goldstone said:It was certainly a much safer and more stable country.
I think the answer is YES.
Particularly after the events of this week.
And a large number of American families and some British ones would still have their sons/husbands/brothers alive.
goldstone said:It was certainly a much safer and more stable country.
I think the answer is YES.
Particularly after the events of this week.
And a large number of American families and some British ones would still have their sons/husbands/brothers alive.
ben andrews' girlfriend said:I think that how the war went on was wrong - it was under false pretences and was badly co-ordinated. However, had Blair and Bush said that they were going to war to oust Saddam Hussein then I would have been slightly more for it.
It's good that Saddam is out, however it is bad how the country is turning out at the moment.
London Irish said:Yes, he was a contained and broken threat and posed no danger to anyone outside his borders.
London Irish said:There was another way to get rid of Saddam, it would have taken longer and required more patience, but empowering the opposition and waiting for his incapacition and eventual death of this ageing dictator would have involved less suffering, less deaths and less havoc.
Yes, he should totally have been left to run it. By that I mean we and America had no rights to invade Iraq, and should not be there now. If he was to be removed, it should have come from within Iraq.goldstone said:It was certainly a much safer and more stable country.
I think the answer is YES.
Particularly after the events of this week.
And a large number of American families and some British ones would still have their sons/husbands/brothers alive.
No, but we can clearly see the appalling body count and carnage of what we did do.DJ Leon said:Surely though, we'll never know, will we?
But what rights or reasons did we have to oust Sadam?ben andrews' girlfriend said:I think that how the war went on was wrong - it was under false pretences and was badly co-ordinated. However, had Blair and Bush said that they were going to war to oust Saddam Hussein then I would have been slightly more for it.
It's good that Saddam is out, however it is bad how the country is turning out at the moment.
London Irish said:the bitterness of a patriotic anti-west insurgency and the seeds of the present communal conflict that are now unfolding.
Mr Burns said:But what rights or reasons did we have to oust Sadam?
HampshireSeagulls said:Don't be a xxxx. Have you never seen the persecution of the Kurds? The gassing of the villages? The mass graves? The videos of the police beatings? How his sons and their acolytes selected people to rape, torture, and kill?
It could have been done a lot better, but no, would you rather have had Iraq head down the route that Iran is now taking?