The Student Room Group
Search function.
Reply 2
Yeah thanks for your help.
Reply 3
no.
Reply 4
Yes.
No!
Reply 6
Why do you all think that?
Whatever you think yourself, there's no right or wrong answer so long as you can back up the answer!

Personally I said no in the last essay I wrote because the information which formed the basis of his decision to go in at that time was flawed (WMD...oooh) and had he known that he might have acted differently. Now he just looks like Bush's lapdog. You could argue though that he had no choice really as the USA is such a strong ally that if he had bucked against them at the time he couldn't have relied on their help in the future.

So long as you back it up the question is really one of personal opinion.
Reply 8
Usually I would assume that too, but I was specifically told to include as many opinions as possibe, so as to not have an essay based on my opinion.
But thanks :smile:
I think "general" public opinion is no that he wasn't right (hindsight is 20/20 right?). My uni has some cool archives on such things so I'll take a peek for you - if you still need the info?
Reply 10
Logically yes, legally no. So, yes, as logic from someone who has been voted into power by the people of this country has more sense than the legalities sometimes. No invasion =
- Sadaam still in power
- Still unsure at the possibility of WMD's
- Harbouring terrorists
- Iraqi people still living in fear of Sadaam's regime
- Iraqi people having no freedom whatsoever

The points against are always targeted to George Bush because of hidden agenda's, but in one clear sentence, we were right to invade Iraq, as we were Afghanistan. Iran would just make it jackpot.
Reply 11
Tarts_n_Vicars
I think "general" public opinion is no that he wasn't right (hindsight is 20/20 right?). My uni has some cool archives on such things so I'll take a peek for you - if you still need the info?


Thanks a lot! :smile:

Latest

Trending

Trending