

They couldn't take the risk of not invading Iraq, what if Iraq did have Weapons of Mass destructions? It would of been too late to Invaded the Country. Many believed that Iraq was a threat to the United Kingdom.

What do you mean the Country is now a Heaven for Terrorists? It already was even before the Country was Invaded! Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Husein were two close friends, Osama being the leader of Al-Qaeda . Saddam had links to the Terrorist world and were present in Iraq before the war was started in early 2002.

If countries like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe were a threat to the National security of the United Kingdom then of course, i couldn't see why the Uk wouldn't consider the route down Military action.

Also Al-Qaeda isn't a Arab group. It's a mixed w/a you call it. :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
You must be living in Fairy tale land if you think Marget Thatcher didn't ruin the Country.

Margaret thatcher created the greed society, selling off social housing, ruining the manufacturing industries and bringing the union to their knees. She viewed working class people as scum.

The Evil witch AKA milk-snatche stopped the free school kid`s milk when most kids in those days couldn't even afford to have milk.

She basically DESTROYED our Public sector, she sold of most of it. YES, at the time they were all in a bad state but in time they would have recovered.

Her so-called achievement the Falklands was actually more down to luck than anything else. A stupid pointless war over an Island.

The labor government has given us,The NHS, a benefits systems for the poor and needy, although that unfortunately is abused by the lazy, the minimum wage, holiday pay for all workers.

When Marget dies, there will be a hell lot of people celebrating.

[-:Undertaker:-]

USA/UK Govuerment was misleaded about Weapons of mass destruction, they were meant to believe that Saddam had WOMD becuase intelligent officials from both the UK and USA had be informed by one of Saddam Hussein's officials that he had "Weapons of mass destruction"

They couldn't take the risk of not invading Iraq, what if Iraq did have Weapons of Mass destructions? It would of been too late to Invaded the Country. Many believed that Iraq was a threat to the United Kingdom.

What do you mean the Country is now a Heaven for Terrorists? It already was even before the Country was Invaded! Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Husein were two close friends, Osama being the leader of Al-Qaeda . Saddam had links to the Terrorist world and were present in Iraq before the war was started in early 2002.

If countries like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe were a threat to the National security of the United Kingdom then of course, i couldn't see why the Uk wouldn't consider the route down Military action.

Also Al-Qaeda isn't a Arab group. It's a mixed w/a you call it. :)

That is rubbish, US officals held up in the United Nations pictures of a old warehouse (I later found out it was a abandoned sweet factory) in Iraq and told the world how Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons hidden there. It was complete and utter lies and they knew it. UN inspectors also concluded that the Iraqi weapons programme was long dead and buried and no longer active.

Many didn't, that again is a lie. That is why we had some of the biggest protests the world has ever seen in protest of the upcoming Iraq invasion. UN weapons inspectors also concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein wasn't friends with Osama Bin Laden and there is no evidence the two ever spoke or made contact, this again can be backed up with the fact that the two had opposing idealogys, Iran was sympathetic to the Taliban and still is, whereas Saddam had a deep hatred of the new islamic republic of Iran which posed a threat to arab socialism, to which Syria was also. You have made this up, the two hated eachothers beliefs. Saddam Hussein was arab socialist whereas Osama Bin Laden is for arab conservatism and traditionalism which is in line with Iran.

The Peoples Republic of China has recently been following and interupting NATO sea operations using submarines, as well as the Chinese government fixing their military budget to half of what the US believes it spends. Of course we would never dare tackle the PROC, because there wouldn't be a United Kingdom left if we did. We only took on Iraq because of its vast oil reserves and a regime which was heavily under sanctions from the George H Bush administration.

Al-Qaeda is for arab conservatism, fact. That is why is launches attacks on the west which it views as a threat to traditional arab beliefs.



You must be living in Fairy tale land if you think Marget Thatcher didn't ruin the Country.

Margaret thatcher created the greed society, selling off social housing, ruining the manufacturing industries and bringing the union to their knees. She viewed working class people as scum.

The Evil witch AKA milk-snatche stopped the free school kid`s milk when most kids in those days couldn't even afford to have milk.

She basically DESTROYED our Public sector, she sold of most of it. YES, at the time they were all in a bad state but in time they would have recovered.

Her so-called achievement the Falklands was actually more down to luck than anything else. A stupid pointless war over an Island.

The labor government has given us,The NHS, a benefits systems for the poor and needy, although that unfortunately is abused by the lazy, the minimum wage, holiday pay for all workers.

When Marget dies, there will be a hell lot of people celebrating.


I can't believe this vile hatred you have been brought up to believe against freedom and democracy, this is militant talk I am hearing.

Margaret Thatcher sold off social housing because not only when people own the housing themselves to they look after the property more, but it also gives them a pension/investment when they are older which means they won't have to rely on the state when they are older. - SIMPLE ECONOMICS.

Margaret Thatcher closed the industries such as mining for a very simple reason, they were not making any profit and the government and taxpayer was paying for the mines very survival. Therefore when you are paying for a dying industry it means you have to cut services elsewhere/raise taxes which drives away business. - SIMPLE ECONOMICS.

Margaret Thatcher cut back union power because the basic idea of democracy is that the government rules the country and not the unions which are not democratically elected and use strikes and threats to get their own way. The unions crippled the Heath and Callaghan governments and brought the winter of discontent. When you have unions constantly calling for more powers for themselves and regulations to be put on business it drives business away. - SIMPLE ECONOMICS.

If she viewed the working class as scum then why did she allow them to buy their own houses, why did she spend three terms on office for freedom and democracy, why did she bother fixing this country which was seeing millions being laid off/living on appaling wages in which shops and business were closing daily, in which dead bodies were left in the morgues rotting - she herself was the daughter of a simple greengrocer and worked her way up, she wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth. Again, here you have been brought up to believe dangerous socialist/communist militantism.

What rubbish is this about milk?, how dare she take away childrens milk. You know you've ran out of argument when you start whining on about childrens milk being taken away. Our country had to go to the IMF as we were bankrupt in 1979, if you face a cut in public services then i'm afraid free kiddy milk will be one of the first uneeded services to be dropped.

They were in a bad state since World War II, they had had around 40 years to start making a profit again but they didn't. Peoples lifestyles had changed since World War II with cars and so on avalible to nearly everyone. The public sector was a money-losing, gigantic and unused service which needed the chop or we would of had to of gone to the IMF more than once. If its not making money in the long term then it gets the chop. - SIMPLE ECONOMICS.

You would abandon some of our most proud people to Argentina? - you need to learn what freedom is, because you are so ungrateful for what you have. The island was not Argentinas to take, therefore the whole point of having a military and navy is to defend your sovereign land.

Labour has given us some great things such as the NHS which had helped so many people. On the other hand Labour has also sunk the country into debt twice and the first time nearly destroyed this country. No party is perfect, but i'm afraid everything depends on economics and that is a conservative stronghold, as proven when you compare the pre-Thatcher years of the 1970's to the Thatcher/post-Thatcher years of 1980's, 1990's and 2000's.

When Margaret Thatcher dies, people from all different backgrounds will be in sorrow, those in joy will be militant socialists, communists and scroungers who hated her idea of getting off your backside and doing something for yourself rather than expecting the state to.

[Ardemax]

sorry but can you type less

i rly cannot be bothered to read essays

Edit by Robbie! (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not troll

[nvrspk4]

The United Nations the USA stresses and uses so often, yet when the United States wishes to do something it just ignores the UN ruling, i'm sorry but that just is hypocrisy at its worst. The United States cannot maintain its moral high ground constantly verbally attacking North Korea and Iran for breaking UN sanctions/resolutions when it supports Israel and just ignores resolutions that apply to itself when it sees fit. I support the United States so much and believe the United Kingdom should be very close to the United States, but in the future when the Peoples Republic of China is stronger the United States needs to be able to say they have kept democracy and being fair at the foremost of their foreign policy, and at the moment that hasn't been the case.

You're missing my point here, my point is a moral standard, the United Nations is an area to resolve disputes. The United Nations never was and never will be the primary mechanism for waging war except in very extreme situations. You will never get every country to agree on an attack.

My point is that the war should be evaluated on a moral standard, not a "legal" standard. Was it justified? The answer is no, but the reason should not be because we didn't get authorization, the reason should be because it was the wrong thing to do and the Bush administration was wrong to rely on the information of one operative who they had been informed was an unverified source.

The US doesn't support Israel breaking resolutions, the US has always suggested that Israel comply, but realistically we can't force them to comply. There is a substantial degree of international guilt still over the Holocaust which many still remember and to cut off Israel in the midst of the Middle East would be cruel and possibly lead to a second Holocaust-like situation.

That being said, I don't really agree with the United States appeasment of Israel in certain cases so lets just stay out of that bag of worms for the moment.


The point is though, Shia are often conservative muslims which are the worst type in the middle east, that would of ment a much harsher regime in place like the Iranian revolution in place in Baghdad rather than the quite liberal (in middle eastern terms) Ba'ath Party in Baghdad. As I said he was no angel, and I wish the best for the middle east, but Saddam did a lot for Iraq, was quite liberal and for the most part, kept away the brain drain which Iran is experiencing thanks to the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The United States and United Kingdom were quite friendly to the regime of Saddam as he was rational, eager to co-operate and was a buffer to dangerous arab conservativism.

That's a little bit far saying Shia are the "worst type". They have a different values system, and under their values system things are stricter. And being superconservative or even radical has very little to do with terrorism, terrorism is largely based on nationalism. By Western values Saddam may have been a *better* ruler than Iran but that's by our standards...

Justifying or denouncing an invasion based on the fact that Saddam was a better ruler or Saddam was a worse ruler is ridiculous in my opinion. You don't go traipsing the world invading countries and telling them how they should run their governments. And we didn't, we invaded because of "WMDs". There were no WMDs, the war was immoral and unjustified. End of story IMO.

[alexxxxx]

Undertaker, you have to see that there is a mixed opinion on the tories and that you use opinions as facts.

Just saying.

[PaintYourTarget]

I do believe we used the term 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', which is Chemical, Biological and Nuclear. We definitely know they had Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction as they were using them on ourselves. That and they decided to lob Scuds all over the place when they got bored and we had to send Andy McNab after them and put up with his naff books. I also seem to remember quite a lot of Chemical attack alerts in the early days of the war against our troops - those reports can't have come from no where and I do suspect that the truth was hushed up to make sure the public opinion wasn't affected.

Though, on the flip side, we did sell armaments to the Iraqi's during the Iran/Iraq war so, we're kinda to blame.

[UKIP]

You're missing my point here, my point is a moral standard, the United Nations is an area to resolve disputes. The United Nations never was and never will be the primary mechanism for waging war except in very extreme situations. You will never get every country to agree on an attack.

My point is that the war should be evaluated on a moral standard, not a "legal" standard. Was it justified? The answer is no, but the reason should not be because we didn't get authorization, the reason should be because it was the wrong thing to do and the Bush administration was wrong to rely on the information of one operative who they had been informed was an unverified source.

The US doesn't support Israel breaking resolutions, the US has always suggested that Israel comply, but realistically we can't force them to comply. There is a substantial degree of international guilt still over the Holocaust which many still remember and to cut off Israel in the midst of the Middle East would be cruel and possibly lead to a second Holocaust-like situation.

That being said, I don't really agree with the United States appeasment of Israel in certain cases so lets just stay out of that bag of worms for the moment.

That's a little bit far saying Shia are the "worst type". They have a different values system, and under their values system things are stricter. And being superconservative or even radical has very little to do with terrorism, terrorism is largely based on nationalism. By Western values Saddam may have been a *better* ruler than Iran but that's by our standards...

Justifying or denouncing an invasion based on the fact that Saddam was a better ruler or Saddam was a worse ruler is ridiculous in my opinion. You don't go traipsing the world invading countries and telling them how they should run their governments. And we didn't, we invaded because of "WMDs". There were no WMDs, the war was immoral and unjustified. End of story IMO.

You won't I agree, however the United States cannot accuse North Korea and others in the past of being evil by ignoring UN opinion, as the United States did the very same - that is my point.

Their values may be different yes, but the fact is that that is the sort of world we live in, and having a government which is far more democratic than its neighbours is better than having dangerous idealogical governments which are harsher than that of the Ba'ath regime. The majority are bad, including Saddam Husseins regime. The point is, that to invade Iraq on the basis of removing Saddam as the west considered him evil is nonsense when Iraq was far more fair and free than its neighbours.

The fact was, we know the Peoples Republic of China, North Korea and Iran can at least fight back whereas with Iraq we knew it couldn't, thats not freedom fighting, thats utter bullying.

It was unjustified yes, and hopefully the Obama administration can fix the United States' moral standing in the world again, as it has nearly ruined our credibility to that of the former Soviet Union.



Undertaker, you have to see that there is a mixed opinion on the tories and that you use opinions as facts.

Just saying.


There is mixed opinion yes, me included on the tory party. The facts are right there, it is a fact that the unions crippled two governments, it is a fact Labour ran our economy into the ground so we had to appeal to the IMF, it is a fact that Margaret Thatchers reforms brought wealth and prosperity to this country and it is a fact that most socialist/communist countries have either failed or are failing.


I do believe we used the term 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', which is Chemical, Biological and Nuclear. We definitely know they had Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction as they were using them on ourselves. That and they decided to lob Scuds all over the place when they got bored and we had to send Andy McNab after them and put up with his naff books. I also seem to remember quite a lot of Chemical attack alerts in the early days of the war against our troops - those reports can't have come from no where and I do suspect that the truth was hushed up to make sure the public opinion wasn't affected.

Though, on the flip side, we did sell armaments to the Iraqi's during the Iran/Iraq war so, we're kinda to blame.

Chemical 'reports', reports are far different from facts and i'm sure if Iraq did attack any NATO troops with chemicals George W Bush and others would of been screaming as soon as he did that the war as jusified, of course they didn't because Saddam didn't use chemial weapons in his defense, which means that as the UN had said, Iraqs WMD program has long been dead and decommisioned.

The United States interestingly did use white phosperhus against Iraq which is a terrible chemical weapon which burns to the bone and America got away with it, along with its friend Israel which recently used the same chemical against the palestinians. Of course if Iraq had done anything like that when it was being invaded its a different story.

As above, you can see how this war has seriously damaged our standing in the world to the point where we have behaved nearly or worse than the people we have been attacking both phisically and verbally.

[nvrspk4]

You won't I agree, however the United States cannot accuse North Korea and others in the past of being evil by ignoring UN opinion, as the United States did the very same - that is my point.

Yes, the US did ignore international sentiment which was reflected in a lack of a resolution, however the NK situation is different. North Korea was condemned by the UN Security Council, which, under the UN Charter, is the only binding body in the UN. That is part of the deal when joining the UN. There was no UNSC resolution condemning the US. Yes, it probably had a large deal to do with the UK and US having veto power though I doubt France and maybe even Russia/China would have pulled for condemnation if it came to blows. However, that's how the game is played and similar situations have been difficult because of the other four nations having veto power, so its not one sided.



Their values may be different yes, but the fact is that that is the sort of world we live in, and having a government which is far more democratic than its neighbours is better than having dangerous idealogical governments which are harsher than that of the Ba'ath regime. The majority are bad, including Saddam Husseins regime. The point is, that to invade Iraq on the basis of removing Saddam as the west considered him evil is nonsense when Iraq was far more fair and free than its neighbours.

I disagree, but not majorly. I agree with the bold part, I think the underlined part is irrelevant.


The fact was, we know the Peoples Republic of China, North Korea and Iran can at least fight back whereas with Iraq we knew it couldn't, thats not freedom fighting, thats utter bullying.

Eh I don't think that had as much to deal with it, it was difficult for us to pass off NK and China as terrorists. By the way, we could take NK no question. China, probably not.


It was unjustified yes, and hopefully the Obama administration can fix the United States' moral standing in the world again, as it has nearly ruined our credibility to that of the former Soviet Union.


Absolutely, he's done a terrific job with foreign policy so far.

[Jordy]

Eh I don't think that had as much to deal with it, it was difficult for us to pass off NK and China as terrorists. By the way, we could take NK no question. China, probably not.The US couldn't take NK though, in the past it would of no doubt upset the USSR and China, although it holds lesser relations with Russia, any war with NK would certainly upset the Chinese and possibily Russians. It'd be a proxy war all over again just like Vietnam (Which the US withdrew from...).

Iraq is different, Iraq didn't have a super-power behind it therefore it is 'bullying'.

Obama has the potential for great foreign policy, especially concerning Middle East peace but I'm yet to see any of this happening.

[nvrspk4]

Obama has the potential for great foreign policy, especially concerning Middle East peace but I'm yet to see any of this happening.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-goldenberg/100-days-100-foreign-poli_b_191832.html

[UKIP]

Yes, the US did ignore international sentiment which was reflected in a lack of a resolution, however the NK situation is different. North Korea was condemned by the UN Security Council, which, under the UN Charter, is the only binding body in the UN. That is part of the deal when joining the UN. There was no UNSC resolution condemning the US. Yes, it probably had a large deal to do with the UK and US having veto power though I doubt France and maybe even Russia/China would have pulled for condemnation if it came to blows. However, that's how the game is played and similar situations have been difficult because of the other four nations having veto power, so its not one sided.

I disagree, but not majorly. I agree with the bold part, I think the underlined part is irrelevant.

Eh I don't think that had as much to deal with it, it was difficult for us to pass off NK and China as terrorists. By the way, we could take NK no question. China, probably not.

Absolutely, he's done a terrific job with foreign policy so far.

That said the United States is still playing a hypocritical game, how can and how dare the United States ignore UN opinion, lie to the United Nations and then go and lecture countries such as North Korea on how the UN doesn't approve. France and Russia would probably of veto'd but it would of been a pointless effort as the United States and United Kingdom would vote against any French-Russian attempt to block the war.

It is relavent though, when Baghdad was falling the Bush administration changed from WMD to how evil Saddam was and how he needed to be removed to "free the Iraqi people" - this was only said because Saddam had not used any WMD against the invading forces when his regime was falling, and no weapons of mass destruction had been found in places such as Basra and so on.

The question isn't terrorism as we know Saddam had no links with Al Queda, the question is how dangerous the country is, there is no such thing as a terrorist state, you can have a state supporting terrorism, namely Iran. The Peoples Republic of China demands the democratic country of Taiwan back and North Korea is developing nuclear weapons, it even says so publically. Iraq wasn't like that, UN inspectors concluded that all Iraqi attempts to create a WMD programme had been abandoned in the early 1990's.

It was a bullying game, no doubt in my mind. If Iraq did have WMD then I can gurantee there is no way we would of actually gone in, or even if Iraq still has the means to bite back so to speak, just like North Korea, Iran and the Peoples Republic of China all have the means to fight back. North Korea as Jordy says creates a dangerous situation which would make us think 100 times before we took any military action, China would fear a revolution taking place as a knock on effect from the fall of North Korea which serves as a buffer from the affluent South Korea.


The US couldn't take NK though, in the past it would of no doubt upset the USSR and China, although it holds lesser relations with Russia, any war with NK would certainly upset the Chinese and possibily Russians. It'd be a proxy war all over again just like Vietnam (Which the US withdrew from...).

Iraq is different, Iraq didn't have a super-power behind it therefore it is 'bullying'.

Obama has the potential for great foreign policy, especially concerning Middle East peace but I'm yet to see any of this happening.

Exactly, if the PROC announced tommorow it was building an extra one hundred nuclear weapons i'm pretty sure we wouldn't take any military action because the fact is, we will not dare upset the chinese even though their system stands against everything in our system, more so than former-Ba'ath Iraq.

[nvrspk4]

That said the United States is still playing a hypocritical game, how can and how dare the United States ignore UN opinion, lie to the United Nations and then go and lecture countries such as North Korea on how the UN doesn't approve. France and Russia would probably of veto'd but it would of been a pointless effort as the United States and United Kingdom would vote against any French-Russian attempt to block the war.

I think accusing the US of lying is a misplaced accusation. In all his stupidity, Dubya did legitimately believe that Iraq had WMD, it was based on faulty intelligence and he should have known better, but from what we know about the situation so far it appears that Bush legitimately believed his claim. As I said, the UNSC and the UN general body are two completely different organs.


It is relavent though, when Baghdad was falling the Bush administration changed from WMD to how evil Saddam was and how he needed to be removed to "free the Iraqi people" - this was only said because Saddam had not used any WMD against the invading forces when his regime was falling, and no weapons of mass destruction had been found in places such as Basra and so on.

No what I'm saying is that when Bush went in saying we have to free the Iraqi people that was wrong, regardless of how good Saddam was compared to others, it is morally reprehensible to have the arrogance to believe that your way is better and to, for that reason, take over countries and implement your system. We'll be returning to the imperialism of the 18th and 19th centuries.


The question isn't terrorism as we know Saddam had no links with Al Queda, the question is how dangerous the country is, there is no such thing as a terrorist state, you can have a state supporting terrorism, namely Iran. The Peoples Republic of China demands the democratic country of Taiwan back and North Korea is developing nuclear weapons, it even says so publically. Iraq wasn't like that, UN inspectors concluded that all Iraqi attempts to create a WMD programme had been abandoned in the early 1990's.

Right, and there was an attempt to establish a danger and that failed, at that point the justification for war was moot.


It was a bullying game, no doubt in my mind. If Iraq did have WMD then I can gurantee there is no way we would of actually gone in, or even if Iraq still has the means to bite back so to speak, just like North Korea, Iran and the Peoples Republic of China all have the means to fight back. North Korea as Jordy says creates a dangerous situation which would make us think 100 times before we took any military action, China would fear a revolution taking place as a knock on effect from the fall of North Korea which serves as a buffer from the affluent South Korea.

That is not true at all, if Iraq had nukes there most probably would have been a preemptive strike against the nukes but I don't think there was the assumption that there were ready to fire nuclear missiles in place at the time of invasion. However I do believe Bush thought that there were WMDs even if there weren't necessary nuclear weapons. As of now we have no information to indicate the contrary and come on...the guy was an IDIOT.

If North Korea began a serious program, China would be forced into action, this has been played over many times before. The precdent of blocking US attempts to take action as NK starts large scale nuclear production would be a very dangerous precedent, because in retaliation the US might support capitalist allies in large upgrades of their nuclear programs (India, Pakistan, Israel, Canada, Turkey) putting the MAD balance in favor of capitalism. It would also mean less countries China would have the one-up militarily on and China, as with all other countries, is immensely considered with its power on the world stage.




Exactly, if the PROC announced tommorow it was building an extra one hundred nuclear weapons i'm pretty sure we wouldn't take any military action because the fact is, we will not dare upset the chinese even though their system stands against everything in our system, more so than former-Ba'ath Iraq.

Of course we would, with the number they have now they can kill most of us already anyway lol. Plus, the PRC is a nuclear nation, they have authorization to build as many nukes as they like.

[Jordy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-goldenberg/100-days-100-foreign-poli_b_191832.htmlI'm still yet to see either of them things happen or see the consequences of them.

[nvrspk4]

I'm still yet to see either of them things happen or see the consequences of them.

Either of what things happen?

[luce]

So we're still in Iraq but only to "keep peace" well i spose that's better then nothing although we should have never gone in in the first place it was only to pretect our dam oil.