View Poll Results: Was the War in Iraq worth it?

Voters
207. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    109 52.66%
  • No

    98 47.34%
Page 57 of 58 FirstFirst ... 74755565758 LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 577

Thread: Was the War in Iraq worth it?

  1. #561
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Was the War in Iraq worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    1) interesting take, but no. Law covers our actions as memebers and not something we can excuse because they are non memebers.
    Not so. US interest and US law, by US statute, take precedence over treaties.

    2) Nothing in US law required an invasion, but again not the point. The point is we broke our agreement. You're free to agree that we broke the agreement, but that you think our word means little to nothing.
    Required, no, authorized, yes.

    3) I don't buy that. Certianly not an imminent threat. Even Bush, as I said, concedes there was no imminent threat and never said there was. So, no, there was never argued there was an inminent threat.
    You don't have to "buy it". The people in charge did. Guess you should have been running the show.

    4) Again, the dispute here is that we broke our agreement. You seem ready to concede that we did.
    We broke our agreement? Even if so, that doesn't make anything illegal. Technically, if you break a treaty agreement, then it no longer applies anyway.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  2. #562
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Was the War in Iraq worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    glad you piped up

    now i dare you to show us what part of my post is not true
    I dare you to show that any of it is.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  3. #563
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,961
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: Was the War in Iraq worth it?

    I am going to have to say no, it was not worth it. The US lost over 4,000 servicemen and women and a large number were wounded as well. There are also hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and their civilization was essentially destroyed. In addition to this, the US destroyed large amounts of artifacts that had importance to human civilization.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  4. #564
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Was the War in Iraq worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Not so. US interest and US law, by US statute, take precedence over treaties.
    It's a lot more complicated than that. Treaties are US law. Like other laws, they can be overridden by later laws or invalidated if they conflict with the constitution. But where it gets tricky is that some treaties are considered "self executing" and some require additional laws to be passed by congress in order to make them kick in. For example, a treaty that just says the tariff on beef will be 3% is self executing. Congress doesn't need to do anything else once the treaty is ratified, that tariff rate just becomes US law. But a treaty that is more like a general discussion of goals requires Congress to pass laws specifying how it will be enacted before it becomes legally binding. For example, if we sign a treaty that just says we will respect human rights, that isn't really specific enough to enforce as a law, so it is not considered self executing. Congress would need to pass a law or series of laws spelling out what exactly that means before it would be legally binding.

    The US courts have generally not treated the UN Charter as being self executing though, so only those provisions that the Congress has enacted with normal laws are legally binding within the US. The war was likely not a violation of US law. At least not for the reason that it violated the UN Charter. There could potentially be domestic laws it violated. But it most definitely was a violation of international law, which treats the UN Charter as binding.

  5. #565
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Was the War in Iraq worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    It's a lot more complicated than that. Treaties are US law. Like other laws, they can be overridden by later laws or invalidated if they conflict with the constitution. But where it gets tricky is that some treaties are considered "self executing" and some require additional laws to be passed by congress in order to make them kick in. For example, a treaty that just says the tariff on beef will be 3% is self executing. Congress doesn't need to do anything else once the treaty is ratified, that tariff rate just becomes US law. But a treaty that is more like a general discussion of goals requires Congress to pass laws specifying how it will be enacted before it becomes legally binding. For example, if we sign a treaty that just says we will respect human rights, that isn't really specific enough to enforce as a law, so it is not considered self executing. Congress would need to pass a law or series of laws spelling out what exactly that means before it would be legally binding.

    The US courts have generally not treated the UN Charter as being self executing though, so only those provisions that the Congress has enacted with normal laws are legally binding within the US. The war was likely not a violation of US law. At least not for the reason that it violated the UN Charter. There could potentially be domestic laws it violated. But it most definitely was a violation of international law, which treats the UN Charter as binding.
    It was not a violation of international law, according to UN resolution 678. At least that's the US position on it.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  6. #566
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,155

    Re: Was the War in Iraq worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    I dare you to show that any of it is.
    ok, my pleasure:
    ... In his press conference of October 28, 2005, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald explained in considerable detail the necessity of secrecy about his grand jury investigation that began in the fall of 2003 — "when it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown" — and the background and consequences of the indictment of then high-ranking Bush Administration official Lewis Libby as it pertains to Valerie E. Wilson.[15]

    Fitzgerald's subsequent replies to reporters' questions shed further light on the parameters of the leak investigation and what, as its lead prosecutor, bound by the rules of grand jury secrecy, he could and could not reveal legally at the time.[15] Official court documents released later, on April 5, 2006, reveal that Libby testified that "he was specifically authorized in advance" of his meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller to disclose the "key judgments" of the October 2002 classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Libby's testimony, "the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE [to Judith Miller]."[36] According to his testimony, the information that Libby was authorized to disclose to Miller "was intended to rebut the allegations of an administration critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson." ...
    Valerie Plame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  7. #567
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Was the War in Iraq worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    It was not a violation of international law, according to UN resolution 678. At least that's the US position on it.
    Yeah, that is the US position, but it's baloney. That resolution was passed in 1990. Immediately before the FIRST Gulf war. It authorized member states to take action to enforce the earlier resolution ordering Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Nothing to do with the second war. It's one of those things where we needed to say something since we didn't want to just flat out blurt out that we were disregarding international law, and that was the best we could come up with- "well, you authorized it last time..."

  8. #568
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,306

    Re: Was the War in Iraq worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Nothing like a healthy dose of conspiracy theory to put it all in perspective. Thanks,
    That is the standard reply of the ignorant and uninformed. I don't think you have plagiarized anyone, but originality is not your forte. The burden of proof is upon you, not justabubba. You can say black is white and inside is outside and truth is fiction and it only identifies you as a Republican. Go for it! Right cheek, left cheek, repeat as necessary.

  9. #569
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Was the War in Iraq worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Yeah, that is the US position, but it's baloney. That resolution was passed in 1990. Immediately before the FIRST Gulf war. It authorized member states to take action to enforce the earlier resolution ordering Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Nothing to do with the second war. It's one of those things where we needed to say something since we didn't want to just flat out blurt out that we were disregarding international law, and that was the best we could come up with- "well, you authorized it last time..."
    Regardless, it's still there, still in effect, and legal.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  10. #570
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Was the War in Iraq worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Regardless, it's still there, still in effect, and legal.
    Yeah, it's still there authorizing us to use military force to remove the Iraqi military from Kuwait in 1990... Not authorizing anybody that wants to to invade Iraq whenever they want for the rest of time.
    Last edited by teamosil; 01-01-12 at 12:46 AM.

Page 57 of 58 FirstFirst ... 74755565758 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •