• 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
"I get my rightwing political viewpoints from Rush Limbaugh. But just to be sure I give the more moderate to liberal viewpoint a fair chance, I often turn to FOXNews. I like to be well rounded, fair and balanced ." **** Source unknown
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, it is. Very great. If another country came in and invaded us to give us freedom, I assure you we would not be happy. We would resist, and likely would have sided with the British. Like I said, you present a different means and not the same means.
Click to expand...

If we were invaded at the time of British rule part of the population would have sided with the invaders and part with the British. If you know history, you'll know that this is pretty much what happened anyway. Had the British won, then we'd now have a far different opinion of the war for independence (or the liberation of America).

The difference is not that great. Perspective.
 
mac said:
If we were invaded at the time of British rule part of the population would have sided with the invaders and part with the British. If you know history, you'll know that this is pretty much what happened anyway. Had the British won, then we'd now have a far different opinion of the war for independence (or the liberation of America).

The difference is not that great. Perspective.
Click to expand...

No, that isn't what pretty much happened. We enlisted a few merchnaries, not a country invading. Then difference is huge.

Also, you're numbers are likley off. I doubt we'd have divided so evenly. More likely much more would have sided with England. Few favor an invader.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, that isn't what pretty much happened. We enlisted a few merchnaries, not a country invading. Then difference is huge.

Also, you're numbers are likley off. I doubt we'd have divided so evenly. More likely much more would have sided with England. Few favor an invader.
Click to expand...

I imagine the numbers wouldn't have been all that different. Some favored independence, some favored allegiance to the King. As for the rest of what you said, you don't seem to know the history. Are you forgetting France later in the war? Assume that France invaded to initiate the war, and assume they had the same stated goal we had in Iraq. Had the war been won by the invader, and they left as promised....what would be so different about America today? Hypothetically, of course.
 
mac said:
I imagine the numbers wouldn't have been all that different. Some favored independence, some favored allegiance to the King. As for the rest of what you said, you don't seem to know the history. Are you forgetting France later in the war? Assume that France invaded to initiate the war, and assume they had the same stated goal we had in Iraq. Had the war been won by the invader, and they left as promised....what would be so different about America today? Hypothetically, of course.
Click to expand...

but his is a key difference

france did NOT invade
france did NOT occupy
an outside army did NOT win our independence

pity that needed to be pointed out
 
justabubba said:
but his is a key difference

france did NOT invade
france did NOT occupy
an outside army did NOT win our independence

pity that needed to be pointed out
Click to expand...

We absolutely would not have won without France's support. Early in the war, we depended on their arms and gunpowder, and later their direct action. France didn't occupy after the war because it was unneeded. Again, the difference is mainly perspective.
 
mac said:
I imagine the numbers wouldn't have been all that different. Some favored independence, some favored allegiance to the King. As for the rest of what you said, you don't seem to know the history. Are you forgetting France later in the war? Assume that France invaded to initiate the war, and assume they had the same stated goal we had in Iraq. Had the war been won by the invader, and they left as promised....what would be so different about America today? Hypothetically, of course.
Click to expand...

It's not about independence or the king. That's the flaw in your thinking. It's about an outsider invading.

we would not ahve liked an invader, period. Had they left, with a base in our country, like with iraq, I doubt we'd be all that happy, and it would have changed things drastically. America would have had much more french influence, and who knows where that would have led us. No, the two examples are very different. Too different to be compared.
 
a777pilot said:
Actually I did. They never said what the questions were they actually asked nor the method and sequence of questions asked.
Click to expand...

That's funny, because when I go to the Pew site it says this:

The Veterans Survey (V)
The attitudes of veterans reported in this study are based on a nationally representative sample of 1,853 men and women who served in the military and are no longer on active duty. The sample included 1,134 who were discharged from the military prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and 712 veterans who served after 9/11. (Seven veterans declined to answer when they served.)

The margin of sampling error for results based on the entire sample of veterans is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; the margin of sampling error for the pre-9/11 sample is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points; and the margin of sampling error for those who served after 9/11 is plus or minus 5.7 percentage points.

Veterans were interviewed by telephone or via the internet. A total of 1,639 interviews were conducted over the telephone under the direction of Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS). Respondents had been identified as veterans in earlier surveys conducted by SSRS and the Pew Research Center and were re-contacted for the veterans survey. Of the total sample, 1,307 telephone interviews were conducted on landline telephones and 332 on cell phones. Interviewing for the telephone survey was conducted from July 28 to Sept. 4, 2011. These interviews were supplemented by 214 interviews with veterans who served after 9/11 and are part of random sample panel of households maintained by the research firm Knowledge Networks. These online interviews were collected Aug. 18-31, 2011.

The two data sets were combined and the entire sample weighted by SSRS to match known demographic characteristics of the veterans population as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, the post-9/11 oversample was weighted back to reflect its correct proportion of the overall veterans population. A detailed explanation of the survey methodologies and weighting strategy employed in this study is in Appendix 1.

For the full report:

War and Sacrifice in the Post-9/11 Era | Pew Social & Demographic Trends
 
Catawba said:
That's funny, because when I go to the Pew site it says this:

The Veterans Survey (V)
The attitudes of veterans reported in this study are based on a nationally representative sample of 1,853 men and women who served in the military and are no longer on active duty. The sample included 1,134 who were discharged from the military prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and 712 veterans who served after 9/11. (Seven veterans declined to answer when they served.)

The margin of sampling error for results based on the entire sample of veterans is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; the margin of sampling error for the pre-9/11 sample is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points; and the margin of sampling error for those who served after 9/11 is plus or minus 5.7 percentage points.

Veterans were interviewed by telephone or via the internet. A total of 1,639 interviews were conducted over the telephone under the direction of Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS). Respondents had been identified as veterans in earlier surveys conducted by SSRS and the Pew Research Center and were re-contacted for the veterans survey. Of the total sample, 1,307 telephone interviews were conducted on landline telephones and 332 on cell phones. Interviewing for the telephone survey was conducted from July 28 to Sept. 4, 2011. These interviews were supplemented by 214 interviews with veterans who served after 9/11 and are part of random sample panel of households maintained by the research firm Knowledge Networks. These online interviews were collected Aug. 18-31, 2011.

The two data sets were combined and the entire sample weighted by SSRS to match known demographic characteristics of the veterans population as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, the post-9/11 oversample was weighted back to reflect its correct proportion of the overall veterans population. A detailed explanation of the survey methodologies and weighting strategy employed in this study is in Appendix 1.

For the full report:

War and Sacrifice in the Post-9/11 Era | Pew Social & Demographic Trends
Click to expand...

Then I was right. We still have no idea what the questions asked were or the order in which they were asked. Good to know. Thanks.
 
a777pilot said:
Then I was right. We still have no idea what the questions asked were or the order in which they were asked. Good to know. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Not if you don't take the time to read Appendix 1.

And where are any surveys that say a majority did not think it was worth it? I've asked you 3 times now and you've provided nothing to document your claim.
 
mac said:
They did start the fight, there had been resistance movements bent on overthrowing Iraq and the Ba'athists from nearly the time he gained power.
Click to expand...

We were buddies with the Ba'athists originally. Even Saddam was a friend for a bit of time. But they had nothing that we had when we started our war. And even then, it's not really our problem. Government gains its legitimacy through the consent of the governed. If you are not part of the governed, you have no rightful say.
 
Ikari said:
We were buddies with the Ba'athists originally. Even Saddam was a friend for a bit of time. But they had nothing that we had when we started our war. And even then, it's not really our problem. Government gains its legitimacy through the consent of the governed. If you are not part of the governed, you have no rightful say.
Click to expand...

So, in general, revolutionaries are without merit regardless of their motives?
 
Before I opine, let me say in regards to Iraq, one POSITIVE thing that did come out of that was to show the globe that, without question, American troops , when called upon, WILL answer the call and do their job better than any fighting force in the history of mankind. I will defer to you guys to debate if the gains, whatever they are, are worthy of their sacrifices.

We should NEVER devalue any sacrifice they have made for us due to ANY politics that happen to call them up. The President calls, they answer. Case closed. Therefore, I would like to make clear that my opinion on the policies and/or politics that called upon their sacrifices to begin with, in no way reflects my view to our soldier heroes.

I said it when we went in and I will say it now that we've pulled out. It mattered not what we did there, did or did not accomplish or how long we were to stay there. The Iraqi's have a long overdue civil war they have yet to hammer out. All we did was postpone the inevitable with our costly presence.

Iraq is about to implode.

Maybe we should have saved the money and saved the lives instead.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
So, in general, revolutionaries are without merit regardless of their motives?
Click to expand...

who exactly are these revolutionaries you speak of in iraq
 
mac said:
So, in general, revolutionaries are without merit regardless of their motives?
Click to expand...

"Outside" revolutionaries are oft without merit.
 
was iraq worth it,not really,was taking out their leader,yes.if people only knew the real reason we went there,it had to do with oil,but not with their oil supply.if anyone wants to have fun you can play around in google,or read a history book thats not a school issue text book.better yet google the history of ww1 and maybe everyone will see why its practically stripped out of history.then look to ending the gold standard the oil crisis and oil being traded in us dollars,all of those subjects tie hand in hand,though you would have to do quite a bit of research the answer is clear to anyone who really looks for it.

also just to note that everyone who made bush's axis of evil was attempting to do the same thing saddam was,and no it wasnt wmd's,but i dont want to spoil the ending:lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
Wrong, they ahd to have the sercurity council OK to invade.
Click to expand...

A) no you don't
B) to the extent that you would want it, they did.

Frankly, as noted above, it is often you who are wrong. But by all means present information. I'm sure you have an NRO article that completely misrepresents the truth to present.
Click to expand...

wow. an ad hominem and a preemptive ad sourcinem in lieu of actual facts or logic. Boo, you are outdoing yourself. :)
 
my friends the simple answer to this question is, did your gas prices go down a few cents? then yes it was worth it! if it went up then it was not worth it! nevermind deaths and casualities and blah blah blah
 
43% (as I recall, a plurality) of troops polled in 2011 said retrospectively we should have invaded Iraq.

71% approve of pulling out of Iraq now, though that might change if the commanders turn out to be correct (as they likely will) about that 20K RBE.

meanwhile, only 24% support the intervention in Libya, and only 39% support the President's plan to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

...“People wonder if we really have the commitment to follow this through,” said retired Army Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Hall, who was the top enlisted service member for the NATO mission in Kabul in 2009 and 2010. “I think everybody knows that we can be successful over there. But it’s going to take time and presence and commitment, and I think folks are worried that we go over there, we sacrifice our families and we work hard — but are we going to follow through? Or is this all going be for naught?”...
Click to expand...

and that is what we are waiting to find out in Iraq. Did we decide to get out too fast, and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

The President's overall approval rating among members of the military is 25%.
 
mac said:
What analysis are you talking about? I didn't compare the two wars, I challenged Boo's "the end doesn't justify the means" bs comment.

However, we cannot depose dictators without bombs when they are kissing a veto wielding, UN members ass. That would be France, btw.

Further, it was not longer than WWII when you add the 60 plus years of "occupation" of Germany and Japan.
Click to expand...
60+ years? That would mean that we occupied Germany and Iraq in the 21st century (although the prolonged occupation forces me to concede there.)

The war itself was illegal under international law. Let's not call following UN charters "kissing ass."
 
MadLib said:
60+ years? That would mean that we occupied Germany and Iraq in the 21st century (although the prolonged occupation forces me to concede there.)

The war itself was illegal under international law. Let's not call following UN charters "kissing ass."
Click to expand...

Yeah, 60+ years...we're still in Germany and Japan.

What international body has deemed the war illegal? Has the UN pursued action against the US? Has Iraq sued in international court?
 
As if freedom could possibly not be worth it. We didnt "break anything"; that place was dark ages. If there's anything to "fix", then I suppose we would have to install a genocidal dictator and ancient laws against women. Then again, when people support and promote physically abusing women (and even blame women for it)... then I suppose they do think that losing things like State-sanctioned FGM, Honor Killings, rape and other such niceties is "breaking something" that needs "fixing". Really, how someone can take that statement and apply it broadly to Iraq is just beyond me.
 
ecofarm said:
As if freedom could possibly not be worth it.
Click to expand...

Their freedom is not worth our lives. If they want it, they must fight for it. Otherwise they will lack the resolve to keep it.
 
cpwill said:
A) no you don't
B) to the extent that you would want it, they did.
Click to expand...

Signatories do. Sorry.

No, they did not. Again, you are factually incorrect. I know you want to believe, I understand. But you are simply factually wrong.

wow. an ad hominem and a preemptive ad sourcinem in lieu of actual facts or logic. Boo, you are outdoing yourself. :)
Click to expand...

Nope. Just recognizing thehistory of these conversations. Nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom