[Skeppy]

I ask this because society has been led to believe that british troops in iraq are fighting for our country and we should be greatful they are killing other people.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC Wildfire S A510e

[UPPSY]

No they have oil and american wants it, also america needs to get coke and mcdonalds everywhere so they can own everything. Uk generally snivels off after America and does what it says either out of not wanting to be democrasized or out of fear. Also they need to use the weapons up and test new ones on somebody. They (the mythical They) also get the public to back propaganda/deference campaigns like Help for Heros. The daily red top helps by telling the masses that this is good.

Always remember to read what the news story is not telling you

[Rational Thinker]

The fact that Sadam Hussein set fire to the Kuwait Oil fields alone justifies going into Iraq. He also could have had Weapons of mass destruction so was right to stop him. To the rest of you moral cowards have this.

[Risserd]

(Original post by UPPSY)
No they have oil and american wants it, also america needs to get coke and mcdonalds everywhere so they can own everything. Uk generally snivels off after America and does what it says either out of not wanting to be democrasized or out of fear. Also they need to use the weapons up and test new ones on somebody. They (the mythical They) also get the public to back propaganda/deference campaigns like Help for Heros. The daily red top helps by telling the masses that this is good.

Always remember to read what the news story is not telling you

Kinda strange That America did not benefit at all from iraqi oil then dont you think?

[Huz]

(Original post by Skeppy)
I ask this because society has been led to believe that british troops in iraq are fighting for our country and we should be greatful they are killing other people.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC Wildfire S A510e

They're fighting terrorists.

[Steezy]

Who knows what the real agenda is/was. Maybe we'll find out in 50 years when it's too late to punish anyone for it.

[RyanT]

(Original post by Steezy)
Who knows what the real agenda is/was. Maybe we'll find out in 50 years when it's too late to punish anyone for it.

+1

The oil argument is just bull****, they were selling it to us anyway. You have to have the IQ of a slug to believe that's why we went there.

Imagine it has more to do with the geostrategic position of Iraq. It's the hinge that joins together the middle east, which itself is the pivot point of the Eurasian landmass. Who rules Eurasia rules the world.

It's amusing to see people give the Chinese credit for planning ahead in Africa but utterly fail to realise when western countries are playing exactly the same game. Don't forget that Russia was resurgent at the time of the invasion. Russia itself is very close to being hegemon of Eurasia by virtue of its size and position. It would not take much expansion of Russia to lock the Americans out, they did it before with a nearly bankrupt warsaw pact allying them.

[Squidgyness]

Look, lets face it Saddam Hussein was not a nice man. People seem to have it in their heads that he was a great guy, I don't know why, but in the rush to tarnish USA and UK they seem to skate past the atrocities he himself committed. Go tell a Kurd that Saddam was a victim of aggression and see what their response is. We did the world a favour, and to suggest anything less is folly. Most of the civilians killed were either being used as human shields or killed in suicide attacks, yes some were killed by our fire, but that happens in every war. Also in every war the winner gains some material benefit, it's just the natural consequences. Whether that material benefit was the main motivation, who knows.

The old childish argument of "IT WAS OIL! HURR DURR!" just doesn't make sense. It was more likely a number of reasons coming together. Lets not forget he invaded Kuwait in 1991, so there was nothing to say that he couldn't support terrorists if he wanted to. In that war he also used SCUD missiles, whilst the Kurds were gassed by chemical warfare. Saddam was not this little fellow with an AK-47, he had the services of an enitire nation, so the threat of WMD's or other dangerous weapons was a serious one, even if it didn't pan out.

But I'm sure people on TSR are perfectly willing to overlook the sins of one side to vilify the other. Keyboard warriors to the end...

[@Sam]

(Original post by Skeppy)
I ask this because society has been led to believe that british troops in iraq are fighting for our country and we should be greatful they are killing other people.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC Wildfire S A510e

I am fairly sure that there are no British troops actively fighting in Iraq, nor Americans now too would they have you believe.

The principle behind it is that they have been sent on behalf of the democratically elected government of this country to represent us and have taken action accordingly. Whether or not we as individuals believe it was right is irrelevant. When they were deployed the country, through the electoral ballot in 2001 (After Tony had already shown his interventionist streak), supported the policy that we needed to invade Iraq to prevent what was the fear of Weapons of Mass Destruction and thus soldiers put themselves on the line to follow that request.

We sent them there believing that that was them defending us, they therefore died serving us and we should commemorate that sacrifice. The concept of them killing people is fairly irrelevant, the vast majority soldiers would love to do their job without having to kill people but unfortunately unless you are fighting the French they are unlikely to surrender at first sight. Conflict and killing is a necessary component of how the world works and we should recognise that.

[AntisthenesDogger]

He was bat **** mad.

Edit; though I'd actually contribute to the tread.

I have no doubt that, though yes contribution in our effort to declare war against Hussein is his systematic genocide of the Kurdish people, and the despot esque conditions he imposed on anyone par Shiites that were in government, we also had an ulterior motive.

The motive was likely the strategic position of Iraq in the Middle east, It's a powerful state and held key positions of resources, if we could have a "West" friendly government installed, it would act as a buffer to the other bat **** mad states in the Middle east. Which is kind of all of them.

At the end of the day, whether they had an ulterior motive, us defeating Hussein stopped the victimization of an entire ethnic group and the inevitable demise of them. Works for me.

[Drewski]

(Original post by Skeppy)
I ask this because society has been led to believe that british troops in iraq are fighting for our country and we should be greatful they are killing other people.

Stop using present tense.

UK Forces ended combat operations in Iraq in March 2009 as reported here.
UK Forces left Iraq for good in 2011 after 3 years of trainign the Iraqi Navy as reported here.

If you want to have a coherent debate, use coherent facts and information.

[rawkus]

(Original post by Risserd)
Kinda strange That America did not benefit at all from iraqi oil then dont you think?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/bu...pagewanted=all

literally the first result in google and its from an American publication. There is a plethora of freely available information that proves your statement wrong. Even from the very beginning of the invasion, some figures made a very large amount of $$$$.

(Original post by Rational Thinker)
The fact that Sadam Hussein set fire to the Kuwait Oil fields alone justifies going into Iraq. He also could have had Weapons of mass destruction so was right to stop him. To the rest of you moral cowards have this.

But he didn't. And not only did he not, even prior to this many intelligence reports said it was very unlikely that he possessed the scary weapons that Bush and Blair did. And even if he had been able to, why would a leader of a state ravished by years of sanctions and military strikes have decided to launch such a weapon at America knowing that it would end in not only his but his country's obliteration?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Rational Thinker)
The fact that Sadam Hussein set fire to the Kuwait Oil fields alone justifies going into Iraq.

He set fire to the Kuwait oil fields 12 years before the invasion.

He also could have had Weapons of mass destruction so was right to stop him. To the rest of you moral cowards have this.

Britain and the US, along with six other countries (one of which is North Korea) openly admit to having nuclear weapons, yet no-one's saying it would be OK for other countries to invade us.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Risserd)
Kinda strange That America did not benefit at all from iraqi oil then dont you think?

Of course they benefited from it. That most of the oil contracts went to Russian and Chinese rather than American companies doesn't mean the US didn't benefit - they've still controlled who got the oil. They may not be best buds with Russia or China, but the crucial consequence was that it kept Iraq in their place as far as US imperial ambitions are concerned.

[Rational Thinker]

(Original post by Squidgyness)
Look, lets face it Saddam Hussein was not a nice man. People seem to have it in their heads that he was a great guy, I don't know why, but in the rush to tarnish USA and UK they seem to skate past the atrocities he himself committed. Go tell a Kurd that Saddam was a victim of aggression and see what their response is. We did the world a favour, and to suggest anything less is folly. Most of the civilians killed were either being used as human shields or killed in suicide attacks, yes some were killed by our fire, but that happens in every war. Also in every war the winner gains some material benefit, it's just the natural consequences. Whether that material benefit was the main motivation, who knows.

The old childish argument of "IT WAS OIL! HURR DURR!" just doesn't make sense. It was more likely a number of reasons coming together. Lets not forget he invaded Kuwait in 1991, so there was nothing to say that he couldn't support terrorists if he wanted to. In that war he also used SCUD missiles, whilst the Kurds were gassed by chemical warfare. Saddam was not this little fellow with an AK-47, he had the services of an enitire nation, so the threat of WMD's or other dangerous weapons was a serious one, even if it didn't pan out.

But I'm sure people on TSR are perfectly willing to overlook the sins of one side to vilify the other. Keyboard warriors to the end...

I agree well said.

[A Mysterious Lord]

It was an illegal war by any measure.

[Rational Thinker]

(Original post by anarchism101)
He set fire to the Kuwait oil fields 12 years before the invasion.
In the end everyone pays for their crimes. Personally I would have had Sadam hung drawn and quartered for the Kuwait Oil fields. As someone has pointed out Sick Sadam also used chemical weapons.


Britain and the US, along with six other countries (one of which is North Korea) openly admit to having nuclear weapons, yet no-one's saying it would be OK for other countries to invade us.

I know and it is wrong for us to no one should have them. Certainly new countries should be stopped from getting them. Thats why Israel is stopping Iran with its mad dictator from acquiring them.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by Skeppy)
I ask this because society has been led to believe that british troops in iraq are fighting for our country and we should be greatful they are killing other people.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC Wildfire S A510e

Hello Skeppy,

Sad to say, the USA is dealing with the same issue. I personally do not believe that Iraq threatened the USA. I think it was a power struggle issue between the Bush family and Saddam Hussein, and yeah I think sadly oil was involved in the decision to invade Iraq.

It was wrong of my country to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. The best way to protect one's country is defense. Being on the offense is just a good way to create more enemies and hurt many innocent people.

I wish the USA had just strengthened our borders and security and screened better the people who want to enter the USA after 9/11, which is indeed happening, but there was no good reason to go to another country and kill people there.


Don't get me wrong. I very much appreciate veterans and the American soldiers fighting to protect the USA. There is a right and wrong way to do that however, and American soldiers for the most part just follow orders. Sad to say, many of those orders were wrong, in my opinion, because innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq have had their homes and lives destroyed. I don't believe in destroying in other countries the lives and homes of people in order to protect our own. They are people too and deserve their lives and homes same as Americans do.

If people come and attack the USA, then it is understandable to fight back and defend ones' country. However, 9/11 was done by a group of extremists from different countries, predominately from Saudi Arabia who the USA did not attack. It was not correct to attack a country for what a group of extremists did.

As for the alleged weapons of mass destruction, to me that is hypocritical of my country. I know the USA has many weapons of mass destruction. It is unfair to not allow other countries the same privilege and go so far as even kill their people in order to prevent them from acquiring them. It shows fear. Fear normally has a reason behind it.

Attacking in order to prevent other countries from acquiring what the USA already has shows that the USA is afraid that someday another country will use the same kind of weapons that the USA already has against the USA. The idea of "the end justifies the means" is the logic behind attacking first. However, that is not correct in my opinion, because it actually multiplies enemies out of the survivors of people who lost their loved ones. It makes a huge mess that might eventually more negatively affect the USA than simply allowing other nations to acquire what the USA already has.

What do you think?

[internetguru]

I find it strange that British people seem so much more pro war than the people of the US. In the US plenty of people criticise this stuff but in the UK no you can't do that because we need to save the world.

[Rational Thinker]

(Original post by internetguru)
I find it strange that British people seem so much more pro war than the people of the US. In the US plenty of people criticise this stuff but in the UK no you can't do that because we need to save the world.

Well yes when some mad **** is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction they should be stopped.