|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 28, 2004 8:38:20 GMT
Are the borders to Iraq open? If so we should seal them to prevent explosives reaching Iraq. The only way Iraq can be saved is if we fight the terrorists head on. That means hundreds more troops, total security and enforcement. No way in or out of Iraq. If we cut of the terrorists from Iraq altogether we might stand some chance of winning.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 28, 2004 14:42:15 GMT
The best way to win this war would've been years ago but sadly we didn't need oil at that time!
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 28, 2004 18:41:45 GMT
I totally agree. As far as I know Al Qaeda had very little power if they even existed. It would probably have been easy to topple Saddam and liberate it back than.
In the end it comes down to the UN, as I think I may have said before: the UN resolution only permitted the coalition forces to liberate Kuwait, not enter Iraq. In this Gulf War though, we chose to ignore a bureaucracy, not that that makes the war the correct thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 29, 2004 12:23:40 GMT
Too true, and once again the UN held the coaliton back, if not Saddam would have been in jail long ago, and we would have been saved alot of time and trouble, and lives. I don't know if the First Gulf War had been a completle success then Al Qaeda's attacks could have been prevented? But once again I reitterate my statement that the UN, should be reviewed in the way that it operates.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 29, 2004 12:27:05 GMT
Seconded, are there any new points to be made? I think we've covered almost everything, so before we begin repeating ourselves does anyone have anything NEW?
|
|
JAllen
Member of Parliament
Posts: 48
|
Post by JAllen on Mar 29, 2004 19:05:44 GMT
I think that Tony Blair and Bush also may have helped start the war but there are many people and things which could have started the war but who knows. But for some reason we are always at war with someone or some country leaving them with no choice but to fight
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 1, 2004 16:37:00 GMT
Can we really say that Saddam faught when we invaded? The coalition troops walked into Baghdad with the enemy offering little resistance. They had outdated primitive tanks, lack of soldiers, and many decided to scarper.
You say that there were many factors contributing to the start of the war. What are they? I cannot think of any other cause than Blair and Bush (his determination to bomb someone).
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 2, 2004 6:34:50 GMT
Saddam's WMD failed to surface, the Weapons Inspectors claimed Saddam had nothing. They've found nothing on such a bad scale. Civilians have been killed, more soldier have been killed after the war in suicide and terrorist attacks than during the war. Saddam was found hiding in a hole, several of his most important ministers were captured with little resistance. I for one fail to see any factor other than lust for oil and a thirst for revenge in America.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 2, 2004 12:03:33 GMT
If Saddam had weapons he would have got them out of the country to an ally as soon as there was a hint of war. If he had weapons, did he make them internally (within Iraq) or were they imported? If so, where from? I bet Saddam is laughing at coalition atempts to find weapons. He achieved one good thing with the topple of his dictatorship: he split Europe.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 2, 2004 12:20:48 GMT
I don't think Saddam has had ANY weapons since he was last told to remove them. If he had ultra powerful weapons why not fire them? Why hide them? how would they have been gotten out of the country so quickly?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 2, 2004 14:51:23 GMT
That is a good question. Probably because he knew the retaliation of the US would have removed Iraq from world maps, along with himself. He would have rather waited for the coalition troops to invade and find no weapons. He would then mock them saying he was telling the truth all along, and the US wouldn't have been able to prove him wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 2, 2004 17:45:37 GMT
Exactly , this proves once and for all that the government LIED to our face about the WMDs and should be punished accordingly!
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 2, 2004 20:19:59 GMT
The one thing I HATE above anything else in government is doshnesty. It is a crime far worse than any absurd policy. We elect them to run the country properly. We give them a great responsibility and they choose to lie to us. We do not elect them to do that. I wouldn't be as critical of Labour and Blair if only his administration TOLD THE TRUTH.
I am not as familiar as I should be with laws concerning dishonesty in government. Are the laws there but there is lack of proof to convict to a case is never brought? I know that Jonathan Aitken was imprisoned on a charge of purjery, as stated in my article on the Butler Enquiry. Are they just considered misleading not open lies?
The only way I think the government can be punished is by the ballot box. The only people who can destroy the government are the tories and libdems; no other parties are large enough. One, or both, must damage Labour enough to swing the vote in their favour. Then Blair will be fired via a vote of no-confidence, and other cabinet minister heads will roll, as the truth comes out and they are deposed by their own MP's.
|
|
|
Post by electronico1995 on Apr 4, 2004 17:44:01 GMT
I think that this Iraq war has gone too far. We have found Saddam, and so we should stop this war now. We have what we need, and so we should leave.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 4, 2004 19:27:55 GMT
You mean we have the oil? We should stop to consider what Iraq needs; proper liberation from terrorism. I heard that 4 American developers were savagely murdered in front of crowds. Bush and Blair claim Iraq is liberated. I claim that is an example of how far they are prepared to lie.
|
|
JAllen
Member of Parliament
Posts: 48
|
Post by JAllen on Apr 6, 2004 10:27:09 GMT
The Iraq war finished ages ago but there are still conflicts going on like the one that happened over the weekend but who started it. I don't really know and I would like to know please.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 6, 2004 12:44:03 GMT
The war has only officially ended. Reality is often different from officially.
I think what you're trying to say is that although Saddam has been removed from power, there is still strong resistance, but from the people who they are attempting to help instead of enemy troops.
There are many responsible for many uprisings accross Iraq, but the headline figure is Maqtader Al Sadr. He appears to have an army of his own, who have claimed the lives of 60 people. He is now the main problem of the coalition.
There are many other key figures responsible. The coalition seems to be fighting half the country.
|
|
|
Post by electronico1995 on Apr 8, 2004 9:53:05 GMT
True. The war has officialy ended, but there are still many people still in Iraq that are fighting. I call them mini wars.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 8, 2004 10:03:53 GMT
Is there much truth in Bush's claim that the majority of the Iraqi people want the Coalition to stay until a democracy is installed? Or is another faniciful claim to fool his electorate? Watching all the pictures on the news leads me to believe that the coalition aren't wanted there by anyone.
I just wish the Iraqis would realise that if they had patience with the Americans they would get a proper democracy in time. Judging by the current situation the country is going to decend into civil war after a democracy is put into place by the yanks. This disturbs me: Saddam came to power through a situation like this.
|
|
|
Post by electronico1995 on Apr 8, 2004 10:28:20 GMT
Yes, and we don't want anyone else coming into power like that
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 8, 2004 16:18:04 GMT
How ironic it would be for this war to lead round in a circle and give us another Saddam for Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 8, 2004 16:58:51 GMT
It could quite easily happen! Democracy overthrown by one of these radical clerics with a private army (eg. Muqtader Al Sadr). They take power for themselves running the country taliban style. That would mean the war accomplished nothing but unnessesery bloodshed. Trading one dictatorship for another, but this new Saddam would support terrorism and use Iraq for it. I don't recall Saddam ever using terrorism apart from the Gulf War.
To ensure it doesn't happen all current rebellions must be crushed, and each one of these militant rebel leaders assasinated (call in Israel, they seem to be quite good at it!). Then democracy would be installed. Troops may have to remain there for some time to ensure no uprisings. People learn to put faith in democracy. Troops leave. Iraq is free.
The above is the ideal scinario. The hard bit is going to be crushing rebellions.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Apr 9, 2004 19:17:41 GMT
Iraq having recently rocketted back into the news has really given this topic as boost. Saddam maybe gone but now Iraq is on the verge of a civil war. Prehaps this Muqtader Al Sadr is an operative of Al Qaeda? It would explain the recent surge in violence and suicide bombings. Is Al Qaeda trying to take Iraq for it's own? Maybe, it all seems to fit togeher nicely, or prehaps this cleric could represent another unforseen faction, who have risen up againist the mighty US invaders? He could just want peace. We shall see in good time, if the US dosn't kill him for terrorist charges.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 10, 2004 9:25:09 GMT
Saddam is somewhere secret in the US. He will never be freed or rescued; security is too great. He probably won't be executed in return for his help and influence; he could influence a LOT of people. He also knows where his supporters are. I heard he got black coffee and a box of DVD's in return for information.
Yes, Iraq is the main story on all the news channels because of the threat of civil war. The coalition has lost control of 2 cities to rebellion forces. They are responding with major force; they bombed a mosque killing 40 worshippers because they believed resistance was there (what do we think of this? America using justified force? Or is it adding to rebellion?)
I do not know whether Muqtader Al Sadr supports Al Qaeda, or whether he is just another Saddam concerned only with Iraq. (remember Saddam wasn't a supporter of Al Qaeda despite George Bush's claims). All I know is that Al Qaeda want Iraq to decend into civil war so they can use it against America, the 'great satan'.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 10, 2004 18:33:24 GMT
I was reading a report and there are HUGE amounts of casualties for both US, UK and Iraqi troops since the war ended we've lost around 500, the US a similar amount and Iraq have lost thousands. This is not a peaceful, rebuilt nation. This is a conflicting, desolate place where people live in FEAR almost as badly as when they were under Saddam's rule. The Coalition have not made anything better, they've replaced an evil regime with total chaos at the cost of thousands of lives...
|
|