This month's best case submission

Each month we select one imaginative and topical case submission to appear on this page - what issue would you like to see debated on the Values Exchange, and how do you think it should be presented? 

The Values Exchange has no political allegiance and accepts proposals for debate from any political point of view.

The successful proposer receives a prize of US$50.

---------

December 2005

My Case Idea
Contact Details
Andrea Berrisford, Hamilton, NZ

Case Background
I continue to be outraged by America's and Britain's invasion and occupation of Iraq. The latest news today has made me feel no better:

"The US president, George Bush, today admitted much of the intelligence used as the basis for invading Iraq had been "wrong" - but defended his decision to go to war because it removed Saddam Hussein. In a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Centre, in Washington, Mr Bush also pledged that US troops would remain in Iraq until "victory is achieved". The speech was the fourth and last in a series aimed at bolstering flagging support for the Iraqi conflict. "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Mr Bush said. "As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." However, he added: "My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat, and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power.""

------------

I realise that this is a complex issue but I would like to know what people think about the validity of one country continuing to occupy another because they don't like the leader. Isn't this what Hitler did?

It is proposed that:
all occupying troops should withdraw from Iraq immediately