As UK troops start their withdrawal from Iraq, who should take the blame, and who can claim the moral high ground.

 

According to Labour, Iraq is a safer place, and they have more facilities that 6 years ago.

 

Was the death of 179 UK soldiers worth it, or the thousands and thousands of Iraqis a price worth paying to get rid of one man?

According to Labour, Iraq is a safer place, and they have more facilities that 6 years ago.

 

That's just laughable... Just in the last week or so, I'm pretty sure RPG attacks and roadside bombs were still going off and killing people... And pretty sure it's the case that many thousands in Iraq are still without proper utilities....

 

As UK troops start their withdrawal from Iraq, who should take the blame, and who can claim the moral high ground.

 

My answer to this is the same as in was in 2003, and hasn't changed one bit.

 

And that was that the government is to blame, and the armed forces claiming the high ground (after all, they were only doing what they were told - don't do that, and you get courtmartialled and a possible dishonourable discharge).

And that was that the government is to blame, and the armed forces claiming the high ground

 

Well, I dont think the US armed forces can really claim a moral highground, not after the whole Abu Ghraib episode and the way generally that US marines acted and disrespected the Iraqi people and their culture..... But the UK armed forces certainly did nothing to dishonour themselves.... Quite the opposite, they were lions led by fukkin' braindead donkeys..... <_<

 

Was the death of 179 UK soldiers worth it, or the thousands and thousands of Iraqis a price worth paying to get rid of one man?

 

 

Yes, in my opinion it was. Bush and Blair did absolutely the right thing and are heroes in my eyes. Saddam had to go and the UN was impotent and dragging it's feet as usual. I know Iraq still has many problems but hey the people aren't ruled by an evil dictator any more. Surely that has to be good.

Edited May 4, 200916 yr by Crazy Chris

That has to be the second most stupid thing you have ever posted.

 

Bush and Blair invented WMD's to fake grounds for the war.

 

We never should have invaded the country, and we sure as hell should still be there 6 years on.

 

But, naturally we had to follow America who were only interested in themselves as usual and were after more f***ing oil.

 

 

George W. Bush was a vile nasty piece of work who deserves to be tried for war crimes. I wonder if there was any proof that Bin laden is actually in Afghanistan, or if he just chose them for being the easiest target.

 

My bet is that Bin Laden sitting in a 5 bed town house somewhere in Manhattan :lol:

Saddam had to go and the UN was impotent and dragging it's feet as usual.

 

How, exactly were UN wrong... Hans Blix concluded that there were no WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq had no capability of attacking the West - he was proven correct.... The ONLY reason to go to war or invade a country in my book is if there is an actual danger of that country invading or attacking you... With Iraq there was neither, and even the bloody Intelligence Community were saying so, oh but of course, THEY were kind of disregarded in the attempt by Govts to "sex up" the 'dodgy dossier'.... <_< <_< And, frankly, the invasion of Afghanistan has turned out to be an utter disaster also.... The Taliban were very much contained in Afghanistan, now they're about 70 miles away from Islamabad and have a very real possibility of gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the next few years...... The "war on terror" has done nothing by make things about 1000 times worse than they were in 2001......

 

Bush and Blair dont deserve praise for this, they deserve to be shot like fukkin' dogs.... <_< <_<

 

Well, I dont think the US armed forces can really claim a moral highground, not after the whole Abu Ghraib episode and the way generally that US marines acted and disrespected the Iraqi people and their culture..... But the UK armed forces certainly did nothing to dishonour themselves.... Quite the opposite, they were lions led by fukkin' braindead donkeys..... <_<

 

I thought it was referring to the British troops, not the "last one to Baghdad's a rotten egg" American troops.

 

And the only time that the British ones were accused of doing anything bad turned out to be faked in the back of a truck - which the Mirror fell for hook, line and sinker.

[quote name='DitzyNizzy' date='May 5 2009, 04:52 PM' post='2549875'.

 

And the only time that the British ones were accused of doing anything bad turned out to be faked in the back of a truck - which the Mirror fell for hook, line and sinker.

 

Piers Morgan is a retarded, public school, chinless sh!t-gibbon in my book (and those who created the fake pics probably knew this as well), no WAY would the editors of Guardian or Independant have fallen for those pics..... But, you have to look at that whole thing in another way also... Was it ever established exactly WHO it was that faked the shots....? I always felt that these photos were deliberate misinformation spread to try and discredit the one or two mainstream papers out there who were very vocally anti-war...... Could have been someone in the military or the Govt who did it imo.....

But, you have to look at that whole thing in another way also... Was it ever established exactly WHO it was that faked the shots....? I always felt that these photos were deliberate misinformation spread to try and discredit the one or two mainstream papers out there who were very vocally anti-war...... Could have been someone in the military or the Govt who did it imo.....

 

TBH, I don't think it's ever been revealed who did those photos.

TBH, I don't think it's ever been revealed who did those photos.

 

Gee, what a surprise.... :rolleyes: Kind of backs up my theory a little bit doesn't it....? :lol:

MAKE LOVE NOT WAR :cheer:

 

lynda :heart:

MAKE LOVE NOT WAR :cheer:

 

oh will you PLEASE SOD OFF AND STOP SPAMMING THIS FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <_<

I realise this is a late reply to this thread but I was on holiday.

 

Saddm's regime was a bloody and sadistic regime. Who knows how many Iraqis died directly at the command of his government, not to mention the bloody wars against his neighbours?

 

I've never been able to fully justify the US/UK's actions but I've never been able to fully condemn them either. However I'm ashamed that we ( the combined allies) didn't commit enough resources to repair the war damage and get the people's life back to some semblance of normal much sooner.

 

With the resources they had I think the British servicemen on the ground did a great job in Basra. They genuinely tried to work jointly with the local population but then the UK had much more experience in peacekeeping and negotiating between injured parties. They'd done it for 30 years in Northern Ireland, Aden, Kosova and so on. The US's approach had always been militaristic shoot'em up and shut'em up in their former campaigns - brawn not brain. The UK should have been in joint control of the overall peace mission, not relegated to one province, albeit a vital one for oil supplies.

I realise this is a late reply to this thread but I was on holiday.

 

Saddm's regime was a bloody and sadistic regime. Who knows how many Iraqis died directly at the command of his government, not to mention the bloody wars against his neighbours?

 

And, what about North Korea.. China.. Burma...Zimbabwe...Saudi Arabia....? I mean, pick a corner of the world and you'll find a despot or a dictator.... FOUR MILLION Rwandans were slaughtered in the mid-90s.... So, why dont we feel the need to act all "moralistic" in any of those areas...? Well, as far as China goes, we're up their arses now, like the Yanks; NK has nukes, so we wont have the guts to do anything there; we sell lots of nice WEAPONS to the dictators in Burma and Saudi Arabia; and there's no oil in Zimbabwe or Rwanda, so, there you go..... At least ONE of Saddam's wars (ie, the one against Iran) we supported and supplied him with weapons, as for Kuwait, well, the US just got p!ssed because he was messing up their oil supply..... :rolleyes:

 

Don't EVER believe that we went into Iraq for "moral" reasons, or because of WMDs (I mean, come on, if US/UK had really wanted to know what Saddam had, all they had to do was look at the bills of sale ffs :lol: :lol: ).... That is just utter pish, it was all about the black stuff, guess which installations got secured by the US right off the bat - not governmental or social infrastructure, but the bloody OIL-FIELDS........ OIL was the priority, NOT the people of Iraq.....

 

Sorry, I don't go along with the "It was all about oil" as far as the UK decision to go to war goes. I don't believe the bulk of our politicians and public had that in mind at all at the time.

 

I think people here genuinely believed that Saddam had chemical and nuclear capacity and was hardened enough to use them to get his way in the region. We'd seen the TV reports of a camp of seemingly innocent people wiped out at one fell swoop be chemical weapons.

 

 

Sorry, I don't go along with the "It was all about oil" as far as the UK decision to go to war goes. I don't believe the bulk of our politicians and public had that in mind at all at the time.

 

I think people here genuinely believed that Saddam had chemical and nuclear capacity and was hardened enough to use them to get his way in the region. We'd seen the TV reports of a camp of seemingly innocent people wiped out at one fell swoop be chemical weapons.

 

well he WAS making a 'big gun', cast in the uk as it happens! our guys thought summut wasnt right with the componants and they were discovered to be parts for a 'big gun' which it was estimated could have fired a shell as far as europe. given his track record against his own people and his utter refusal to co-opporate with the weapons inspectors, it was no wonder 'we' went in... im not saying we were right, but like you i dont think we were totally to blame either and it doesnt sit well.

 

 

I'd forgotten about the big gun. I think the fact it was made here and almost delivered was down to ignorance but the way the UK did arms deals with all kinds of iffy regimes particularly under the Tories in the 80s and 90s was unforgiveable. It's said government ministers turned a blind eye to bribery and corruption during deals they brokered between British companies and their customers.

 

 

Whether it was about oil, non existant WMD or a big gun, the world's a better place without Saddam. Full stop. Bush and Blair are top geezers in my book.

Edited May 26, 200916 yr by Crazy Chris

. Bush and Blair are top geezers in my book.

 

......... says the bloke whos a staunch tory! :lol: