Iraq now 'finished' for United Kingdom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clowgon

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.

Quote:

---

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.

sorry but can you type less

i rly cannot be bothered to read essays

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Just saying.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nvrspk4

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKIP

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nvrspk4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

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-g..._b_191832.html