3:19  |  6 December 11
Members Login:
Username:    Password:      

Chamber of Debate


What was it for? What did good did it do? Can the UK justify its policy of removing dictators in other countries who do not threaten it and presume to tell other countries how to run their affairs? Would it be a good thing to have a foreign policy independent of the US for a change?
Vote: Should Britain have invaded Iraq?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)
Yes 23% No 77%
Yes No    
OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)
Yes 0% No 100%
Yes No         AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

Mally 29-Mar-2008 22:28
I believe there was at least, in principle, some kind of moral motive for the invasion. However every aspect of the invasion and all that has followed has become a highly conentious issue. From a financial point of view NEVER IN THE FIELD OF HUMAN CONFLICT HAS SO MUCH BEEN PAID BY SO MANY TO SO FEW.
Recyclotron 28-Mar-2008 20:6
The decision that the UK would go to war with Iraq was taken by one person, Tony Blair. That was wrong. The cabinet did not discuss or agree to it, evidence about WMD was withheld, misrepresented or fabricated. The commons were misled. The people were ignored. This lack of accountability over the most serious decision a country can make, should worry us all. That is why this website is so important.

We should not rest until TB and Alistair Campbell are held to account for the loss of life, increase in terrorism and huge cost they invoked on our behalf.
patridas 2-Jan-2008 7:24
"While George Bush meant well"... yup he did mean well. One having in mind that America's grip was in jeopardy in that oil rich region of the world.

Herb 1-Dec-2007 6:11
I've come round to the view that the Iraq war was a mistake. While George Bush meant well, his big error was to believe that an Islamic country would take to democracy like a duck to water.

In fact Islam and democracy are so utterly incompatible that democracy cannot work in an Islamic country unless it has a secular army dedicated to enforcing secularism in government, as in Turkey. Even then there is no guarantee that Islam will not eventually succeed in displacing the army.

The real danger to civilisation was not Saddam Hussein and his ramshackle army even if he had acquired some nuclear weapons. The real danger to civilisation was - and is - the spread of Islam itself and the extent to which it has been, and increasingly continues to be, infiltrated by Wahabbism, which makes it immensely more dangerous, as we are now discovering and as we will continue to discover.

Wahabbist Islam is dedicated to the destruction of civilisation itself, and the substitution of gross medieval barbarism. Even worse, where Wahabbist Islam gains power in Arab countries, it turns to genocide, so that even Muslims who are not Arabs are systematically murdered. We see this happening in Sudan, in Darfur where Arab Janjaweed militias are exterminating black African Muslims. The barbarism and fanaticism of these Sudanese Arab Muslims cannot be exaggerated. It is personified too in the insanely bloodthirsty mobs in Sudan now howling for the murder of an innocent schoolteacher over the trifling matter of a teddy bear.

Islam is already waging what amounts to World War III against civilisation, and this is destined to escalate, sooner or later, into a larger nuclear war. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and Iran is relentlessly moving towards building them too. Meantime, all of western Europe has allowed many millions of Muslims to settle in its midst where they have formed concentrations of people implacably hostile to their host countries.

This all adds up to there being no reason whatever to be optimistic that the world can possibly continue to enjoy peace.

The very least that the civilised world - represented mainly by China, Japan, the U.S., Russia, India and Europe - should do in the meantime is to prohibit the practice and preaching of Islam within their borders. So far as the U.S. Europe and India are concerned there is very little sign of that happening, at least any time soon. It is enough to make me fear that they - and western Europe especially - may have a death wish. That is not, thankfully, the case with the Russians, the Chinese or the Japanese. They may, in the end, be the forces that rescue and rebuild civilisation in the rest of the world.
CarlWilliams 10-Oct-2007 11:21
A good question spoiled by the ridiculous idea that British foreign policy is controlled by the US. Considering that it is the EU which is open about its desire for a Common Foreign Policy, single EU ambassadors etc the questioner may wish to look a little closer to home for worries about a lack of independence.
All comments are subject to approval.

Tool Box

My Profile
 - My Profile
 - Edit My Profile
 - Reset My Password
My Mailbox
 - Inbox
 - Sent
 - Draft
 - Trash
Search Options
 - List of Correspondents
 - Blocked Members
 - Refer a Friend
 - Chamber of Debate
 - Classified Advertisements
 - Events
 - AAA Award