• 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
Temporal said:
If that's the best you can do, you've already lost this argument. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No one has disputed with any kind of real argument, so I win by default.
 
Yes, the Iraq war was VERY worth it for Halliburton, Blackwater, the arms industries, the oil industries, various military contractors, and a little country to the west of Iraq.

was the war worth it to the Iraqi & American people? that remains to be seen.
 
apdst said:
Actually, it happened three times, but don't worry about the facts.
Click to expand...

Not going to answe my first question? OK. How about the fact that we have invaded Vietnam, N. Korea, Panama, Hawaii, The Indian Nations, Iraq, etc.?

Do others have the right to invade us to kick us out or any of them? How about Russia attacking us to kick us out of Iraq just as we invaded Iraq to kick them out of Kuwait?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Not going to answe my first question? OK. How about the fact that we have invaded Vietnam, N. Korea, Panama, Hawaii, The Indian Nations, Iraq, etc.?

Do others have the right to invade us to kick us out or any of them? How about Russia attacking us to kick us out of Iraq just as we invaded Iraq to kick them out of Kuwait?
Click to expand...

We didn't invade Vietnam. How can you make a credible argument when you don't even know that much?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Not going to answe my first question? OK. How about the fact that we have invaded Vietnam, N. Korea, Panama, Hawaii, The Indian Nations, Iraq, etc.?

Do others have the right to invade us to kick us out or any of them? How about Russia attacking us to kick us out of Iraq just as we invaded Iraq to kick them out of Kuwait?
Click to expand...

They have the right but not the ability.
 
apdst said:
We didn't invade Vietnam. How can you make a credible argument when you don't even know that much?
Click to expand...

Semantics and not even the point. If you don't understand the point, just ask. To think that you made a point though, in addition to ignoring the other examples only affirms your inability to honestly debate.
 
mac said:
They have the right but not the ability.
Click to expand...

Though you can attribute some terrorism to it. These groups know they can not head our troops off in standard combat, so they revert to dirty tactics and cheap shots.

------------
To answer the OP:

I am not sure if the Iraq war was worth it. I am still a bit bitter over being sold on a lie and the language they used to justify the war, but if it can be tied in anyway to the changes occurring the Middle East, I would be inclined to give credit where it is due. I cannot vote, however, because a "I am not sure yet" option is not available.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
Semantics and not even the point. If you don't understand the point, just ask. To think that you made a point though, in addition to ignoring the other examples only affirms your inability to honestly debate.
Click to expand...

It's not semantics! :lamo

It's a fact!

It's impossible to have an honest debate with someone that isn't able to post actual facts when making his argument.
 
apdst said:
We didn't invade Vietnam. How can you make a credible argument when you don't even know that much?
Click to expand...
Right. We had the Japs hold onto Vietnam until the French got back in there. We were very nice weren’t we?
 
apdst said:
It's not semantics! :lamo

It's a fact!

It's impossible to have an honest debate with someone that isn't able to post actual facts when making his argument.
Click to expand...

Yes... semantics. :roll:

"Invaded" is the semantics.

Definition of INVADE
transitive verb
1: to enter for conquest or plunder
2: to encroach upon : infringe
3a : to spread over or into as if invading : permeate <doubts invade his mind> b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>

Invade - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

We entered "encroached" into Vietnam. We invaded the North and we invaded Cambodia. You can call it entering to defend if you like, but ultimately we sent more troops that did invasions to win or conquer. I am sure that you think that I mean the North and I am already wondering how your will skip and didge actually just answering a simple question this time.

Seriously... what a joke.
 
Luna Tick said:
George Bush Sr. appears to have been vindicated. He took some heat for not "finishing the job" after the first Gulf War. People said he should have had our troops continue into Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein. However, he explained that being an occupying power of an Islamic country would create bad blood and a quagmire for us. He appears to have been right. It's too bad his son didn't learn from him.
Click to expand...

Probably would explain why Bush, Sr wanted Jeb to be President before "W"...cuz he knew Jr would listen to the neocons who were just itchin' for a fight in the Middle-East and up screwing things up over there.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yes... semantics. :roll:

"Invaded" is the semantics.

Definition of INVADE
transitive verb
1: to enter for conquest or plunder
2: to encroach upon : infringe
3a : to spread over or into as if invading : permeate <doubts invade his mind> b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>

Invade - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

We entered "encroached" into Vietnam. We invaded the North and we invaded Cambodia. You can call it entering to defend if you like, but ultimately we sent more troops that did invasions to win or conquer. I am sure that you think that I mean the North and I am already wondering how your will skip and didge actually just answering a simple question this time.

Seriously... what a joke.
Click to expand...

You're still wrong. 1) we never crossed troops into North Vietnam. 2) We were invited to deploy troops to South Vietnam, by the South Vietnamese government.
 
Objective Voice said:
Why should we have worried about what Saddam did to his own people in his country? Didn't affect us one bit.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that America should always stay on the sidelines of a genocide?
 
apdst said:
Got rid of Saddam. We don't have to worry about him invading his neighbors every few years.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you but Saddam Hussein invading countries I don't know anybody in wasn't really that high on my list of worries. Matter of fact, I wasn't worried about it at all.
 
Cons
Thousands of dead American soldiers
Hundreds of thousands (million, maybe?) dead innocent Iraqi men, women, and children
Billions of dollars lost
Loss of huge amount of international goodwill that America had built
Galvanized anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and increased support for Al Qaeda
Power windfall for Iran

Neutral
No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
No connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Pros
We got Saddam
Oil companies and defense contractors made out like bandits

Yeah... a whole lot of money wasted, lives lost, political turmoil, and a less secure America... so a few rich @$$holes could get richer. No #$%^ing way that the war in Iraq was beneficial for this country. It was criminal in the first place, and gained no one (who isn't evil) anything.
 
Objective Voice said:
Why should we have worried about what Saddam did to his own people in his country? Didn't affect us one bit.
Click to expand...

Should we have worried about what Hitler did to his own people?
 
Hatuey said:
I don't know about you but Saddam Hussein invading countries I don't know anybody in wasn't really that high on my list of worries. Matter of fact, I wasn't worried about it at all.
Click to expand...

What about when it got blown so far out of proportion that we hade a major war to fight and a half-million American soldiers died fighting it? Would that effect you?
 
apdst said:
You're still wrong. 1) we never crossed troops into North Vietnam. 2) We were invited to deploy troops to South Vietnam, by the South Vietnamese government.
Click to expand...

What were those B-52s doing then? And you did it again... you ignored another aspect of my point. Is this what you do? Cherry pick semantical arguments and not ever actually address the purpose of the question? I feel like I am dealing with a kid, or worse, my riduclous ex wife.

Oh... and the slave does not "invite" the master anywere.
 
Hatuey said:
I don't know about you but Saddam Hussein invading countries I don't know anybody in wasn't really that high on my list of worries. Matter of fact, I wasn't worried about it at all.
Click to expand...

Saddam taking control of 20% of the worlds oil reserves would have been a crippling blow to America's economy, and would have crippled America's ability to defend itself. Saddam invaded Kuwait because they refused to slow oil production and drive the price of oil up. Saddam needed high oil prices to pay of it's war debt. (Iran-Iraq war). Whether or not you know any Kuwaitis has nothing to do with the very real impact to your life that Saddam's successful acquisition of Kuwait would have caused. Never mind the idea that unprovoked aggression against another sovereign nation is generally considered taboo in the civilized world.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What were those B-52s doing then? And you did it again... you ignored another aspect of my point. Is this what you do? Cherry pick semantical arguments and not ever actually address the purpose of the question? I feel like I am dealing with a kid, or worse, my riduclous ex wife.

Oh... and the slave does not "invite" the master anywere.
Click to expand...

The bombing in Cambodia wasn't an invasion, it was a disruption of North Vietnamese supply lines. Also, he's right, we were invited into South Vietnam by the South Vietnamese (and the French). Similar points about Korea, btw, minus the French part.
 
mac said:
Do you believe that America should always stay on the sidelines of a genocide?
Click to expand...

Not at all... but we certainly pick and choose are battles. We did nothing for Rwanda or Cambodia or Sierra Leone. We did in Europe because it was Europe and we did it in Kuwait and the ME because it was about oil. As soon as a battle started in Mogadishu we turned tail and ran.
 
mac said:
The bombing in Cambodia wasn't an invasion, it was a disruption of North Vietnamese supply lines. Also, he's right, we were invited into South Vietnam by the South Vietnamese (and the French). Similar points about Korea, btw, minus the French part.
Click to expand...

Invited? The South was our puppet. Like I said... the slave or puppet doesn't "invite" the Master of Puppets anywhere. Que Lars and Metallica! DUN DUN DUN!

And we are getting off the point here. I don't care about it being an invasion. That is not the point. Don't let him fool you. My point was that would another nation be justified in attacking us and kicking us out of any country that we were in with our military? Would Russia or China be justified as we think that we were in going to Iraq and attacking us in order to kick us out as we did to Iraq when they were in Kuwait. THAT is the point and not this apstd filled semantical tangent where he just won't answer the ****ing question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom