[SnoochToTheBooch]

nobody really threatens the UK because the UK has nukes, and could flatten any country if push came to shove.

[Patriot Rich]

As said earlier believing the argument that it was for oil puts you on the same intelligence level as George Galloway, that is to say, slightly above a dead body.

If we want oil we can just buy the damn stuff. We can't just go to Iraq and start pumping oil for free, someone would notice pretty quickly. Also if we were taking oil why are we in such a rush to leave? It's not like we could have pumped much in the few years of relative stability we had there, and there's no telling what will happen in the future. It's the same story when people say we intervened in Libya for oil. If we really wanted the stable climate required for high levels of oil production we'd have helped Gadaffi bomb the rebels into submission, Libyan production is far below peak levels at the moment thanks to the drawn out war.

War is also a pricey business, billions and billions of dollars. Any financial benefit simply wouldn't cover it.

[Patriot Rich]

(Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
nobody really threatens the UK because the UK has nukes, and could flatten any country if push came to shove.

The USA, Russia, France and possibly China have more nuclear warheads than we do. Fancy trying to flatten them?

[SnoochToTheBooch]

(Original post by Patriot Rich)
The USA, Russia, France and possibly China have more nuclear warheads than we do. Fancy trying to flatten them?

you know what I mean, the likes of iraq, on the far side of the world with no nukes. They knew iraq had no WMD's and they went to war anyway.

[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.

When a madperson is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, they must be stopped.

[boba]

(Original post by Patriot Rich)
The USA, Russia, France and possibly China have more nuclear warheads than we do. Fancy trying to flatten them?

we could flatten them, not in the sense that we could win a war with them but in the sense that everyone would loose and die. It would just be a cold war situation all over again because we all know that we could completely flatten each other.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
It was an illegal war by any measure.

No, it wasn't. Only idiots make statements like this. You aren't a lawyer or a scholar of international law. There's been no court case of the incident. Thus, have no grounds to make such a statement.

Here's a actual article from someone who is a scholar of international law. http://www.asil.org/insigh92.cfm The conclusion they came to = you can make theoretical arguments back and fourth all you like for both pro-war and anti-war.

Argue against it on moral grounds but don't bring up legality unless you're a judge or there's been a court case.

[Skeppy]

(Original post by Drewski)
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.

LOL the bbc hahaaa you expect to be taken serious posting links from the bbc? The main tool used by the government to tell people lies lol if the bbc told you the sky was yellow and the sun was blue everyone would think it was true because ignorance is a plauge that has taken 90% of the uk. The bbc is to blame for people thinking all muslims are terrorists because thats how they display it. Rather than stating it is a small percentage. Its like saying all white people are phedophiles as im sure there are more white phedophiles than islamic terroists.

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

[Skeppy]

Just to add im not muslim so think again son

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

[Drewski]

(Original post by Skeppy)
LOL the bbc hahaaa you expect to be taken serious posting links from the bbc? The main tool used by the government to tell people lies lol if the bbc told you the sky was yellow and the sun was blue everyone would think it was true because ignorance is a plauge that has taken 90% of the uk. The bbc is to blame for people thinking all muslims are terrorists because thats how they display it. Rather than stating it is a small percentage. Its like saying all white people are phedophiles as im sure there are more white phedophiles than islamic terroists.

1 - stop trolling
2 - I was in the Forces and know the information reported to be entirely true, so stfu.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Rational Thinker)
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.

Israel is not even a signatory to the NPT, the treaty created to stop 'new countries' getting nukes. One of those 'new countries' that have nukes is Israel.

Frankly, I don't see why, unless the currently nuclear states show signs of disarming, other countries shouldn't seek nukes to defend themselves.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Israel is not even a signatory to the NPT, the treaty created to stop 'new countries' getting nukes. One of those 'new countries' that have nukes is Israel.

Frankly, I don't see why, unless the currently nuclear states show signs of disarming, other countries shouldn't seek nukes to defend themselves.

Well maybe they should, but that doesn't mean it's in our best interests to let them. For some reason people seem to have it in their head that our foreign policy should be based on some bizarre idea of 'fairness' that puts nutters with no democratic accountability and thus a huge incentive to use war and threats as a political stabilizer (it's a pretty standard technique - everyone from Nazi Germany to North Korea, to Argentina in '82 to Argentina now use sabre rattling as a way of distracting people from domestic woes) on the same plinth as countries like the US and the UK. The world isn't split into good people and bad people, but that doesn't mean everyone's equal - there are better people and there are worse people, and our foreign policy should be about ensuring the best outcome for the UK (which, as globalisation continues and with our capitalist economy, is generally towards that of peace and global stability, ie we're past the era of invading Spain to nick its gold), not that the international community is some bizarrely multi-cultural school sports day where everyone gets a medal at the end of it.

Whether or not we have nukes has more-or-less nothing to do with whether or not we should want other people to have them. When we declare that Iraq was invaded because we believed he had WMD's, we weren't saying "No one should have WMD's", we were saying "This fruitcake shouldn't have WMDs". Who elected us arbitrators of the world? No one. But we enjoy greater freedoms and rights in this country than the majority of countries out there, so if anyone's going to police the world - and let's be honest, there will always be someone policing the world - I'd rather it was us. Liberalism won a long time ago, and despotic ********s going into villages on a toyota pickup truck with a .50 calibre machine gun, killing all the adults and abducting the children into a militia can go and do one if they don't like it. Liberalism won, and if it has to be delivered down the barrel of an AC-130 gun ship, so be it.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Well maybe they should, but that doesn't mean it's in our best interests to let them. For some reason people seem to have it in their head that our foreign policy should be based on some bizarre idea of 'fairness' that puts nutters with no democratic accountability and thus a huge incentive to use war and threats as a political stabilizer (it's a pretty standard technique - everyone from Nazi Germany to North Korea, to Argentina in '82 to Argentina now use sabre rattling as a way of distracting people from domestic woes) on the same plinth as countries like the US and the UK. The world isn't split into good people and bad people, but that doesn't mean everyone's equal - there are better people and there are worse people, and our foreign policy should be about ensuring the best outcome for the UK (which, as globalisation continues and with our capitalist economy, is generally towards that of peace and global stability, ie we're past the era of invading Spain to nick its gold), not that the international community is some bizarrely multi-cultural school sports day where everyone gets a medal at the end of it.

Whether or not we have nukes has more-or-less nothing to do with whether or not we should want other people to have them. When we declare that Iraq was invaded because we believed he had WMD's, we weren't saying "No one should have WMD's", we were saying "This fruitcake shouldn't have WMDs". Who elected us arbitrators of the world? No one. But we enjoy greater freedoms and rights in this country than the majority of countries out there, so if anyone's going to police the world - and let's be honest, there will always be someone policing the world - I'd rather it was us. Liberalism won a long time ago, and despotic ********s going into villages on a toyota pickup truck with a .50 calibre machine gun, killing all the adults and abducting the children into a militia can go and do one if they don't like it. Liberalism won, and if it has to be delivered down the barrel of an AC-130 gun ship, so be it.

So what is 'the best outcome for the UK'? I don't see how having to spend obscene amounts on wars through taxes is beneficial to the average British person. And no, there hasn't always been someone 'policing the world' - it's just the US (with NATO) because the US is the first real global empire.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by anarchism101)
So what is 'the best outcome for the UK'? I don't see how having to spend obscene amounts on wars through taxes is beneficial to the average British person. And no, there hasn't always been someone 'policing the world' - it's just the US (with NATO) because the US is the first real global empire.

Ok, I should have been clearer - there's always been someone policing their known world. So the Roman's policed the world that they were aware of, the mongols "policed" the world that they were aware of etc. It might not have been global, but in the area that it affected it may as well have been.

And I don't know what the best outcome for the UK is. My post there wasn't defending the idea that we should always intervene at all times - it was that we should intervene if it does offer the 'best outcome for the UK'. If the best outcome for the UK (taking into account, as you say, the cost and manpower etc) then we shouldn't. Keeping the option of intervening on the table doesn't mean you ever use it - I just have no moral qualms to us doing so, just practical.

[Teofilo]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Well maybe they should, but that doesn't mean it's in our best interests to let them. For some reason people seem to have it in their head that our foreign policy should be based on some bizarre idea of 'fairness' that puts nutters with no democratic accountability and thus a huge incentive to use war and threats as a political stabilizer (it's a pretty standard technique - everyone from Nazi Germany to North Korea, to Argentina in '82 to Argentina now use sabre rattling as a way of distracting people from domestic woes) on the same plinth as countries like the US and the UK.

Saddam Hussein clearly wasn't a nice guy or anything close to it (he was a butcher). That does not automatically mean that he was a 'lunatic' or a 'nutter' or anything close to it though.

Assuming autocratic leaders to be irrational actors seems to have become something of a fallback option for neoconservatives in recent years, when in reality there is little or no evidence to suggest that Hussein or the Baathist ever acted, or intended to act, irrationally - for all his blustery rhetoric.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by Teofilo)
Saddam Hussein clearly wasn't a nice guy or anything close to it (he was a butcher). That does not automatically mean that he was a 'lunatic' or a 'nutter' or anything close to it though.

Assuming autocratic leaders to be irrational actors seems to have become something of a fallback option for neoconservatives in recent years, when in reality there is little or no evidence to suggest that Hussein or the Baathist ever acted, or intended to act, irrationally - for all his blustery rhetoric.

Forgive me - you're absolutely correct, it's just me being unclear. He was clearly rational, I was just using those terms as general negative statements, which probably isn't a good idea. You're right, but I don't think anyone does really think they're irrational. There are few like that, and even then they tend not to be irrational so much as... jumpy. Forced to greater and greater extremes by circumstance, etc, in order to retain power.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Ok, I should have been clearer - there's always been someone policing their known world. So the Roman's policed the world that they were aware of, the mongols "policed" the world that they were aware of etc. It might not have been global, but in the area that it affected it may as well have been.

The Romans and Mongols policed their own empires and were pretty explicit about it. That's what the US and NATO do too but obviously they try to hide it with various excuses.

And I don't know what the best outcome for the UK is. My post there wasn't defending the idea that we should always intervene at all times - it was that we should intervene if it does offer the 'best outcome for the UK'. If the best outcome for the UK (taking into account, as you say, the cost and manpower etc) then we shouldn't. Keeping the option of intervening on the table doesn't mean you ever use it - I just have no moral qualms to us doing so, just practical.

So, given the topic of this thread, do you think that invading Iraq provided the 'best outcome'? If so, why?

[M4LLY]

No, if they do threaten anyone i'd imagine the US would be first in line

[Spaz Man]

Of course not.

[King Kebab]

The war had absolutely nothing to do with oil.

We could have made a deal with Saddam like President Chirac of France did without costing us hundreds of lives. The oil argument has no credibility.