Turn on thread page Beta

War On Iraq , Right Or Wrong? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think the situation in Iraq could be resolved by 'talking'. IMO something did need to be done but I think it's been rushed (or, you could say 'Bushed'! - does he deserve a capital letter??), and has been done very clumsily.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    To get an answer to this thread, just look at one of the millions of other threads on the topic, im quite sick of it myself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The invasion of Iraq was one of the most imbecile, wicked and unjustified acts in history. The least-bad thing the invaders should do is withdraw their armies at once, apologise grovellingly and pay an indemnity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    The invasion of Iraq was one of the most imbecile, wicked and unjustified acts in history. The least-bad thing the invaders should do is withdraw their armies at once, apologise grovellingly and pay an indemnity.
    hahaha...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    hahaha...
    you know... this is going to go on forever...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Everdawn)
    you know... this is going to go on forever...
    what, moronic anti-war posts or my laughter?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    war posts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    what, moronic anti-war posts or my laughter?
    How was that even a war? I know the shortest war in history only went for about an hour, but more people were killed in that than the Iraq debacle in terms of percentages. Bush's invasion of Iraq is more akin to an 18yr old fighting an 8yr old, and saying the 8yr old has a gun of mass destruction. If the 8yr old did, then the 18yr old surely would have been beaten. Otherwise the result would be exactly the same. A bully decided to pick a victim and then went to town on them. Pathetic, and certainly not right. If anyone can argue that intelligently, please do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The invasion of Iraq was one of the most imbecile, wicked and unjustified acts in history. The least-bad thing the invaders should do is withdraw their armies at once, apologise grovellingly and pay an indemnity.
    The claimed reason for the invasion was that Iraq had WMDs which could be deployed in 45 minutes and would threaten neighbouring countries, and would have nuclear weapons in a few years. It turned out this was completely untrue and US and British intelligence knew it was untrue.
    It was claimed that Saddam was assisting Al-qaeda and other muslim fanatics. Again, completely untrue and known to be untrue. Muslim fanatics, Iraqi and othewise seem to be doing pretty well now.
    It was claimed that the Iraqi infrastructure and industries would quickly be restored. Again, completely untrue. There seems to have been no plans whatsoever for what do do when the Iraqi army was destroyed.
    It was claimed that most Iraqis would welcome the invasion and occupation. Even if this might have been true, the behaviour of the occupiers has made it untrue now.
    All of these claims were made without evidence to support them, and when intelligence services had evidence that they were not true. Either Messrs Bush and Blair invaded on the basis of what they knew to be untruths, or they are so stupid that they invaded Iraq entirely on the basis of blind faith in what they knew to be true, without needing evidence o support it.
    Even if you take the cynical view that it was an invasion carried out to gain control of Iraq and it's oil-fields and to enable US firms to make money from rebuilding Iraq, it is imbecile. The people that made peace with Ghadaffy could make peace with anyone. The way to exploit iraq would have been simple. Explain that Saddam had turned over a new leaf, like Ghadaffy, and was a nice chap now. Let him take his cut and the oil companies get the rest. Instead they have replaced Saddam and the Baath party with a bunch of people just as unpopular, but a lot less competent as criminals.
    The only reason that makes sense is Bush's remark "He tried to kill my father." Every ethic encourages respect for your parents, but it is not a good basis for a foreign policy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Weejimmie: You finish up with the key concept on the invasion of Iraq. "He tried to kill my father"
    Well done, as this is almost certainly the precise reason the Bush administration chose to invade Iraq. Think about it people. The 9/11 attacks come from what is arguably the 'Middle East', Iraq is in that area also. Iraq also happens to be headed by a man who had already thwarted George Dubya Bush's father roughly a decade before. Of course it was on Dubya's agenda, Saddam humiliated George Snr, and George Jnr was going to use any excuse to get some revenge. Look at the debacle after the none too surprising United States victory. The only aim was a little bit of old fashioned revenge, the rest of it could hardly be viewed as a well thought out process. It should have been over with months ago. Pathetic is about the only thing I can say about the whole Iraq issue.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Weejimmie: You finish up with the key concept on the invasion of Iraq. "He tried to kill my father"
    Well done, as this is almost certainly the precise reason the Bush administration chose to invade Iraq. Think about it people. The 9/11 attacks come from what is arguably the 'Middle East', Iraq is in that area also. Iraq also happens to be headed by a man who had already thwarted George Dubya Bush's father roughly a decade before. Of course it was on Dubya's agenda, Saddam humiliated George Snr, and George Jnr was going to use any excuse to get some revenge. Look at the debacle after the none too surprising United States victory. The only aim was a little bit of old fashioned revenge, the rest of it could hardly be viewed as a well thought out process. It should have been over with months ago. Pathetic is about the only thing I can say about the whole Iraq issue.
    How was George Snr "thwarted"? If I remember correctly he kicked the Iraqi army out of Kuwait in about 4 months and could easily have marched on to Baghdad had he so desired.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    How was George Snr "thwarted"? If I remember correctly he kicked the Iraqi army out of Kuwait in about 4 months and could easily have marched on to Baghdad had he so desired.
    Because that little escapade lost him the following election, and the UN wouldn't allow him to march on Baghdad. Saddam was sitting pretty, while George Bush was humiliated.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    At the time i think Bush and Blair truely believed that Iraq was a threat. It had failed to co-operate with the UN over weapons inspections and recent investigations have revealed large scale corruption in the oil for food programme which led to large amounts of funds being diverted into top officals pockets rather than going to the people of Iraq. On top of this Sadam had no respect for human rights.

    However the main problem with the war has been the execution. It was poorly plained and justified to the public. The plaining was poor in the fact that the US had no plans for dealing with the looting that followed sadams fall. From the justification side the claims that Iraq was a threat to us which was used to, was poor as we can see from the lack of evidence of WMDs. On top of this the 45 minute claim just took the piss.

    The problem is not so much whether the war was justified it was why action hasnt been taken with regards to other countires who have broken UN resolutions. Eg. Israel, Zimbarwae (sorry about the spelling) and North Korea. This has cast doubts on what other reasons there might of been for the war such as oil and the US seeking to bulid a democratic islamic state to attempt to bring peace to the Middle East.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    At the time i think Bush and Blair truely believed that Iraq was a threat. It had failed to co-operate with the UN over weapons inspections and recent investigations have revealed large scale corruption in the oil for food programme which led to large amounts of funds being diverted into top officals pockets rather than going to the people of Iraq. On top of this Sadam had no respect for human rights.

    However the main problem with the war has been the execution. It was poorly plained and justified to the public. The plaining was poor in the fact that the US had no plans for dealing with the looting that followed sadams fall. From the justification side the claims that Iraq was a threat to us which was used to, was poor as we can see from the lack of evidence of WMDs. On top of this the 45 minute claim just took the piss.

    The problem is not so much whether the war was justified it was why action hasnt been taken with regards to other countires who have broken UN resolutions. Eg. Israel, Zimbarwae (sorry about the spelling) and North Korea. This has cast doubts on what other reasons there might of been for the war such as oil and the US seeking to bulid a democratic islamic state to attempt to bring peace to the Middle East.
    Thats more like it. Though I still disagree about there being a valid reason for the invasion itself. As the bible says. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Because that little escapade lost him the following election, and the UN wouldn't allow him to march on Baghdad. Saddam was sitting pretty, while George Bush was humiliated.
    Nah. The Gulf War didn't lose him the election. He had very broad support at home. It was quick, sucessful, and didn't cost many lives.

    He lost the election because the economy sucked.

    And, I don't think Bush snr wanted to march on Baghdad. Stormin Norman advised him not to.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    As the bible says. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    But, DO IT FIRST!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Nah. The Gulf War didn't lose him the election. He had very broad support at home. It was quick, sucessful, and didn't cost many lives.

    He lost the election because the economy sucked.

    And, I don't think Bush snr wanted to march on Baghdad. Stormin Norman advised him not to.
    It was brought to light that the efforts he put into the Gulf War should have gone into the economy. There was something of a recession in the early part of his administration wasn't there? Maintain the aim. First rule of any objective. If the economy was faltering, what the hell was he doing with his nose in Iraq's business?
    Also I think you're right about how he was advised not to march on Baghdad, because as Dubya proved, he could have don so anyway. And though I was a child when this was all going on, I seem to remember him on TV saying that he was vowing to march on Baghdad, surely that would mean he wanted to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    But, DO IT FIRST!
    Assumptions are the mother of all **** ups. Do what first, unleash a series of nuclear attacks and say "Righto Sadderz, your turn"???
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    It was brought to light that the efforts he put into the Gulf War should have gone into the economy. There was something of a recession in the early part of his administration wasn't there? Maintain the aim. First rule of any objective. If the economy was faltering, what the hell was he doing with his nose in Iraq's business?
    Also I think you're right about how he was advised not to march on Baghdad, because as Dubya proved, he could have don so anyway. And though I was a child when this was all going on, I seem to remember him on TV saying that he was vowing to march on Baghdad, surely that would mean he wanted to.
    He didn't stick his nose in. He woke up one morning to find Iraq had rolled it's tanks over Kuwait; an act that met immediate worldwide condemnation. It wasn't Iraq's business to invade Kuwait and Bush was supported by the international community in kicking the Iraqi's out.

    There was discussion towards the end of the war about proceeding to Baghdad but it was very shortlived.

    It was a just war IMO, quick, minimal casualities. Do you think the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was justified and should have been ignored?

    And BTW, on the subject of recession; there was something of a worldwide recession in 1990.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.