• 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
BS, to your first part.

Amen, to your second part.
Guess I have to change my avatar, seeing as how you've been on here longer than I have. :darthgunny
 
Guess I have to change my avatar, seeing as how you've been on here longer than I have. :darthgunny

Hell no... keep your avatar. Every Marine I've ever spoken to had that symbol somewhere on their person.
 
I know, we did sign the agreement. Does that mean we have to honor it forever no matter what? When does logic take over and we figure out we have to act on our own. The last time the UN acted was Libya and they were fumbling that until guess who came in.
I just Google'd "Just War Theory". Looks like an interesting read. I will tackle that soon. I'm reading Bing West's "The Wrong War" right now. He was in Sangin, Afghansitan while I was there. Great author who doesn't pull punches. You should try it out. After that, I have John Adams biography and then "Killing Lincoln" by O'Reilly lined up. Kinda "booked" as far as books go. Thanks for the recommendation though.

It would help if some logic applied. ;)

But we have recourse to act. We can act when a threat is immenent, for example. Iraq did not attack us. Was of no serious threat at all. So, it's hard to justify invading a country. In fact, we used much the same justification Iraq did to invade Kuwait. Saddam said Kuwait was a threat. Not an imminent the treat, but a threat. We and the UN said no. What do you think would have happend if the UN out powered us as much as did iraq?

Again, the UN is only as strong as their members. The UN has no standing army.

I think you will enjoy the read.
 
I'm being very specific regarding the statement made which said "Most of the world knew that Saddam's WMD claims were bogus", which is as I stated (and I'm being nice here) in accurate. That is not the truth, therefore it is attempting to propagate misinformation. It's very well documented.

Which claims?
 
That the world knew he wasn't growing and gathering. True.

I'm sorry you cannot understand the language quoted. It's a lie and you know it's a lie. You're games are boring... :yawn:
 
I'm sorry you cannot understand the language quoted. It's a lie and you know it's a lie. You're games are boring... :yawn:

This is your way of avoiding answering. So, isn't you who are playing games? :coffeepap
 
Which claims?

I wnat you to state specifically what we knew, and what is re-writing history. Can you do that?

Yes.

I know the USA via Linebacker II won the Vietnam War. I also, know that the Democrats gave it, South Vietnam, away causing hundreds of thousands of death and then re-wrote history saying we, the USA lost. But then they are Democrats and lying is what they do......along with stabbing friends in the back.


There, does that answer your "question"?
 
Yes.

I know the USA via Linebacker II won the Vietnam War. I also, know that the Democrats gave it, South Vietnam, away causing hundreds of thousands of death and then re-wrote history saying we, the USA lost. But then they are Democrats and lying is what they do......along with stabbing friends in the back.


There, does that answer your "question"?

So you are re-writing history? Like Iraq, VN should not have been fought to begin with. What cost all those lives was the ill considered decission to fight there in the first place.

However, I was speaking of Iraq. VN should be another thread.
 
So you are re-writing history? Like Iraq, VN should not have been fought to begin with. What cost all those lives was the ill considered decision to fight there in the first place.

However, I was speaking of Iraq. VN should be another thread.

I did ask what the question was. You gave a partial answer. So don't blame me if I get it messed up.

So, are you asking me what we, the USA, knew before the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

That's easy. I have no idea. You don't either. I still opine that the real reason for the invasion of Iraq was Iran.

Bush(43) made lots of errors in his war effort.

The first and most important was the very same error LBJ made in the 1960's in VN. He, Bush (43), tried to have guns and butter at the same time. It has never worked. Pick one or the other.
 
That's not accurate... at the time we did not know what he had nor did other "most other countries" leading up to the 2003 invasion. Please don't attempt the whole re-write history by continuing to propagate B.S. :roll:
Ockham, I suggest you do some reading of the minutes of UN discussion prior to the vote not to sanction the Iraqi invasion. The facts about why The UN did not sanction this invasion are starkly different from what the US media and the GWB administration said about the subject.

http://www.un.org/webcast/2003.html
 
Last edited:
I did ask what the question was. You gave a partial answer. So don't blame me if I get it messed up.

So, are you asking me what we, the USA, knew before the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

That's easy. I have no idea. You don't either. I still opine that the real reason for the invasion of Iraq was Iran.

Bush(43) made lots of errors in his war effort.

The first and most important was the very same error LBJ made in the 1960's in VN. He, Bush (43), tried to have guns and butter at the same time. It has never worked. Pick one or the other.

That's inaccurate as well. There was no double secret cone of silence intel. We know that Saddam likely had some left over wmds, that his infastructure was such that he could not maintain such weapons. We also had no intel that was credible that he was growing and gathering. Much has been written on this by all kinds of sources.

No, as for Bush the father, he was ready to help the kurds, but Chalibi (you might remember him and his heros in error) betrayed us to Iran, so we backed off and let kurds suffer for it. Before you can successfully re-write history, it helps if you know it.
 
I know history. Democrats, or more accurately, Liberal don't. They just make it up nas they go along.

Well, that sure showed me. :2funny:

All I can say is I presented something and you chose to go with "you suck so there." Do you really think that works?
 
No, I agree with the majority of Veterans who fought the war, and the majority of Americans that paid for it through taxes and National debt, it was not worth it.
 
Back
Top Bottom