• 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 War in Iraq worth it?

Was the War in Iraq worth it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 19.6%
  • No

    Votes: 86 80.4%

  • Total voters
    107
Considering that thousands of Americans are dead, tens of thousands have been wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, $800 billion has been wasted, our international reputation is in tatters, and an Iraqi government is in place that is friendly with Iran, I would say it was not worth it.

WWII is also worthless when you consider the number of military and civilian deaths, the amount of money wasted, the US international reputation having confused perceptions, and the strengthening of the Soviet Union to become a superpower.
Just saying
 
No. How can a war based on lies and deceit EVER be worth it. The record is abundantly clear that Rumsfield and Cheney for decades had wanted to pursue an imperialistic agenda into Iraq. They couldn't convince the first Bush to proceed and had to wait for someone that they could control better.

How can ANYONE say that manipulating the public and using 911 to justify an invasion of a country that had ZERO to do with 911 was worth it?

I'm not sure an argument about the justification for the invasion can nullify the value of an invasion. I don't have a problem with someone saying "this is morally wrong, so we should not do it". But, to say, "this is morally wrong, by my standards, so it can not result in value to me" isn't a factual statement. You may not like it, but it can result in value to you. Let's say that you believe that it is immoral for people to cheat their spouse. Would you refuse to marry the love of your life because her mother was the birth product of a child born in adultery? What if you didn't know? So, you married the woman, and had a child. Would you say your child had no value because he/she was the great grand child of someone who was in an adulterous relationship?

I think you understand that this is not so.

If you want to argue moral outrage as a reason the war was not worth it, I think it needs to be in the context of results. Meaning, the act of going against your moral code will have future ramifications, etc. I think it can be done.

But, I think saying "the war was a pretext so it can't result in something positive" is bogus.

I'll give one more example: the police search a suspected felon's car for evidence on the excuse that he "appeared" to be driving while intoxicated. Would you say that the result could NEVER have been worth the ruse? What if they found the kid-nap victim alive in the trunk? What if they find a blood-soaked blanket (victim's DNA) and the murder weapon? What if they find nothing? The academic could argue that none of the results would be worth it because the ruse erodes the fabric of civilization. But, I suspect the district attorney could argue the evidence was worth it. And, I'm sure the father of the kidnap victim would argue the chance of saving his child was certainly worth it.

To say that the ends never justify the means doesn't address reality.
 
Last edited:
WWII is also worthless when you consider the number of military and civilian deaths, the amount of money wasted, the US international reputation having confused perceptions, and the strengthening of the Soviet Union to become a superpower.
Just saying

Difference is there was a real threat in WWII. That really does make a difference.
 
Considering that thousands of Americans are dead, tens of thousands have been wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, $800 billion has been wasted, our international reputation is in tatters, and an Iraqi government is in place that is friendly with Iran, I would say it was not worth it.

Our reputation is no different than it was before, and the rest...meh.
 
1. We cannot do everything at the same time.
Your right we cant.

2. We must have priorities.
Your seriously playing the card that we support freedom and prosperity?
We SUPPORT Saudi Arabia
We support many dicatorships and Monarchs around the world as long as they give us what they want..
Hell history shows us we dont give a **** about democracy and freedom and prosperity. Remember Chile? As long as our corporations and government can have our way with your country and exploit your resources and labor then we will be happy and shut our mouths.
So dont play this false "the US has a grand plan to lead the world to freedom and prosperity" card.

3. We must use alternate means as much as possible when direct intervention and nation building would be inappropriate (for various reasons) at this time.
Your right like overthrowing truly democratic leaders and putting into power a dictator that agrees with our economic ways. Right?
 
Too soon to tell for me.

Earlier in the week BO had nice things to say about the outcome. He said this at Fort Bragg so he may have been lying to the soldier to make them feel better. He probably doesn't believe a word he said.

What would make you happy? My opinion nothing that President Obama would satisfy you or the majority of the whining crying conservative base. What as President of the United States would you tell the troops returning from war?

Here is my personal thought, Irag was not worth the lost of one American or Iraqi life. Some people supported the war because of misinformation provided to us by the President Bush administration, I support our fighting men and women regardless of where they are sent. I can support them by believeing in the cause they are engaged in or I can support them by questioning why they where sent into harms way.

Now you tell me if you can what was achieved by attacking Iraq?
 
Our reputation is no different than it was before, and the rest...meh.

Not entirely true. We've now shown rule of law is not important to us, so we don't have that high ground. We're shown that we'd torture, whihc means no country in the future has to worry about being held to that law, not for us. And more people see us as imperialistic than did.
 
WWII is also worthless when you consider the number of military and civilian deaths, the amount of money wasted, the US international reputation having confused perceptions, and the strengthening of the Soviet Union to become a superpower.
Just saying
Point taken..
Confused perceptions ?
By whom ?
Surely not Germany and Japan.
Nor the European nations.
Hard to view this strengthening of the Soviets to be anything but a good thing..
Also, Iran is probably the mid-east power broker, so why should not Iraq be friendly ??
I even question the money "wasted" ...
 
Simple yes or no question.

Not really a simple yes or no question.If Iraq falls into the hands of terrorists and troops left before eradicating the terrorists, then it becomes a waste of all the troop deaths and money spent.If Iraq becomes a enemy nation then yes it would be a waste.If Iraq becomes a peace loving democracy and great ally then it would not be a waste.
 
Not really a simple yes or no question.If Iraq falls into the hands of terrorists and troops left before eradicating the terrorists, then it becomes a waste of all the troop deaths and money spent.If Iraq becomes a enemy nation then yes it would be a waste.If Iraq becomes a peace loving democracy and great ally then it would not be a waste.

Neither ereally matters that much to us or our efforts against terrorism. Terrorist function just fine in free countries and within the boarders of our allies. It was always a false premise that this meant anything really to our interests.
 
Our reputation is no different than it was before, and the rest...meh.

"Meh". That's all you have to say? I'm sure that would console the parents of the troops who died in that stupid conflict. I'm sure the many thousands of troops disfigured and paralyzed by roadside bombs would appreciate it as well. Maybe you should stop by a V.A hospital some time and see how much they appreciate your "meh". And I don't know about you, but I can think of a about thousand better ways to spend $800 billion than using it to pay for the invasion, military occupation, and reconstruction of a country that wasn't even a threat to us.
 
Not entirely true. We've now shown rule of law is not important to us, so we don't have that high ground. We're shown that we'd torture, whihc means no country in the future has to worry about being held to that law, not for us. And more people see us as imperialistic than did.

Substantiate that....somehow.
 
Substantiate that....somehow.

Well, those in the military have argued it concerning the use of torture. And the UN among others have presented that we were aggressors, ignoring our own agreements, the ones we signed. So, I think it is fairly clear.
 
Well, those in the military have argued it concerning the use of torture. And the UN among others have presented that we were aggressors, ignoring our own agreements, the ones we signed. So, I think it is fairly clear.

Really...got some evidence of your claim?
 
You said it right here. Militarily speaking, the air crew don't qualify as, "troops".

You are free to disagree with the commonly accepted definition that states that they do if you like...
 
Really...got some evidence of your claim?

I have shown it many times over the years. From many different sources. But here's what todays quick search shows:

The report shows that there was strong opposition to those four corners -- which were established by Bush administration and justice department lawyers -- from the military, which argued that the behavior it purported to justify was illegal.

Bush Administration Ignored Military's Strong Opposition To Torture Program

. . . this letter from 38 other military leaders, including two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - Generals John Shalikasvili and John Vessey.

Armchair Generalist: 38 Retired Military Leaders Against Torture

Veteran's Against Torture

Just the first few from a search. There is more, and you should knnow that.

Do you need links to our agreements with the UN as well? Really?
 
You said it right here. Militarily speaking, the air crew don't qualify as, "troops".

Well, being Aircrew, I disagree with that. Both from a personal perspective and a legal one.
 
I have shown it many times over the years. From many different sources. But here's what todays quick search shows:

The report shows that there was strong opposition to those four corners -- which were established by Bush administration and justice department lawyers -- from the military, which argued that the behavior it purported to justify was illegal.

Bush Administration Ignored Military's Strong Opposition To Torture Program

. . . this letter from 38 other military leaders, including two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - Generals John Shalikasvili and John Vessey.

Armchair Generalist: 38 Retired Military Leaders Against Torture

Veteran's Against Torture

Just the first few from a search. There is more, and you should knnow that.

Well, I'd say consider the source...but that would fall on deaf ears. What you have is a very small number of military members complaining. You need to realize how many served, and regardless, this has nothing to do with how we are actually perceived by non-US peoples.

Do you need links to our agreements with the UN as well? Really?

I'd like to see what you think substantiates your claim, sure.
 
Well, I'd say consider the source...but that would fall on deaf ears. What you have is a very small number of military members complaining. You need to realize how many served, and regardless, this has nothing to do with how we are actually perceived by non-US peoples.

No, PBS did a film on this and the military was largely behind the objections. I claimed the military opposed it, and supported that. But think for a minute, if we say the bad guys torture and that is in part why they are bad, do you really believe they look at us and say oh, that's cool? Or if we do go to war with a real country, how can we argue they should not torture our people? We've certainly showed we will.

I'd like to see what you think substantiates your claim, sure.

Start here. I have to go for a while.

http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html
 
Last edited:
No, PBS did a film on this and the military was largely behind the objections. I claimed the military opposed it, and supported that. But think for a minute, if we say the bad guys torture and that is in part why they are bad, do you really believe they look at us and say oh, that's cool? Or if we do go to war with a real country, how can we argue they should not torture our people? We've certainly showed we will.

Do you know how many people are in the military? And who supports torture? But you should also ask how many think waterboarding is torture....you'll get different feedback.

Start here. I have to go for a while.

The War on Iraq: Legal Issues

Despite some opinions based on not so accurate statements, this doesn't say anything of any real value and doesn't reflect anything about our reputation on the world stage. IF we were in violation of the UN, why did they do nothing to stop us? Why did the majority of the UN join us in the invasion?

By the way...according to the BBC, world opinion of the US is generally improving. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pipa/pdf/apr10/BBCViews_Apr10_rpt.pdf
 
Last edited:
Do you know how many people are in the military? And who supports torture? But you should also ask how many think waterboarding is torture....you'll get different feedback.

As I was a solider, I hope far fewer than you think. I served with honorable people, and there is no honor in torture. But I'm speaking about a poll. I'm speaking to the fact it was military leaders who resisted this violation of law.

Despite some opinions based on not so accurate statements, this doesn't say anything of any real value and doesn't reflect anything about our reputation on the world stage. IF we were in violation of the UN, why did they do nothing to stop us? Why did the majority of the UN join us in the invasion?

By the way...according to the BBC, world opinion of the US is generally improving. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pipa/pdf/apr10/BBCViews_Apr10_rpt.pdf


Tell yourself what you must, but there is very little actually inaccurate in what I gave you, and there is more if you look, Improving BTW doesn't mean good. And you might want to look closer at those graphs. :coffeepap
 
Back
Top Bottom