Iraq now 'finished' for United Kingdom

[Jordy]

In my opinion with expierence, war is pointless. Why cant everyone just get along?
It annoys me.

It's probably because you're not informed about any history, wars, politics or current affairs to any extent what-so-ever as to why you'd come out with a ridiculous comment like that which is typical from a misinformed outsider.

Should we of just let Hitler carry on invading Europe and not resisted, when he finally conquered the whole of Europe and then went after Britain, should we of just surrendered and handed it to them?

I'm not quite sure what works best in the Middle East, the monarchies are quite easily the most stable places within the Middle East but they're generally too strong on Sharia Law. Jordan is probably the most stable I'd say and it's managed it with out any oil and democracy.

[:Technical]

No I think you have picked me up wrong, Jordy.

I meant all as humans - why fight? Its pointless, if everyone got along the world would be a better place.

But obviously we all had to fight as you get some evil people so we "stuck up" for ourselfs.

[newWORLDorder]

No I think you have picked me up wrong, Jordy.

I meant all as humans - why fight? Its pointless, if everyone got along the world would be a better place.

But obviously we all had to fight as you get some evil people so we "stuck up" for ourselfs.

No **** sherlock :rolleyes:

[Ardemax]

The reasons why we started that war were completely ridiculous, and as a result, 234 People have lost their lives, with many others who may as well of due to their injuries.

if we didn't step in it would've been a whole lot worse

[GommeInc]

if we didn't step in it would've been a whole lot worse

Wasn't it the UK who taught the Iraqi military/police what to do? I think some are still going to stay there to help with the marines.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But in effect all war is due to things that are "illegal". What really gives the UN the power to sanction war. As a matter of fact, nothing does. A war occurs because you feel that the laws have been broken and diplomacy will no longer work, thus you eschew the entire system that the UN is the crux of. The UN simply tries to maintain some vestige of legitimacy by going "ok we're useless at this point you're allowed to avoid us."

I realize this is a terrible analogy to draw but Hitler was much the same way, Germany was a hellhole before he came to power. He really did a lot for the Germans but killed others much like Saddam catered to the minority Sunni and killed scores of Shia and banned their festivals. I realize the scope is massively different but the principle is the same...what Hitler did was not ok even if he made things better for the Germans.

That being said, we did not go into war with the Germans because of what they were doing to the Jews, we were clueless for the longest time.

Yes, it was a lie, and the bold sentence is my point. I don't agree though that he was best of the worst

The United Nations the USA stresses and uses so often, yet when the United States wishes to do something it just ignores the UN ruling, i'm sorry but that just is hypocrisy at its worst. The United States cannot maintain its moral high ground constantly verbally attacking North Korea and Iran for breaking UN sanctions/resolutions when it supports Israel and just ignores resolutions that apply to itself when it sees fit. I support the United States so much and believe the United Kingdom should be very close to the United States, but in the future when the Peoples Republic of China is stronger the United States needs to be able to say they have kept democracy and being fair at the foremost of their foreign policy, and at the moment that hasn't been the case.

The point is though, Shia are often conservative muslims which are the worst type in the middle east, that would of ment a much harsher regime in place like the Iranian revolution in place in Baghdad rather than the quite liberal (in middle eastern terms) Ba'ath Party in Baghdad. As I said he was no angel, and I wish the best for the middle east, but Saddam did a lot for Iraq, was quite liberal and for the most part, kept away the brain drain which Iran is experiencing thanks to the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The United States and United Kingdom were quite friendly to the regime of Saddam as he was rational, eager to co-operate and was a buffer to dangerous arab conservativism.

Oh yeah, because criminalising homosexuality was REALLY liberal

According to what I read, he attempted to keep it as liberal as possible given the middle eastern views on homosexuality, until the Iraqi government voted/decided in the early 2000's to make it illegal, to the dismay of Saddams arab socialism. You can see it in women aswell, in Iran police drive around telling women to buy arab clothes, whereas in Iraq under Saddam westernism was encouraged, often by himself when he wore western suits and western clothes.

im sorry but this seems another one of your stupid arguements.
you try living in iraq when sadam hussain was in power, then give us a debate, ok?

It seems to me like another one of your stupid attempts to try and get one over on me in an argument, in which you do, and always will, fail. I have studied Iraq and read as much as I can on the subject, as at times in the past I had supported the invasion and I had flipped many times on the subject when younger, however now I have come to a reasonable conclusion on the topic of the Ba'ath regime. I am keen in history and politics, and therefore I use a wide range of examples and evidence to support my claims, such as the United Kingdom in the 1970's compared to the 1980's and of course, the Ba'ath regime and neighbouring countries.

Iraq was not okay with Sadam Hussain there. They told the British and US press that one minute he could be okay then the next he would make them do things they didn't want to do or they would be punished. They had to be apart of his army if he asked them or they suffered either death or a painful punishment. He also used them for their houses etc etc.

The main point is that Sadam was not a nice person. When he was at Iraq they hated him. Leave the law enforcing to the Police - not Sadam.

You mean like in World War II when British soldiers who refused to fight were shot? - i'm afraid when you have Iran at your doorstep and your fearing an invasion by a hardcore islamic republic, you do everything to keep displine and order in your military and government. As I have said before, do you think if governments (especially in the middle east) gave their soldiers the option not to fight would get anywhere? - no they wouldn't last a minute.

He wasn't nice at all, as for the Police you only have to look at countries like Zimbabwe and Pakistan in which governments are torn apart/have to give the police special priveldges if they are too powerful, this can be seen in the cases of Robert Mugabe and Pervez Musharraf. To be strong and to stay together without being invaded/having a coup in the middle east, you have to be harsh and cruel.

Sadam hussain was a misery to the people of Iraq. Sadam committed war crimes against humanity. The people of Iraq were scared of him, frightened of speaking out, knowing what would happen if they did. Who knows what the world would be now if it wasn't invaded.

I don't think Invading the Country has made Terrorists more wanting to shed blood in the Western Countries.

A few years ago Terrorism was a bad disease, it was breading heavily especially in Iraq/Afghanistan. We had to invade those two countries in particular as they were the main territory for "Terrorist actives"

The NATO's has done the country good by invading it!

The Country was on it's knees when it was invaded. Westerns couldn't invest in the country as it was too dangerous to do so.

Now people are investing in Iraq, setting up businesses which is good a good thing, as it's giving the people of Iraq the opportunity to get a Job.

What would Saddam of set off his magical non-existent WMD if we hadn't invaded?, and in that case why didn't he set them off when his regime was falling in Baghdad. You are living in fairytale land.

The country is now a haven for terrorists, its even been admitted by the governments of Washington and London. Before the invasion there was no terrorist activities in Iraq because Saddam simply wouldn't allow any organisations (such as arab conservative terrorist groups) like Al Queda to flourish in Iraq as they were a threat to his regime.

In that case then, if you think overall NATO has done a good job in Iraq then i'm sure your up for invading the Peoples Republic of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and countless other states around the world so we can do a 'good job' there, but we know we won't because them countries have the capability to fight back whereas with Saddam we knew he didn't.

Iraq was on its knees because of the sanctions George H Bush put on the country, and considering all of that Saddam still managed to hold the country together and prevent it from plumetting into Civil War.

Invest in a country which is full to the rim with terrorism? - the only investment thats going on in Iraq is the oil fields being given contracts to members of the Bush Administration who happen to have close links with oil companies, George W & H Bush themselves (watch Farenheit 9/11 for a interesting insight). The workers/engineers are also mostly foreign and are driven to work in convoys guarded by the US military - you call this investment?, then again you say Margaret Thatcher ruined this country so you obviously have no understanding of the word.

if we didn't step in it would've been a whole lot worse

What would Saddam of killed us all with his 45 minute magic bombs that happen to not exist?

Get real.

[alexxxxx]

now to save them £s.

[Ardemax]

The United Nations the USA stresses and uses so often, yet when the United States wishes to do something it just ignores the UN ruling, i'm sorry but that just is hypocrisy at its worst. The United States cannot maintain its moral high ground constantly verbally attacking North Korea and Iran for breaking UN sanctions/resolutions when it supports Israel and just ignores resolutions that apply to itself when it sees fit. I support the United States so much and believe the United Kingdom should be very close to the United States, but in the future when the Peoples Republic of China is stronger the United States needs to be able to say they have kept democracy and being fair at the foremost of their foreign policy, and at the moment that hasn't been the case.

The point is though, Shia are often conservative muslims which are the worst type in the middle east, that would of ment a much harsher regime in place like the Iranian revolution in place in Baghdad rather than the quite liberal (in middle eastern terms) Ba'ath Party in Baghdad. As I said he was no angel, and I wish the best for the middle east, but Saddam did a lot for Iraq, was quite liberal and for the most part, kept away the brain drain which Iran is experiencing thanks to the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The United States and United Kingdom were quite friendly to the regime of Saddam as he was rational, eager to co-operate and was a buffer to dangerous arab conservativism.



According to what I read, he attempted to keep it as liberal as possible given the middle eastern views on homosexuality, until the Iraqi government voted/decided in the early 2000's to make it illegal, to the dismay of Saddams arab socialism. You can see it in women aswell, in Iran police drive around telling women to buy arab clothes, whereas in Iraq under Saddam westernism was encouraged, often by himself when he wore western suits and western clothes.



It seems to me like another one of your stupid attempts to try and get one over on me in an argument, in which you do, and always will, fail. I have studied Iraq and read as much as I can on the subject, as at times in the past I had supported the invasion and I had flipped many times on the subject when younger, however now I have come to a reasonable conclusion on the topic of the Ba'ath regime. I am keen in history and politics, and therefore I use a wide range of examples and evidence to support my claims, such as the United Kingdom in the 1970's compared to the 1980's and of course, the Ba'ath regime and neighbouring countries.



You mean like in World War II when British soldiers who refused to fight were shot? - i'm afraid when you have Iran at your doorstep and your fearing an invasion by a hardcore islamic republic, you do everything to keep displine and order in your military and government. As I have said before, do you think if governments (especially in the middle east) gave their soldiers the option not to fight would get anywhere? - no they wouldn't last a minute.

He wasn't nice at all, as for the Police you only have to look at countries like Zimbabwe and Pakistan in which governments are torn apart/have to give the police special priveldges if they are too powerful, this can be seen in the cases of Robert Mugabe and Pervez Musharraf. To be strong and to stay together without being invaded/having a coup in the middle east, you have to be harsh and cruel.



What would Saddam of set off his magical non-existent WMD if we hadn't invaded?, and in that case why didn't he set them off when his regime was falling in Baghdad. You are living in fairytale land.

The country is now a haven for terrorists, its even been admitted by the governments of Washington and London. Before the invasion there was no terrorist activities in Iraq because Saddam simply wouldn't allow any organisations (such as arab conservative terrorist groups) like Al Queda to flourish in Iraq as they were a threat to his regime.

In that case then, if you think overall NATO has done a good job in Iraq then i'm sure your up for invading the Peoples Republic of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and countless other states around the world so we can do a 'good job' there, but we know we won't because them countries have the capability to fight back whereas with Saddam we knew he didn't.

Iraq was on its knees because of the sanctions George H Bush put on the country, and considering all of that Saddam still managed to hold the country together and prevent it from plumetting into Civil War.

Invest in a country which is full to the rim with terrorism? - the only investment thats going on in Iraq is the oil fields being given contracts to members of the Bush Administration who happen to have close links with oil companies, George W & H Bush themselves (watch Farenheit 9/11 for a interesting insight). The workers/engineers are also mostly foreign and are driven to work in convoys guarded by the US military - you call this investment?, then again you say Margaret Thatcher ruined this country so you obviously have no understanding of the word.



What would Saddam of killed us all with his 45 minute magic bombs that happen to not exist?

Get real.

lmao I always try to get you in arguements and I always fail? hmmm, nty.
you don't think mr. hussain would've done any damage if we didn't step in, alright, I think you'd be hanged.

[-:Undertaker:-]

lmao I always try to get you in arguements and I always fail? hmmm, nty.
you don't think mr. hussain would've done any damage if we didn't step in, alright, I think you'd be hanged.

What are you talking about?
I suppose I and yourself don't have any idea what your talking about because not only do you reply to my informed and well based arguments with one liners, but you also don't even explain your own point.

How could Saddam Hussein of done any damage with his non-existent nuclear weapons?

You answer me that.

[Ardemax]

What are you talking about?
I suppose I and yourself don't have any idea what your talking about because not only do you reply to my informed and well based arguments with one liners, but you also don't even explain your own point.

How could Saddam Hussein of done any damage with his non-existent nuclear weapons?

You answer me that.

you don't need nuclear weapons to harm your own people.
stop thinking you're all it.