War! hun What is it good for?

garinda · 07-05-2006, 16:48

Three years after the second Gulf war started, what has it achieved?

This weekend saw a helicopter shot down in Basra, formerly considered a safe/friendly area for British troops. Not only did the Iraqis celebrate by dancing in the street, but when further British troops came to assist, they were attacked by a hostile crowd throwing missiles and petrol bombs.

How many more British troops are going to die?

How many more millions of pounds are we going to spend?

What has this war achieved in three years? Absloutely nothing, except for the removal of Saddam Hussain, which I should imagine the majority of his country men would welcome back if it meant the return of infrastructure no longer there, including water and electricity, and the end of curfews etc. He may have gassed Kurds, but Iraq wasn't on the verge of civil war. Iraq is no more stable, or western friendly, than it was three years ago.

Blair should realise that the shedding of any more British blood isn't worth it, and should withdraw troops as soon as possible.

SPUGGIE J · 07-05-2006, 17:05

His buddy Geo W wont allow him. Blair is in fear and awe of the Bush dude and doesnt want a caning for not doing as he is told. He follows Geo like a little terrier. The money spent could have been spent on more important things at home. Alas bussiness and political needs ie oil will not allow a pull out in my view.

entwisi · 07-05-2006, 19:11

The problem is (and I did not agree with the war in the first instance) that if we do pull out now teh country would descend into total chaos and militia rule. Someone does need to be there untill the Iraqi goverment have had chance to put some infrastructure back in place

Tinkerbelle · 07-05-2006, 20:29

I also don't think Blair can withdraw them until the country is stable for the reasons entwisi has already given. Only time will tell if this war has been a waste of human life. Yes I see your point Rind about the people of Iraq resenting the Forces there and they would proboably prefer them to leave but I really disagree with the beating Blair up over sending them in to fight originally, it must have taken an enormous amount of soul searching on his part whether it was the right thing to do, I personally would hate being in the position were I had to make that kind of a decision.

Gayle · 07-05-2006, 21:15

Although I didn't support the war, I agree with Entwisti now - it would be wrong to leave the mess behind.

I also don't think Blair went into it lightly, imagine the hardest decision you've ever had to make in your life and then multiply it by a 1000. Plus, whilst we're perfectly capable of discussing this in hindsight what we have to remember is that Blair had all the information - all the information that we've got to base our judgment on has been fed to us by newspapers! We know how trustworthy they are don't we?

ossyclogger · 07-05-2006, 21:24

About as trustworthy as our government.

shakermaker · 07-05-2006, 21:44

It seems that the Coallition has started something they can't finish. An attempt to bring freedom and democracy to a place of dictatorship rule by a bonkers tyrant seemed the best idea going, right? Wrong.
It seems Bush reacted out of sheer panic; seeing his country at an all time morale low after 9/11 & being unable to catch the instigator no matter how many acres of Afghanistan they bomb. The country was becoming ever more anti-government. Perfect situation to start a 'war on terror'. (hmm...contradiction?)
So what has actually been acheived? Nothing. A somewhat ageing dictator has been thrown out at indefinable expense of life & money - a war started at laughable reason has left a country in turmoil; robbed of all dignity & assets by the blood thirsty westerners.
If there was ever a volatile time at risk of Holy War; it is now.
In my opinion things are only going to get worse.

shakermaker · 07-05-2006, 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

Blair had all the information - all the information that we've got to base our judgment on has been fed to us by newspapers! We know how trustworthy they are don't we?

I agree with the general jist of your post Gayle...however; how many WMD's found to date?
The date Blair announced war was the day I lost faith in Britain's leaders as a whole.
Every single one of them - bent over to absurd 'Yosemite Sam-esque' Americanism.
Whatever happened to Blake's Jerusalem in England's green & pleasant land? I do believe it now resides in George W. Bush's laundry basket.

Who'd have ever thought it? Embarassed to be British.

garinda · 07-05-2006, 22:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

what we have to remember is that Blair had all the information -

Yes that Iraq under Saddam had weapons of mass desruction, which we know now it clearly didn't.

Doesn't fill you with confidence about the inelligence services in the west.

I too agree that an immediate withdrawl is impossible, but the process should be hurried up, and be realistically done as soon as possible.

(By the way the thread title should read 'War! huh What is it good for?' Not hun.

My mistake, good job I didn't sing it to you.)

Tinkerbelle · 07-05-2006, 22:43

Erm ..... If I remember right, didn't Sadman make it virtually impossible for the weapons inspectors to do their job?

Once in the country it was the first thing they did, check the areas for wmd that they hadn't been able to investigate.

Not to check what that crazy swine was up to in his country could have been disatrous. OK so they didn't find wmd but at least now we know for definite that he didn't have any.

grannyclaret · 07-05-2006, 22:45

John Lennon's song Imagine,,, seems unachievable ..Its getting like Soddem and Gomorra .i.m.h.o.

shakermaker · 07-05-2006, 22:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelle

OK so they didn't find wmd but at least now we know for definite that he didn't have any.

At what expense?
Hans Blix confirmed to the UN that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Yet this was deemed advice not to take heed of and go bomb the bloody place anyway.
Way to hustlllleeee.

Tinkerbelle · 07-05-2006, 22:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

At what expense?

No one will ever know now will they!

How many more people would have been murdered at his hands had he not been stopped?

garinda · 07-05-2006, 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelle

Erm ..... If I remember right, didn't Sadman make it virtually impossible for the weapons inspectors to do their job?

Once in the country it was the first thing they did, check the areas for wmd that they hadn't been able to investigate.

Not to check what that crazy swine was up to in his country could have been disatrous. OK so they didn't find wmd but at least now we know for definite that he didn't have any.

We were told they had evidence of weapons of mass desruction, they didn't.

shakermaker · 07-05-2006, 22:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelle

No one will ever know now will they!

How many more people would have been murdered at his hands had he not been stopped?

I agree that Hussein's regime should have been removed. I have a big problem with the fact that war was most definitely not the last option available. Attempting to enforce democracy in a dictatorship country with an unreasoned force does not settle well with me.