• 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!

Why Are We At War With Iraq?

Why are we at war with Iraq

  • Oil

    Votes: 13 54.2%
  • 9/11

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Atomic Bomb

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • I Don't Know

    Votes: 8 33.3%

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
We're not in Sudan.

Nor are we anywhere near Africa which has way worse problems, more diabolical war lords, more suffering than Iraq did...but we're keeping our distance from that hellhole.
 
What's your point?

Doesn't seem to be very advantageous to be a foreign occupying force in a well entrenched and supported populace being shot at consistently and adding to the fire of hatred and aggression towards ourselves. Seems actually counter productive.
 
All you have to do is vote and explain why:)

We are not at war with Iraq. And you failed to provide, in your poll, a legitimate answer to the question you meant to ask, "Why are we at war in Iraq?"

I would surmise that we probably made a strategic decision to gain a foothold in a part of the world, and all the resources and influence that come along with it, that had previously been out of our reach. Increasing our global presence and influence are good goals and a little more important than your grossly simplified choice of "For the oil".
 
We are not at war with Iraq. And you failed to provide, in your poll, a legitimate answer to the question you meant to ask, "Why are we at war in Iraq?"

I would surmise that we probably made a strategic decision to gain a foothold in a part of the world, and all the resources and influence that come along with it, that had previously been out of our reach. Increasing our global presence and influence are good goals and a little more important than your grossly simplified choice of "For the oil".

Nicely put.
 
We are not at war with Iraq. And you failed to provide, in your poll, a legitimate answer to the question you meant to ask, "Why are we at war in Iraq?"

I would surmise that we probably made a strategic decision to gain a foothold in a part of the world, and all the resources and influence that come along with it, that had previously been out of our reach. Increasing our global presence and influence are good goals and a little more important than your grossly simplified choice of "For the oil".

We went to war against Iraq though, against the sovereign nation of Iraq. We took on their troops and military, we disposed of their government, we created another government...or tried to, it's not going so well, in its place. We did this because the Iraqi government was supposedly a threat. Now we are at war in Iraq because we ****ed it up so badly and can't get a handle on the situation.
 
We went to war against Iraq though, against the sovereign nation of Iraq. We took on their troops and military, we disposed of their government, we created another government...or tried to, it's not going so well, in its place. We did this because the Iraqi government was supposedly a threat. Now we are at war in Iraq because we ****ed it up so badly and can't get a handle on the situation.

We are in Iraq for Geopolitical reasons, excuses for wars are as old as history herself. The Boston "Massasacre", Killing of Arch Duke Ferdinand, Sinking of Maine, Lusitania, the Shelling of German forces by the Poles, kidnapping of Helen etc etc etc. The real reason for the invasion was to increase our influence and interests in the region.
 
All you have to do is vote and explain why:)
Congress never declared war on Iraq, thus we are not now nor have we ever been at war with them.
 
We went to war against Iraq though, against the sovereign nation of Iraq. We took on their troops and military, we disposed of their government, we created another government...or tried to, it's not going so well, in its place. We did this because the Iraqi government was supposedly a threat. Now we are at war in Iraq because we ****ed it up so badly and can't get a handle on the situation.

I never said how well we executed the plan. Under Rumsfeld, the war was very poorly prosecuted which has led to the problems we face now. Shock and awe should have been followed quickly with level and burn.

However, we haven't the nerve to do the sensible thing when it comes to war.

In any event, I just gave an opinion on the "why" and not the matters of "how" or "was it worth it".
 
I never said how well we executed the plan. Under Rumsfeld, the war was very poorly prosecuted which has led to the problems we face now. Shock and awe should have been followed quickly with level and burn.

However, we haven't the nerve to do the sensible thing when it comes to war.

In any event, I just gave an opinion on the "why" and not the matters of "how" or "was it worth it".

The sensible thing when it comes to war is to avoid it at all cost. The next sensible thing is not to be the occupying force. We wrote that handbook ourselves. We used it against the British when we kicked their limey asses out.
 
The sensible thing when it comes to war is to avoid it at all cost. The next sensible thing is not to be the occupying force. We wrote that handbook ourselves. We used it against the British when we kicked their limey asses out.

Avoiding war at all costs will undoubtabley lead to war. We kicked the British out after a Super power helped us, if it wasnt for some luck at Trenton and Princeton and the help of the French we would have been united with Canada till today.
 
The sensible thing when it comes to war is to avoid it at all cost.

That's a very noble and very mealy mouthed sentiment but out of the commune and back in the real world, diplomacy and influence often come from the end of a gun barrel.
 
We created the oppurtunity to draw 40 thousand jihadists into the open so we could kill them and we're in a very strategically advantagous position in the ME.

We probably created most of those "Jihadists" by going into Iraq. I mean if another nation set up an occupying force in America, planting their own government to run us and have their troops patrol our streets at night, enforcing curfews, etc, plenty of us would take up arms and fight back. Believing that this would not hold true for another country is just arrogant. Most of those 40,000 "Jihadists" would have gone about their daily lives without even thinking about harming Americans if we had not invaded their country.
 
We're not in Sudan.

OK, but Iraq exports 6 times more oil than the Sudan does. Besides, I'm not saying that we invade every single country that has oil...I'm just saying that everything else being equal, we are much more likely to go to war with a country that has oil than a country that doesn't.

I think it's too strong to say that we're in Iraq BECAUSE of oil, but I also think it's naive to say that our presence there has nothing to do with oil whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
That's a very noble and very mealy mouthed sentiment but out of the commune and back in the real world, diplomacy and influence often come from the end of a gun barrel.

I don't think that is necessarily true anymore. Avoiding war at all costs is the most sensible, pragmatic, and life respecting choice you can take. If you need to go to war, get drug into it kicking and screaming and fight and claw your way out ASAP. Prolonged war helps no one, it accomplishes nothing other than killing a bunch of humans. And war cannot be first response, it must be the absolute last response.
 
Avoiding war at all costs will undoubtabley lead to war. We kicked the British out after a Super power helped us, if it wasnt for some luck at Trenton and Princeton and the help of the French we would have been united with Canada till today.

Yes, we had help from our friends. But to fight a long way from home, and occupying war is very demoralizing and we knew how to use it against the aggressor. So too does the population of Iraq. We can't be there forever, and if we are it's our own doom we spell. They know it.
 
I don't think that is necessarily true anymore. Avoiding war at all costs is the most sensible, pragmatic, and life respecting choice you can take. If you need to go to war, get drug into it kicking and screaming and fight and claw your way out ASAP. Prolonged war helps no one, it accomplishes nothing other than killing a bunch of humans. And war cannot be first response, it must be the absolute last response.

I agree with you on principle and I do think that violence becomes a cyclical problem on a global scale, and moreso when it comes to the middle east. However, I also understand that on the global board, there are a lot of pieces in play and that sometimes, the way to avoid more massive and cataclysmic conflict years down the line is to suffer the pain of sacrificing pieces today.

I definitely don't advocate going to war as a first choice but I also don't think we should shirk away from it when it is the most expedient, efficient, and likely to succeed just for the sake of lofty notions of being above the savagery that is our instinct anyways.
 
We probably created most of those "Jihadists" by going into Iraq. I mean if another nation set up an occupying force in America, planting their own government to run us and have their troops patrol our streets at night, enforcing curfews, etc, plenty of us would take up arms and fight back. Believing that this would not hold true for another country is just arrogant. Most of those 40,000 "Jihadists" would have gone about their daily lives without even thinking about harming Americans if we had not invaded their country.

We didn't force them become jihadists. They made that decision on their own. They made a concious decision to go to Iraq and kill American soldiers and Iraqi women and children.


OK, but Iraq exports 6 times more oil than the Sudan does. Besides, I'm not saying that we invade every single country that has oil...I'm just saying that everything else being equal, we are much more likely to go to war with a country that has oil than a country that doesn't.

I think it's too strong to say that we're in Iraq BECAUSE of oil, but I also think it's naive to say that our presence there has nothing to do with oil whatsoever.


There aren't many countries that don't have oil. Statistically speaking, we invaded them all for the oil.
 
Nor are we anywhere near Africa which has way worse problems, more diabolical war lords, more suffering than Iraq did...but we're keeping our distance from that hellhole.

That's right and there are billions of barrels of oil in Africa, so the whole, "it's all about the oil", notion is flawed.
 
There aren't many countries that don't have oil. Statistically speaking, we invaded them all for the oil.

OK, let me rephrase: We're much more likely to invade a country with a significant amount of oil than a country with very little oil.
 
Doesn't seem to be very advantageous to be a foreign occupying force in a well entrenched and supported populace being shot at consistently and adding to the fire of hatred and aggression towards ourselves. Seems actually counter productive.

Things are getting quieter by the day. They were, anyway, before we decided to leave prematurely.
 
Yes, we had help from our friends. But to fight a long way from home, and occupying war is very demoralizing and we knew how to use it against the aggressor. So too does the population of Iraq. We can't be there forever, and if we are it's our own doom we spell. They know it.

As with any nation there are those that oppose us, and those that see an opportunity with our presence (Kurds), and others who we divide and gain loyality (****es and Sunnis). As far as our revolution the British could have easily won in 1776, the lucky strike of Trenton and the conservative actions of Howe basically saved the cause. If Washington failed at Trenton there would be no French backing and the support among the people would have melted away and we would be learning about the great traitors not founding fathers.
 
Back
Top Bottom