Democracy, at what price?

Avatar Image
rov1200 | 21:10 Mon 22nd Jun 2009 | News
9 Answers
With British troops pulled out of Iraq and the US to pull all their forces from the cities at the end of this month can we say it's a job well done? 112504.stm


1 to 9 of 9rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
And what if the real reason that we were there was to maintain the "special relationship" with the US?

What if it was the price for continued intelligence sharing?

For access to US military technology - for Trident?

What then?

Or hadn't you thought of that?
Truthfully, did anyone ever think it was going to be "a job well done"? No prizes for guessing! It was always a no win situation.
The Iraq War had nothing to do with Democracy. There were other countries just as undemocratic as Saddam's Iraq, namely Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and the rest.

Saddam's mistake was to plan the assassination of George Bush. 05bush2.htm

They could let him off for genocide in the war with Iran, of gassing his own people, even invading Kuwait did not see him removed, but plotting to kill the American President is unforgivable and his card (literally) was marked.

Revenge was the motive, the oil was supposed to pay for it, and Britain's token involvement was to prove it was not solely an American operation.
Question Author
Jake my question is directed at the coalition in general not whether it was right for us to suck up to the US. If Iraq was a failed operation it would put egg on many faces and like Suez may prevent an illegal invasion happening for another 50 years.

American presidents have to live with death threats throughout their career so Saddams utterings would be like swatting a fly (as practiced by Obama).

Blair mistakingly thought that getting rid of Saddam would make the Middle East safer.

Maybe after this latest enquiry no head of government, especially British ones, would be able to take his country into war without greater consultation and the end of sofa government would be confined to the history books.
The stated aim of going into Iraq was to rid that country of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

As they never existed, the mission could never be a success.
like Suez may prevent an illegal invasion happening for another 50 years.

Are we forgetting the US invasion of Grenada (a member of the British Commonwealth).

Or Vietnem?

Or Panama?

Or Bay of Pigs?

Or Afghanistan?
Question Author
Gromit you are right. But Suez was a British bungle and until Iraq we knew our place. Now that the USA has bungled in Iraq maybe they will take the same line as Britain.
Question Author
Also I agree our intention was to rid Saddam of WMD. When Blair realised they did not exist he had to save face but only dug himself into a deeper hole.

Putin warned at the outset their were no WMD but the USA ploughed on regardless as Bush got confused with Agfhanistan and 9/11 and his geography was so poor.

When Blair finally gets found guilty of an illegal invasion I suppose there will be calls for him to be tried at the Hague.
Didn't the US bungle in Vietnam? They didn't win that one either but it didn't stop the Grenada invasion less than 10 years later. Just picked on a much smaller nation.

You are being very optimistic if you think the US will lay low for 50 years because of Iraq.

1 to 9 of 9rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Democracy, at what price?

Answer Question >>