chissitt wrote:And how many more unnecessary Iraqi deaths might there have been because of that despot Hussain if the Americans and British had not stepped in, the Americans want to police the world we are not such a force nowadays and should not have got involved in it, Blair justified this by lying unfortunately the consequences of war meant many British armed forces died because of this, are you looking at loss of life in humanitarian terms or in the loss of life from our armed forces, just interested in your agenda that's all.
Well fortunately for us armed personnel was far lower than that of the Iraqis. It looks like Iraq's excess deaths over the occupation period were calculated to be over 600,000. So by that number alone they'd have been better off with Hussain in charge. For me personally it was a tragic loss of life on both sides - equally as sad.
Blairs governments justification was not originally regime change until it came apparent WMD development was false. Regardless of how a country is run I would never support an invasion of a foreign nation. Neither Britain or the United States own planet earth as much as they'd like to think they do. So glad I was against that war at the time as I naively was in favour of Britain's earlier invasion of Afghanistan. I think the governments real reason for the invasion of Iraq was their desire to privatise Iraq's oil production and nothing else. This reason does not justify the loss of life.
