• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ahmadinejad Says Iran Is Now a 'Nuclear State'

"Lets invade Iraq they have WMDs!"

A year later none found.

"Best out of three then?"

This is definitive proof that you have not read the official declaration of war with Iraq.

When you do please post all the stated reasons. Not a single cherry picked reason.
 
Lets see roadmap ahead
1.Shut-up and respect Iran.They got the right to do whatever they want.
2.Attack Iran aerially.Destroy or atleast severely dealy nuclear enrichment process.
3.Fund the moderates and oppressed.We need a regime change
4..We need a full-scale attack to deal with them once and for all.
5.It is middle-east problem.Who cares?.let them squabble among themeselves
6.Wait and watch.
 
You said you knew they didn't exist. So I must presume you have been there and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that WMD's did not exist in Syria.

Yes I can say without a shadow of a doubt Syria does not have WMD that came from Iraq

Prove me wrong.
 
This is definitive proof that you have not read the official declaration of war with Iraq.

When you do please post all the stated reasons. Not a single cherry picked reason.

Really?

Care to reread your statement paying careful attenetion to the phrase "Official declaration of war"........
 
Really?

Care to reread your statement paying careful attenetion to the phrase "Official declaration of war"........

Yea really. Go google "Iraq War resolution" A.K.A. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002". A joint resolution passed by the US congress (house: 297 ayes, 133 nay, 3 no vote; senate: 77 ayes, 23 nays) in october 2002 as public law authorizing the Iraq war.

It doesn't get anymore official than that.

And please list *all* the reasons stated in that resolution. Not just the one you cherry-picked.
 
Last edited:
Yea really. Go google "Iraq War resolution" A.K.A. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002". A joint resolution passed by the US congress (house: 297 ayes, 133 nay, 3 no vote; senate: 77 ayes, 23 nays) in october 2002 as public law authorizing the Iraq war.

It doesn't get anymore official than that.

And please list *all* the reasons stated in that resolution. Not just the one you cherry-picked.

i believe the point that was being brought to you attention was that it was NO declaration of war, in contrast to how you had improperly described it
 
i believe the point that was being brought to you attention was that it was NO declaration of war, in contrast to how you had improperly described it
You are wrong. It was an official declaration of war.

If you two insist on being pedantic then:

1) The iraq war of 2003 is technically described as a "military engadgement authorized by congress" and not a "formal declaration of war by congress".
2) All constitutional requirements were met to declare war against Iraq. See article 1 section 8.

It was a war. It was officially authorized by congress. It was publically declared by the US government. I don't see how much more "official" a war could get.

But this is all beside the point. The whole point is that Alvin T. Grey is ignorant to the officially stated reasons for the Iraq war and continues to live in denial of the facts.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom