• 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!

Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

Even, if we wait until things are totally out of control and the war costs tens of millions of lives?

Nope, just an actual threat, rather than a threat we know we destroyed a decade earlier.
 
One thing's for sure, Iraq will never, ever be a threat to us, again.

You mean they can't shut off their oil whenever they want too? That was the only threat they presented.
 
Nope, just an actual threat, rather than a threat we know we destroyed a decade earlier.

By the time another state becomes a direct and imminent threat to the United States, it's going to cost millions of lives fighting them off. In the nuclear age, it's extremely idiotic and short sighted to allow things to get that far.
 
You mean they can't shut off their oil whenever they want too? That was the only threat they presented.

There's no way you can say that with any amount of credibility, unless you have a crystal ball.
 
You don't know that. Saddam had already attempted to assissinate Bush Sr. You have no idea what was going to happen, if Saddam remained in power.

Yes, we do know that. From intelligence reports we know Saddam's military capacity was destroyed in 1991 and the 700 inspections made until 2002 confirmed there was no threat.
 
There's no way you can say that with any amount of credibility, unless you have a crystal ball.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that Western oil had been banned from Iraq for 36 years until our invasion and occupation.
 
Yes, we do know that. From intelligence reports we know Saddam's military capacity was destroyed in 1991 and the 700 inspections made until 2002 confirmed there was no threat.

Those are predicitions of what could happen in the future? They aren't. Are they?

You can't say that Saddam was never going to be a real threat, again. There are zero facts to support that, because none of you have a crystal ball.
 
Those are predicitions of what could happen in the future? They aren't. Are they?

You can't say that Saddam was never going to be a real threat, again. There are zero facts to support that, because none of you have a crystal ball.

Nobody has a crystall ball. You don't know if a particular state will be a threat far into the future, or if it won't. Any state could become a potential threat in the future, by your logic we might as well just invade every other country and take over the world and have perfect security just in case.
 
Nobody has a crystall ball. You don't know if a particular state will be a threat far into the future, or if it won't. Any state could become a potential threat in the future, by your logic we might as well just invade every other country and take over the world and have perfect security just in case.

We know--now--that Iraq won't be a threat in the future. There's no way to argue with that.
 
You don't know that. Saddam had already attempted to assissinate Bush Sr. You have no idea what was going to happen, if Saddam remained in power.

And that went real well. Yes, we know this. We knew it before we went in. You don't take a real threat as easily as we took Iraq.
 
We know--now--that Iraq won't be a threat in the future. There's no way to argue with that.

I still see the potential, however minor, for Iraq to fall back into a civil war and perhaps once again becoming a breeding ground for extremism. Even if we do absolutely know for sure that Iraq won't be a threat in the future, I would argue that the price for "making sure" wasn't worth it.
 
We know--now--that Iraq won't be a threat in the future. There's no way to argue with that.

Actually, we don't know that. Iraq has closer ties to Iran now. That could threaten us far more than Saddam did. Yes, as noted above, civil war could still happen. They could easily elect people far less friendly than even Saddam was. Remember, it was actually the Kurds who worked with Al Qaeda, and not Saddam.

The war could have made things worse for us. That could end up being the case.
 
Those are predicitions of what could happen in the future? They aren't. Are they?

You can't say that Saddam was never going to be a real threat, again. There are zero facts to support that, because none of you have a crystal ball.

Iraq was not a threat when we attacked them. Saddam was a fat old man with a shotgun and no WMD as the 700 inspections made confirmed. No crystal ball required.
 
Back
Top Bottom