Irack

Should the coiltion ahve gon in to irack? what do you think.

personaly i belive athogh somthing needed to be done about sadam and his terribe resime going to war was the wrong desison. irack may have been terrible but it was at leats stable, now every day or so you hear storys of termism and how the contry is collaping due to teh power vacume. i cant see hwy the goivemny belive a westn democrys wil function over there. plus i also dont belive infocing it was the aim. as there are plently of other cointrys wit hteh smae problems. why irack, i think it may have been becus eof the aubunet ioil feailds. rather than acatly helping the people.
but oien think i DO eblive is we shoudl not pull out now. the damage has been done, pulling out wil only make things far far worse, as it wil inspre terrims and a bace for alkida, who athogh wre esaid to be in irack were proved not to be. but could easly make it ther hoem if teh colition pulled out now.
plus people must remmber teh irakies we call terrorist are freedom fighters to there own people, woudl u just sit back if your contry was invaded and forsed under someone elses rule? plus who are we to say are syetsm are better than theres? nd that we are on teh right side and tehy are on the wrong, in this conflict, i think tehry are in teh right, we are in teh worng. athogh i do agree that teh coiltion shoudl stabilse teh contry to the best of there abiltys before they pull out, as it would be a far worse thing to just let teh conmtry crumble and collaps.
do you think teh war was justifed or right, and do you thin kwe shoudl pull out? what do you think

The war was supposedly over the 9/11 terrorist attack, but Iraq had nothing to do with this it was Alquada (forgive my spelling, it sounds like al-ka-ee-da), and they are located in a hige mountain range east of Iraq, I dont see the point of the war basically.

They were never in irack ro assoited with it. how can peopel sya that why, when asma bin larden is hiding and still hasnt been cught, how is attcking a contry thats not invoved with him, supposed to help them, sounlnt they try useing there resorse on going after teh colprit alkida rather than attcking irack, il admin it was a horible place but one of a resonable nuumber, many on americas own boarders, so if it was a humnitrian issue why dint that start there?

Thats what i find funny, Saddam and Osamo never actually communicated! Bush is a right pin head at times, saying there is no French word for entrepreneur which IS A FRENCH WORD, the English /Americans dont have the word.

Well, personally I can't wait until I turn 18 to join to go over to Iraq, and I think the war is justified. Of course, if the US didn't do something about the 20,000 civilian Iraqis Saddam had killed over the past 2 yearsm=, we would be considered unsymathetic to their plight. Also, he never fully submitted to the UN weapons inspections.

This is a subject there will always be two sides in no matter what happens. We all know Saddam was a dictator and was cruel to his people. Many people believe removing him from his position was right and was a good reason to go to war despite finding no evidence of any nukes... However, I believe these are not strong enough reasons to go to war in any situation and I think we have destroyed Iraq's natural way of life, causing more fighting and killing than ever. If we were to declare war on every country that was being treated differently to ours, we would end up wiping out half the world's population. Did we go to war for the right reasons? Or was it really a way of Bush assuring he'd retain his position as the most powerful man in the world.

Edit: Please note I don't strongly disagree with what you say Butch, I just think that what we have done will not prevent another 20,000 dying over the same period of time from now.

Speaking from a British point of view i personally think we should not have gone along holding America's hand on all these issues. If they want to get themselves into a stupid mess than thats their problem, but we're now involved thanks to our "special relationship" :@

We shouldn't of gone to war with America to fight Iraq, we lost 40 People because Americans dont know what the Union Jack and the EU flag is!!!

Its Iraq
anyway I believe that we shouldnt of gone to Iraq for a start this wasnt our buissness. Second It was a set up I believe since at the time america had very low Oil but guess what? Iraq had the second largest oil there if you know what I mean. Soon America shot up a lot of oil! Very suspisous eh?



Anyway this is my belief so nobody start to argue with me! You wouldnt have much proof for a starter and second I would only know this for sure if I was Bush himself.


England I know made a stupid mistake sending out those troops since they have caused a huge corruption there! Worst thing That has happened! I am from England by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *.Glitter.Rip.*

England I know made a stupid mistake sending out those troops since they have caused a huge corruption there! Worst thing That has happened! I am from England by the way.

---

They were BRITISH troops, regements from Scotland and Wales too. Great Britain constitutes Scotland and Wales as well as England :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Concentric

They were BRITISH troops, regements from Scotland and Wales too. Great Britain constitutes Scotland and Wales as well as England :rolleyes:

---

Stop arguing at me! Thats my belief! You know what I ment so dont try to correct me!
:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *.Glitter.Rip.*

Stop arguing at me! Thats my belief! You know what I ment so dont try to correct me!
:(

---

I wasn't arguing with you, and it wasn't a belief it was a mistake, we all make them, don't worry :)

i cnat see why it was irak, its not the only contry with horrible dictorships? and we only thoght they had wepons of mass destrution, we know (ither sounth or north (i foregt) caria has weposn of mass destrution and a dictporship, it doenst look like were inaving them.

I think Britain shouldn't of gone in, its Americas fight let them waste themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Concentric

I wasn't arguing with you, and it wasn't a belief it was a mistake, we all make them, don't worry :)

---

No it was not my mistake and Dont patronise me! I know a mistake when I see one!
If it wasnt an argument then why did you put the words in capitals? I can read. Otherwise your making it seem like a different expression.

Why must we fight over the American War.

technily speaking its a british war as well, arte troops are fighting there also, and our govemnt backed it, thats why its teh coiltion, nnot just teh americans.

Yes but it is not really our war, we shouldn't have anything to do with it, the Americans persuaded us into the war.

never less we went along with it, and are just as involved as teh americans

Why do we help them when they never help us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Why do we help them when they never help us?

---

Maybe you should think about WWII, now that was a war with a purpose, and thats what really brought us together. Now though it makes us feel abliged to help when in reality its not a very good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *.Glitter.Rip.*

No it was not my mistake and Dont patronise me! I know a mistake when I see one!

---

Im sorry for getting into this mess but what im saying is that it is not a belief that troops came solely from england, it is merely a mistake.

Actaly its teh twin towers that realy broght uk and the usa together. teh americans only joined ww2 after the geman subs destroed one of there passinger ships, as teh american people counlnt see any point of gettin goinvoved with something the other side of teh globe. same reson the leage of natiosn faild, erly version of erope, even thogh taht had alot of other problems, its only quite resntly contrys have started to take notice of things ahppenoing around teh globe, as becuse of the incres in ease of tarve, somthing the othetr side of teh world can not affect them dircetsly?

Dunno if anyone has said this but .it is spelled Iraq lol. no biggy

Anyway i think the war was unneeded. though it is good to have saddam out but so many people have been affected over this I'm sure you don't need thousand of trrops to get one guy a few hundred at most lol and always get backup if needed.. I mean , saddam is bad and all but so is Bush. They are as bad as each other lol. apart from that Bush is complete dunce. When he said " they never stop thinking of ways to hurt our country , and neither do we" lol lol lol!

you quote reminds me of 2dtv :D posibly the triple laugh bit. anyway, overthrowing sadam was the easy bit, getting control of the contry and ficing teh power vacume were the hard parts, becuse of the now hight terrim levs that exist there cuurrnatly, i donmt think its much better off with sadam gone :/

No me neither , the army and the government are just as bad except the torturs bit thingy. apart from they army people who made that guy stand up on the thing which was really sick

I think the Twin Towers accident brought Europe and the US together not just England, as the Twin Towers incident effected the whole world because they are the World Trade Centre.

well england and america have been "united" for quite a while now i would say.

and i aklways thought that the war in iraq was because of the "wepons of mass distruction" that sadam had.......... it was said that he refused a couple of inspection and we pressumed he had wepons, and yes a few were actually found. but i belive talks should have lasted that little bit longer.

The fact that they were looking for the wrong person, Saddam had nothing to do with the terror attacks on the Twin Towers.

It was Osamo Bin Ladle, he was the one that caused the attack and Bush (idiot as he is) went foolishly into attacking the wrong people therefore causing this mess we are in now, idiot.

Well to those of you who are in countries who are in Iraq, you should support the war because people are dieing for you. And it is said over 75% of troops in Iraq support the war fully. More people should do their patriotic duty.
Also, Saddm needed to be taken out of power, he killed 200,000 plus Iraqis during his reign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

I think the Twin Towers accident brought Europe and the US together not just England, as the Twin Towers incident effected the whole world because they are the World Trade Centre.

---

It was britan and america espaly thogh, as it craeted teh friend ship between bush and tont blare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butcher11

Well to those of you who are in countries who are in Iraq, you should support the war because people are dieing for you. And it is said over 75% of troops in Iraq support the war fully. More people should do their patriotic duty.
Also, Saddm needed to be taken out of power, he killed 200,000 plus Iraqis during his reign.

---

True. but now bush is makeing the same sort if abuses of human rights as sadam hosain, just as bad in some cases, yet if america was inaded, i bet they would stiull fight for it freedom even if they were fighting for americans.
Gorge bush attackd irack becuse of teh oil fileds, as tehy had nothing to do with 9/11 and they wernt habporing terrists, athogh after teh irck war they now are.
If america inveded to help teh human rights, there are contrys on the boarders of america with things just as bad, there not being invaded thogh?
If it was becuse they thoght they had wepons of mass destrution? north cariea does jave wepons of mass destrution, yet there not being indvaded.

so in my opinon there are alot of hiddem motive sin this war, if you consider gorege bush senior (gorge 2 bush's father) failed in his war on teh same contry? is this revenge? is it becuse of teh oil?.

Also why does amerca when russia invade, stop them by craeting things like teh taliban etc (bin larden was trained by the CIA)
But whe america inavde there magicly on the side of good, and if russia helped them they woild be accused of funing terrists, even thogh funding terrist is exsactly what america did?

What a loser, fighting a war just for oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mentor

It was britan and america espaly thogh, as it craeted teh friend ship between bush and tont blare.



True. but now bush is makeing the same sort if abuses of human rights as sadam hosain, just as bad in some cases, yet if america was inaded, i bet they would stiull fight for it freedom even if they were fighting for americans.
Gorge bush attackd irack becuse of teh oil fileds, as tehy had nothing to do with 9/11 and they wernt habporing terrists, athogh after teh irck war they now are.
If america inveded to help teh human rights, there are contrys on the boarders of america with things just as bad, there not being invaded thogh?
If it was becuse they thoght they had wepons of mass destrution? north cariea does jave wepons of mass destrution, yet there not being indvaded.

so in my opinon there are alot of hiddem motive sin this war, if you consider gorege bush senior (gorge 2 bush's father) failed in his war on teh same contry? is this revenge? is it becuse of teh oil?.

Also why does amerca when russia invade, stop them by craeting things like teh taliban etc (bin larden was trained by the CIA)
But whe america inavde there magicly on the side of good, and if russia helped them they woild be accused of funing terrists, even thogh funding terrist is exsactly what america did?

---

I would agree with you apart from your first and last points.
September 11th didn't bring the US and Britain together in a 'special relationship', Blair decided to $uck up to the Americans by saying we would help, when there was absolutely no need for us to. Britain had not been attacked, and even so, as you rightly said, Iraq has far more terrorists in it now than it did do.
On your last point, whether the US paid terrorists in the past or not, that isn't the point, the point is now they don't and that is what we are bothered about.

Didn't bush say their were 'weapons of mass destruction'

Were their really? Forgive me for being slow, but I never really saw them talking about that on the news.

Why dont we just unite officially and be called the nation of united morons
Honestly we arnt getting anywhere in this world with weapons of mass destruction and wars whats it going to acomplish? nevermind this world is too corrupt

Therw werent any weapons as Iraq isnt the country containing them!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Genifer

Didn't bush say their were 'weapons of mass destruction'

Were their really? Forgive me for being slow, but I never really saw them talking about that on the news.

---

3 years ago, when Saddam wouldn't let UN weapons inspectors into Iraq to look at the WMD, we knew there were then, and what reason do we have to believe he decided to destroy them voluntarily? And the numerous people saying the US needed oil, right now, we have numerous surplus reserves in he continental US, and also Alaska which has not be opened at all. I notice almost everyone against the war is british, but remember you as a member of the Security Council(something with the 5 top nations in the UN) has a duty to keep the world safe, and if you were controlled by saddam Hussein and led a life of fear of torture and death, wouldn't you want a country to liberate you? Plus, if oil was so important, why Afghanistan?

First or all its Iraq

Secondly we should just kill the killers and rescuse those who need rescuing its SIMPLE

People should

Oops clikced reply
** People should just leave others alone and get on with there lives **