blonde poker forum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8026136.stm

What did we go there for again? Was it all worth it? Did we leave our country/world safer as a result?
Saw the Service Personnel memorial service today, pretty :( :( , these were just kids ffs. Giving up their lives for a pointless/stupid exercise?

gg Tony & George, may your God reward you....

I got this far:

Mr Brown, who held talks with Iraqi counterpart Nouri Maliki at Downing Street, said: "Today Iraq is a success story. We owe much of that to the efforts of British troops. Our mission has not always been an easy one, many have said that we would fail.

"Britain can be proud of our legacy that we leave there."

Clearly you didn't

Sorry, I do not understand your post. Why does my question show ignorance of Gordon Brown's position? You do know that like his predecessor Brown is likely to be lying when he says things like "Britain can be proud of our legacy that we leave there", don't you?

we have left the iraqi people with a democracy we should of ;eft them with in 1991 yes we are 18 years late
we have also made the world safer by removing a safe haven for terroists

i am proud of our troops and am glad that the iraqi people have a say in the running of there country

i feel the middle east is alot safer without saddam invading his neighbours

Yeah, we have to be proud of the troops, and what they have done for the people.

I agree we dont have to be proud of the reasons we got involved, but the side effect of improving a whole countries standard of life is a pretty good outcome.

The Hop talks sense. 

Motives and agendas aside, there are some positives to come out of it all.  Let's not choose to ignore them because the politicians lied.

did i say i was proud of the reason we got involved?

Did anyone say you were not?

just the way stuart's post reads

The "I agree" bit at the start of his second sentence sounds as though he was agreeing with you, suggesting that he thinks you feel the same way he does about it.

sorry bit like my poker then missread

Agree with most of this, but the bold bit, no. Might be the case in Afghanistan, but Saddam Hussein was never a friend to Bin Laden's mob, or anybody else we'd consider a terrorist these days. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until after the invasion and they saw it as an easy way to take a pop at American Troops on foreign soil. Safe Haven For Terrorists is just another Weapons of Mass Destruction - a nice political excuse.

Iraq/Saddam also provided a nice secular buffer between Iran and Israel, so I'm not sure about the safe Middle East bit either...

after 91 iraw was a bigger threat to israel than iran was, although no organised Al Qaeda cells or training camps in iraq there were other more state sponsired terrioriest in the country IMHO according to report i read in the non george bushing hating/loving media

Just wow.


You mean there was actually some media that was neutral on George W?

not much i grant you

99.9% is either heavily for or against

Maybe i'm a cynic but maybe we should have to wait 5 year, maybe 10, maybe even 20 years before we will really know if this exercise has done well for democracy(or making the world a safer place for that matter).

We dont really know how strong their government structure is as we have our western armies there as a backbone. Just look at a lot of the african nations where there are coup d'etats all over the shop over the past 30 years.

your all morons. How can iraq be better off when 1 million off its people are dead?

remember the war was based on them having weapons of mass distruction. This sure was the case.
Blair and bush should be in jail. 
Nice debate on the subject here. Follow the links for the rest. [   ] hitchens sure didnt get it handed to him


YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAja9Q1gWsk

your off your nut ironside.
We have made the world safer by invading iraq and making muslims all over the world so mad that they are willing to blow up thereselves in order to kill some of us?
All the war was good for was creating new terrorist cells all over the world. Wasnt too long ago we were friends with Saddam and selling him weapons and advising where to point them. Some people's memory's are short.

So true

think you will find they were doing that before the war

doing what?

blowing themselves up to kill some of us

this all goes back to our foreign policy in isreal and palestine.

Lets just look at the Iraq war.

What was the reason we invaded Iraq please?

the reasons we invaded is because bush wanted to finish of what his father didnt, and was totally bogus. i dont dispute that.

What was the reason the public were given?

makes no difference they were bogus everyone barr tony blair knows that

I didn't see you up in arms when Saddam was slaughtering 100,000s of Kurds?

[  ] Has read thread.

No, the reason we went into Iraq was so that the companies connected to the military-industrial complex would get nice big fat juicy contracts paid for by the US government. Also, it provided access to the 2nd biggest oil reserves in the world, at a time when the US couldn't be guaranteed of access to the largest country (an Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia would have seen the taps turned off to the US).

It wasn't to do with WMD.

It wasn't to do with finishing off his dad's job (because GWB wasn't really running things, was he - he was doing what he was told)

saddam killed a lot of Iriq'is. How many have george bush and tony blair kill?

Anyone who thinks Iraq is better off post war, when millions of Iraq'is are dead, are crazy imo.

going by your own statement

europe is not better off after WW11 dispite getting rid of the NAZIs as millions died

june, ironside our MO for Iraq wasnt to topple saddam.

no but it was a good outcome to a bad plan (although i still think GB snr wanted saddam toppled and used his son to do it)

thougt id weigh in on this given that I was sent out there in 2004 (ironically enough thats where i learnt holdem on the last 2 weeks of our tour hence the name) as part of a TA unit

regardless of wether the reasoning was sound or even right for that matter (WMD) removing saddam from power did do the world a favour , having spoken to a number of iraqis the majority of them were glad to see him go. Now whilst some of them voicing that opinion could have been doing it just to tell me what they think we wanted to hear given the context it was given in during the conversation I dont think so.

My personal opinion is that after 9/11 the bush administration needed to make a statement to the world and some sort of victory in order to not to be seen as weak by the american people and to ensure a 2nd term. They couldnt find Osaman but knew exactly where Saddam was and he provided a perfect "villian" to present to the american public cos that is what he was.

Anyone who asks me whether we were justified over there I reply with "when youve seen the bulletholes in the back of the swimming pools ,where executions took places in palaces that were covered in gold whilst the majority of the country lived in abject poverty then yes I think it was worth it"

It may not have been the reason we were over there but some good did come of it