• 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
75% of America and the men currently serving as this administrations Secretaries of Defense and State both supported the decision to remove Saddam Hussein; the policy of regime removal in Iraq was bipartisan. Post regime-fall bungling created serious problems and a nigh-on failed state, which was resecured and revitalized only through the sacrifice of the Surge, a sacrifice since squandered by the current President and his advisers. Unfortunately, it is that weakness of will that will be the one of the chief legacies of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The wages of that weakness are currently being paid by Syrian civilians. Other peoples will join their ranks. The American people always thought that the war in Iraq was about Iraq, but for the people in the region (and around the rest of the world) it was about America - did it have the national will to see it's objects through? Was Osama right to have labeled the American people the "Weak Horse"? The people of Afghanistan face a future where a weak and corrupt national government abandons them to the tender mercies of violent jihad. Those who optimistically bet on us over the last decade will (one can hope) manage to flee before they get to watch their children murdered. The American people are War-Weary. Not that they are actually weary of war, mind you (an all-volunteer force means a tiny portion have shouldered that particular burden), but it's such a drag when it comes on the news, and stuff, and, like, we thought war was like, quick and easy, and stuff. Life's problems are supposed to be solved with a rock song and a montage - and if a problem can't be solved that way, maybe we can ignore it and hope it goes away. Others will suffer but, hey, at least we can hear less about war and more about what our pop-stars are doing with their private parts.
 
As Rachael Maddow said in her documentary, "It was a war fought because of hubris"

I think it was a total nationalistic war started by neo-con reactionaries.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
As Rachael Maddow said in her documentary, "It was a war fought because of hubris"

I think it was a total nationalistic war started by neo-con reactionaries.
Click to expand...

Well, no. A wide majority of the country and folks both left and right supported it in 2003. It was when the effort began to go badly that many Democrats saw partisan advantage in changing their minds - a realization that, oddly perfectly coincided with their sudden change of heart. :thinking

Kaplan has an excellent discussion of the impact of the campaign in the balkans (and failure in rwanda) on the pre-Iraq war discussion. Maybe I'll go dig it up.
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well this is interesting. Catawba is correct. If we are going to just abandon the fight, better to rip off the bandaid. Either fight to win, or don't fight at all. This administrations' disastrous attempt to chart a path between those two means that more Americans die needlessly, to no purpose.
 
cpwill said:
Well, no. A wide majority of the country and folks both left and right supported it in 2003. It was when the effort began to go badly that many Democrats saw partisan advantage in changing their minds - a realization that, oddly perfectly coincided with their sudden change of heart. :thinking

Kaplan has an excellent discussion of the impact of the campaign in the balkans (and failure in rwanda) on the pre-Iraq war discussion. Maybe I'll go dig it up.
Click to expand...

The ones who started the war and pushed the war were the ones I mentioned.

The one who followed and supported them were dumbasses reacting to polls and nationalism/hubris.
 
The neo-cons were convince that this would be a six day war and that the iraqui citizens would welcome us by waving american flags and only cost a few million.
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

My ****?

Typical liberal, I post nothing but pure facts taken verbatim from historical records, and you have to lable it MY stuff. Must be frustrating to be tripped up by facts so often, because the reaction is in the liberal DNA.

:cuckoo:
 
ocean515 said:
My ****?

Typical liberal, I post nothing but pure facts taken verbatim from historical records, and you have to lable it MY stuff. Must be frustrating to be tripped up by facts so often, because the reaction is in the liberal DNA.

:cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Good morning, Ocean.

I wonder how many of them just hated the Dragnet series! Sergeant Joe Friday forever stating "just the facts" had to trigger migraines... :lamo
 
polgara said:
Good morning, Ocean.

I wonder how many of them just hated the Dragnet series! Sergeant Joe Friday forever stating "just the facts" had to trigger migraines... :lamo
Click to expand...

Hi Polgara.

To think, all I did was post entries from the IAEA, and somehow they became MY opinions.

I guess that's part of the Liberal/Progressive thing. If the shoe doesn't fit, blame the shoe, and not yourself.
 
nota bene said:
Is this a TV show or film?

No, I'm not kidding. Even Gen. Clapper (quick--Google) thought this.
Click to expand...

I am finally beginning to see the problem and it is a serious one.
Bush the Younger was a weak president; Cheney the hawk was strong (overly influential). The upper brass (generals, the secretary of defense) have the vocal power. the sergeants, the men in the middle have a weak voice... the people - a zero voice...
The loser is honesty...the truth...and the people...
Thus, the outcome was predestined...
Those in power must improve their attitude.
 
shrubnose said:
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.
Click to expand...

I feel that Bush the Elder did the right think in Iraq I, Hussein thought as himself to be another Hitler.
To him, Kuwait was Austria or Luxembourg.
Worse yet, at that time, America and the rest of the world was powerless.
 
earthworm said:
I feel that Bush the Elder did the right think in Iraq I, Hussein thought as himself to be another Hitler.
To him, Kuwait was Austria or Luxembourg.
Worse yet, at that time, America and the rest of the world was powerless.
Click to expand...

You lost me with your last sentence. How in the world was America and the rest of the world powerless? I am not sure Bush I or the elder as you called him did the right thing. I do know Saddam thought the U.S. was more or less a semi friend due to all the covert aid and massive intel we had given him previously. Top that off with our Ambassador at the time basically telling Saddam when he asked about Kuwait that it really wasn't our business, I can see where Saddam thought he could get away with it.

Her slip up reminds me of another slip up that occured in 1950 when another ambassador visiting Japan left South Korea out of the realm of countries that the U.S. though to be in their influence. That slip up led to the Korean war.
 
Awesome! said:
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 likable 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?
Click to expand...
Ever hear of compromise ?
The (some of them) wish for use to leave Sudi-Arabia....this we may be doing....we may no longer need their oil..
We should take an even and fair hand in the middle east (Israel, Palestine,etc).
That we will never convert to some as repugnant as Islam...there are many sane Muslims who know and respect this... Osama was an extremist.
The thing, the only thing, that Islam wanted is respect....is that so hard to take ??
 
cpwill said:
Well this is interesting. Catawba is correct. If we are going to just abandon the fight, better to rip off the bandaid. Either fight to win, or don't fight at all. This administrations' disastrous attempt to chart a path between those two means that more Americans die needlessly, to no purpose.
Click to expand...

WIN WHAT? Convincing the people of Afghanistan to run their country the way we want them to rather than the way they want to? That was a failure in Vietnam, and it is a failure in Afghanistan.

How about we just concentrate on solving our own problems before we continue forcing the world to operate under our doctrines.
 
Catawba said:
WIN WHAT?
Click to expand...

The counterinsurgency there.

Convincing the people of Afghanistan to run their country the way we want them to rather than the way they want to? That was a failure in Vietnam, and it is a failure in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

No. Convincing the people of Afghanistan to combine against the Taliban. Proper counterinsugency doctrine worked in Vietnam, it worked in Iraq, and it has worked where applied in Afghanistan. But it requires commitment and a minimum of men and time. Commitment, sadly, being something that this administration lacks.
 
cpwill said:
The counterinsurgency there.



No. Convincing the people of Afghanistan to combine against the Taliban. Proper counterinsugency doctrine worked in Vietnam, it worked in Iraq, and it has worked where applied in Afghanistan. But it requires commitment and a minimum of men and time. Commitment, sadly, being something that this administration lacks.
Click to expand...

I'd wager that bringing anything of the "Western" world to Afghanistan is a fail to launch from the getgo............................
 
Catawba said:
WIN WHAT? Convincing the people of Afghanistan to run their country the way we want them to rather than the way they want to? That was a failure in Vietnam, and it is a failure in Afghanistan.

How about we just concentrate on solving our own problems before we continue forcing the world to operate under our doctrines.
Click to expand...

The only prolem with Nam was the suits in Washington lost the will to fight and win.
 
pbrauer said:
You were not satisfied with 58,000 dead soldiers, NP?
Click to expand...

I'm not satisfied with a forced loss. Once Abrams was in and Westmoreland was out, MAC-V actually began to pursue intelligent and effective counterinsurgency doctrine, with impressive effects. But by then it was politically too late, and Washington wanted us out.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Not that we had anything to worry about anyway.



Yet it doesn't anger you that they basically died for nothing... as there were no WMD's, not even a potato gun...

And don't give me this "Oh well Iraq is better off now" because that's bloody debatable.

Saddam was a bad guy, and I'm glad he met his fate but life for the average person in Iraq is pretty damn bad either way, sectarian violence has made their lives a living hell.

I knew an Iraqi girl who's dad was murdered by militants following the invasion.
Click to expand...

Everyone on the Left loves, loves, loves to focus on the WMD part of this story (even though the entire world believed he had them) including Bill Clinton. But that wasn't the only part of this story, not even the main part. He defied UN weapons inspection requirements that he signed up and agreed to after Desert Storm. He mislead inspectors, hampered their work, and defied orders to let them in certain facilities. He submitted false documentation to the UN, and disobeyed UN resolutions voted on unanimously be the Security Council. He was given years to come clean, YEARS! After all that, after constant threats that he would be subject to military force if he didn't comply.........President Bush, with the overwhelming support of Congress, said enough is enough and applied that force.

Now you people can second guess THAT all you want, but the people you voted for signed up to it with their names. Now own it! Shall we now go into the rape and pillaging that went on inside Iraq for decaded, and the fraud perpetrated by Iraq during the UN Oil for Food program? Anyone want to talk about why Germany and France were against this, hmmmmmmmmmm? Yeah they were both selling weapons to Iraq that just purchase right up to the time of the invasion.

Now as far as the WMDs go, everyone knows that he fooled the world on that one, and the reason was that he was scared that Iran would find out he didn't have the weapons to threaten them with. That's why he worked so hard to move things around, hamper the UN and basically put on an elaborate charade about the WMDs.

As far as these astronomical numbers of Iraqi dead, I want to see legitimate sources for that. I want to see proof that the Allied forces killed a half million Iraqis. It took all of two weeks to make it to Baghdad fighting the Iraqi military. Then came the rebuilding portion and rebuilding their military part of the mission. Show me the demonstrated killing program setup by the Allied force to kill a half million people.

And btw Jet, knowing a Iraqi girl that was killed doesn't give you jack **** for credibility on this. None whatsoever. Appeal to Sympathy fallacy.
 
cpwill said:
The counterinsurgency there.



No. Convincing the people of Afghanistan to combine against the Taliban. Proper counterinsugency doctrine worked in Vietnam, it worked in Iraq, and it has worked where applied in Afghanistan. But it requires commitment and a minimum of men and time. Commitment, sadly, being something that this administration lacks.
Click to expand...

Not to mention money.
 
American said:
Everyone on the Left loves, loves, loves to focus on the WMD part of this story (even though the entire world believed he had them) including Bill Clinton. But that wasn't the only part of this story, not even the main part. He defied UN weapons inspection requirements that he signed up and agreed to after Desert Storm. He mislead inspectors, hampered their work, and defied orders to let them in certain facilities. He submitted false documentation to the UN, and disobeyed UN resolutions voted on unanimously be the Security Council. He was given years to come clean, YEARS! After all that, after constant threats that he would be subject to military force if he didn't comply.........President Bush, with the overwhelming support of Congress, said enough is enough and applied that force.

Now you people can second guess THAT all you want, but the people you voted for signed up to it with their names. Now own it! Shall we now go into the rape and pillaging that went on inside Iraq for decaded, and the fraud perpetrated by Iraq during the UN Oil for Food program? Anyone want to talk about why Germany and France were against this, hmmmmmmmmmm? Yeah they were both selling weapons to Iraq that just purchase right up to the time of the invasion.

Now as far as the WMDs go, everyone knows that he fooled the world on that one, and the reason was that he was scared that Iran would find out he didn't have the weapons to threaten them with. That's why he worked so hard to move things around, hamper the UN and basically put on an elaborate charade about the WMDs.

As far as these astronomical numbers of Iraqi dead, I want to see legitimate sources for that. I want to see proof that the Allied forces killed a half million Iraqis. It took all of two weeks to make it to Baghdad fighting the Iraqi military. Then came the rebuilding portion and rebuilding their military part of the mission. Show me the demonstrated killing program setup by the Allied force to kill a half million people.

And btw Jet, knowing a Iraqi girl that was killed doesn't give you jack **** for credibility on this. None whatsoever. Appeal to Sympathy fallacy.
Click to expand...

Bush and his people were master liars. "A lie can go around the world twice before the truth is known", Mark Twain.
 
cpwill said:
The counterinsurgency there.

No. Convincing the people of Afghanistan to combine against the Taliban. Proper counterinsugency doctrine worked in Vietnam, it worked in Iraq, and it has worked where applied in Afghanistan. But it requires commitment and a minimum of men and time. Commitment, sadly, being something that this administration lacks.
Click to expand...



You are not living in reality. You can't win a military war for hearts and minds at the end of a gun when the majority of both the US and the country you are trying to convince to run their government like ours is opposed to it. That is why Vietnam is still communist and Afghanistan is still tribal ruled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom