Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Your views on the war please should the british goverment have helped the americans to invade the middle eastern country of iraq or should they have stayed out of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rocky)
    Your views on the war please should the british goverment have helped the americans to invade the middle eastern country of iraq or should they have stayed out of it.
    bomb dem all! haha
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rocky)
    Your views on the war please should the british goverment have helped the americans to invade the middle eastern country of iraq or should they have stayed out of it.
    No i dnt think the british should of stepped in, their was no call fer dem,americans hv one of the best navy force in the wrld and am sure they need da british?dats tony blair for u jst wnting some allies jst incase britian ever wnt to war?hw sad for him hes lost alot of support frm da people knw in britain!!!!!!!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bad boy)
    No i dnt think the british should of stepped in, their was no call fer dem,americans hv one of the best navy force in the wrld and am sure they need da british?dats tony blair for u jst wnting some allies jst incase britian ever wnt to war?hw sad for him hes lost alot of support frm da people knw in britain!!!!!!!!!
    please....no internet lango...

    i was glad that america got help from the british, else it would just be big powerful america in their lonely little world, not that i wanted to go to war! *stupid president bad president muttering*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curryADD)
    please....no internet lango...

    i was glad that america got help from the british, else it would just be big powerful america in their lonely little world, not that i wanted to go to war! *stupid president bad president muttering*
    Hi c you mucer ur a bit eh a rare kite if ye ask me lok tony blair was nuffin but bushs little puppet and now hes goin to pay for it with all of the mps questioning his judgement on wether or not he should have bobmed iraq becuz as u probably no they hav not yet found any wepons of mass destruction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Britain just want to become a powerful country like america, which i doubt that'll happen the way our government is run, there was no need for tony blair to step in like that, saddam hussain should have been removed at the time of the gulf war everyone left it too late, and now the war won't stop until he is found, lol what is it with the muslim dictators, once they go into hiding they're never found, god that must really mess the americans about, lol, god KILL BUSH.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I just think America are hypocrites. They put Saddam in power in the first place and gave him weapons. Oh and the CIA trained Osama Bin Laden, then three years later he uses that training to deadly effect! America only thinks in the short term, never the long term consequences
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    With the benefit of hindsight, it appears as though the original 'reason' for invading Iraq is a little shaky. However, Saddam was a cruel and violent dictator who needed to be removed from power. The middle east now a more stable place without him.

    So overall yes, I do agree with our country joining the collalition against Iraq. Now Iraqi people are free from his oppressive regime.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NikNak)
    With the benefit of hindsight, it appears as though the original 'reason' for invading Iraq is a little shaky. However, Saddam was a cruel and violent dictator who needed to be removed from power. The middle east now a more stable place without him.

    So overall yes, I do agree with our country joining the collalition against Iraq. Now Iraqi people are free from his oppressive regime.
    Politically, maybe.
    Economically, Iraq is in turmoil.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Politically, maybe.
    Economically, Iraq is in turmoil.
    economic turmoil? in what sense?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Saddam yes was an evil dictator. But!!-even though he's been removed from power, he hasn't been removed from Iraq where lets face it, he has a lot of people who do support him.

    AND!-the main reason for entering Iraq was the weapons of mass destruction and these were never found!
    Additionally, if you look at Iraq as a country, it's a very flat country and should Saddam bomb us or America, it would be very very stupid because a response from us would result in the entire population of Iraq eventually being wiped out. Saddam may be evil but he is not stupid!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just what right did the UK or America have to invade (not go to war with) Iraq??? Please tell me that. Just what civil liberties act were they enacting there? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Surely. No I don't think Britain was right. As someone has already pointed out, Tony Blair has lost a lot of support because of it. Right up to the point where I got to see a televised speech from him about moving onwards and upwards etc. Granted Saddam was a man who needed to be removed from power, but there were surely other ways to go about it. I wonder what would happen if an outside interest were to attempt influencing the US... Wait a second. Two towers came down to earth in what was undoubtedly a vile and callow attempt, but the message was clear. Was this treated as fair? No it certainly wasn't. So off goes George Dubya on his crusade, and while he is at it he pulls the wheel over to finish off what his daddy couldn't do previously. I'll shut up now, but the answer is no, a flat out NO. Britain should have played no part in such an atrocious act by a certifiable fool.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Just what right did the UK or America have to invade (not go to war with) Iraq???Please tell me that. Just what civil liberties act were they enacting there?
    national security.

    What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Surely. No I don't think Britain was right. As someone has already pointed out, Tony Blair has lost a lot of support because of it.
    and? although, the majority of the public supported the decision to remove Saddam.

    Granted Saddam was a man who needed to be removed from power, but there were surely other ways to go about it.
    if you had followed the actions and events regarding Saddam and the international community for the last 12years, you would know the answer to this question is no there werent.

    I wonder what would happen if an outside interest were to attempt influencing the US... Wait a second.
    sorry, i cant make sense of that.

    Two towers came down to earth in what was undoubtedly a vile and callow attempt,
    act. it happened.

    but the message was clear.
    yes, "we hate the americans, the western world and non believers, and will not stop until we destroy you all."this has subsequently been extended to australia, the british, europe and anyone else in the developed democratic world.

    Was this treated as fair? No it certainly wasn't.
    treated as fair? what?

    So off goes George Dubya on his crusade,
    be very careful with your choice of words.

    and while he is at it he pulls the wheel over to finish off what his daddy couldn't do previously.
    wheel? are you english speaking?

    I'll shut up now, but the answer is no, a flat out NO. Britain should have played no part in such an atrocious act by a certifiable fool.
    are you suggesting the British were involved in 9/11? disgusting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I should definitely be a little more careful with my words. Let me attempt to clarify.
    I've followed it over the last 8 years, read up on a bit more dating back past the 12 years. Simply 12 years ago I was 10 years old. I hate to say it, but assassination, or perhaps a funded military coup would have done wonders. It isn't as though this would be new ground for America.
    Uhmm, saying it was George W. Bush's crusade is about all I can feasibly come up with at this time. Related directly to the 'crusades' as he was indeed trying to rid the world of something.
    Britain having a part in 9/11??? Not a chance, they didn't have anything to do with it. What I meant by atrocious act was the invasion of Iraq. Not the attack on the twin towers.
    "act. it happened." Yes, the act of the attack happened. No, the message wasn't received. Well it was and it wasn't. One year after the attack, a banner was put on a building overlooking the site reading "We will never forget" The American's weren't supposed to forget, yet they are only looking at the blindingly obvious. Roughly 5000 innocent people were killed because some twit in Afghanistan said so. Utterly horrible, but the point that such an act could be achieved, and would be/has been achieved, is something many, many Americans seem to miss. Even now I think I've not chosen the right words and am thinking I should delete all this. But I'll wait and see I guess. Hope this helps, as I'm not justifying any of these peoples actions. Not my place, or belief to do so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Uhmm, saying it was George W. Bush's crusade is about all I can feasibly come up with at this time. Related directly to the 'crusades' as he was indeed trying to rid the world of something.
    erm, but that was not the motivation behind the European crusades in the middle ages. hence, my call to choose your words carefully.

    Britain having a part in 9/11??? Not a chance, they didn't have anything to do with it. What I meant by atrocious act was the invasion of Iraq.
    atrocious? in what way?

    Not the attack on the twin towers.
    "act. it happened." Yes, the act of the attack happened. No, the message wasn't received. Well it was and it wasn't. One year after the attack, a banner was put on a building overlooking the site reading "We will never forget" The American's weren't supposed to forget, yet they are only looking at the blindingly obvious. Roughly 5000 innocent people were killed because some twit in Afghanistan said so. Utterly horrible, but the point that such an act could be achieved, and would be/has been achieved, is something many, many Americans seem to miss. Even now I think I've not chosen the right words and am thinking I should delete all this. But I'll wait and see I guess. Hope this helps, as I'm not justifying any of these peoples actions. Not my place, or belief to do so.
    i dont really understand any of this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Gotcha as far as choosing words in regard to 'crusades'.
    Atrocious in that all the ideals Bush was fighting for, were just thrown out by the Americans as soon as they rolled across the border. Other than that, I'm not digging a deep hole for myself. Thanks for the differing view though. Not often one comes across something put so well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Atrocious in that all the ideals Bush was fighting for, were just thrown out by the Americans as soon as they rolled across the border.
    such as?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    such as?
    Basic freedoms. Even if the way of life in Iraq is improving now, Bush's invasion certainly made a hard life much harder for people living in Iraq. The man simply wanted to get in there and finish what his father failed to do. Using any excuse, and people died for that. Many people died for that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Basic freedoms. Even if the way of life in Iraq is improving now, Bush's invasion certainly made a hard life much harder for people living in Iraq. The man simply wanted to get in there and finish what his father failed to do. Using any excuse, and people died for that. Many people died for that.
    so Iraqis have less freedom now than they did under Saddam? so you dont mean that water and power supplies are above those back at the beginning of the year, schools are open, iraqi banks are now able to provide private loans to small businesses aswell as cooperate with banks abroad, the media sector has rocketed as has private trade. there are no more public executions, they have a governing council aswell as the promise of democratic constitution and the oil sector is growing again, and more importantly, they are not living under a dictatorship or the threat of international sanctions.they can speak their mind, women dont live in fear and the country is not run by a ruthless mob of criminals. the list goes on..

    a threat to national security and interests and that of its allies is 'any excuse' for america?

    5-7,000 civilian casualities is regrettable, but relatively small, in the context of similar conflicts and the terror regime of Saddam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    so Iraqis have less freedom now than they did under Saddam? so you dont mean that water and power supplies are above those back at the beginning of the year, schools are open, iraqi banks are now able to provide private loans to small businesses aswell as cooperate with banks abroad, the media sector has rocketed as has private trade. there are no more public executions, they have a governing council aswell as the promise of democratic constitution and the oil sector is growing again, and more importantly, they are not living under a dictatorship or the threat of international sanctions.they can speak their mind, women dont live in fear and the country is not run by a ruthless mob of criminals. the list goes on..

    a threat to national security and interests and that of its allies is 'any excuse' for america?

    5-7,000 civilian casualities is regrettable, but relatively small, in the context of similar conflicts and the terror regime of Saddam.
    I see. Now, just how long will that last? Will it be like every other American intervention where the situation returns to, or becomes worse than before? I sincerely hope not, yet history repeats itself as they say. Some people just can't see the forest for the trees at times.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.