• 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
I'm not sure that last sentence says what you intended it to say.
Hans Blix at the time before we invaded Iraq stated that there is no proof Iraq has WMD's. Many other reports validated this. The Bush admin just listened to what they wanted to hear. In 2000 Condy and Powell both stated that Iraq was not a threat, and cannot build up an armed force.


And yes, they were the facts that we had at the time.
No. No we didnt.
 
You keep saying those were the facts we had? I think you need to learn what the meaning of a fact is.

Definition- fact

: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information


All we had was misinformation that was at best, guess work
.




That was good enough for the G.W. Bush mis-administration.

Take a look at what's going on in Iraq right now and you'll see how that turned out.




Mighty sad how much money and how many human lives were wasted in that hellhole.
 
No. The facts presented were what we knew at the time. Some of which (for example, the usage of mobile production platforms) turned out to be incorrect. Some of that was the result of tainted reporting, and some of it was the result of a successful MILDEC campaign by Saddam to convince the world (well, the Iranians) that he still had a production and storage capacity. The assessments given were problematic because they were built in part off of tainted reporting streams (such as described), and were over zealous in their levels of confidence. Even today it is not possible to utilize just the data that was available in the winter of 2002 and come to the conclusion that Saddam had given up and destroyed his WMD program - all you can justify is reducing the confidence levels.

WMDs were an excuse and the data presented in any way they chose. They had an agenda to be fulfilled and just found whatever they needed to get support.

The US was not in any danger from SH or his WMDs. He had no intentions of attacking us (no matter what the blustering) and there was certainly no imminent threat.

WMDs are not the reason we invaded Iraq, just an excuse, just like 'removing a murderous dictator' and 'to get those responsible for 911'....both of which were also used and discarded later.
 
No they were reasons given to invade and occupy Iraq.



Ok..


Missing something. There was no thread of WMD's because they didnt exist!

Of course they did. He used chemical weapons to kill his own people.

The "support of terrorism" at the time was giving money to families whose son/daughter/mother/ or father was a suicide bomber.

No, it wasn't just that.

  • Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.
  • Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.
  • Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.
  • Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.
Link
 
WMDs were an excuse and the data presented in any way they chose. They had an agenda to be fulfilled and just found whatever they needed to get support.

The US was not in any danger from SH or his WMDs. He had no intentions of attacking us (no matter what the blustering) and there was certainly no imminent threat.

WMDs are not the reason we invaded Iraq, just an excuse, just like 'removing a murderous dictator' and 'to get those responsible for 911'....both of which were also used and discarded later.

Our IC believed he had WMD, the Brits thought he had WMD, the UN thought he had WMD, the Russians thought he had WMD, even Saddam thought he had WMD. Everybody came to pretty much the same conclusion on that score - and it turned out he did, just much less than everyone (again, including Saddam) had thought, and we were wrong on ongoing production lines.

Did the Bush Administration grab the intel that made it's case? Sure, but that was also the intel that was available. You can say his decision-making process was flawed, you can say that he was a non-critical consumer of intel, but there simply isn't a plausible case for an accusation of being misleading.
 
"known endgame?" Really? We knew the outcome before we entered the wars? Hardly.

There was known endgame. Surrender of the enemy state. Is that somehow surprising to you? There's no enemy state here though, no plan to get to the end, no end in sight. Just stupid peoe making stupid choices and killing thousands of Americans and spending trillions of dollars in the process. But terrorist supporters don't care about dead Americans.
 
Of course they did. He used chemical weapons to kill his own people.



No, it wasn't just that.

  • Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.
  • Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.
  • Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.
  • Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.
Link

And now it can be run by the terrorists as they take over. Really improved things there.
 
It was as dumb and pompous as he is.

No, it totally shot down Kelly's premise and put the onus for the situation in Iraq back where it belongs, with the current President.
 
And now it can be run by the terrorists as they take over. Really improved things there.

I agree. Someone has really screwed up.
 
Hans Blix at the time before we invaded Iraq stated that there is no proof Iraq has WMD's. Many other reports validated this. The Bush admin just listened to what they wanted to hear. In 2000 Condy and Powell both stated that Iraq was not a threat, and cannot build up an armed force.

The Bush administration certainly did listen to what they wanted to hear. However, what they wanted to hear was also what was available. Had there been serious dissent within the Intelligence Community over whether or not Saddam had WMD, or had we had serious dissent with our key allies on that issue, and he had still made an uncritical case - then yeah, you could accuse him of cherry picking, and he might very well have. The administration was (like our current one) self-reinforcing in its assumptions. But as far as what was available, that did not happen.

No. No we didnt.

Yes, yes we did. Feel free to read the relevant NIE, or, if you like, a post-mortem of the analytic process that went into that assessment by the guy who did the CIA's post-mortem for the failure to anticipate the Iranian revolution in 1979 and is, himself, a bit of a left-leaning anti-Bush academic.
 
Our IC believed he had WMD, the Brits thought he had WMD, the UN thought he had WMD, the Russians thought he had WMD, even Saddam thought he had WMD. Everybody came to pretty much the same conclusion on that score - and it turned out he did, just much less than everyone (again, including Saddam) had thought, and we were wrong on ongoing production lines.

Did the Bush Administration grab the intel that made it's case? Sure, but that was also the intel that was available. You can say his decision-making process was flawed, you can say that he was a non-critical consumer of intel, but there simply isn't a plausible case for an accusation of being misleading.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. ~ Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda
 
That was good enough for the G.W. Bush mis-administration.

Take a look at what's going on in Iraq right now and you'll see how that turned out.




Mighty sad how much money and how many human lives were wasted in that hellhole.

Unfortunately, we really NEED to go back and in a fairly strong fashion. If we lose control of that region now, it'll much harder to regain back later.

Our other option is to let the ME go to ruin, drill/pump oil and gas at full capacity from the American continent and beef up our defenses against future terror attacks.
 
That was good enough for the G.W. Bush mis-administration.

Take a look at what's going on in Iraq right now and you'll see how that turned out.




Mighty sad how much money and how many human lives were wasted in that hellhole.

Right. I went to my VA Hospital yesterday for an immunization and saw wheelchair bound veterans, some with no legs, or arms, or if they had legs and arms, they were severely disfigured. I almost lost it.

Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center Home
 
No, it totally shot down Kelly's premise and put the onus for the situation in Iraq back where it belongs, with the current President.

Was it worth "IT?"

IT = US lost all honor by invading a Nation that was no threat to the USA
IT = 4500 GIs
IT = 100,000-1,000,000 dead Iraqis
IT = 2-4 Trillion dollars lost forever
IT = The alternatives (opportunity costs) the money could have been spent on
IT = The shame of defending a war for OIL, an energy war for USA Corporate Energy
IT = The embarassment of USA being exposed as an Exporter of war and death to profit our MIC
IT = The humiliation of the USA by allowing Maliki to be in charge
IT = The disgrace of giving al Qeda a springboard in Iraq
 
I agree. Someone has really screwed up.

It was us thinking that foreign, imperial occupation could be successful against an entrenched native population over a prolonged period of time. That never works.
 
Our IC believed he had WMD, the Brits thought he had WMD, the UN thought he had WMD, the Russians thought he had WMD, even Saddam thought he had WMD. Everybody came to pretty much the same conclusion on that score - and it turned out he did, just much less than everyone (again, including Saddam) had thought, and we were wrong on ongoing production lines.

Did the Bush Administration grab the intel that made it's case? Sure, but that was also the intel that was available. You can say his decision-making process was flawed, you can say that he was a non-critical consumer of intel, but there simply isn't a plausible case for an accusation of being misleading.

He did have them...we gave them to him.

The point is....he was no threat to the US with those. As I already wrote.
 
Unfortunately, we really NEED to go back and in a fairly strong fashion.
If we lose control of that region now, it'll much harder to regain back later.

Our other option is to let the ME go to ruin, drill/pump oil and gas at full capacity from the American continent and beef up our defenses against future terror attacks.




You have my permission to get on over there right now and do whatever that you feel needs to be done.
 
Unfortunately, we really NEED to go back and in a fairly strong fashion. If we lose control of that region now, it'll much harder to regain back later.

Our other option is to let the ME go to ruin, drill/pump oil and gas at full capacity from the American continent and beef up our defenses against future terror attacks.

Good points. But some of the military people who are much smarter than I, (or anyone else here,) advise against going back in so I suppose the latter option you suggest would be the wiser option.

PS... Your avatar RULES! Pink Floyd is God.

I dedicate this to all our esteemed neocon colleagues here that are always up for a good ol' military conflict.

 
Last edited:
There was known endgame. Surrender of the enemy state. Is that somehow surprising to you? There's no enemy state here though, no plan to get to the end, no end in sight. Just stupid peoe making stupid choices and killing thousands of Americans and spending trillions of dollars in the process. But terrorist supporters don't care about dead Americans.

That is a plan, not an end game. We had no idea if we would win.
 
Not what I said at all. Not even close.

Sure it is, you claimed Iraq was ok to go after cause they were burning our flags and threatening us. North Korea and Iran have been doing that for years. Your logic is flawed seriously.
 
That is a plan, not an end game. We had no idea if we would win.

That is what end game means, the conditions under which we would win. We knew what end game was, developed a competent plan to get there, executed. And we won in far less time than we've been fighting this quagmire. There's a reason why haven't had a clean "war" or "victory" since WW II; it was the last time we declared war and had to think about ending a war.
 
Back
Top Bottom