• 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
Ikari said:
Of course it was. It was also our war. If the Iraqi people wanted their independence it was up to them to first start the fight.
Click to expand...

they tried that. you may recall we stood by and did nothing while Saddam Hussein massacred his people?
 
grip said:
I'm all for Amurica kicking butt when we're attacked but Iraq? What an exercise in futility and flop sweat. Like Powell said "you break it, you bought it" and what a defective product. Second largest oil reserves in the world untapped because of wars. It could be over 200 billion barrels but they only have 2000 wells drilled compared to the 1 million in Texas alone. Bet that could drive down the price of crude for awhile.
Click to expand...

:roll: and people say all the hawks care about is oil.
 
Of course is wasn't worth it. 200,000 civilians are dead because of it. Iraq is being ripped apart by terrorism. There has been several times as much torture in Iraq post invasion than there was before. We're out well over a trillion dollars. The war was launched based on a series of blatant lies. We all know that now. There were no WMD, there was no link to Al Qaeda (but there is now- we created it), and the pretense that we did it to stop Saddam from torturing people is just disgusting in retrospect considering that we tortured many times as many people as he was. It's all down side. It was the worst decision made by the US government since Vietnam.
 
Ikari said:
We went in there, we took out their government, we oversaw the development of their new government and made sure it would be "ok". Yes, we made some pretense that we'd leave and that Iraq would be run by Iraqi's; but there are certainly similarities.

BTW, what do you do if the Iraqi's wanted to have another "despotic" regime?
Click to expand...

How would you know if they wanted one?
 
radcen said:
Different war, different question.
Click to expand...

No, we're talking about the "ends don't justify the means" as applied to war. This is of course, bunk.
 
Ikari said:
Of course it was. It was also our war. If the Iraqi people wanted their independence it was up to them to first start the fight.
Click to expand...

They did start the fight, there had been resistance movements bent on overthrowing Iraq and the Ba'athists from nearly the time he gained power.
 
mac said:
No, we're talking about the "ends don't justify the means" as applied to war. This is of course, bunk.
Click to expand...
The original question, as I interpreted it, was whether or not the Iraq war specifically was worth it for US (the word "us", not U.S., though in this case it's one and the same). From our sole point-of-view. Not a generic question regarding war in general. Hence, your question would be more appropriate and on-tropic for a thread of its own.
 
radcen said:
The original question, as I interpreted it, was whether or not the Iraq war specifically was worth it for US (the word "us", not U.S., though in this case it's one and the same). From our sole point-of-view. Not a generic question regarding war in general. Hence, your question would be more appropriate and on-tropic for a thread of its own.
Click to expand...

Sure, but in the course of the conversation, other points are made. That's what I was addressing.
 
teamosil said:
Of course is wasn't worth it. 200,000 civilians are dead because of it. Iraq is being ripped apart by terrorism. There has been several times as much torture in Iraq post invasion than there was before.
Click to expand...
Number one, I would like to know where everyone is getting these death counts. I look at the internet and some people say 100,000, some say 1,000,000. Which is it? Also, I was there twice for a total of 1 year 7 months and I remember civilians being killed by the dozens by terrorists, not us. That crap was happening before we went and is still happening now that we are gone.
Iraq is actually not being "torn apart" by terrorism though, despite the threat of it being there. We all have to realize that Iraq is going to be shaky the first few years we are gone. Everyone is going to point the finger at them and say they can't stand on their own when we so soon forget about our own past after we won independence. US Civil War, ring a bell anyone?
What torture do you speak of? Again, show proof instead of just spouting off liberal media hyperbole.
teamosil said:
We're out well over a trillion dollars. The war was launched based on a series of blatant lies. We all know that now. There were no WMD, there was no link to Al Qaeda (but there is now- we created it), and the pretense that we did it to stop Saddam from torturing people is just disgusting in retrospect considering that we tortured many times as many people as he was. It's all down side. It was the worst decision made by the US government since Vietnam.
Click to expand...
Again, show proof of the lies you speak of. What torture? The news media overwhelmingly believed Iraq had WMD's just like I did and I'm sure you did. Saddam gave no proof he didn't have them and made no effort to provide that proof. He wanted everyone to think he did as part of some sort of sick "mine's bigger than your's" intimidation game. There actually was a big link to Al-Qaeda in Iraq because it was a safe haven for terrorists. I wouldn't say that it was the worst decision since Vietnam, that would be Obamacare.
 
Actually Saddam did turn out to not only have WMD's, but also to have the illegal missiles that everyone seems to forget about. What he didn't have were active production lines.

As for the numbers, I've seen alot of folks make them up, and I've seen plenty jump on the flawed British study who later admitted that their methodology basically consisted of asking around if anyone had seen some dead civilians, and counting stories ("my cousin told me a neighbor of his has a friend who saw Americans kill 300 people in a village to the north") rather than actual bodies.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:roll: and people say all the hawks care about is oil.
Click to expand...

I care about truth, fairness and what works not some simple minded labels of "us vs them", so I can raise myself up at the cost of others. I don't see the Iraq War as any big success for the US or Iraqi's, period. You say state the facts and yet you twist the meaning of the "Monroe Doctrine", which was to keep the old world of European countries out of the Americas and new countries forming and to keep America out of Europe. The Doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. Besides the Manifest Destiny interpretation by president Polk to spread west the other presidents have used it as a reason for defense of American interests, not colonial imperialism. An Empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples united and ruled either by a monarch or an oligarchy. We may have started out as a representative republic but have since also instituted a representative democracy with amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights guaranteed limits to the power of the federal government. You can try calling a newly formed country and government from the old world a spreading empire in current times and though it seems that way it doesn't mean all Americans agree with our foreign policies.
 
It was worth it till the current Fool and the rest of the Democrat Party gave it away very much like the Democrats of the 1970's.
 
cpwill said:
1. UN Charter < US Constitution in terms of legitimizing United States political acts.
2. Saddam Hussein was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 660, UN Security Council Resolution 661, UN Security Council Resolution 678, UN Security Council Resolution 686, UN Security Council Resolution 687, UN Security Council Resolution 688, UN Security Council Resolution 707, UN Security Council Resolution 715, UN Security Council Resolution 986, and UN Security Council Resolution 1284.
3. Ergo, UN Security Council 1441 gave Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity" to comply. He refused, we enforced the "serious consequences" it promised him for that refusal.

If the US needed it (which it didn't), we did indeed have the added justification of enforcing the UN Security Resolutions.
Click to expand...

Wrong, they ahd to have the sercurity council OK to invade. You do misrepresent much, often.


then either your recollection is poor, or you attended the public education system, and your education was poor. The Founding Fathers spoke openly and proudly of a future American Empire, which they envisioned as naturally taking over Canada and moving southward through Cuba, westward to the coast, and onward. Hamilton in particular thought that one day the United States would rule over both the North and South American continents. The Founding Fathers dispatched the Navy and United States Marine Corps to overthrow foreign nations for acts of international lawlessness (gosh, that sounds familiar), and certainly didn't seem to be particularly above the notion that the system of government they were setting up would refrain from conquering people for the purpose of spreading our territory, our control, and our ideals (feel free to check with the Native American tribes on this). Monroe has a Doctrine named after him for a reason.
Click to expand...

Frankly, as noted above, it is often you who are wrong. But by all means present information. I'm sure you have an NRO article that completely misrepresents the truth to present. ;)
 
mac said:
Was our war for independence "worth it"?
Click to expand...

Dofferent situation. No one came in and brought us independence. We took it, decided for ourselves. That makes a difference, and changes the means. So try again.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I agree with you that they wouldn't want us to break agreements. Thats the point, we shouldn't be in the agreement to begin with. I believe you and I have debated, at length, the reasons we went into Iraq and Afghanistan so I will save us the merry go round we got into last time.
Click to expand...

Still, we did sign the agreements. Either our word means something or it doesn't. BTW, have you read just war theory?
 
a777pilot said:
The UN is a worthless organization and has no relevance to anything.

Why are we even it in?
Click to expand...

It is useless because it's members are useless. No one would ever give it the power to actually do anything. Still, we signed the agreement and had no real justification for invading another country that was not an imminent threat.
 
a777pilot said:
The UN is a worthless organization and has no relevance to anything.

Why are we even it in?
Click to expand...

The only answer I can find is that without the UN, there would be a vacuum and as such, there would be a fragmented alliances made, some with the likes of Chavez and Venezuela and Akmadinijad in Iran, others with new organizations and then we get into the regional wars, world wars, etc., again. The entire reason the UN exists, as it was with it's predecessor organization was to provide a forum for countries who do not have a voice regionally, such that the countries with the most power and the voting majority can take action before another escalation takes place which kills millions. For it's modern purpose, yes it's mostly useless, corrupt, and ineffectual political posturing B.S. The only valid function it still has is as an emergency vent for regional or world conflicts - and even then it's value is more to stop a contagion spread and not as a "fix" for what's broken.
 
The Iraqi war should have never been undertaken so my answer would have to be a resounding NO. Most of the world knew that Saddam's WMD claims were bogus and this lead to the counties that make up the UN not sanctioning the invasion.

That said, let me make one thing crystal clear: No US soldier ever dies in vain. I have the utmost respect for the men and women who make up the armed forces and feel it my duty to try to provide them with competent commanders-in-chief.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Most of the world knew that Saddam's WMD claims were bogus and this lead to the counties that make up the UN not sanctioning the invasion.
Click to expand...
That's not accurate... at the time we did not know what he had nor did other "most other countries" leading up to the 2003 invasion. Please don't attempt the whole re-write history by continuing to propagate B.S. :roll:
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
The Iraqi war should have never been undertaken so my answer would have to be a resounding NO. Most of the world knew that Saddam's WMD claims were bogus and this lead to the counties that make up the UN not sanctioning the invasion.

That said, let me make one thing crystal clear: No US soldier ever dies in vain. I have the utmost respect for the men and women who make up the armed forces and feel it my duty to try to provide them with competent commanders-in-chief.
Click to expand...

BS, to your first part.

Amen, to your second part.
 
Ockham said:
That's not accurate... at the time we did not know what he had nor did other "most other countries" leading up to the 2003 invasion. Please don't attempt the whole re-write history by continuing to propagate B.S. :roll:
Click to expand...

We knew he had some left over wmds that he could not maintain. We had no intel that was credible that he was growing and gathering. Accepting the misinformation as you have is not history. And telling the truth is not re-writing history. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Still, we did sign the agreements. Either our word means something or it doesn't. BTW, have you read just war theory?
Click to expand...
I know, we did sign the agreement. Does that mean we have to honor it forever no matter what? When does logic take over and we figure out we have to act on our own. The last time the UN acted was Libya and they were fumbling that until guess who came in.
I just Google'd "Just War Theory". Looks like an interesting read. I will tackle that soon. I'm reading Bing West's "The Wrong War" right now. He was in Sangin, Afghansitan while I was there. Great author who doesn't pull punches. You should try it out. After that, I have John Adams biography and then "Killing Lincoln" by O'Reilly lined up. Kinda "booked" as far as books go. Thanks for the recommendation though.
 
Boo Radley said:
We knew he had some left over wmds that he could not maintain. We had no intel that was credible that he was growing and gathering. Accepting the misinformation as you have is not history. And telling the truth is not re-writing history. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

I'm being very specific regarding the statement made which said "Most of the world knew that Saddam's WMD claims were bogus", which is as I stated (and I'm being nice here) in accurate. That is not the truth, therefore it is attempting to propagate misinformation. It's very well documented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom