Iraq War Yes or No

Ed Balls became the first former cabinet minister to unequivocally come out and say the Iraq War was "wrong", while Ed Miliband admitted it led to "a catastrophic loss of trust in Labour".

In an interview today, former children's secretary Mr Balls said the decision to go to war in 2003 was an "error" for which Britain paid a heavy price.

 

The war was based on politics they should've left after they got sadam

 

Blair and Bush are of the same mold.

Recklessness seldom follows good advice.

 

They should have left after they got Saddam, but they did not. Does not that indicate that the US was not after the Saddam????
and US involved other countries in as well

 

saddam wanted to sell oil for euros and the US gov cant print euros it can only print US (petro) dollars...if they had to buy euros for their printed dollars the dollar would depreciate in value...if the US gov does not get its oil for free (petro dollar) then its time for theft...

it has little to do with the UK gov they are just US puppets afraid of being economically bitch slapped if they dont do as they are told...

it has nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11 just look at saudi arabia: if you sell oil for $$ it does not matter if most of the 9/11 crew were saudi or that the house of saud is the #1 promoter of radical islam...well thats not entirely true the US imperialistic foreign policy is the #1 promoter of terrorism and radical islam but you get my point...

 

The Iraq war was just for oil. When they started the war they said weapons of mass destruction are in Iraq and this situation is threatening for everyone. Now where is weapons of mass destruction? they didn't even find a single weapon for mass destruction. Now the situation in Iraq is 200 times more worse than it was in Sadam reign.

 

I'm not agreeing a war.
it is just waste of money, live etc....
there will be no war if each human respects the other.

if there is no greed, human can live like that. maybe US want oil, if like that US is greed. But still, even they have another reason, the war is wrong

 

They're getting oil for free?

 

I don't know any correct war.

 

Not totally free. They have to pay for the printing and paper.

 

It was a wrong choice based on what we know now. At the time, it was the right decision most all Americans would have made at the time given what the intelligence we had said. I think we need for force the Iraqi's to protect themselves. Right now, we're still trying to do it for them. Until they have the desire to do it for themselves, we won't be able to leave unless we want to leave the country in shambles which I don't think would be a good idea in terms of a long-term overview.

 

I don't think anyone does

 

Clever, but factually incorrect and, in fact, impossible. Perhaps you heard of the Oil for Food program and scandal? Iraqi oil sales were controlled since they invaded Kuwait(something everyone likes to forget).

Half true. We tolerate Saudi Arabia because they help us keep the oil price stable, often in opposition to the other members of the Oil Cartel (Monopoly) OPEC. We get the lovely choice of siding with a brutal regime(Saudis), or watching even more maniacal people like Ahmadinijad and Chavez choke off the world economy. The threat to sell oil in other currencies is based on stability of the US dollar, and little else. Another problem with your theory is that the Euro is dead ala Greece. If they do switch off the Dollar, it will likely be to a basket of currencies, though that now too looks unlikely.

Again, where is our free oil?

 

Where are weapons of mass destruction? I didn't said that they are getting free oil!

 

There are no WMD apparently. They were either never there, or they were destroyed/removed. So what? Are you trying to imply Saddam was not in violation of practically every condition of the surrender he signed in 1991, including free and open access to weapons inspectors? Are you trying to imply Saddam was not trying to project the idea he might have weapons by ejecting the weapons inspectors and being secretive?

 

I am just trying to say it has cost billions of dollars to USA and all the loss the people of Iraq have suffered!

 

why impossible? please explain...

and yes i know a lot about US gov. international economic sanctions (economic terrorism would be a better fitting description) that ruin the livelyhoods of millions upon millions of people worldwide the result was "food for oil" because you basically reduced their economy to nothing and they had no food or medicine...the reason for this was you wanted to militarily weaken your former ally and best boy saddam after you used him in the war against iran and supplied him with chemical weapons...

as for kuwait...8 years and half a million dead people later iraq-iran was over and iraq was in heavy disrepair and in debt (amongst others) to kuwait that had supported them during the war...aid to your best boy saddam was now strategically cut off because the US gov. had interest in controlling the whole region by creating economic collapse and war (just look at what happened later LOL)...rich rich kuwait was encouraged to steal oil from iraq and not to reprogram the 14billion$ debt (by the US gov of course) and viola the invasion of kuwait began...a tiny country like kuwait doing something so foolish like fucking with saddam is just a super clear sign they had US support...the US did not intervene at once because the world was different back then you actually needed a reason to invade...

when you say "choke off the world economy" you mean YOUR economy?...its THEIR oil...it belongs to THEM (as in NOT YOU)...who are you to tell them what price/currency they sell their OWN OIL for?...i mean you shit over so many countries and ruin their economy back to the stone age yet you cry foul when somebody wont sell THEIR OWN OIL to you at prices/conditions you impose on them? sounds kind of unfair?


as for where is the free oil? LOL...you print the petro dollars remember? dont play dumb on this everybody knows this LOL

 

@atvking....impressive
I think its US strategy, first they support the weaker nation against the stronger opponents, and afterwards destroying both of them
i think the best example would be of Afghanistan and Russia, i think no one can believe till 1988 that USSR will broke into small pieces by Afghanistan, and i think every body knws who was behind Afghanistan,
they did the same with Iraq and Kuwait, and now N Korea, Iran.
I think the only place where US was not able to succeed was China, rather US has to bear the embarrassment over China issue

 

Another factless and linkless post. I thought you got tired of getting schooled. Welcome back. I guess I'll take the following statement from your post above as your source:

I suppose I shouldn't find it surprising that you supported the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Where else would a Milosevic supporter weigh in? Were you also a fan of Saddam's usage of chemical weapons on the Kurds?

I also like how you topic switched when I responded to your question as to why we support the Saudis. I provided the reason, and you switch stances to somehow imply that we are imposing prices on them, or stealing their oil. We made the necessary diplomatic alliances to guarantee our national security interests. Every president since Carter(and even a few before) have recognized a stable oil market is directly tied to US national security. Your argument stinks of the same smell from the other argument you made regarding our immigration policies. Basically, your argument is "Why don't you do something that is destined to failure so your country can be a 3rd world shithole like mine is". I hope you can appreciate why those types of arguments don't sell very well.

 

It is same like American invasion over Iraq so no difference!