• 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!

Another Iraq War Poll

Should we have have invaded?

  • Total voters
    37
pbrauer

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We know now that everything the Bush Administration said about Iraq's WMD and ties to al-Qaida turned out to be untrue.


Do you believe that if all the key judgements in the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) were 100% true, it would have been reason enough to invade Iraq?


  • Yes
  • No
  • I don't know


Here is a link to the October 2002 Key Judgements:


https://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
 
It was a very bad decision to split our focus and our forces. Beyond that, I think there are arguments both ways.
 
American Intelligence is the best in the world. There is no way in hell--across the board--they ****ed up that badly in regards to Iraq. NO WAY. From the beginning, it's obvious as day the intent was to invade, and 9/11 was the perfect excuse. It's incredible to me that some here still refuse to see it.
 
Middleground said:
American Intelligence is the best in the world. There is no way in hell--across the board--they ****ed up that badly in regards to Iraq. NO WAY. From the beginning, it's obvious as day the intent was to invade, and 9/11 was the perfect excuse. It's incredible to me that some here still refuse to see it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, however there were several "bipartisan" and according to another DP poster very credible investigations that exonerates the Bush Administration and lays all the blame on the intelligence committee. :roll:
 
As one of the "invaders", I will always believe, with absolute certainty, that it was the right thing to do.
 
Lord no. It was reckless, costly, and likely did as much harm as good, if not more harm.
 
pbrauer said:
We know now that everything the Bush Administration said about Iraq's WMD and ties to al-Qaida turned out to be untrue.


Do you believe that if all the key judgements in the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) were 100% true, it would have been reason enough to invade Iraq?


  • Yes
  • No
  • I don't know


Here is a link to the October 2002 Key Judgements:


https://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
Click to expand...

I'm an old fart and I know times have changed. But I was brought up that one does not attack another first. One only goes to war if attacked or an ally that we are responsible for. WWII, Pearl Harbor, no brainer. Korea, we and the UN were responsible for the South's security and safety. A preventive war sticks in my craw for some reason. It seems so un-American. I don't know if everything in the NIE was true if I would have gone to war. I just don't know.
 
DVSentinel said:
As one of the "invaders", I will always believe, with absolute certainty, that it was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from. Vietnam was my war, I think the aftermath from April of 1975 to the end of 1978 proved we were right in going in. I think Thailand, Burma and Malaysia are free today because of it and didn't become dominoes so to speak. I was against the second Iraq war, but in a very passive sense in that I wished we hadn't gone in, but once in did all I could to support it.
 
We neutered Iran's sworn enemy and opened the door for Iranian hegemony in the region.

It was the right thing to do if doing the right thing means to aid the Iranian Mullahs.
 
Middleground said:
American Intelligence is the best in the world. There is no way in hell--across the board--they ****ed up that badly in regards to Iraq. NO WAY. From the beginning, it's obvious as day the intent was to invade, and 9/11 was the perfect excuse. It's incredible to me that some here still refuse to see it.
Click to expand...

There's a very simple explanation, which has been public knowledge for years: Saddam faked having WMDs and a development program in order to stave off the Iranian regime. He thought that without such suspicions, he would be invaded.

What I find incredible are partisan conspiracy theories. What's next, Obama was born in Kenya and is Muslim... How can we not see it?!

Note: No one used 9/11 as an excuse. It was never a factor in the decision to invade.
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
We neutered Iran's sworn enemy and opened the door for Iranian hegemony in the region.

It was the right thing to do if doing the right thing means to aid the Iranian Mullahs.
Click to expand...

If we had not invaded, and Saddam came clean about the non-existence of his WMDs and programs, Iran would have invaded and annexed Iraq. As you might notice, Iran is no longer in such a position. In fact, Iraq will serve as a nice platform to deal with them next.
 
pbrauer said:
We know now that everything the Bush Administration said about Iraq's WMD and ties to al-Qaida turned out to be untrue.


Do you believe that if all the key judgements in the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) were 100% true, it would have been reason enough to invade Iraq?


  • Yes
  • No
  • I don't know


Here is a link to the October 2002 Key Judgements:


https://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
Click to expand...

Not unless they posed a direct threat to our own sovereignty.
 
Not just no but Hell No!

The link to al-Qaida was a complete fabrication as anyone familiar with Saddam's attitudes should have known. Saddam would never allow someone else in his country that stood even a third (let alone half) of a chance of having some kind of power there.


Afghanistan was an imperative, both politically/nationally and on the world stage, but Iraq was pure BS. Taking out Baghdad was just as bad a decision in 2003 as it was in 1991. Bush knew better, it's too bad Jr didn't listen. And I thought it was just teenagers who were hopelessly rebellious toward their parents ... oh, wait!
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
I agree with you, however there were several "bipartisan" and according to another DP poster very credible investigations that exonerates the Bush Administration and lays all the blame on the intelligence committee. :roll:
Click to expand...
Didn't they blame Ollie, too?
 
ecofarm said:
There's a very simple explanation, which has been public knowledge for years: Saddam faked having WMDs and a development program in order to stave off the Iranian regime. He thought that without such suspicions, he would be invaded.

What I find incredible are partisan conspiracy theories. What's next, Obama was born in Kenya and is Muslim... How can we not see it?!

Note: No one used 9/11 as an excuse. It was never a factor in the decision to invade.
Click to expand...
No, but they used the "al-Qaida Connection" as an excuse once the WMD excuse ran out. :-/
 
We were probably wrong to invade if WMD was what justified it. But, the world is a little nicer place without Sadam Hussein.
 
MoSurveyor said:
No, but they used the "al-Qaida Connection" as an excuse once the WMD excuse ran out. :-/
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense. By the time the WMD "excuse ran out", the country was already fully invaded.
 
mak2 said:
We were probably wrong to invade if WMD was what justified it.
Click to expand...

What about the fact that Saddam intentionally dodged and frustrated inspectors so as to keep the possibility viable? He was TRYING to make it seem such. He succeeded. How is that US fault?

If someone pretends to have a gun under their shirt and claims that they're gonna shoot a cop, and the cop shoots them... cop's bad?
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
That doesn't make sense. By the time the WMD "excuse ran out", the country was already fully invaded.
Click to expand...
I just noted that they did use 9/11, or at least the fear of al-Qaida, later in the war. I didn't mean to imply they used it as an excuse to invade.
 
ecofarm said:
What about the fact that Saddam intentionally dodged and frustrated inspectors so as to keep the possibility viable? He was TRYING to make it seem such. He succeeded. How is that US fault?

If someone claims to have a gun under their shirt and that they're gonna shoot a cop, and the cop shoots them... cop's bad?
Click to expand...
I can't blame him for not trusting us, either. If he had told us we wouldn't have been able to keep our big mouths shut and Iran would have benefited.
 
pbrauer said:
We know now that everything the Bush Administration said about Iraq's WMD and ties to al-Qaida turned out to be untrue.


Do you believe that if all the key judgements in the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) were 100% true, it would have been reason enough to invade Iraq?


  • Yes
  • No
  • I don't know


Here is a link to the October 2002 Key Judgements:


https://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
Click to expand...
Please add poll option "get over it".
 
MoSurveyor said:
I just noted that they did use 9/11, or at least the fear of al-Qaida, later in the war. I didn't mean to imply they used it as an excuse to invade.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? "They" never used 9/11 later in the war. Nor was a fear of AlQ used. AlQ in Iraq is a local organization entirely incapable of hitting the US - everyone knows that.

First, I was referring to the invasion.
Second, you replied with false claims.
Third, you admit those claims are false and you never meant them.
Fourth, you make more false claims.

Where is this going?
 
MoSurveyor said:
I can't blame him for not trusting us, either. If he had told us we wouldn't have been able to keep our big mouths shut and Iran would have benefited.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. I think you're making some presumptions about "our big mouth". He might have secured protection for open inspections... we'll never know.

The fact is, he intentionally deceived the UN inspectors in attempt to maintain the possibility of WMDs and a development program. That's not the US's fault. He brought it upon himself.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
What are you talking about? "They" never used 9/11 later in the war. Nor was a fear of AlQ used. AlQ in Iraq is a local organization entirely incapable of hitting the US - everyone knows that.

First, I was referring to the invasion.
Second, you replied with false claims.
Third, you admit those claims are false and you never meant them.
Fourth, you make more false claims.

Where is this going?
Click to expand...
-First, I was referring to the invasion.
-Second, you replied with false claims.
And I admitted what I had posted could have been mistaken to mean "an excuse for invasion" (even though there IS an explicit time difference since I used the phrase "ran out"). I further noted that it was not my intention to imply it was an excuse for invasion. I'm sorry I didn't measure up to your level of English purity in my first post.


-Third, you admit those claims are false and you never meant them.
Yes, I did. Should I now judge you because you failed to understand that "ran out" obviously could not have referred to the invasion since it explicitly means time has passed?


-Fourth, you make more false claims.
Bush's Intelligence on Al-Qaeda in Iraq - TIME
There are plenty more relating the Iraq war to domestic terrorism supposedly planned by al-Qaida.
 
Last edited:
9/11 nor AlQ was used as a reason for invasion.
9/11 was not used later in the war.
The "fear" of AlQ was that they could destabilize or control Iraq. This is not a "used AlQ" but a fact and it was, in reality, a danger.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom