• 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 Iraq War "Worth it"

Was the Iraq War Worth it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 6.4%

  • No

    Votes: 65 83.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 8 10.3%
  • Total voters
    78
Iraq war costs instead used to run hospitals

$2 T cost of IRAQ
runs 108 Hospitals for 150 years in USA never sending out a bill to anyone.
____________________________________

Build 100 MILLION small homes and give them away to US Citizens.
Destroying the criminal bankers for a century
 
I think it was worth it but not out of any idiotic national interest sense (which is a completely bs line of thinking in my opinion anyways). I'd argue very few wars have actually ever directly benefited the average person of any country. They benefit the top 1% of a country, not you and I.


In a raw, crude sense, it allowed the Iraqi people to decide, not have Saddam decide, who they want to really dominate their region. Now they can finally get on with ethnic cleansing and decide who's going to run that region, just like every single other country in the world, including us, has done.


I say bless them and may the most accurate Kalashnikov users win. I have been absolutely loving the bloodshed so far on liveleak and youtube.
 
Last edited:
Ryan5 said:
I think it was worth it but not out of any idiotic national interest sense (which is a completely bs line of thinking in my opinion anyways). I'd argue very few wars have actually ever directly benefited the average person of any country. They benefit the top 1% of a country, not you and I.


In a raw, crude sense, it allowed the Iraqi people to decide, not have Saddam decide, who they want to really dominate their region. Now they can finally get on with ethnic cleansing and decide who's going to run that region, just like every single other country in the world, including us, has done.


I say bless them and may the most accurate Kalashnikov users win. I have been absolutely loving the bloodshed so far on liveleak and youtube.
Click to expand...

Who gives a **** and why did we have to pay in our lives and trillions of dollars? They could have done THAT on their own...and they are.
 
ocean515 said:
I believe hindsight serves little purpose, hence the "20/20" that goes along with it.

If one is to fantasize, it was foolish to think these people from the dark ages would want to be part of any form of civilized modern society in the first place.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. There is a difference between hindsight and assessment. Do you need an explaination of the two?
 
Lursa said:
Who gives a **** and why did we have to pay in our lives and trillions of dollars? They could have done THAT on their own...and they are.
Click to expand...

Really... the victims of genocide, twice, and invading neighbors, twice, and institutionalized rape, mass killings and intentional starvation... Were to rise up and throw off their chains alone?

Who told you that was possible? And I suppose North Koreans could do that too, if they were good people, right?

Sure, people are oppressed because they're bad and not because they're helpless.
 
Last edited:
Dezaad said:
Except that you know perfectly well that I mean the seeds were very fresh and the ground very fertile and well watered in the case of Iraq.
Click to expand...

You could definitely say that. Or, you could have said that the Iraqi people were weary from a long war against a brutal foe whom they were happy to have achieved victory over, and would be unlikely to support someone calling for an AQ-aligned Islamist state for at least a generation. Both those arguments would have been plausible. Then Egypt and Libya blew up long before Iraq did - who would have said that their seeds were fresh and well watered? Or Syria's?

Because collapse is plausible does not make it imminent or even probable.
 
ecofarm said:
Really... the victims of genocide, twice, and invading neighbors, twice, and institutionalized rape, mass killings and intentional starvation... Were to rise up and throw off their chains alone?

Who told you that was possible? And I suppose North Koreans could do that too, if they were good people, right?

Sure, people are oppressed because they're bad and not because they're helpless.
Click to expand...

That wasnt why we invaded Iraq. If it was, why dont/didnt we invade NK? Rwanda? Zimbabwe? Cuba?

It was an afterthought, an excuse and we didnt even think it thru...we had our own agenda and then said, "and we'll bring them democracy.' With little understanding of the culture and no real plan.

And it's worked out perfectly, as you can see.
 
tres borrachos said:
Hard to say.

Some good came out of it. Hussein is gone, and he was a bad man, and who knows what would have happened had he not been removed.

I'm not a fan of pre-emptively striking a country that didn't attack us first, and to my knowledge Iraq never attacked us, so in that regard, it was wrong.
Click to expand...

You don't consider firing, as a government, on US planes that are enforcing a no-fly zone instituted by the UN (to prevent further genocide) to be an attack on the US?

Are you claiming governments can attack our military and we will not consider it an attack on the US?


Lursa said:
That wasnt why we invaded Iraq. If it was, why dont/didnt we invade NK? Rwanda? Zimbabwe? Cuba?
Click to expand...

You've never heard of priorities? Perhaps someone could explain how those work and why. You do realize that the US cannot do everything at the same time, right? And that failing to do everything at the same time is not an indication of hypocrisy, I hope.

Regarding nK, it's not a good idea to invade a regime with nukes. Regarding Cuba, we did invade but JFK chickened out at the air support.

It was an afterthought, an excuse and we didnt even think it thru...we had our own agenda and then said, "and we'll bring them democracy.' With little understanding of the culture and no real plan.

And it's worked out perfectly, as you can see.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure. The US is an evil monster that never really wants to do anything good. Great Satan.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Really... the victims of genocide, twice, and invading neighbors, twice, and institutionalized rape, mass killings and intentional starvation... Were to rise up and throw off their chains alone?

Who told you that was possible? And I suppose North Koreans could do that too, if they were good people, right?

Sure, people are oppressed because they're bad and not because they're helpless.
Click to expand...

So then it was a humanitarian intervention?

Would you support our military invading every country on the planet that has a government that abuses their citizens & their human rights? Or are there countries, like Saudi Arabia, that are immune from our humanitarian interventions? And is there a specific body count that raises to the level of needing U.S. humanitarian intervention?
 
ecofarm said:
Ask the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, what's left of them.
Click to expand...

The ones that President George H.W. Bush let get slaughtered after telling them to rise up against Saddam?

Would you support our military invading every country on the planet that has a government that abuses their citizens & their human rights? Or are there countries, like Saudi Arabia, that are immune from our humanitarian interventions? And is there a specific body count that raises to the level of needing U.S. humanitarian intervention?
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
The ones that President George H.W. Bush let get slaughtered after telling them to rise up against Saddam?
Click to expand...

Of course... the US is responsible for the genocide Saddam committed. I should have guessed.
 
In terms of human loss and sacrifice, no.

In terms of time and money spent, no.

total loss, but America needs to take care of the people she sent there to fight.
 
ecofarm said:
Of course... the US is responsible for the genocide Saddam committed. I should have guessed.
Click to expand...

No, we're not responsible but we're not blameless either.

Would you support our military invading every country on the planet that has a government that abuses their citizens & their human rights? Or are there countries, like Saudi Arabia, that are immune from our humanitarian interventions? And is there a specific body count that raises to the level of needing U.S. humanitarian intervention?
 
ecofarm said:
Only Saddam is to blame for his genocide.
Click to expand...

Sure, Saddam gave the orders to exterminate the people in the uprising we called for & who had the feeling that we'd assist them in toppling Saddam's bloodthirsty regime.

Would you support our military invading every country on the planet that has a government that abuses their citizens & their human rights? Or are there countries, like Saudi Arabia, that are immune from our humanitarian interventions? And is there a specific body count that raises to the level of needing U.S. humanitarian intervention?
 
Jango said:
Sure, Saddam gave the orders to exterminate the people in the uprising we called for & who had the feeling that we'd assist them in toppling Saddam's bloodthirsty regime.
Click to expand...

So it's the victims' fault for rising up? Yes, how dare they refuse horrible oppression. I guess they got what they deserved, ay? Saddam was only doing what he had to, right? Sure, it's not his fault.
 
ecofarm said:
So it's the victims' fault for rising up? Yes, how dare they refuse horrible oppression. I guess they got what they deserved, ay? Saddam was only doing what he had to, right? Sure, it's not his fault.
Click to expand...

:lol:

You'll say anything other than the reality of the situation. Why? Because it makes us look bad and you won't ever stand or acknowledge the inconvenient facts.

Would you support our military invading every country on the planet that has a government that abuses their citizens & their human rights? Or are there countries, like Saudi Arabia, that are immune from our humanitarian interventions? And is there a specific body count that raises to the level of needing U.S. humanitarian intervention?
 
Jango said:
:lol:

You'll say anything other than the reality of the situation. Why? Because it makes us look bad and you won't ever stand or acknowledge the inconvenient facts.
Click to expand...

That bizarre accusation proves the US is to blame for Saddam committing genocide his second time?

Do you even realize that in blaming the US you are blaming the victims? You are claiming their actions justified the genocide. If their actions do not justify the genocide, then no one is to blame but Saddam.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
With the situation in Iraq unfolding do you believe that the Iraq War was worth it?
Click to expand...

Looking back at it now I say no. We should but out of the business of other countries.No foreigner is worth the life of an American or American tax dollars. Plus many times interfering can bite us in the ass later. Doing nothing can bite us in the ass later too.So you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.The only difference is that in the long run we probably save a lot of American lives and money by not interfering with other countries. Some neocons think we should make the world our bitch and that we should interfere but those people should be ignored.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
No foreigner is worth the life of an American or American tax dollars.
Click to expand...

Because they're not equal people and thus their suffering is irrelevant?

If they're equal people, how can their suffering be irrelevant.
 
ecofarm said:
Because they're not equal people and thus their suffering is irrelevant?

If they're equal people, how can their suffering be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I do not think we should sacrifice American lives and money for the sake of people in other countries.

When it comes to your loved ones and random strangers, whose lives do you value more?
 
jamesrage said:
When it comes to your loved ones and random strangers, whose lives do you value more?
Click to expand...

I value those I know more, that's human nature. But I still value the lives of strangers. These things are not mutually exclusive.
 
cpwill said:
You could definitely say that. Or, you could have said that the Iraqi people were weary from a long war against a brutal foe whom they were happy to have achieved victory over, and would be unlikely to support someone calling for an AQ-aligned Islamist state for at least a generation. Both those arguments would have been plausible. Then Egypt and Libya blew up long before Iraq did - who would have said that their seeds were fresh and well watered? Or Syria's?

Because collapse is plausible does not make it imminent or even probable.
Click to expand...

Well one argument about Iraq was the one that has happened. It was the one I thought would happen. According to the news, the religious side in power can't treat the side that is not in power fairly (as I expected). The religious side not in power resents not being treated fairly (as I expected). The religious side not in power agitates until enough steam has built up to actually attack militarily (as I thought would likely happen). In no way did I think theses things were merely plausible. Some of them I thought to be near 100% likely. Others I thought to be more likely than not, say 75% likely.

This whole thing has played out exactly as I thought it would from start to finish, (start of hostilities under Bush, until our departure) except for one thing: I didn't think we would get them to actually stop fighting, and would have to leave while there was a small amount of fighting still occurring. But even when we did, I knew it was quite likely that fighting would start again. You will have to excuse me if I trust my judgement at this point more than yours.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom