Ok. I believe that the only reason anyone is there is because America wants the place for their oil so they invade and claim it as a peace keeping excercise/war on terrorism to protect themselves and therefore country's like the UK, France, Australia and New Zealand all have to help out the Us, being allies and all. But do you believe that we should be there? why and why not?
what else would we do? bomb iceland? :rolleyes:
I think thats a stupid comment. Are you saying that were spending millions of dollars, resources and lives because "what else would we do?" Sounds like an american excuse if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardemax
it also sounds like a british comment if you ask me
no. i think they're fighting a war they won't win.
I think while Afganhistan needs sorting out, especially as it will become a regional power one day with a fast growing population, they are missing the point because most of the terrorists have moved to Pakistan, where terrorist groups are now running a lot of the regions of that country, since Pervez Musharraff left office. ..as for Iraq, we all know it was for oil and that Tony Blair and George W Bush were found out (not that we didn't already know with Blair) to be the biggest liars on the planet, worse for Tony because he couldn't even stand up to the United States and say no.
Didnt it all start like 20 years ago when the UK gave saddam hussein chance after chance to prove he had no WMD and he never did then when we finally went in there, we were only allowed in certain areas and only found materials to make the weapons. That whole thing needed sorting and Hussein needed killing, its just opened a massive can of worms so I think we needed to be in there and still do. I mean they kill there own people, they arent going to think twice about doing it to millions of others :(
The regime of the Ba'ath Party and Saddam Hussein was much more liberal compared to other regimes around the world. If we should go in every country and free the people, then theres a lot more worse countries we have to go into. ..of course we won't, because Iran, Peoples Republic of China can all give us a smack in the face back, whereas Iraq couldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkaz
Cowardly foreign policy.
Great comment. Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Immenseman
For those of you who dont know the president before Suddam was assasinated by the CIA in a black ops mission. The Us the position Saddam as leader in a fixed election as they had an agreement to allow the US to have access to the oil deposits beneath the land. After a certain amount of time Suddam realised his potential power over the US and started the war by refusing access to teh oil deposits causing retaliation from the United States.
the soviets fought the same people like 10 years before the start - they lost 12,000 troops and lots of helicopters
so we need more helicopters? so they can get blown up?
the small american droids are doing wonders, let's use them
I have read Iraqi history briefly and the President which Saddam overthrew was overthrown because he was old and was a weak leader, and as far as I know lived for quite a number of years after being ousted from office. If you track the transformation of Iraq from the period Saddam Hussein took over you would have a different opinion of him, especially when compared to other middle eastern leaders he looked like a pussycast, as he allowed women to have higher positions in society, allowed them to wear western clothes and abolished Sharia courts - along with transforming Iraq from the dustroad hell hole it was into a regional power.Quote:
Originally Posted by VirtualG
We need more helicopters to win the battle, along with the fact rescue missions are taking far too long because lack of helicopters therefore endangering our lives. This is what always infuriates me about the left, we have money for other countrys, the European Union, art projects and so on yet we dont have money for our own troops - pure and utter arrogance and treason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardemax
You don't enter a battle with a pitchfolk faced with machine guns.
ukip, i think britain will have more experience with spears against pistols if u know what i mean
more helicopters will cost us money for them to be destroyed again
..then you should know the basics of war, we dont have helicopters, ships, guns, tanks and so on for the hell of it to sit in docks/barracks and look pretty. If we have more helicopters they'll be in good use, yes some will be lost but the majority will come home and can be used again, along with protecting our soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardemax
if in doubt pull out
I think we should never have gone there in the first place. (and the leader before saddam was assasinated, Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, if you check, was forced to step down and was removed due to "health reasons" but they never disclosed what type of illness, and how many others were executed due to "espionage"
He was in bad health whilst in office and was no threat to the new Ba'ath leadership, he died in 1982 I think which is three to four years after Saddam Hussein took over the leadership.Quote:
Originally Posted by VirtualG
I just googled it...
I also did to check on it again, and it came up with exactly as I said, he was in ill health at the time he was overthrown (1979) and died in 1982, which points to the fact that he was no threat to the new government of Iraq and the interests of the CIA & United States.
Sorry, I still disagree. I trust my proof.