Should British Troops Be Fighting In Iraq?

Did Blair go too far just to stay good friends with ours friends acroos the pond. Was there any justification? Especially after it turns out Blairs forged docs that supposedly prooved that Saddam had weopens of mass destruction.

The body count is at a minimum of 14619!

'Just say no.' That was the Guardian's considered advice to the UK government over the redeployment of British Black Watch troops from Basra to central Iraq to take the place of Americans who have to go off and fight insurgents. Defence secretary Geoff Hoon confirmed yesterday that 500 troops and 350 support personnel will move to the US sector, freeing up US soldiers to (allegedly) launch a new offensive against Fallujah (1).

source

If you are asking whether we should have invaded Iraq the way we did then no.

However,

If we went in to liberate Iraq as part of a UN military force then yes.


[edit on 9-12-2004 by UK Wizard]

But did we go to liberate them? I think not. If that were the case then why did we leave it so long?

Originally posted by shorty
But did we go to liberate them? I think not. If that were the case then why did we leave it so long?

The current coalition didn't go to liberate,
the UN force would have gone to liberate, due to the multiple countries that would have gone: UK, US, France, Germany, Canada etc.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
The current coalition didn't go to liberate,
the UN force would have gone to liberate, due to the multiple countries that would have gone: UK, US, France, Germany, Canada etc.

Okay, I missed the point until you pointed that out.

Thanks

Ill blame it on stuff on my mind. Yea, that'll do.