• 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!

Was the War in Iraq worth it?

Was the War in Iraq worth it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 19.6%
  • No

    Votes: 86 80.4%

  • Total voters
    107
Ain't that Mac sumpin' though. Like having a discussion with a grapefruit. Don't put nothin' in and crap still comes out. No-brainer comes to mind. I don't know why!

Now, that's productive.
 
Umm, no it doesn't

But go on believing that OJ is innocent

Ah, the court of public opinion is good enough, huh? Guess you don't much mind innocent people being put to death, so long as enough people think they're guilty.
 
Ah, the court of public opinion is good enough, huh? Guess you don't much mind innocent people being put to death, so long as enough people think they're guilty.

Guess you think OJ was looking for the "real" killer out on those golf courses

And I guess you think the word "person" does not apply to the unborn because that's what the Supreme Court decided
 
Last edited:
Guess you think OJ was looking for the "real" killer out on those golf courses

And I guess you think the word "person" does not apply to the unborn because that's what the Supreme Court decided

Focus...let's keep on the subject. Because the war is unpopular, ill-concieved, poorly timed, and of questionable justification vs cost, doesn't mean it was illegal. and it doesn't mean Bush lied. There are plenty of UN resolutions that can be argued to legitimize the invasion. Those arguments are as valid as the arguments against in my opinion.
 
Simple yes or no question.

I don't have a clue - I have no idea how beneficial it's been for the Iraqi people but from the looks of it: not much good has come from any of it.
 
Focus...let's keep on the subject. Because the war is unpopular, ill-concieved, poorly timed, and of questionable justification vs cost, doesn't mean it was illegal. and it doesn't mean Bush lied. There are plenty of UN resolutions that can be argued to legitimize the invasion. Those arguments are as valid as the arguments against in my opinion.

Focus on the hypocrisy and dishonesty of your argument

You're dishonestly arguing that it's the courts decision that counts, even though you don't believe that, as proven by your repeated claims that the court was wrong to decide that the unborn are not "persons"

So which is it? Is what the court says "proven", or is it "wrong"?

Or is it just "whatever is most convenient to the argument mac is making at the moment?"
 
Focus on the hypocrisy and dishonesty of your argument

You're dishonestly arguing that it's the courts decision that counts, even though you don't believe that, as proven by your repeated claims that the court was wrong to decide that the unborn are not "persons"

So which is it? Is what the court says "proven", or is it "wrong"?

Or is it just "whatever is most convenient to the argument mac is making at the moment?"

In that case, I think it's wrong and I disagree with the decision. But it's the court's decision that counts, isn't it?
 
Yeah, 60+ years...we're still in Germany and Japan.

What international body has deemed the war illegal? Has the UN pursued action against the US? Has Iraq sued in international court?
It violated UN Charter.
 
In that case, I think it's wrong and I disagree with the decision. But it's the court's decision that counts, isn't it?

So you agree that a courts decision can be wrong?

Ergo, a courts decision is not something you consider proof, even though you are now dishonestly claiming that a courts decision is not only proof, but the ONLY proof.
 
So you agree that a courts decision can be wrong?

Ergo, a courts decision is not something you consider proof, even though you are now dishonestly claiming that a courts decision is not only proof, but the ONLY proof.

Sure I believe a court can be wrong, but there's is a process for that...involving court.
 
"Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." President Clinton ~ February 1998.


Iraqi Liberation act of 1998
 
Last edited:
Until overturned or rescinded.

If a court decision is "proof", then how can it be "wrong" (as you have claimed many times in the past wrt Roe v Wade)?

Do you believe that things that have been proven are wrong?
 
"Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." President Clinton ~ February 1998.

In 1998, and Clinton didn't invade. He got Saddam to destroy his WMDs and dismantle the WMD programs without invading.
 
In 1998, and Clinton didn't invade. He got Saddam to destroy his WMDs and dismantle the WMD programs without invading.

What do you base "he got Saddam to destroy his WMDs"? For all you know, they were destroyed or moved a day before the invasion. Regardless, if that were true, why was the ACT still active?
 
If a court decision is "proof", then how can it be "wrong" (as you have claimed many times in the past wrt Roe v Wade)?

Do you believe that things that have been proven are wrong?

It can be ethically wrong, or a misapplication of law. In which case, it's appealed. However, until successfully appealed, it's law. Are you really going to try to disassemble the rule of law in order to make something illegal? If the coart has no authority, and if something is illegal because just anyone thinks it is....what's the court system for, actually?
 
Last edited:
What do you base "he got Saddam to destroy his WMDs"? For all you know, they were destroyed or moved a day before the invasion. Regardless, if that were true, why was the ACT still active?

Because UNSCOM and every other inspector said so.
 
It can be ethically wrong, or a misapplication of law.

Except when it's conveniently agrees with you. Then it's not only proof, it absolutely right, both ethically and legally. :roll:


In which case, it's appealed. However, until successfully appealed, it's law. Are you really going to try to disassemble the rule of law in order to make something illegal? If the coart has no authority, and if something is illegal because just anyone thinks it is....what's the court system for, actually?

You have been arguing, in this thread, that what the court says is proof, and what the court says is the ONLY proof. Now, you're saying that it's not proof, and trying to weasal word it to make it appear that I've flip-flopped, and then ending by saying that the court is the authority (except when it isn't)
 
Back
Top Bottom