why is it that britian and america seems to make it a habit of interfering in other people's countries?

Question

now that they have gotten rid of saddam hussain why are there troops still in iraq? this leads me to believe that the reasons for going to war is a lot more than the government lets on. i have lost a little bit of respect for the british and american government who i have always stuck up for because i am now force to believe that Britain and america is still invading other people's countries like they did years ago but are doing it in an indirect subtle and more accepting way.

Answer 1

There's nothing wrong in principle with interfering in other people's countries. People in countries like Zimbabwe and Sudan are crying out for some "interference". When the security of a country is threatened it is also justifiable to intervene (but not disproportionately).
Unfortunately the invasion of Iraq fulfills none of these criteria.

Answer 2

The UK and the US are in the habit of using military means to prevent wider conflict and/or greater suffering, e.g. Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan etc.

Sometimes they may over-reach and this was clearly the case in Iraq, poor post Saddam planning is the problem, now the troops are stuck as pulling out now would leave a power vacuum the Iraq government would be unable to fill.

I remember distinctly at the end of the first gulf war that when asked why the US had not pushed on to Baghdad, the first answer was because there was no UN mandate to do so (merely inconvenient) and secondly (the real reason) because Saddam was the only thing holding Iraq together.

Iraq like many countries (including the US) is a creation of the British foreign office, unfortunately these nations were often drawn up rather too hastily. London based officials at the FO had a habit of drawing straight lines across vast swathes of the map (look at central Africa) with little regard to tribal lands and age old animosities. This then locked in internal conflicts within these new nations that have lasted to the present day.

So you see your question is rather ironic in that it is the UK that set up most of these problems years ago when they divided up the world into artificial 'nations'. Now years later the UK feels obliged to intervene to prevent these failed states from doing further damage to themselves or their neighbours.

Fancy Zimbabwe anyone?

Answer 3

Well, it's either because they have oil or that they are a threat to Western interests.

For example, imagine 12 gardens in a row, with garden 1 and 3 needing a specific resource, found only in garden 7 and 9, then the people of garden 1 and 3 quell their neighbour in garden 2, lets call this Europe, and then head off to gardens 4, 5, 6, and with gardens 7 and 10 representing Israel and Saudi, 4, 5 and 6 are Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Basically, they need to quell close neighbours, via threats or bribes, and in supporting the Fascist states of Israel and Saudi, assisting them in crushing their people and neighbours, Saudi people and the Palestinians, thus setting neighbour against neighbour, divide and conquer, while the nasties go deal with Iran and Oraq under the guise of security.

Now if you imagine this being a normal neighbourhood, then this could not happen, because you could call the police and have the murdering and nasty neighbours chucked out of the street. However, in this case the police, army, politicians and the ploice are siding with the nasty neighbours, and keeoing everyone in order by telling them that the neighbours attacked have guns, huge weapons, are rapists and whatever, all designed to have other neighbours reluctant to question the police or other authorities.

Okay...

Answer 4

There is a hidden agenda. Certain parts of the Bush administration want to take over the Middle East (ie Imperialism), install puppet governments and control the resources. They want total domination.

This is why we are not leaving Iraq, and Iran is next on the list, believe me.

The 'insurgents' are regular Iraqis who simply don't want their country to be taken over by a foreign occupier and this is who the troops are currently fighting. Also Al-Qaeda recruits, who WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE in the first place if Iraq hadn't been turned into a terrorist haven by this war.

Lots of people will probably thumb me down for this, well I'm sorry but this is the grim reality. I'm telling it how it is, not like the 'WMD/brutal dictator/spreading democracy/revenge for 9/11' crap you have been fed by the corporate media.

The truth ain't always easy to swallow, but it is the truth nonetheless.

Answer 5

The people of Britain and America do not control the armies of their respective countries. The PM in Britain has free reign to do whatever he wants with the army in Britain and the United States president as we all know can also do whatever
he wants with his executive supreme power over the armed forces.
This leaves both of these heads of state open to influence from corrupt forces like special interest groups. I don't think Congress would have voted for a war if they had the right information. The entire CIA has to be investigated and Congress needs to have supreme power over the armed forces , not the president.

Peace,

Answer 6

Gee Kookoo, you mean to tell me that the British Colonial Empire, never interfered with any other country in there own self interest? It must be the more powerful French Colonial Empire I'm attributing the phrase "the sun never sets..."?

Answer 7

Troops will go out and help maintain law and order in unstable countries. It is an ongoing process.Better that than turning a blind eye to atrocities which would be committed otherwise. Any society is vulnerable to this, as we have seen in history.

Answer 8

Yup, we got to stop. No need to provide food and shelter after tsunamis. No need to export food to places that can't sustain themselves. Heaven forbid that we try to foster education and human rights.

As for the 'civil war' in iraq, it's a symptom of the reason we went there in the first place. Way too much opportunism with out regard for other beings. I think the area's leaders are all involved in carrying out mass ideological lobotomies.

Answer 9

imperialism

1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

Answer 10

use your noodle its simple its about oil and gas we must control that area of the world to ensure our economys remain stable. without a constant flow of their resources the united kingdom and united states. would be in a real bad situation we need what they have and will fight and destroy and kill to make sure we get it and you know what we are all to blame if no one used oil or gas their would be no reason for war. so let me ask you do you use gas do you drive a car do you heat your home with oil or gas if your answer is yes regardless of where your from you have blood on your hands and are guilty of exploiting and killing innocent people so get off your high horse killer and join the club