*DEBATE* The Iraq war, right or wrong?

The Iraq war, right or wrong?

Thankyou to Kathryn for suggesting this Debate, via PM

Since the insertion of British soldiers into Iraq in 2003, the number of UK troops killed during operations has risen to 119 (the last casualties being on the 1st October 2006).
Ever since the war began, questions have been asked as to why the war was started, and whether it was worth it. Now, as more and more soldiers are killed or injured, even those who supported the war feel it time to withdraw are troops from the country.
So why was the war started in the first place? Iraq was said to have ties with internation terrorism, al-Qaeda and it was suggested that the country was in possession of WMDs, or Weapons of Mass Destruction. On top of that, the failure to comply with weapons inspections and disarmament procedures was another reason the war was started. The war was coined, "Operation Iraqi Liberation", as another overall objective was to topple the government who were accused of "repression and brutalisation of its civilian population".
Even now, over three years on, Tony Blair has said that the soldiers will remain in Iraq until the job there is done (SOURCE).

So what do you think? Was invasion justified? and should we pull troops out of Iraq now? Debate it.

PLEASE NOTE: Be sure to read the Debates Forum rules, before you post. These can be found here. This debate will close on the 24th October 2006.

I heard on the news that if any soldier over there, that had come in with UK army and all that, and they asked an iraqi citizen why they were over there, wether it was for the wmds or for oil, they always said oil... I dont think it was right, and I dont think its right we're still there... whats it been? like 5 years now>??

I think its right.

Nixt (Forum Moderator) In future, while debating, please provide evidence to back up your points, thanks!

I think going to Iraq was wrong because we basically double crossed Sadam Hussain, it was the UK and USA who put him in power many years ago ONLY because he would give us cheap oil and in return we gave him weapons of mass destruction and now we've gone to war with them knowing they have them but not telling the public that it was OUR fault for him being there and the weapons and acting all innocent as though we're doing good?

According to some troops, Iraq is hell on earth.

And no, it hasn't been 5 years.

If we pull out now we lose everything that we've been fighting for. Believe it or not, oil is not the only reason we went there - if it was, we'd have pulled out as soon as we had basic control of the place. At the moment, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fighting goes on because backers of the extremist leaders are still rebelling and trying to take back control.

However much you say it was wrong to go there in the first place, which is something I personally don't know enough about to say an opinion (as I'm sure most people don't, let alone teens who get their information off conspiracy sites), I don't think that anyone who knows anything about the situation can possibly think that pulling out now would be a good idea.

Before I continue I would like to say that this is only my oppinion on
why the British army went to war with Iraq.

As you all know, America started the war, and then the British went in after them. Before they decided to go to Iraq the government of Britain knew that there were alot of people coming over from all over the world because of wars in there countrys. One of the countrys was Iraq.

I believe that one of the governments reason for going into Iraq was so that when a family comes to the UK and says that there is a war going on and that it isnt safe for them to stay there, the government would need to provide them with shelter etc.

So what I believe the Biritish government done was send the British army to Iraq for what ever reason and then when a family or two comes along saying there is a war in my country I dont have protection help us, the government then turns around and says
Its all ok, we sent the British army there to set the peace you'll be ok.

So in conclusion if you think about it a bit it does actually make some sence, I dont see why we should of got involved, but my oppinion is quite valid in my point of view, what do you think? :eusa_thin

Again this is my view,

From Baris

peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

If we pull out now we lose everything that we've been fighting for. Believe it or not, oil is not the only reason we went there - if it was, we'd have pulled out as soon as we had basic control of the place. At the moment, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fighting goes on because backers of the extremist leaders are still rebelling and trying to take back control.

However much you say it was wrong to go there in the first place, which is something I personally don't know enough about to say an opinion (as I'm sure most people don't, let alone teens who get their information off conspiracy sites), I don't think that anyone who knows anything about the situation can possibly think that pulling out now would be a good idea.

---

I dont think losing what we've been fighting for is such a bad thing, and it certainly isnt a reason to keep going. If someone gets electricuted trying to get through an electric fence to get a ball on the other side, does that mean someone else has to try to do the same so that his death wont be for nothing?

Im reading a book right now called The Greatest Story Ever Sold about how George Bush and the administration sold the story to go to Iraq. Its pretty detailed about their technique.

We switched over from Osama Bin Laden to Iraq and Saddam, even though Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quida, Osama Bin Laden, WMD's, 9/11, or even terrorism. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the war. Even none of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Iraq. All these terrorists now are people retaliating against Troops, most of it is very disorganized. And for some reason, the reasoning behind the war is always switching. First it was WMDs, (which were never found), then it was control the insurgency, now it's 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' (whatever the hell that means). The administration has never answered why we went to war in a straight answer.

The bombing wont end until we leave. They are bombing us because we are there. Yes, the country might get into a civil war, but that isnt our problem, and it was never our problem to begin with. Why we cant pull out doesnt add up. If we really went to war for the Iraqi people why are 50,000 dead? 2.2% of the population of Iraq has died because of this war.

What has this actually achieved?? Apart from hundreds of soldiers loosing their lifes? Yes, it's easy for them to say "lets go to war", no danger comes to them, any sign of danger and they are taken away to a safe place, meanwhile we're all left here, picking up the pieces. The situation in Iraq won't get any better, especially with interferance from other countries, they need to sort the problems out themselves, instead of us going in and fighting.

[quote=clazlyksmanbits;2373041]I think its right.quote]


I have no idea why you'd think that?

If you ask me, the situation in iraq is exactly the same as what happened in vietnam. A POINTLESS WAR, not on terror,but infact causing terror.
Civilians reported killed by the military intervention in Iraq is approximately 48914.
american soldiers are losing thier lives everyday, and for what?
OIL! AND LOTS OF IT!
I dont want to cause a fuss, but the occupation of iraq has'nt made anything better for anyone, I mean take for example the iraqi girl whose home was stormed in by a group of american soldiers, who shot everyone of her family member,(this was on a bbc report, u can find the video somewhere on youtube). Because of those few AMERICAN soldiers, she now holds a grudge against every AMERICA.
also, Where did all the money G.W bush promised iraq go to??
because of that broken promise, new born babies, childeren and the elderly are dying as a result of a lack of hospital needs.
This just stands by my arguement that the occupation of iraq has caused
nothing but tears.

(soz about writing sooo much, i just feel strongly about this)

Attacked Iraq on suspicions they had WMDs. (Weapons of Mass Destruction)

North Korea HAS ADMITTED testing WMDs. Or Nuclear testing anyway.
Why aren't we at war with them.

I don't like Bush. I don't like Blair. However I believe that Blair WAS forced into the Iraqi decision by Bush and I also believe Mr Blair regrets his decision now.

Saddam run a similar regime to Hitler. We didn't bother with Hitler despite the fact we knew what he was doing until he invaded Poland and we HAD to act unter a pact we had.
So if Britain will ignore a dictator killing thousands of Jews, why go in full guns blazing on someone running a more leniant regime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hecktix

Attacked Iraq on suspicions they had WMDs. (Weapons of Mass Destruction)

North Korea HAS ADMITTED testing WMDs. Or Nuclear testing anyway.
Why aren't we at war with them.

I don't like Bush. I don't like Blair. However I believe that Blair WAS forced into the Iraqi decision by Bush and I also believe Mr Blair regrets his decision now.

Saddam run a similar regime to Hitler. We didn't bother with Hitler despite the fact we knew what he was doing until he invaded Poland and we HAD to act unter a pact we had.
So if Britain will ignore a dictator killing thousands of Jews, why go in full guns blazing on someone running a more leniant regime?

---

Because that was 60 years ago.

It all started with this;




George Bush started his Global War on terrorism, His first target was Afghanistan a Taliban controlled country then he went for Iraq which was under Saddam Hussein and had been for about 40 Years, Iraq was a Harsh country yes, but it was Safe and secure.

George Bush first claimed that Saddam Hussein had Nuclear Weapons that could reach USA or Britain in 45 Minutes, the UN weapons team went into Iraq and Saddam allowed it. Guess what they found - Nothing. Nevertheless Bush and Blair must have been Hell-bent on getting to that country, Their next claim was that they were going into Iraq because Saddam was a killer - What that has to do with Terrorism no one no's. After many Protests around the World George Bush annoced to the world that he was going to go to "War" with Iraq.

The conflict was hard at some times, Saddam was determined not to let his country be overrun, but eventually the country was crippled, Saddam reduced to hiding in a Hole was then found.

Whether or not Iraq was over Oil or other things, its damaged Bush and Blair severely, Many Labour MP's quit over the War most in particular the Late Robin Cook and Claire Short.

Bush's popularity hit rock bottom a few weeks ago and Blair's legacy will be an Unpopular Invasion.

Taliban are now grouping together in Afghanistan and Iraq is spiraling out of control as it heads towards civil war. Many people now people Iraq was better under Saddam because he provided Roads, Security, electric and Water.

Both Michael Howard and John Kerry failed to knock the leaders out of their seats but one thing is for sure, the leaders have been damaged a lot.


Michael Howard



John Kerry



How long Iraq will last for we can only guess, Soldiers wasting away their lives for a worthless war - Is it worth it?, Sure we can fight Terrorism but invading countries that have nothing to do with Terrorism - Is it right?

R.i.p 9/11 victims and the Innocent Soldiers who died fighting for nothing, they leave behind Children, Mums, and Dads..

We bomb them or they bomb us, i think he was right

All war can be avoided in some way surely? In this day and age there shouldn't have to be a war to resolve matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DCeption

We bomb them or they bomb us, i think he was right

---

CONGRADULATIONS! Iraq had nothing to with 9/11, they didnt bomb Americans before we occupied their country.

A lot of soldiers have been killed for what I can see as..

Capturing Saddam.

Its deeper than that though its all about oil.

MONEY CAN'T BUY PEOPLE THEIR FAMILY BACK!

Bush is an idiot, so is Tony. Hes like a sheep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hecktix

North Korea HAS ADMITTED testing WMDs. Or Nuclear testing anyway.
Why aren't we at war with them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hecktix

So if Britain will ignore a dictator killing thousands of Jews, why go in full guns blazing on someone running a more leniant regime?

---

Why would you go to war with someone who you have a chance of losing against?

i dont really care soz

Nixt (Forum Moderator) Please do not post pointlessly; if you do not have a view that you wish to share, do not post at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

[/B]

[B]

Why would you go to war with someone who you have a chance of losing against?

---

We're losing in Iraq. Thats certain. There is no way to possibly win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hecktix

Attacked Iraq on suspicions they had WMDs. (Weapons of Mass Destruction)

North Korea HAS ADMITTED testing WMDs. Or Nuclear testing anyway.
Why aren't we at war with them.

I don't like Bush. I don't like Blair. However I believe that Blair WAS forced into the Iraqi decision by Bush and I also believe Mr Blair regrets his decision now.

Saddam run a similar regime to Hitler. We didn't bother with Hitler despite the fact we knew what he was doing until he invaded Poland and we HAD to act unter a pact we had.
So if Britain will ignore a dictator killing thousands of Jews, why go in full guns blazing on someone running a more leniant regime?

---

You said why don't we go to war with North Korea?..

Well i do believe we, were planning to but North Korea Said " If you ingauge in war we will self destruct the Nuclear bomb" I got that from a news article on my homepage ages ago. Anyways thats why were not at war with North Korea.

Also i feel the war with Iraq was wrong yea maybe they were under suspicion that they had WMDs. But did they actually find any evidence of this? No so clearly it was a mis-understandment in going to war with Iraq. Well thats what i think anyways..

Basically its all about war now.

I honestly think that if everyones needs were met we could have world peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neurotic

Basically its all about war now.

I honestly think that if everyones needs were met we could have world peace.

---

I agree with what you have said. Yea basically the world is just some big battle field now, ready to explode!.

I do think they should all gather round a table and discuss there diffences and sort the world out once and for all before it's too late..

I think there are many hidden facts about this war.

But I dont think that is a bad thing.

The government should keep secrets from the public. If we know then the whole world does, including our enemys.

I know it is bad that 119 Brithsh have died but....

When it is all over Iraq will be a better place.

Sadam could have turned into the next hitler and it could have turned into a worse situation.

About the government and secrets.

I think there were other reasons for going into Iraq and other things that are keeping us there. Because of this I dont think we can make comments like it is for nothing. Some might say "we are the people and need to know everything about our government" But I would rather them know it all and be able to keep us safer.

About the secret prisions that the US had, which were found out. They were toturing prisoners to get information about future attacks. I didnt see a problem with that but now that the whole world knows they have to act like it is a bad thing and charge them with a crime and not toture interrogate them.

Basically to sum everything I said up.

I dont think anyone but the high government knows enough about the war to say if it is right or wrong. And I dont think that is a bad thing.

War doesn't break out, peace does.

Overall, it just isnt a war worth fighting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BL!NKEY

I think there are many hidden facts about this war.

But I dont think that is a bad thing.

The government should keep secrets from the public. If we know then the whole world does, including our enemys.

I know it is bad that 119 Brithsh have died but....

When it is all over Iraq will be a better place.

Sadam could have turned into the next hitler and it could have turned into a worse situation.

About the government and secrets.

I think there were other reasons for going into Iraq and other things that are keeping us there. Because of this I dont think we can make comments like it is for nothing. Some might say "we are the people and need to know everything about our government" But I would rather them know it all and be able to keep us safer.

About the secret prisions that the US had, which were found out. They were toturing prisoners to get information about future attacks. I didnt see a problem with that but now that the whole world knows they have to act like it is a bad thing and charge them with a crime and not toture interrogate them.

Basically to sum everything I said up.

I dont think anyone but the high government knows enough about the war to say if it is right or wrong. And I dont think that is a bad thing.

---

There is a difference between hiding facts about war stradegy, and hiding facts from the public about why you went to war in the first place.

And no. Iraq wont be a better place. Did you know that there were never bombings in Iraq before this war? This wasent happening all along. 2%, (Thats right, you can look it up) of the population of Iraq is dead over the war. If 2% of your country were dead, there would be outrage. They arent bombing just to be mean, theyre bombing because we're there.

Citizens have EVERY RIGHT to criticize what the leaders are doing, youd be an idiot to think otherwise. If it wasent for citizens, there would be nothing stopping leaders from doing anything wrong. It isnt only our right, its our duty to question everything that goes on. It is 100% necessary. We cant follow blindly behind someone.

The problem with the secret prisons is that many, (possibly even most) of those prisoners are 100% innocent. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. These prisoners never had trial. So these people are being tortured for information, AND THEY DONT KNOW ANYTHING. Oh, and by the way, if one person being tortured actually does know information, do you actually think they would give it away? These people are willing to blow themselves up, I doubt water boarding will make them say a word about anything. Torture works on TV, but it never works in real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

There is a difference between hiding facts about war stradegy, and hiding facts from the public about why you went to war in the first place.

---

I agree.

I am also saying that I think they are hiding facts about why we went to war so "I" dont want to say that we did it for a right or wrong reason. Because I think we dont know the whole story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

And no. Iraq wont be a better place. Did you know that there were never bombings in Iraq before this war? This wasent happening all along. 2%, (Thats right, you can look it up) of the population of Iraq is dead over the war. If 2% of your country were dead, there would be outrage. They arent bombing just to be mean, theyre bombing because we're there.

---

But before the was Sadam was toturing his people and it was a dictator ship. Because we wont pull out untill there is democracy, Iraq will be a better place when we leave. I know that alot of bad things are happening to Iraq but that is because there is a war going on. Americans died in the war of independence but that doesnt mean that independence was not worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

Citizens have EVERY RIGHT to criticize what the leaders are doing, youd be an idiot to think otherwise. If it wasent for citizens, there would be nothing stopping leaders from doing anything wrong. It isnt only our right, its our duty to question everything that goes on. It is 100% necessary. We cant follow blindly behind someone.

---

I agree that we have the right to criticize what they are doing. I stated that "I" dont want to say that we did it for a right or wrong reason. Because I think we dont know the whole story. I know the government makes mistakes but they are not going to pourposly make bad choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

The problem with the secret prisons is that many, (possibly even most) of those prisoners are 100% innocent. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. These prisoners never had trial. So these people are being tortured for information, AND THEY DONT KNOW ANYTHING. Oh, and by the way, if one person being tortured actually does know information, do you actually think they would give it away? These people are willing to blow themselves up, I doubt water boarding will make them say a word about anything. Torture works on TV, but it never works in real life.

---

Well Bush just signed a bill legalizing them

http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=36723

Anyways I agree that it is bad to tourture innocent people, but we were talking about this in my history class a while ago. Some of the prisioners were giving information about future attacks (probably through torture). If they give the information which turns out to be true then they are obviously not innocent people. So they probably have more information.

Now is the moral choice.

Do we toture them more untill they give us more information to save thousanda of innocent citazens lives?

Or do we keep our morals high and put the terrorst in a regular prision?

Should we keep our morals high or step lower to their morals.

Obviously everyone has differnt oppinions about this but I think in that case it would be ok to toture them for more information about future attacks.

This is easy one, The war in Iraq is wrong!
I mean like what is it really over!, the tried to make us believe all the rubbish Tony Blair and George Bush came out with, but we all know what what it is really about...Oil.
Personally I think that if they both want to start a war, then fine but they both have to go out and fight with the troops, also if their children are the right age to join, then they should, maybe then they might think twice. But then again, knowing Blair and Bush they would come out with some pathetic excuse.

I think that Britain/America did the right thing to go to war on Iraq, but in my opinion they never found what they was looking for (weapons of mass destruction) so they should come out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BL!NKEY

I agree.

I am also saying that I think they are hiding facts about why we went to war so "I" dont want to say that we did it for a right or wrong reason. Because I think we dont know the whole story.

---

We should be mad BECAUSE we dont know the whole story. We must assume the worst so that they tell us how it really is to prove us wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BL!NKEY

But before the was Sadam was toturing his people and it was a dictator ship. Because we wont pull out untill there is democracy, Iraq will be a better place when we leave. I know that alot of bad things are happening to Iraq but that is because there is a war going on. Americans died in the war of independence but that doesnt mean that independence was not worth it.

---

There are many insane leaders all around the world who are worse that Saddam, so why Iraq? The Revolutionary War was worth it because there was something to fight for. That isnt the case here. We're making it worse. Most, if not all Iraqis dont want us there. So why should we be there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BL!NKEY

I agree that we have the right to criticize what they are doing. I stated that "I" dont want to say that we did it for a right or wrong reason. Because I think we dont know the whole story. I know the government makes mistakes but they are not going to pourposly make bad choices.

---

Obviously they dont purposly dont make bad choices, but a 3 year old doesnt purposly crap his pants either. Doesnt mean you dont try to stop him from doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BL!NKEY

Well Bush just signed a bill legalizing them

http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=36723

Anyways I agree that it is bad to tourture innocent people, but we were talking about this in my history class a while ago. Some of the prisioners were giving information about future attacks (probably through torture). If they give the information which turns out to be true then they are obviously not innocent people. So they probably have more information.

Now is the moral choice.

Do we toture them more untill they give us more information to save thousanda of innocent citazens lives?

Or do we keep our morals high and put the terrorst in a regular prision?

Should we keep our morals high or step lower to their morals.

Obviously everyone has differnt oppinions about this but I think in that case it would be ok to toture them for more information about future attacks.

---

Yes, I know Bush legalized it, thats why everyone is mad at him for it. And I highly doubt any decent information has come from any inmate from anywhere. If a prisoner gives information, its probably false information just so theyll stop torturing him.

The reason they didn't find any Weapons of Mass detruction is because..

There were never any !

We should be mad BECAUSE we dont know the whole story. We must assume the worst so that they tell us how it really is to prove us wrong.

We can be mad that we dont know the story. But that doesnt mean that we "must" assume the worst. The worst would be if Bush was putting infants in bombs and throwing them at iraquies learning how to read in school. Well I bet we can assume a worse circumstance. As I did before I will put quotes around "I" dont think we have enough evidence to say if the war is right or wrong. That doesnt mean it is right and doesnt mean it is wrong.

That isnt the case here. We're making it worse. Most, if not all Iraqis dont want us there. So why should we be there?

Do you think Iraq will be a worse place when we leave then it was before we got there. Besides the obvious death of everyone in the war.

Obviously they dont purposly dont make bad choices, but a 3 year old doesnt purposly crap his pants either. Doesnt mean you dont try to stop him from doing it.

How is this a good annalagy (sp?) A 3 year old craps their pants on pourpose. They dont know any better. They have to go so they push. The government knows about what they are dealing with and that is why they are in office.

Yes, I know Bush legalized it, thats why everyone is mad at him for it. And I highly doubt any decent information has come from any inmate from anywhere. If a prisoner gives information, its probably false information just so theyll stop torturing him.

You are just saying things like all iraques hate the war and that no prisioners give true information. You can re read my earlier post

Quote:

---

Some of the prisioners were giving information about future attacks (probably through torture). If they give the information which turns out to be true then they are obviously not innocent people. So they probably have more information.

Now is the moral choice.

Do we toture them more untill they give us more information to save thousanda of innocent citazens lives?

Or do we keep our morals high and put the terrorst in a regular prision?

Should we keep our morals high or step lower to their morals.

Obviously everyone has differnt oppinions about this but I think in that case it would be ok to toture them for more information about future attacks.

---

If the information they got was true and helped stop something then they probably have more.

We can be mad that we dont know the story. But that doesnt mean that we "must" assume the worst. The worst would be if Bush was putting infants in bombs and throwing them at iraquies learning how to read in school. Well I bet we can assume a worse circumstance. As I did before I will put quotes around "I" dont think we have enough evidence to say if the war is right or wrong. That doesnt mean it is right and doesnt mean it is wrong.

I think we must assume the worst if we want any information. Otherwise, they can just tell us what they want us to know. If we assume worse than the truth, they would correct us and give us real information.

Do you think Iraq will be a worse place when we leave then it was before we got there. Besides the obvious death of everyone in the war.

Yes. There werent terrorists in Iraq before the war, now there are. We worsened the civil war between Sunnis and Shiites.

How is this a good annalagy (sp?) A 3 year old craps their pants on pourpose. They dont know any better. They have to go so they push. The government knows about what they are dealing with and that is why they are in office.

Exactly. They dont know any better. Thus we lead them to what should be right and what should be done.

Yes, I know Bush legalized it, thats why everyone is mad at him for it. And I highly doubt any decent information has come from any inmate from anywhere. If a prisoner gives information, its probably false information just so theyll stop torturing him.

You are just saying things like all iraques hate the war and that no prisioners give true information. You can re read my earlier post

If the information they got was true and helped stop something then they probably have more.

Iraqis do hate the war, and actual terrorist prisoners dont give real information. All the plots that have claimed to have been foiled were either not legitimate, or had no ties to anything.

There were No WMD's therefore we should never have been dragged in with Bush, now we're causing more and more trouble. Everyday there are car bombings, gun fights, Violent attacks it's worse there now than it ever was. We should have set up a police force a stable democracy and left but no, we had to stay and make sure all the insurgants [Spelling:rolleyes: ] are either in prison or dead. Why can't we just pull out and leave Bush in there once we pull out he'll realise the mess he's in without us being there and perhaps figure ot a situation out on his own for once. - For example New Orleans flooding, If his deputies and advisors hadn't told him what to do he would of probaly kept sitting behind his desk twiddlying his thumb.
But back to the war. As soon as the Weapons inspectors from the UN came out and said "nope, no weapons there" we should have just left the whole kerfuffle behind but we didn't bush still thought they had....

Did you know? that before we went in about 200+ iraq's had been killed by Sadam in the last 3 years, In the last 3 years we've been there that number has then risen to 900+, No matter what the government say the whole war was a stupid idea. I'm with the general in charge of our army get them out now before we do any more harm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twigster

There were No WMD's therefore we should never have been dragged in with Bush, now we're causing more and more trouble. Everyday there are car bombings, gun fights, Violent attacks it's worse there now than it ever was. We should have set up a police force a stable democracy and left but no, we had to stay and make sure all the insurgants [Spelling:rolleyes: ] are either in prison or dead. Why can't we just pull out and leave Bush in there once we pull out he'll realise the mess he's in without us being there and perhaps figure ot a situation out on his own for once. - For example New Orleans flooding, If his deputies and advisors hadn't told him what to do he would of probaly kept sitting behind his desk twiddlying his thumb.
But back to the war. As soon as the Weapons inspectors from the UN came out and said "nope, no weapons there" we should have just left the whole kerfuffle behind but we didn't bush still thought they had....

Did you know? that before we went in about 200+ iraq's had been killed by Sadam in the last 3 years, In the last 3 years we've been there that number has then risen to 900+, No matter what the government say the whole war was a stupid idea. I'm with the general in charge of our army get them out now before we do any more harm.

---

900? Not sure what statistic you are talking about, but some estimates for how many Iraqis have died as a result of this war is in the 100,000's. 2.2% of the population has died because of the war. Again, not sure what statistic youre talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The reason they didn't find any Weapons of Mass detruction is because..

There were never any !

---

There may have been. We don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tombo60

There may have been. We don't know.

---

They searched pretty well. Theyve had inspectors everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

900? Not sure what statistic you are talking about, but some estimates for how many Iraqis have died as a result of this war is in the 100,000's. 2.2% of the population has died because of the war. Again, not sure what statistic youre talking about.

---

O, ye sozit was on bbc news or something, I think it was per day which is just terrifying. It was a little while a go, and I was scraping my mind, all I know is that the pre-war number is right (this stuff is really hard to find on the net all the articles are just saying pull our troops out not very often staistics:(. Sorry.

Also I bet if everyone who had posted in this debate if they we're given 3 wishes one would be for world piece maybe not but i reckon...