Awol Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 With the formal hand over of military command in Southern Iraq from the UK to the US today, and full withdrawal by the end of May I wanted to ask a simple question. Was it worth all of the lives and treasure expended by the UK, yes or no? FWIW I'm in the no camp for the reason that we should not go to war unless it is in our national interest, which Iraq clearly was not. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 It was basically America's war, and for that I was against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jondaken Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Will we ever really know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I think the next generation of Iraqis will grow up in a country where there is equal representation in parliament of people standing up for their own rights instead of living under a dictatorship representing a minority group but staying in power through force. When Saddam died he was meant to have his son take over who was even more brutal than he was by all accounts. For that reason I think the war was worth it. I think we should look at taking a more active part in Zimbabwe and Burma against their brutal governments. The idea that the people dieing there are not British so they are not our problem doesn't wash with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I'm a yes but we should have planted the Union Flag on the soil and claimed the land as we used to in the olden days however my proper answer is a NO ... though I do think we should have killed him the first time around as we had grounds to do so then ... Gulf War II though was on the premise of a lie and we had no justification or UN backing for going in ... and arguebly Bush and Blair should stand trial for their role in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Deleted. Ian you are better than this mate, what was deleted added nothing to any debate and was totally post on poster. A while back we mentioned a crack down on these type of topics, this post didn't just contravene those "extra" rules, it contravened the actual site guidelines as well. Please Ian if you can't be bothered to actually debate a topic without chucking around generalisations about other posters, please just don't bother - Bicks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I am against colonial wars so have to say this was not worth it. I am not sure that the Iraqis will benefit from our "paternal and civilising" intervention in the long run. Our colonial wars in Africa and elsewhere brought nothing but long term and absolute ruin to the people who lived there, so I cant see this being any different. I wish that eventually we may learn that we cannot impose our way of life, our moral standards onto other civilisations and cultures. Feels like a long shot to me The aim of this war was to seek out and destroy weapons of mass destruction. Had that aim been met, it would have just about been worthwhile. As the weapons were not found (because they didnt exist) there cannot be any justification for the truly horrific loss of life on all sides Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanky Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 No for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 As someone who took part in Operation Telic , I will be very interested to see the different views in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 Brumerican, Telic 1? What unit mate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Brumerican, Telic 1? What unit mate? CSSU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 As someone who took part in Operation Telic as someone that was actually there , I for one would be interested to hear your view .. were you in both or just the second one ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarry Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I voted No. It's good that Hussein was deposed, but that should have been done first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 No. There are atrocities occurring the world over- we simply do not have the resources to 'straighten' them all out. The justification for the war was thinly veiled and there are thousands of conspiracy stories as to why we truly invaded. I think only time will be able to tell this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 As someone who took part in Operation Telic as someone that was actually there , I for one would be interested to hear your view .. were you in both or just the second one ? For the initial bombing on Baghdad I was working with the RAF at Akrotiri CSSU, refuelling British and American Jets and Bombers (Well Accounting for the fuel anyway ) I was a Lance jack supply controller in the RLC . 2 years later I actually went to Iraq and Afghanistan in the space of 18 months with 13 Air Assault Regt RLC ( The old 5 airborne ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 31, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted March 31, 2009 No. The reasons didnt add up and the humanitarian angle was tacked on. There may be positives born of it ( a hopefully friendly hopefully democratic nation that we can scrounge oil off to stop us being so reliant on the Saudis, for example), but that doesn't mean we should have gone in and it doesn't mean it was worth it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Should we have gone in and ousted Saddam - YES Should we have stayed - NO Should we have finished the job in 1991 - YES Someone once said "Armies are for killing people and breaking stuff".... I agree. Armies should be given clear military objectives. Soldiers are not policemen, builders, security staff or teachers. We should have got them out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately the war was won. Since then we've lost lives, prestige, money and for what? Believing the Afghans will become democrats is like believing lions will become vegetarians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Believing the Afghans will become democrats is like believing lions will become vegetarians. And, at the end of the day, why should we expect them to? Or the Iraqis? Or any of the "non democratic nations"? Maybe there is more to politics than liberalism. Sure, it works for us more or less, but we have a long liberal tradition, going back 200 years or more. Even so, for most of those 200 years we excluded one group or another from our "democracy". Maybe expecting cultures where they dont have that liberal tradition to suddenly just accept that philosophy overnight and understand how to implement it effectively is being just a tad condescending? Who gave us the right to decide what's right and wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerlad Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I think we should invade more countries and kill more civilians if Im honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts