Were we right to go to war with Iraq? [ENDS 14/02/2010]

[Nixt]

Did the British Government make the right decision in going to war with Iraq?

Ends 14 / 02 / 2010

With the Iraq inquiry in full swing, the decision to deploy British soldiers to Iraq has once again been brought into question. No WMDs were ever found, and many claim this was just a pretence for the Americans and British to go in and claim oil to sustain their supplies for years to come. Nevertheless, Hussein was a brutal dictator who undoubtedly posed a threat to his people and the world. In order to answer this question, one must look at the mistakes the government has made but also the positives this war has had on the country itself.

Discuss!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Did the British Government make the right decision in going to war with Iraq?

Ends 14 / 02 / 2010

With the Iraq inquiry in full swing, the decision to deploy British soldiers to Iraq has once again been brought into question. No WMDs were ever found, and many claim this was just a pretence for the Americans and British to go in and claim oil to sustain their supplies for years to come. Nevertheless, Hussein was a brutal dictator who undoubtedly posed a threat to his people and the world. In order to answer this question, one must look at the mistakes the government has made but also the positives this war has had on the country itself.

Discuss!

What threat!? - I keep seeing people on this forum saying Hussein was a threat to the world, would somebody like to explain how Saddam Hussein was a threat with his imaginary weapons of mass destruction?

Saddam Hussein posed no threat to his own people or the world, if we are to argue that removing him was a good cause then when are we going to invade the far more worse nations of Iran, China, Zimbabwe and North Korea - of which three of them have the capability (or indeed have) to create and use weapons of mass destruction. The fact is we won't, because we were nothing but utter bullies. All them countries I mentioned could give us a smack in the face back, hence why we refuse to take any action over them. That, leads us to the conclusion that the war was only merely for oil of which Tony Blair has made millions from and the companies that the Bush family are involved with have also made millions from.

The Ba'ath regime had no connection with 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld went to the CIA the day after 9/11 and told the director 'Iraq, Saddam get back to me' despite the director raising the point that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, although that didn't seem to bother the Bush administration.

[Black_Apalachi]

This might not be a very good response because I'm so bored the subject but unless someone posts after me explaining the advantages we gained from it, I have to say no, they did not make the right decision.

If it was all about oil, then I would have much rathered them go, 'Yo Iraq, giz sum ov ya oyal' and if Iraq said no, then invade. Might look bad but it's better than this piss poor attempt at covering it up.

[ifuseekamy]

It was obviously for oil. There were no WMD or they wouldn't have gone to war. It was just a situation of 'right time right place' following 9/11 that allowed Bush and co. to declare war.

[22andy2231]

i Think that we should not have gone to war with iraq. What have we gained from joining?? deaths??

it was all simply just a waste of time. While our soldiers are out there fighting the people who decideded to go to war are happy sitting on their asses doing nothing (excuse my language)

but serously i feel that we could have saves hundreds of lives by just minding our own business. Theres a saying that goes something like. Fight your own battles and not drag others into it. I agree with this saying as it makes a very good point

[RedStratocas]

nah, seeing as the we went in under false pretenses and couldnt find a legitimate reason to stay.

[FlyingJesus]

Blair himself admitted that it was the wrong thing to do, so for the British among us this is a kinda void debate.