• 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 Invading Iraq the Right Choice?

Was invading Iraq and going to war in Iraq, was it the right choice?


  • Total voters
    96
So now I'm told "we didn't help the Kurds". Where did I ever comment about our involvement with the Kurds? Fact, Saddam used weapons of mass destruction to massacre his own people. I'm sure we "pretty well" didn't think he would do that.

I'm sorry, but I haven't been around Debate Politics that long. Perhaps it's always been part of the landscape here, but it seems to me there is some disconnect from reality that is going on.

I can appreciate that one "camp" has as part of it's ideology a requirment to reject any and all ideas that go against the party line, but facts are facts.

To try and suggest the IAEA and the UN knew there we no WMD's in Iraq is folly.

You're seeing the wrong point. You bought up the Kurds, so context must be established. If killing the Kurds is the cncenr, which it wasn't, than we'd have done something to help them.

Nor have I made the affirmative and absolute claim that there were NO wmds. Instead, my claim is that there was no evidence of a growing program and that Saddam was actively creating wmds, which was the rationale for war.
 
It wasn't just my opinion it was the opinion of the head of the inspection team, as well as the UN who decided the technical violation did not merit an attack on Iraq.

And we were right! There was no WMD threat in Iraq!

Well, I guess they lost that debate, didn't they?

Why do you think the UN condoned starving children in Iraq to death so they could line their pockets with money?

Do you think collecting blood money sucked from the corpse of little children could have had an impact on their opinions?

Curious what you think about that.
 
You're seeing the wrong point. You bought up the Kurds, so context must be established. If killing the Kurds is the cncenr, which it wasn't, than we'd have done something to help them.

Nor have I made the affirmative and absolute claim that there were NO wmds. Instead, my claim is that there was no evidence of a growing program and that Saddam was actively creating wmds, which was the rationale for war.

You are conflating my point about the Kurds. Moving on...

As to your claim, you are entitled to your opinion. I only offer the words and actions of the IAEA, the UN, and Iraq in the years and days leading up to the multi-national coalition attack on Iraq.
 
Well, I guess they lost that debate, didn't they?

Why do you think the UN condoned starving children in Iraq to death so they could line their pockets with money?

Do you think collecting blood money sucked from the corpse of little children could have had an impact on their opinions?

Curious what you think about that.



I think you have drank deeply of the neocon kool aid! We are the ones that bombed their water plants and wouldn't allow in water pumps in so they could get clean water to the people. That right there resulted in the deaths of a million children. So don't talk to me about who's got blood on their hands in exchange for getting big oil back in Iraq for the first time since 1973.
 
I think you have drank deeply of the neocon kool aid! We are the ones that bombed their water plants and wouldn't allow in water pumps in so they could get clean water to the people. That right there resulted in the deaths of a million children. So don't talk to me about who's got blood on their hands in exchange for getting big oil back in Iraq for the first time since 1973.

:lamo

Cling long and hard to that which you must believe.
 
:lamo

Cling long and hard to that which you must believe.


It is only the far right that refuse to acknowledge the truth about the lack of Iraq threat.
 
It is only the far right that refuse to acknowledge the truth about the lack of Iraq threat.

And it's only the far left that thinks no other countries joined the US coalition, and the IAEA reports don't exist.

Heap big bowl of delusion served on the far side of your room. That's ok. No matter how hard you try, history is what it is.
 
And it's only the far left that thinks no other countries joined the US coalition, and the IAEA reports don't exist.

Heap big bowl of delusion served on the far side of your room. That's ok. No matter how hard you try, history is what it is.


No matter how you try to heap your **** into a pile, it still doesn't add up to an Iraq threat to the US or its neighbors.
 
You are conflating my point about the Kurds. Moving on...

As to your claim, you are entitled to your opinion. I only offer the words and actions of the IAEA, the UN, and Iraq in the years and days leading up to the multi-national coalition attack on Iraq.

Which has nothing to do with the rationale used. Nor am I conflating. You made a flippent comment that needed context.
 
Are you completely unaware of the the first war on Iraq where we utterly destroyed Iraq's military capability? And are you also unaware that the time in between the first war and this last one we did not allow them to rebuild their military?




If you are that frightened living in the most powerful country on the planet, than maybe we should stop creating enemies? You do realize that our war on the Iraqis created more terrorists than we killed do you not?

You under estimate your enemies at your peril. Iraq could have dissolved into a breeding ground for terrorists with Saddam still in power or worse chaos in that country without our influence. I guess you are part of the crowd that thinks that a small group cannot carry out attacks on the US crashing planes into our buildings. They must need a standing army at pre desert storm levels to do anything apparently???

Your creating new enemies point is an idealist argument and in this global economy we cannot retreat within our own borders. The world doesn't work that way me bleeding heart. Enemies will exist regardless of what we do, but one thing is for sure...they take us seriously and fear us.
 
It is only the far right that refuse to acknowledge the truth about the lack of Iraq threat.

I am going to keep saying it.........its easy to be a Monday Mornig QB.
 
I don't think it's false. The "conventional wisdom"--and, more important, the intel--said that Hussein had WMD.
 
I don't think it's false. The "conventional wisdom"--and, more important, the intel--said that Hussein had WMD.

Only left over wmds, and new programs. So, it was false. Nothing we knew added up to the claims made, and many pointed that out then. You'll know them as those Fix and that ilk called unAmerican.
 
I don't think it's false. The "conventional wisdom"--and, more important, the intel--said that Hussein had WMD.

you're kidding, right? Watch Hubris if you get a chance.
 
you're kidding, right? Watch Hubris if you get a chance.

Is this a tv show or film?

No, I'm not kidding. Even Gen. Clapper (quick--Google) thought this.
 
I don't think it's false. The "conventional wisdom"--and, more important, the intel--said that Hussein had WMD.



Take a look at the poll on this forum.

About 80 percent of the people who voted say that invading Iraq and going to war in Iraq was a bad choice.

The USA gained nothing in Iraq. Except about 4,500 dead and 30,000 injured warriors (And far higher Iraqi losses of innocent Iraqi civilian 'collateral damage' casualties), a $1 trillion unpaid debt and $700 billion to a $1 trillion future debt for taking care of the USA's wounded warriors.

Iran gained a lot, and China gained quite a bit.

Think about it.

Do you really believe that it was worth it?

Go talk to the families of the dead and injured and tell them what you think.

Have a nice day.
 

I am going to keep saying it.........its easy to be a Monday Mornig QB.



I wasn't just opposed to G.W. Bush's illegal war in Iraq, I was also opposed to his father's war in Iraq.

I noticed a long time ago that the USA kicks some despots out and puts some despots in.

We need to stop doing that and stick to taking care of the USA.
 
You under estimate your enemies at your peril. Iraq could have dissolved into a breeding ground for terrorists with Saddam still in power or worse chaos in that country without our influence. I guess you are part of the crowd that thinks that a small group cannot carry out attacks on the US crashing planes into our buildings. They must need a standing army at pre desert storm levels to do anything apparently???

Your creating new enemies point is an idealist argument and in this global economy we cannot retreat within our own borders. The world doesn't work that way me bleeding heart. Enemies will exist regardless of what we do, but one thing is for sure...they take us seriously and fear us.


The unconfirmed over-estimation of the enemy has cost us more US lives needlessly than our enemies have cost us, and it just created more enemies. Here was the conclusion of the 2008 Report by the Rand Corporation, the organization hired by the Pentagon to assess the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"The Rand Corporation, a conservative think-tank originally started by the U.S. Air Force, has produced a new report entitled, "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qaida."

"the U.S. "war on terrorism" has been a failure in combating al Qaida, and indeed, that "[a]l Qaida's resurgence should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. counterterrorism strategy." In the end, Rand concludes that the U.S. should rely much more on local military forces to police their own countries, and that this "means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all." If the politicians take this study seriously, and they should, they should abandon current plans for an increase in U.S. troop involvement in Afghanistan. Indeed, the U.S. military should be pulled out of Afghanistan altogether, just as it should be pulled out of Iraq."


People need to get a grip on their fears and stop acting in a counter productive manner.
 
Catawba;1061601733[B said:
Indeed, the U.S. military should be pulled out of Afghanistan altogether, just as it should be pulled out of Iraq.[/QUOTE



The USA should get out of Afghanistan right now.
 
Indeed, the U.S. military should be pulled out of Afghanistan altogether, just as it should be pulled out of Iraq.[/QUOTE



The USA should get out of Afghanistan right now.


I agree, there will no difference in the outcome for Afghanistan whether we leave immediately or whether we leave next year, except more people on both sides will die if we wait and our debt will clime higher.
 
The unconfirmed over-estimation of the enemy has cost us more US lives needlessly than our enemies have cost us, and it just created more enemies. Here was the conclusion of the 2008 Report by the Rand Corporation, the organization hired by the Pentagon to assess the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"The Rand Corporation, a conservative think-tank originally started by the U.S. Air Force, has produced a new report entitled, "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qaida."

"the U.S. "war on terrorism" has been a failure in combating al Qaida, and indeed, that "[a]l Qaida's resurgence should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. counterterrorism strategy." In the end, Rand concludes that the U.S. should rely much more on local military forces to police their own countries, and that this "means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all." If the politicians take this study seriously, and they should, they should abandon current plans for an increase in U.S. troop involvement in Afghanistan. Indeed, the U.S. military should be pulled out of Afghanistan altogether, just as it should be pulled out of Iraq."


People need to get a grip on their fears and stop acting in a counter productive manner.

You keep talking about people that need to get a grip on their fears but its you who keep spouting off this idealist rant of creating "new enemies". Have you ever read Osama's justification for attacking us? Basically what it says is that we need to pack our bags, get out of Saudi Arabia, stop supporting Israel and then convert to Islam. None of the theories or conclusions by the RAND corporation, whether limited war theory going back to Vietnam or 2008 theory of supporting local police or military, are going to make us any more likeable with this new enemy we face who essentially wants us to pack our bags. An AQ recruiter has enough tools to last a lifetime to create new enemies. Why are you so afraid of new enemies?
 
You keep talking about people that need to get a grip on their fears but its you who keep spouting off this idealist rant of creating "new enemies". Have you ever read Osama's justification for attacking us? Basically what it says is that we need to pack our bags, get out of Saudi Arabia, stop supporting Israel and then convert to Islam. None of the theories or conclusions by the RAND corporation, whether limited war theory going back to Vietnam or 2008 theory of supporting local police or military, are going to make us any more likeable with this new enemy we face who essentially wants us to pack our bags. An AQ recruiter has enough tools to last a lifetime to create new enemies. Why are you so afraid of new enemies?


No, It was the results of the most detailed analysis of the war on terror that has been commissioned by the Pentagon vs the unsubstantiated opinion of anonymous internet dude.
 
Back
Top Bottom