Do you think that our involvement in the Middle East is worth it?

[VirtualG]

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?

[Ardemax]

what else would we do? bomb iceland? :rolleyes:

[VirtualG]

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.

[Ardemax]

it also sounds like a british comment if you ask me

[Immenseman]

no. i think they're fighting a war they won't win.

[UKIP]

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.

[Alkaz]

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

[UKIP]

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.

Cowardly foreign policy.

[VirtualG]

no. i think they're fighting a war they won't win.

Great comment. Agreed.
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.

[Ardemax]

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