ChatterBank0 min ago
Iraq
Can someone explain to me in the simplest possible terms, why British troops are in Iraq?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Andy008. 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.
Its not about oil, its about power and Americas standing in the world. Britain have been mugged into going along. Theres nothing more powerful in America than a war president. History is not going to be kind to Tony Blair. What he and Bush have done is borderline criminal. Why have America not attacked Korea? They have a repressive regime, WMD's and have openly been hostile to America, likewise Iraq? Answer-these countries are an actual threat to America and have WMD's. The war in Iraq has hastened these middle east countries to arm themselves, to prevent America attacking them!! Violence didnt solve Northern Ireland, so it was incredible that we agreed to go to war with America against Iraq at almost the same time that peace had been negotiated in Ireland. Put simply, no I cant explain why troops are in Iraq. Sorry
British troops did not invade to liberate Iraq of Sadam Hussein.
This is a line being put out by people wanting to justify our involvement.
Before the invasion Blair said on a number of occasions that Sadam Hussein could still avoid consequences by co-operating over weapons of mass destruction.
If the intention was to remove Sadam Hussein for the good of the Iraqi people this offer would make no sense.
The official reason ws that Iraq had weapons of mass distruction like nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and were intending to supply terrorists who would use them on western countries.
Such weapons did exist in Iraq but it now appears they were destroyed a long time ago - there was never any strong evidence that there were any connections between Sadam Hussein and terrorist groups and indeed a lot of evidence that they hated each other.
Wheter or not Blair and Bush actually believed the flawed intelligence pointing to a threat or whether there was another agenda (oil supplys, Israel, personal revenge - take your pick) is a matter of personal opinion.
For what it's worth, I believe immediately after 9/11 Bush told his staff to find the link to Iraq - finishing his fathers work was on his mind. I think Blair went along in the hope of strengthening British influence with the Americans.
I don't think either of them thought it would go so badly wrong
Loosehead......maybe the idiots as you call them have a valid point.
Many people in this country think that it's all to do with oil, George W wanting to finish off Daddy's work, Tony Blair following on like a collie dog if not a poodle.
It's cost hundreds of British and American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives.....and for what? To impose democracy only if we agree with the vote?
We need to get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and at the same time stop thinking that we are still a Superpower. If we need mighty armed forces we may as well apply to become yet another state of the USA because we don't appear to hold many pro-European views.
BTW.....didn't Britain have something to do with setting up countries out of nothing? Israel and Iraq to name but two.
Many people in this country think that it's all to do with oil, George W wanting to finish off Daddy's work, Tony Blair following on like a collie dog if not a poodle.
It's cost hundreds of British and American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives.....and for what? To impose democracy only if we agree with the vote?
We need to get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and at the same time stop thinking that we are still a Superpower. If we need mighty armed forces we may as well apply to become yet another state of the USA because we don't appear to hold many pro-European views.
BTW.....didn't Britain have something to do with setting up countries out of nothing? Israel and Iraq to name but two.
Yeeeeeha! yeah that's right. Let's toy with the idea of licking the american's ar*se until our nose becomes brown. Until then we will surely have lost our sovereignty completely and become a powerful lobby in their congress to influence their foreign policy decisions just like the israelis with AIPAC.
Back to the point Andy008, it is all summed up in three letters: OIL. Looking at it differently we may never have invaded Iraq in the first place if it did not have oil. More worringly, is the fact that our own poodle (Blair) has followed Bush in his adventures risking the lives of our troops. Why the troops are still threre, hmmm the real motive is still unclear but they should have not been there in the first place.
It's kinda about the oil, more specifically, it's about protecting the American economy.
In 2000, Saddam decreed that all oil exports from Iraq were to be paid for in Euros. Until then, the only way to pay for oil was in US dollars in an exchange (or "bourse") in London or New York. Iran started making noises about doing the same thing.
Pres. Bush and his friends needed to make sure that dollars were the only way to purchase oil, since a drop in the amount of dollars in circulation in the world would have catastrophic implications for the US economy.
Imagine China cashing in her dollar chips at the Casino USA, requesting the value in gold so they could buy Euros to buy oil? Minutes later, dollars would be worth next to nothing! Unthinkable.
Iraq was invaded, her oil was secured and perhaps more importantly, her oil trading account was switched back to dollars.
Iran will most likely be next. Nuclear ambitions? Maybe, but that's not what all the fuss is really about. Iran starts trading its oil in Euros at the end of March. The US treasury has already stopped reporting how many dollars are kept by foreign states for oil buying purposes, they need to keep this very low profile.
If you think I might be some "idiot" I think was the term used earlier, just google Iran oil bourse and do some reading around.
Spreading democracy and removing WMD are one thing, but using my tax pounds and potentially my neighbours lives to protect the wealth of Mr Walmart et al is not my idea of how this democracy is meant to be run.
In 2000, Saddam decreed that all oil exports from Iraq were to be paid for in Euros. Until then, the only way to pay for oil was in US dollars in an exchange (or "bourse") in London or New York. Iran started making noises about doing the same thing.
Pres. Bush and his friends needed to make sure that dollars were the only way to purchase oil, since a drop in the amount of dollars in circulation in the world would have catastrophic implications for the US economy.
Imagine China cashing in her dollar chips at the Casino USA, requesting the value in gold so they could buy Euros to buy oil? Minutes later, dollars would be worth next to nothing! Unthinkable.
Iraq was invaded, her oil was secured and perhaps more importantly, her oil trading account was switched back to dollars.
Iran will most likely be next. Nuclear ambitions? Maybe, but that's not what all the fuss is really about. Iran starts trading its oil in Euros at the end of March. The US treasury has already stopped reporting how many dollars are kept by foreign states for oil buying purposes, they need to keep this very low profile.
If you think I might be some "idiot" I think was the term used earlier, just google Iran oil bourse and do some reading around.
Spreading democracy and removing WMD are one thing, but using my tax pounds and potentially my neighbours lives to protect the wealth of Mr Walmart et al is not my idea of how this democracy is meant to be run.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank0 min ago
Vacuum Cleaner For Dog Hair...
Home & Garden4 mins ago
Photograph Location - Help Needed.
How it Works17 mins ago
Technology23 mins ago
