• 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
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.
From the link:
President Bush declassified portions of a 2005 intelligence assessment Tuesday that alleges that Osama bin Laden authorized allies in Iraq to plan operations both in and outside of that country targeting the U.S.

...

The declassification came just as the White House was in final negotiations with Congressional Democrats about a 2007 supplemental spending bill for ongoing military operations in Iraq.

Read more: Bush's Intelligence on Al-Qaeda in Iraq - TIME

President Bush said Wednesday American intelligence had shown that as late as 2005, al-Qaida was planning new attacks outside Iraq that were thwarted by the timely capture of key leaders of the terrorist group.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10347835
 
Last edited:
From the link:

Do you deny that AlQ was in Iraq then? If you accept that as fact, then how is it "using AlQ" to be concerned about their presence?
 
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.
Believe me, intel isn't as good as you think it is. Especially in nations that we have alienated. Sure, we can find a guy in the US who blew up the Boston Marathon. We can track a guy to the UK easily as well. But we cannot get inside the Irans and North Koreas of the world. We have distanced ourselves so much that any American is going to be viewed as a threat.

It's also ridiculous to say that Pres Bush intended on invading Iraq all along. Sure, they had been a thorn in our side for awhile. But I do not recall any leanings toward going in there until after 9/11 happened. I don't agree with us going in there regardless, however, I don't think we always intended to go.
 
No, but they used the "al-Qaida Connection" as an excuse once the WMD excuse ran out. :-/

Of course, it was never about terrorism, it was never about weapons of mass destruction, it was Bush's personal vendetta against the guys who tried to kill his daddy. We spent many billions of dollars on a personal vendetta.
 
Do you deny that AlQ was in Iraq then? If you accept that as fact, then how is it "using AlQ" to be concerned about their presence?
He wasn't just concerned about their presence in Iraq, he used it as an excess to prop up support for the war at home by claiming, often, that they were planning other attacks on the US - and not just inside Iraq, just as the links show. He shouldn't have called it the "War on Terror", he should have called it "The Propaganda of Fear". It would have been a better description.
 
Last edited:
Of course, it was never about terrorism, it was never about weapons of mass destruction, it was Bush's personal vendetta against the guys who tried to kill his daddy. We spent many billions of dollars on a personal vendetta.
I honestly don't know if it was that (I think it unlikely) or if it was some kind of maneuver to gain power in the Mideast. Personally, I think Iran and Iraq fighting among themselves for generations was a good balance at the east end. It was also a damn poor strategy to take on a double war.
 
Please add poll option "get over it".

Better ammend that to "Get over it, no need to concern yourself over the pointless loss of 4k soldiers and $2 trillion"
 
He wasn't just concerned about their presence in Iraq, he used it as an excess to prop up support for the war at home by claiming, often, that they were planning other attacks on the US - and not just inside Iraq, just as the links show. He shouldn't have called it the "War on Terror", he should have called it "The Propaganda of Fear". It would have been a better description.

AlQ was in Iraq and, while they could not hit us themself, they were planing attacks on the US. Do you deny this?
 
He wasn't just concerned about their presence in Iraq, he used it as an excess to prop up support for the war at home by claiming, often, that they were planning other attacks on the US - and not just inside Iraq, just as the links show. He shouldn't have called it the "War on Terror", he should have called it "The Propaganda of Fear". It would have been a better description.

AlQ was in Iraq and, while not able to strike the US themself, they were planning attacks on the US. Do you deny this?
 
He wasn't just concerned about their presence in Iraq, he used it as an excess to prop up support for the war at home by claiming, often, that they were planning other attacks on the US - and not just inside Iraq, just as the links show. He shouldn't have called it the "War on Terror", he should have called it "The Propaganda of Fear". It would have been a better description.

AlQ was in Iraq and, while not able to strike the US themself, they were planning stuff. Do you deny this?
 
Of course, it was never about terrorism, it was never about weapons of mass destruction, it was Bush's personal vendetta against the guys who tried to kill his daddy. We spent many billions of dollars on a personal vendetta.

I can't believe anyone could ignore 17 violated unscrs, two genocides, firing on the no-fly zone instituted to stop genocide, the invasion of Iran and Kuwait, institutionalized rape, starving 400k children and faking a WMD program.


A historic election will take place tomorrow in Iraq. And as millions of Iraqis prepare to cast their ballots, I want to talk today about why we went into Iraq, why we stayed in Iraq, and why we cannot -- and will not -- leave Iraq until victory is achieved….

We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security. He had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. He sponsored terrorists. He ordered his military to shoot at American and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. He invaded his neighbors. He fought a war against the United States and a broad coalition. He had declared that the United States of America was his enemy.

Over the course of a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with more than a dozen United Nations resolutions -- including demands that he respect the rights of the Iraqi people, disclose his weapons, and abide by the terms of a 1991 cease-fire. He deceived international inspectors, and he denied them the unconditional access they needed to do their jobs. When a unanimous Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to comply with that final opportunity. At any point along the way, Saddam Hussein could have avoided war by complying with the just demands of the international community. The United States did not choose war -- the choice was Saddam Hussein’s….

As I stated in a speech in the lead-up to the war, a liberated Iraq could show the power of freedom to transform the Middle East by bringing hope and progress to the lives of millions…. History has shown that free nations are peaceful nations. And as Iraqi democracy takes hold, Iraqi citizens will have a stake in a common and peaceful future.

Free Frank Warner: This is news: Bush actually lists reasons for invading Iraq
(strange website, I just wanted the speech quote)


And yesterday, Iraqis voted again:

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki urged people to vote in defiance of "enemies of the political process".

"I say to all those who are afraid for the future of Iraq and afraid of a return of violence and dictatorship that we will fight by casting ballots," he said.

On polling day, some voters said their main concern was still the security situation.

"Security is the most important problem that all of them should be working for; without this, life would be so difficult," said student Abdulsahib Ali Abdulsahib, who was out early to vote in central Baghdad.

I asked Haider - an enthusiastic voter - why he thought the turnout was low. He said that people were afraid of violence. "But I would not let that put me off. I don't want to lose my vote and my right - it's a battle and we have to win it."

BBC News - Iraq in first vote since US pullout



iraqvote.jpg
 
Last edited:
I honestly don't know if it was that (I think it unlikely) or if it was some kind of maneuver to gain power in the Mideast. Personally, I think Iran and Iraq fighting among themselves for generations was a good balance at the east end. It was also a damn poor strategy to take on a double war.

People who were there, as I recall, reported that Bush immediately wanted them to find some link between 9/11 and Iraq, even if one didn't exist. He was looking for a fight and his ego cost this country many billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
 
If I remember events correctly just before our decision to invade Saddam had been delaying the inspection of particular sites by UN weapon inspectors. This contributed to the idea that he did have WMDs. I think the UN should have acted but in a very different way. I feel the UN should have given him an ultimatum "comply immediately or we will remove you". However I believe they should have used a direct strategical strike against Saddam himself via a small strike force or air strike and we should never have had a large scale engagement or troops on the ground. Once he was removed and his replacement was in power we give them the same ultimatum and repeat if necessary until someone complies. Eventually they would decide they had better listen.
 
Yep, I would still support it given what we know.

I also support going into Iran and North Korea with military force.
 
People who were there, as I recall, reported that Bush immediately wanted them to find some link between 9/11 and Iraq, even if one didn't exist.
Actually Bush wanted them to find out IF Iraq was behind the attacks. Which of course makes sense because Iraq was the only country we were at war with at the time.

But a lot of people simply didn't know we were at war with Iraq because the MSM wasn't reporting it.
 
Actually Bush wanted them to find out IF Iraq was behind the attacks. Which of course makes sense because Iraq was the only country we were at war with at the time.

We weren't at war with anyone at the time, sorry. Unless we had troops on the ground, we were not at war.
 
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.

Well, the NIE whitepaper did move from the standard of probable to possible. That does explain quite a bit.

Plus, our primary sources, 1 of which was flagged as a "drunken liar" by foreign intel and the other who had ulterior motives (aka, I want to lead the new country) both provided to be liars.
 
AlQ was in Iraq and, while not able to strike the US themself, they were planning stuff. Do you deny this?
You're the one refuting al-Qaida was used to promote the war.
 
Last edited:
People who were there, as I recall, reported that Bush immediately wanted them to find some link between 9/11 and Iraq, even if one didn't exist. He was looking for a fight and his ego cost this country many billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
No arguing that.

I'm just not convinced of his motives one way or another. Many theories abound and chances are we'll never learn the truth, at least not for 50 years or so, at which point I'll be long dead.
 
You're the one refuting al-Qaida was used to promote the war.

I'm refuting that AlQ was used as propaganda. That's your claim. AlQ was, in fact, in Iraq. They were, while not capable of striking the US themselves, making plans.


He wasn't just concerned about their presence in Iraq, he used it as an excess to prop up support for the war at home by claiming, often, that they were planning other attacks on the US - and not just inside Iraq, just as the links show. He shouldn't have called it the "War on Terror", he should have called it "The Propaganda of Fear". It would have been a better description.

I presume you meant "excuse".
 
I'm refuting that AlQ was used as propaganda. That's your claim. AlQ was, in fact, in Iraq. They were, while not capable of striking the US themselves, making plans.
It was used as propaganda. I cited articles showing as much. There are other examples, that just happened to be the one that came up first. Were you not in the States from 2005-08?


I presume you meant "excuse".
Spell-check sometimes does that, and my typing is atrocious.
 
It was used as propaganda. I cited articles showing as much. There are other examples, that just happened to be the one that came up first. Were you not in the States from 2005-08?

All I've seen you post is one article in which Bush claimed AlQ was in Iraq and making plans - and that was true. Thus, I see no propaganda.

Spell-check sometimes does that, and my typing is atrocious.

I was just double checking to make sure, as that made your claim more clear than the latter part of the post.
 
All I've seen you post is one article in which Bush claimed AlQ was in Iraq and making plans - and that was true. Thus, I see no propaganda.
Propaganda

2 :the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

I see nothing there that says anything about spreading lies.


Propaganda - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


PS
Politicians constantly use pieces of the "truth" to further their agenda. This is nothing new. Declassifying and citing said "truth" a week before Congress is scheduled to re-assess how much money should go toward the war certainly did further his cause - at least, he assumed it would or he most likely wouldn't have wasted his valuable press time with it.
 
Last edited:
We weren't at war with anyone at the time, sorry. Unless we had troops on the ground, we were not at war.
BS

We were at war with Iraq and had been for a decade. Plain and simple. Anyone who denies that is either ignorant of history or a POS liar.
 
Back
Top Bottom