• 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
mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

Only if we were unwilling to adapt. We have HUGE oil reserves. Canada has HUGE oil reserves. We have the biggest natural gas reserves in the world and could easily adapt and leave the whole M.E. to the barbaric 7th century ways... laughing all the way as they fell back into the dark ages. But nope, we made things far far worse by invading. I guess time will tell. In 25 years I might recant here at this very site... I bet you are anxious to wait and see, eh? ;)
 
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not really accurate. For instance, I happened to be part of the US response in Rwanda in 1994. I agree our actions in Cambodia and Sierra Leone were lacking. The only reason we got into Europe in either case was because we were attacked, I personally believe we should have stayed out of WWI and should have entered WWII much earlier than we did (due to the ongoing genocide). I also know several people that didn't "turn tail and run" in Mogadishu.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Only if we were unwilling to adapt. We have HUGE oil reserves. Canada has HUGE oil reserves. We have the biggest natural gas reserves in the world and could easily adapt and leave the whole M.E. to the barbaric 7th century ways... laughing all the way as they fell back into the dark ages. But nope, we made things far far worse by invading. I guess time will tell. In 25 years I might recant here at this very site... I bet you are anxious to wait and see, eh? ;)
Click to expand...

I think our present state would tell you that our political situation does not let us adapt when it comes to oil production.

edit: for the record, I'm not a particular fan of the second Iraq invasion. Primarily for timing reasons, I do believe Saddam being removed from power was a benefit to the entire world.
 
Last edited:
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...



They were bombing military targets. That's not an invasion.

No one can complain about dishonesty while at the same time posting erroneous information.
 
mac said:
That's not really accurate. For instance, I happened to be part of the US response in Rwanda in 1994. I agree our actions in Cambodia and Sierra Leone were lacking. The only reason we got into Europe in either case was because we were attacked, I personally believe we should have stayed out of WWI and should have entered WWII much earlier than we did (due to the ongoing genocide). I also know several people that didn't "turn tail and run" in Mogadishu.
Click to expand...

I know we had a response in Rwanda and I know an Army Ranger that didn't turn tail and run for those two days or whatever it was as well... but we as a nation turned tail and ran and that was the point and I think that you know that. Also, I meant Yougoslavia... not WWI or WWII. Since you brought it up though, I agree to your assessment of how our response should have been in both.
 
mac said:
I think our present state would tell you that our political situation does not let us adapt when it comes to oil production.

edit: for the record, I'm not a particular fan of the second Iraq invasion. Primarily for timing reasons, I do believe Saddam being removed from power was a benefit to the entire world.
Click to expand...

But we could and would adapt if we had to... that is the very nature of what makes America great.
 
apdst said:
They were bombing military targets. That's not an invasion.

No one can complain about dishonesty while at the same time posting erroneous information.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the term "invasion of airspace"?
 
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

We had a dumbass Libbo prez while people were dieing in Rwanda and Sierra Leone.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Ever heard of the term "invasion of airspace"?
Click to expand...

Militarily? No, I haven't. Care to educate us on it? Please, only explain it to use in tactical military terms. Thanks and good luck with that.
 
apdst said:
They were bombing military targets. That's not an invasion.

No one can complain about dishonesty while at the same time posting erroneous information.
Click to expand...

Oh my god... what a ****ing waste this is turning into. I will just slam you this one last time and leave you to your folly.

Originally Posted by apdst
we never crossed troops into North Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
What were those B-52s doing then?
Click to expand...

B-52's carry troops. They crossed into North Vietnam. You lose. It's over. Now... will you just answer the damn question. :lol:
 
apdst said:
Actually, it happened three times, but don't worry about the facts.
Click to expand...

What 3 times?

Are you actually counting Iran? :lamo apdst loves the Ayatollahs!
 
Bodhisattva said:
Oh my god... what a ****ing waste this is turning into. I will just slam you this one last time and leave you to your folly.



B-52's carry troops. They crossed into North Vietnam. You lose. It's over. Now... will you just answer the damn question. :lol:
Click to expand...

OMG!! You're not serious. Right?!? :lamo

My folly??? Really?!?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Militarily? No, I haven't. Care to educate us on it? Please, only explain it to use in tactical military terms. Thanks and good luck with that.
Click to expand...

"every Power has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory"

Convention Relating to the Regulation of Air Navigation, Paris 1919
 
Bodhisattva said:
"every Power has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory"

Convention Relating to the Regulation of Air Navigation, Paris 1919
Click to expand...

I still can't get past you saying that B-52's carry troops. :rofl

I'm sorry, bro!
 
apdst said:
OMG!! You're not serious. Right?!? :lamo

My folly??? Really?!?
Click to expand...

Yep... it is like debating a child.

B-52's carry troops.

Definition of TROOP
1a : a group of soldiers

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

Definition of SOLDIER
1a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army b : an enlisted man or woman c : a skilled warrior
2: a militant leader, follower, or worker

Soldiers - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 
apdst said:
I still can't get past you saying that B-52's carry troops. :rofl

I'm sorry, bro!
Click to expand...

So you get your ****ing ass SLAMMED with facts and this is all you have... :lol:

You asked for evidence and I just gave you evidence... classic.

Carry on little buddy.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yep... it is like debating a child.

B-52's carry troops.

Definition of TROOP
1a : a group of soldiers

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

Definition of SOLDIER
1a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army b : an enlisted man or woman c : a skilled warrior
2: a militant leader, follower, or worker

Soldiers - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...

There you go again! :rofl

Trully amazing!

The B-52 is a bomber, not a transport aircraft.

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
apdst said:
There you go again! :rofl

Trully amazing!

The B-52 is a bomber, not a transport aircraft.

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I guess you have a problem with the English language. Well, I like winning, it is in my competitive nature. The problem is that I don't take beating and slamming pre-schoolers as much of a victory. I actually feel kinda bad once I realize how one sided the sport is. Anyways...
 
Bodhisattva said:
I guess you have a problem with the English language. Well, I like winning, it is in my competitive nature. The problem is that I don't take beating and slamming pre-schoolers as much of a victory. I actually feel kinda bad once I realize how one sided the sport is. Anyways...
Click to expand...

I'm not the cat that thinks that a B-52 is a troop transport.
 
apdst said:
There you go again! :rofl

Trully amazing!

The B-52 is a bomber, not a transport aircraft.

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Your inability to understand the basic's of the English language aside...

From your own link:

On 18 December 1972, tail gunner SSgt Samuel O. Turner's B-52 had just completed a bomb run for Operation Linebacker II and was turning away when a North Vietnamese Air Force MiG-21 approached.[142] The MiG and the B-52 locked onto one another. When the fighter drew within range, Turner fired his quad (four guns on one mounting) .50 caliber machine guns.[143] The MiG exploded aft of the bomber

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Staff Sergeant (SSgt) is E-5 in the United States Air Force (U.S. Air Force).

Staff sergeant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
apdst said:
I'm not the cat that thinks that a B-52 is a troop transport.
Click to expand...

Quote where I said it was a "troop transport". Naaw... you can't because I didn't. The ones flying the plane are soldiers, or troops, by the very fact that they are engaged in military service as I clearly pointed out by defining the terms for you.

I have been in a B-52... have you? I have also been on the battleship New Jersey, two aircraft carriers, a nuclear submarine, some frigates, in the cockpits of various fighters and in a C-5 as well as various helicopters, tanks, etc.

I know a few Army Rangers and a bunch of military people in the Air Force since that is where a family member works... I don't want to overwhelm you with anything until you can grasp the basic meaning of troops or own up to your obvious avoidance of the 1919 agreement on airspace or your incorrect assertion that no US troops entered into North Vietnam. We will get back to the basic question then and see if you are capable of finally answering it.
 
Last edited:
Well, this is taking to long little buddy... I have some waves to catch. Surf is up and I have better things to do than watch you dance about in such a silly fashion.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Oh my god... what a ****ing waste this is turning into. I will just slam you this one last time and leave you to your folly.



B-52's carry troops. They crossed into North Vietnam. You lose. It's over. Now... will you just answer the damn question. :lol:
Click to expand...

You said it right here. Militarily speaking, the air crew don't qualify as, "troops".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom