• 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
sangha said:
Except when it's conveniently agrees with you. Then it's not only proof, it absolutely right, both ethically and legally. :roll:
Click to expand...

For me personally, sure. If someone else believes the opposite, they are free to prove it in court. :shrug:

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)
Click to expand...

What is proven in court is law, what is not proven in court or what is later appealed is not. It can not be illegal without it specifically violating a law, and the violation proven to have been perpetrated by the suspect. Thinking someone is guilty is not enough to be guilty. That's pretty simple, and there is no weaseling going on.

It's absurd to say something was illegal and then disregard what illegal actually means.
 
mac said:
For me personally, sure. If someone else believes the opposite, they are free to prove it in court. :shrug:
Click to expand...

But when you believe the opposite, it suddenly is not proof. (Except when it is)



What is proven in court is law, what is not proven in court or what is later appealed is not.
Click to expand...

And now you're back to arguing "what the court says is proof".
It can not be illegal without it specifically violating a law, and the violation proven to have been perpetrated by the suspect. Thinking someone is guilty is not enough to be guilty. That's pretty simple, and there is no weaseling going on.
Click to expand...

Still on the "OJ is innocent" bandwagon, I see :lol:


It's absurd to say something was illegal and then disregard what illegal actually means.
Click to expand...

Unless we're talking about the definition of person when talking about abortion. Then it's OK to disregard what words actually mean :roll:

You have more positions than the Kama Sutra
 
sangha said:
But when you believe the opposite, it suddenly is not proof. (Except when it is)
Click to expand...

What I believe doesn't make something illegal or legal until I get a law passed or a decision overturned. This isn't a difficult legal concept, Sangha...you can get it.

And now you're back to arguing "what the court says is proof".
Click to expand...

You don't know much about law, do you? Didn't you claim to be a janitor in a law office? Didn't you pick up something?

Still on the "OJ is innocent" bandwagon, I see :lol:
Click to expand...

Was he proven guilty in a court of law? You can assume he's guilty all you want, but he's not until it's proven in court. Is Casey Anthony guilty?

Unless we're talking about the definition of person when talking about abortion. Then it's OK to disregard what words actually mean :roll:
Click to expand...

What words did I disregard regarding the definition of person? You really have a hard time sticking to the subject, don't you?

You have more positions than the Kama Sutra
Click to expand...

I do...lol.
 
mac said:
What I believe doesn't make something illegal or legal until I get a law passed or a decision overturned. This isn't a difficult legal concept, Sangha...you can get it.
Click to expand...

But you believe that what a court decides is proof, except when it isn't :roll:

That's not difficult to figure out either. You've made your ever-changing positions (to suit the argument) quite clear


Was he proven guilty in a court of law? You can assume he's guilty all you want, but he's not until it's proven in court. Is Casey Anthony guilty?
Click to expand...

Keep arguing that OJ is innocent. It really helps you sound credible :lamo


What words did I disregard regarding the definition of person? You really have a hard time sticking to the subject, don't you?
Click to expand...

You ignore the legal definition of the word "person" and the dictionary definitions of the words "human", "human being", "human organism", "fetus" in order to dishonestly equate them with the word "person" as defined by law.
 
mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

We now know they never existed.

We now know that the CIA source was a fraud.

Do you not watch the news?
 
hazlnut said:
We now know they never existed.

We now know that the CIA source was a fraud.

Do you not watch the news?
Click to expand...

If they never existed, how were they used against Iran and the Kurds?
 
sangha said:
But you believe that what a court decides is proof, except when it isn't :roll:

That's not difficult to figure out either. You've made your ever-changing positions (to suit the argument) quite clear
Click to expand...

What's not difficult to figure out is that someone can appear guilty and not be. That's why we have courts and a rule of law.

Keep arguing that OJ is innocent. It really helps you sound credible :lamo
Click to expand...

How about Casey Anthony? Is she guilty?

You ignore the legal definition of the word "person" and the dictionary definitions of the words "human", "human being", "human organism", "fetus" in order to dishonestly equate them with the word "person" as defined by law.
Click to expand...

I've never ignored the definition of any of those, despite the fact that we are not discussing aborting Iraq. :shrug:
 
mac said:
What's not difficult to figure out is that someone can appear guilty and not be. That's why we have courts and a rule of law.



How about Casey Anthony? Is she guilty?



I've never ignored the definition of any of those, despite the fact that we are not discussing aborting Iraq. :shrug:
Click to expand...
ah, but casey anthony is on topic
gotcha
 
justabubba said:
ah, but casey anthony is on topic
gotcha
Click to expand...

It's about the legal process, is it not? An example of guilt vs innocence? The whole world thought her just as guilty as OJ, but she was proven innocent in court. What's the difference between my point and Sangha's?
 
mac said:
It's about the legal process, is it not? An example of guilt vs innocence? The whole world thought her just as guilty as OJ, but she was proven innocent in court. What's the difference between my point and Sangha's?
Click to expand...
according to my computer this is the topic:
Was the War in Iraq worth it?
Click to expand...
only observing your avoiding the question posed, by insisting the question was off topic, while you simultaneously post off topic
 
justabubba said:
according to my computer this is the topic:
only observing your avoiding the question posed, by insisting the question was off topic, while you simultaneously post off topic
Click to expand...

We're talking about the legality of it, and Sangha has been using the OJ tactic, and abortion, to argue Iraq invasion legality. Track it back to who is actually dragging this of topic.
 
mac said:
Sure I do....take it to a court of law. You can also read the UN resolutions that leave enough ambiguity to be interpreted to make it legal. It would take a court, not some nay-sayers, to determine what is actually illegal, under the UN resolutions and what is legal.
Click to expand...

Not all things can go to court. If the US had the power of Iraq, we'd have UN troops here right now. We did essentially the same thing Iraq did in invading Kuwait. We created a pretext, called them a threat and invaded without the UN.

You don't need a court to know that was wrong, and you can read the signed documents to know we broke our agreement. You don't need anything else.
 
justabubba said:
according to my computer this is the topic:
only observing your avoiding the question posed, by insisting the question was off topic, while you simultaneously post off topic
Click to expand...

"Was the War in Iraq worth it?"

Lessee' now. We killed or damaged over a million sand 'gars. Sent another 4 million into Syria as refugees. Wiped out women's rights and increased persecution of Christians. We lied, we renditioned, we tortured, we weaseled, we bombed the civilian infrastructure, we bribed, we did not bomb the pipelines, we did not bomb the oil wells, and to close, we expect the Iraqis to kiss our ass for having done them a favor. It all sounds very Republican to me and that be a hotbed of Christian evangelism, eh? Now we get paid to fix everything we broke. Alfred E. Neuman say "what could possibly go wrong?" We did this because they did not have WMDs, did not get yellowcake in Niger, never heard of "Curveball," did not support al Queda, did not use "dollars" for OIL, mostly because Baghdad was considered a cosmopolitan city. Bomb the hell outa them suckers, we're taking Saddam out! Only a trillion dollars and counting. How could anyone ask "was it worth it?' Speaks for itself.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not all things can go to court. If the US had the power of Iraq, we'd have UN troops here right now. We did essentially the same thing Iraq did in invading Kuwait. We created a pretext, called them a threat and invaded without the UN.

You don't need a court to know that was wrong, and you can read the signed documents to know we broke our agreement. You don't need anything else.
Click to expand...

No we don't need a court to know something is wrong, and you can also read the resolutions that imply it was legal. Hell, it being legal still wouldn't make it "right".
 
mac said:
What's not difficult to figure out is that someone can appear guilty and not be. That's why we have courts and a rule of law.
Click to expand...

What's not difficult for the rest of us to figure out that crimes occur even if they don't result in a conviction.



How about Casey Anthony? Is she guilty?
Click to expand...

Don't know. Is OJ?



I've never ignored the definition of any of those, despite the fact that we are not discussing aborting Iraq. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I understand why you want to ignore your position that the courts are wrong when it comes to defining the word person seeing as how you were arguing in this thread that what the court decides is "proof". Too bad (for you) that some of us are remember the hypocritical and dishonest arguments you made. You want to argue (in this thread) that the courts determine proof even though you have previously argued that the courts don't prove the truth
 
mac said:
It's about the legal process, is it not? An example of guilt vs innocence? The whole world thought her just as guilty as OJ, but she was proven innocent in court. What's the difference between my point and Sangha's?
Click to expand...

No, it is not. It is about the truth, a subject you seem unfamiliar with. Maybe that's why you argue as if a courts decision determines the truth in this thread, but argue the opposite in other threads.
 
mac said:
We're talking about the legality of it, and Sangha has been using the OJ tactic, and abortion, to argue Iraq invasion legality. Track it back to who is actually dragging this of topic.
Click to expand...

No, *YOU* are arguing about the legality of it because the truth is not on your side.

I brought up OJ and abortion to prove that even you don't believe the argument that you're using in this thread.
 
DaveFagan said:
"Was the War in Iraq worth it?"

Lessee' now. We killed or damaged over a million sand 'gars. Sent another 4 million into Syria as refugees. Wiped out women's rights and increased persecution of Christians. We lied, we renditioned, we tortured, we weaseled, we bombed the civilian infrastructure, we bribed, we did not bomb the pipelines, we did not bomb the oil wells, and to close, we expect the Iraqis to kiss our ass for having done them a favor. It all sounds very Republican to me and that be a hotbed of Christian evangelism, eh? Now we get paid to fix everything we broke. Alfred E. Neuman say "what could possibly go wrong?" We did this because they did not have WMDs, did not get yellowcake in Niger, never heard of "Curveball," did not support al Queda, did not use "dollars" for OIL, mostly because Baghdad was considered a cosmopolitan city. Bomb the hell outa them suckers, we're taking Saddam out! Only a trillion dollars and counting. How could anyone ask "was it worth it?' Speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
You are very misinformed and mislead sir. Thats all I can say about your post riddled with inaccurate claims and abbreviated racial slurs. I don't look to debate with you nor do I care to. I'm just pointing out your ignorance of facts.
 
sangha said:
What's not difficult for the rest of us to figure out that crimes occur even if they don't result in a conviction.
Click to expand...

Then why care if the occasional innocent man dies in the electric chair, right?

Don't know. Is OJ?
Click to expand...

Legally, yep.

I understand why you want to ignore your position that the courts are wrong when it comes to defining the word person seeing as how you were arguing in this thread that what the court decides is "proof". Too bad (for you) that some of us are remember the hypocritical and dishonest arguments you made. You want to argue (in this thread) that the courts determine proof even though you have previously argued that the courts don't prove the truth
Click to expand...

You're getting me mixed up with someone else. I've never argued the definition of person. All I've argued is that it doesn't matter.
 
sangha said:
No, *YOU* are arguing about the legality of it because the truth is not on your side.

I brought up OJ and abortion to prove that even you don't believe the argument that you're using in this thread.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring up that it was proven illegal...which it has not been.
 
mac said:
Then why care if the occasional innocent man dies in the electric chair, right?
Click to expand...

Non-sequitor much?



Legally, yep
Click to expand...
.

Nice job dodging the question by adding words to it.

Maybe next time, you'll give an honest answer to the question that was actually asked, and not the one you wished you were asked




You're getting me mixed up with someone else. I've never argued the definition of person. All I've argued is that it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

No, you've never argued the definition of person
http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/94021-does-right-life-exist.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/104931-irrelevance-subjective-concepts.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/80662-unborn-child.html

And of course, you make dishonest claims about the definition of the word "person" in order to have an argument
 
mac said:
I didn't bring up that it was proven illegal...which it has not been.
Click to expand...

Again, it was you who argued about the legality of it because you can't argue the truth of it.

And again, while you are arguing (only in this thread) that since it wasn't proven illegal in a court of law, it wasn't illegal, it's obvious that even you don't believe that argument, because you have argued that the courts have been wrong about many things in other threads.
 
sangha said:
Non-sequitor much?
Click to expand...

It follows...your kangaroo court is absurd.

Nice job dodging the question by adding words to it.
Click to expand...

That's not a dodge, he's innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty, so he's innocent.

Maybe next time, you'll give an honest answer to the question that was actually asked, and not the one you wished you were asked
Click to expand...

I gave an honest answer last time, just not the one you wanted to hear.

No, you've never argued the definition of person
http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/94021-does-right-life-exist.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/104931-irrelevance-subjective-concepts.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/80662-unborn-child.html

And of course, you make dishonest claims about the definition of the word "person" in order to have an argument
Click to expand...

I've never disputed the definition of person.
 
sangha said:
Again, it was you who argued about the legality of it because you can't argue the truth of it.
Click to expand...

No, it was being claimed illegal and I disputed that. I didn't start that.

And again, while you are arguing (only in this thread) that since it wasn't proven illegal in a court of law, it wasn't illegal, it's obvious that even you don't believe that argument, because you have argued that the courts have been wrong about many things in other threads.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if the courts have been wrong in other cases. The charge of an illegal invasion has never been brought to an international court or brought before the UN. It's just conjecture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom