lunatics.....
 

FFS - !!!!!!!!!!!!! . Get our troops out of there and leave the bloody savages to it... :afire:

Re: lunatics.....
 

And what about the majority who aren't "savages"?

Re: lunatics.....
 

Let George Jnr deal with it. It's his baby......

Re: lunatics.....
 

Ours too.

Re: lunatics.....
 

Only because our illustrious leader was too bloody spineless to tell Dubya to sod off. Show me the WoMD, and I'll eat my hat, become Dubyas favourite fan, and vote Labour at the next election.....

Re: lunatics.....
 

Weapons of Mass desruction since you asked..... ;)
You have to wonder how long it will take for the area to settle down so that the people there can start leading a more normal life again ... and how many lives it will cost in the mean time.

Re: lunatics.....
 

People often assume that after Germany surrendered, everyone there lived in peace and happiness freely accepting the new controls over it.
To bad that wasn't the case, with allied troops being attacked and killed.

Re: lunatics.....
 

Ah, too bad it would make you vote labour, other wise I'd have shown you ;)

Seriously though, if you believed that the only reason we went was because of WMD's then you weren't paying attention at the time.

Re: lunatics.....
 

Actually, TB was the one that went to GB and made a big point of saying that the UK would help. I dont think GB could care less whether the UK helped or not!

Anyway, we assisted in causing the mess its a bit unfair to then just pull out because it turns nasty.

Re: lunatics.....
 

I'm sure I was - please enlighten me with the real reason for the war?

Re: lunatics.....
 

Everyone knows the REAL reason, it begins with "OI" and ends with "L", actually I lie, that's the reason the USA decided to invade, the reason the UK went to war is because Tony Blair is a gutless w*nkpiece who didn't want to end up being tarred with the Axis of Evil brush that the US government painted France & Germany with when they decided (along with a majority of the populations of every other country in the world) that perhaps invading Iraq wasn't the best course of action.

Re: lunatics.....
 

I can't remember the resolution numbers but.

A UN resolution was passed ordering Iraq to let in Weapons Inpsectors (weapons inspectors had not been allowed in by Iraq since 1998/99) The resolution warned Iraq of consequences if they did not comply.

Iraq did not comply and therefore suffered the consequences.

A simplistic version but essentially correct.

Re: lunatics.....
 

The Bush family legacy of Saddam still in power after Gulf War 1, and OIL

Re: lunatics.....
 

As far as I am aware there was a report done into the case for going to war on evidence of WMD's.
It blamed everyone equally. That is to say we went to war looking for WMD's there are None.
So From that i can deduce that TB commited UK forces to a phoney war.

As it happens there may have been a little benefit from removing saddam from power, but then again, it looks we have another Afghanistan on our hands where warring factions are fighting to gain control over some areas.

So yes we have captured a dangerous man.
But we have killed plenty of innocent people, caused deaths of countless soldiers by going to war on false pretences.
Completely de-stabalised the Country.
increased the risk of terrorism on our own peoples both at home and abroad.
We also now have to face an "enemy" we dont know, at least with saddam he knew he would get a kicking if he was stupid enough to challenge.

For what?
Well the UK isnt going to get a reduction in fuel prices from cheaper oil, so I'm guessing that only benefit was getting cheaper oil for America.

So tell me, what are the benefits of going to war?
And befroe you say freedom for the Iraqi people, when they are not safe in their own homes because of warring factions then there is NO freedom. They are worse off in many ways.

Re: lunatics.....
 

The war had nothing to do with the UN or indeed NATO. It was sanctioned by neither party. The war was essentially the US, the UK and few other countries declaring war on iraq without direction from NATO or the UN

Re: lunatics.....
 

Yes, I know why it REALLY happened - but published excuse was to do with WOMD - which were never found. Unless there was another excuse Xaccers that I missed??

Re: lunatics.....
 

:clap:

Re: lunatics.....
 

Yes I'm well aware of that.

But Iraq did defy the UN resolution. The UN should have backed up the resolution and gone in.

But the UN security council (Germany and especially France - who had just signed a new oil deal with Iraq) refused to go in.

Therefore making the UN and the resolutions it makes totally useless.

So USA decided to go in by itself and invited other nations to join it, but said it was going regardless.

They were joined by us (via the WMD argument), Australia, Spain, Japan, Italy as well I think and other nations too.

Re: lunatics.....
 

Published lie.

Re: lunatics.....
 

quite ironic that the people invading due to Iraq's WMD issues are countries that have WMD themselves!!!

Re: lunatics.....
 

Some of the willing participants either didn't know what they were volunteered for or didn't actually HAVE a military force to send.

Re: lunatics.....
 

If Saddam had let in Weapons Inspectors to prove he didn't have WMD then there wouldn't have been a war.

How else were we to know if they were there or not. The Last time the UN was there was 1998/9, and they believed he had the capability to produce WMD then.

If he wouldn't let us in to check that he hadn't made any, what should we have done.

Re: lunatics.....
 

But that's a completely moot point and I don't for one minute think you are gullible enough to believe that the invasion of Iraq was anything whatsoever to do with WMD.

Re: lunatics.....
 

Er - No :blush:

Re: lunatics.....
 

The official reason given by goverments was that after 12 years of diplomacy, all that had resulted in is continual flouting of UN resolutions and the slaughter of thousands of people (which the UN allowed happen), which gave the authority under previous resolutions to take action against the saddam regime.

Now for the reasons behind that.
Oil, everyone screams "oh it was for oil" but that's been proven to be incorrect. Iraq may have resources second only to Saudi Arabia, but it just can't get them out the ground!
It would take 10 years and about $10billion to get Iraq back to pre gulf war 1 levels of production.
And just look at what happened to the price of oil since, you seriously think they didn't foresee that coming? OK it may make the oil companies some money, but it's likely to lead to another global recession, which will quickly get Bush out of power.

The house of Saud asked them to do it.
Hmm, yes, Saudi would really like a democracy next door wouldn't they?
Not really. They're trying slowly to move towards a democracy themselves, but don't like being pushed, and certainly wouldn't want to risk a peasants revolt ousting the Saudi regime.

The last, and my favourite:
So that Jesus can return.
"You what?" I hear you cry, but think about it.
Take israel, most people think that the US supports it because of some sinister dark powerful "jewish lobby" (why is it so easy to believe that?)
Actually, the reason is the bible belt patrons who believe that Israel is one of the prerequisites for Jesus to return.
Another is the rebuilding of Babylon (now I know Russ/Towny/Bex are going to probably point out that isn't so, but they're not american christians) which as we all know was in Iraq (as it's known today).