Iraq now 'finished' for United Kingdom

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8026136.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

A ceremony has been held in Basra to mark the official end of the six-year British military mission in Iraq. UK combat operations ended as 20th Armoured Brigade took part in a flag-lowering ceremony with a US brigade.
In London, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said a new chapter in relations between the two countries had begun.
Earlier, a memorial service attended by Defence Secretary John Hutton took place in Basra for the 179 UK personnel who have died during the conflict.

The focus was a memorial wall featuring the names of the 234 UK and foreign troops and civilians who lost their lives under British command in Iraq.

We are now a peace keeping force in the Republic of Iraq, so it now seems as though the Iraq invasion is now over. In my opinion its a blot on our history and was an illegal war which both the British Government & Bush Administration lied over to gather public support, in which many of our civil liberties have now been lost in the hysteria of the aftermath of 9/11.

Iraqi's now face a possibly unstable future in which they did not have under Saddam Hussein, and women and other groups in Iraq such as homosexuals now fear that tougher muslim laws will now punish them/hold them back in Iraq, whereas before it was one of the most liberal middle eastern countries in terms of equality.

Such a waste of life, in which our moral authority has been seriously damaged. Estimates range from around 600,000 to 1,000,000+ people have died as a result of the Iraq invasion.

[Monopoly]

Yeah, about six years too late.

[Bun]

hang on for a sec, you believe iraq would be better with saddam hussein?*Removed*


Edited by ,Jess, (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not be rude.

[-:Undertaker:-]

hang on for a sec, you believe iraq would be better with saddam hussein? *Removed*

You believe Iraq is now better as a fragile country in which terrorists now use as their base, whereas under Saddam Hussein they didn't?

You believe American oil companies in control of Iraqi oil will help Iraq?

You believe the shiite muslins who are now incharge (whos branch of islam tends to be much harsher on women and other sections of society) is a good thing?

If you actually read into the Ba'ath regime they did a lot of good, yes they were strict and did some awful crimes, but i'm afraid you can't control a middle eastern country that is not strong, just look at Pakistan since Musharraf left office. Saddam built up Iraqs' infastructure from nothing making it one of the most progressive middle eastern countries, not only that but he allowed women to wear western clothes and to be able to have higher jobs like men. He also took a different, more soft line on homosexuals compared to Iran where they are hanged. He also abolished the Sharia courts which are notorious for favouring out-of-date tradition muslim laws which favour men over women.

I am capitalist and conservative, but when it comes to the Middle East arab socialism such as the one Saddam Hussein implemented, it works. Until you actually look into his regime as a whole and compared to some other countries in the middle east and around the world, then you haven't got any base to build an argument up on.

[GommeInc]

I'm not entirely sure what Saddam Hussein did. One moment it was a look into weapons of mass destruction, the next a Prime Minister got hung for, well, no reason as far as I saw it. It's strange because I think I can remember him coming the UK talking to whoever was the Prime Minister and he seemed like a decent person.

If Iraq is better now, I would of loved to of seen what Iraq looked like in the past...
Posts merged by PaulMacC (Forum Super Moderator): Due to forum lag.

[nvrspk4]

I find it interesting that you call it illegal...you can call a war unjustified perhaps or claim that the administration lied about it...but illegal? Hardly

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator...but its debatable whether its our place to waltz around invading countries just because we don't like how they take care of business.

Well in my mind its not even a debate, but for some it is.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I find it interesting that you call it illegal...you can call a war unjustified perhaps or claim that the administration lied about it...but illegal? Hardly

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator...but its debatable whether its our place to waltz around invading countries just because we don't like how they take care of business.

Well in my mind its not even a debate, but for some it is.

As the United Nations didn't give consent and was lied to by the Bush administration, its similar to when North Korea have sanctions because they fire nuclear weapons, its 'illegal' or 'unjustified' in the eyes of the United Nations.

As for Saddam Hussein, of course he was, compared to our governments; brutal, harsh and not democratic at all. However if you look at his home policy and look at Iraq before and during his regime whilst also comparing it to Iran and Saudi Arabia it makes Saddam look like a powerpuff girl. If we could have democratic, fair and stable governments in the Middle East it would be wonderful and hopefully one day that will happen, but now in this world and in reality i'm sure Iraqi women, homosexuals and other groups would rather have more freedom than death, which they face in neighbouring states like Iran. Iran is democratic yet was much more harsh than Iraq in which women can be arrested or told to stop wearing western clothes, in which teenagers are publically hanged for being gay.

My opinion on his regime may be out of the ordinary and I too used to think he was the worst man on the planet thanks to western media, but now looking at his neighbours and comparing to other dictators, he was on the whole, a good dictator.

I'm not entirely sure what Saddam Hussein did. One moment it was a look into weapons of mass destruction, the next a Prime Minister got hung for, well, no reason as far as I saw it. It's strange because I think I can remember him coming the UK talking to whoever was the Prime Minister and he seemed like a decent person.

If Iraq is better now, I would of loved to of seen what Iraq looked like in the past...

He was infact someone who would listen and tred carefully around the United States. Before the invasion of Kuwait (which was operated because apparently Kuwait were slant drilling) Saddam called an American offical to his palace and asked if Iraq was to invade Kuwait/take military action, would the United States intervene? - the answer he got was something like the United States does not wish to intervene in Middle Eastern politics or war - Saddam saw this as the go ahead, as America had not threatend to intervene in the war, but America later went back on itself. He wasn't perfect, but was a damn lot better than Robert Mugabe, Irans Presidents and Saudi Arabian leaders.

I agree, where are the weapons? - there are none, it was a complete cover up and the war cannot even be defended in my eyes, otherwise if we were to go on a culling of all governments we did not like, we'd occupy around half the world.

[Jord]

RIP 179 Men That Layed Their Lifes Down For Britan

You made me proud

[Alkaz]

Estimates range from around 600,000 to 1,000,000+ people have died as a result of the Iraq invasion.

Why highlight that? How many millions of people did Saddam Hussein whilst he was dictating over them? I doubt it was anywere near that figure. In six years since we invaded and how ever many since he was killed I wonder how many he would have killed if we handn't invaded? I suspect many more than that number killed in the war. Iraq was good for me.

its debatable whether its our place to waltz around invading countries just because we don't like how they take care of business.

Maybe but thats how we got our empire which we should never have given back.

[Jordy]

Maybe but thats how we got our empire which we should never have given back.

The empire is easily the best bit in our history (Although some parts of World War II were also phenomenal) but I'm afraid it was right to split up. If we didn't allow the empire to split up, they'd of just removed themselves. It split up just after World War II, our army was obviously over-stretched and we were a very poor country, we'd been battered by the war, we just couldn't afford to keep pouring money into the empire (bare in mind we'd already stole most the good things from the empire) and we had no means of controlling the empire anyway.

If we continued the empire I assure you that Britain would look nothing like it does today.