• 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
mac said:
Saddam taking control of 20% of the worlds oil reserves would have been a crippling blow to America's economy, and would have crippled America's ability to defend itself. Saddam invaded Kuwait because they refused to slow oil production and drive the price of oil up. Saddam needed high oil prices to pay of it's war debt. (Iran-Iraq war). Whether or not you know any Kuwaitis has nothing to do with the very real impact to your life that Saddam's successful acquisition of Kuwait would have caused. Never mind the idea that unprovoked aggression against another sovereign nation is generally considered taboo in the civilized world.
Click to expand...

This argument seems ridiculous considering that after we took out Saddam - gas prices have been anywhere from 200% to 500% higher in the last 10 years. Your "what if" argument is nothing more than that "What if".
 
a777pilot said:
One does not need a war to kill people. I give you Stalin, Mao and Ho. There are others mostly left wing communists/socialists.

Every Democrat I know is still laughing at the fact that the USA pulled out of Vietnam and left the South to die. You just won't admit it, even to yourself. That doesn't mean it is not true.
Click to expand...

Remember history. VN was with us during WWII. They merely asked to be their own country.

When the Japanese retreated, the people of Vietnam took the opportunity to establish their own government lead by Ho Chi Minh. However, after the end of the war, the Allies gave back south Vietnam to the French while the north was left in the hands of the non-communist Chinese. The Chinese treated the north Vietnamese very badly and support for Ho Chi Minh grew. He had been removed form power at the end of the war. The Chinese pulled out of north Vietnam in 1946 and the party of Ho Chi Minh took over - the Viet Minh.

In October 1946, the French announced their intention of reclaiming the north which meant that the Viet Minh would have to fight for it. The war started in November 1946, when the French bombarded the port of Haiphong and killed 6,000 people. The French tried to win over the people of the north by offering them 'independence'. However, the people would not be allowed to do anything without French permission ! A new leader of the country was appointed called Bao Dai. The Russians and Eastern Europe refused to recognise his rule. They claimed that Ho Chi Minh was the real ruler of Vietnam.

North Vietnam had a population of 16 million. It was an agricultural nation. The Viet Minh trained guerillas to go to the south to spread the word of communism. Their weapons mostly came from communist China. To the surprise of the south Vietnamese, those Viet Minh who went to the south helped them on their farms and did not abuse them. They had become used to fearing soldiers. Instead, the Viet Minh were courteous and helpful.

South Vietnam also had a population of 16 million. Its first proper leader was Ngo Dinh Diem who was a fanatical catholic. As communism hated religion, Diem hated all that communism stood for. This is why he got America's support - he had a poor record on human rights but his rule was in the era of the "Domino Theory" and anybody who was anti-communist in the Far East was likely to receive American backing - regardless of their less than savoury background. Ngo ruled as a dictator along with his brother - Nhu. Their government was corrupt and brutal but it was also backed by America.

Vietnam

I suspect you don't really know many democrats, at least not well enough to know what they are laughing at. :coffeepap
 
"I suspect you don't really know many democrats, at least not well enough to know what they are laughing at."

I use to be a Democrat.
 
a777pilot said:
"I suspect you don't really know many democrats, at least not well enough to know what they are laughing at."

I use to be a Democrat.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change what I said. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Remember history. VN was with us during WWII. They merely asked to be their own country.

When the Japanese retreated, the people of Vietnam took the opportunity to establish their own government lead by Ho Chi Minh. However, after the end of the war, the Allies gave back south Vietnam to the French while the north was left in the hands of the non-communist Chinese. The Chinese treated the north Vietnamese very badly and support for Ho Chi Minh grew. He had been removed form power at the end of the war. The Chinese pulled out of north Vietnam in 1946 and the party of Ho Chi Minh took over - the Viet Minh.

In October 1946, the French announced their intention of reclaiming the north which meant that the Viet Minh would have to fight for it. The war started in November 1946, when the French bombarded the port of Haiphong and killed 6,000 people. The French tried to win over the people of the north by offering them 'independence'. However, the people would not be allowed to do anything without French permission ! A new leader of the country was appointed called Bao Dai. The Russians and Eastern Europe refused to recognise his rule. They claimed that Ho Chi Minh was the real ruler of Vietnam.

North Vietnam had a population of 16 million. It was an agricultural nation. The Viet Minh trained guerillas to go to the south to spread the word of communism. Their weapons mostly came from communist China. To the surprise of the south Vietnamese, those Viet Minh who went to the south helped them on their farms and did not abuse them. They had become used to fearing soldiers. Instead, the Viet Minh were courteous and helpful.

South Vietnam also had a population of 16 million. Its first proper leader was Ngo Dinh Diem who was a fanatical catholic. As communism hated religion, Diem hated all that communism stood for. This is why he got America's support - he had a poor record on human rights but his rule was in the era of the "Domino Theory" and anybody who was anti-communist in the Far East was likely to receive American backing - regardless of their less than savoury background. Ngo ruled as a dictator along with his brother - Nhu. Their government was corrupt and brutal but it was also backed by America.

Vietnam

I suspect you don't really know many democrats, at least not well enough to know what they are laughing at. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

I read every book I could get my hands on about Vietnam and unlike most, I actually was there. So. please, try to refrain from telling me your ideas of history.
 
a777pilot said:
One does not need a war to kill people. I give you Stalin, Mao and Ho. There are others mostly left wing communists/socialists.

Every Democrat I know is still laughing at the fact that the USA pulled out of Vietnam and left the South to die. You just won't admit it, even to yourself. That doesn't mean it is not true.
Click to expand...
such bull****
from wiki:
... on April 23, Ford gave a speech at Tulane University. In that speech, he announced that the Vietnam War was over "...as far as America is concerned".
Click to expand...
my recollection is that ford was REPUBLICAN president, who followed a REPUBLICAN president (who resigned in disgrace)

my suggestion is those democrats' laughs you keep hearing may well have been directed at you, for proposing such nonsense
 
a777pilot said:
I read every book I could get my hands on about Vietnam and unlike most, I actually was there. So. please, try to refrain from telling me your ideas of history.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but so have I. And you have it factually incorrect. I can't say why you're so wrong on the facts, but you are.
 
Boo Radley said:
You mistake lack of action as being proof of innocence. Such is not the case.
Click to expand...

No, I don't, but unless a case is brought in international court, and found valid, then it's just conjecture and rumor.
 
Hatuey said:
This argument seems ridiculous considering that after we took out Saddam - gas prices have been anywhere from 200% to 500% higher in the last 10 years. Your "what if" argument is nothing more than that "What if".
Click to expand...

That price increase is mostly a result of commodities speculators, inflation and general instability in the Middle East. Saddam was asking for a slow down in production to drive up prices, had he succeed, prices now would be considerably higher than they are.
 
justabubba said:
such bull****
from wiki:
my recollection is that ford was REPUBLICAN president, who followed a REPUBLICAN president (who resigned in disgrace)

my suggestion is those democrats' laughs you keep hearing may well have been directed at you, for proposing such nonsense
Click to expand...

Ford had nothing to do with the case-church amendment, other than his veto.
 
a777pilot said:
Every Democrat I know is still laughing at the fact that the USA pulled out of Vietnam and left the South to die. You just won't admit it, even to yourself. That doesn't mean it is not true.
Click to expand...

You're a descipable liar.
 
a777pilot said:
Ford had nothing to do with the case-church amendment, other than his veto.
Click to expand...

next thing you will tell us is that ford had nothing to do with the april 23 address to the American public ending America's involvement in the vietnam war
 
a777pilot said:
So you served in Vietnam? Interesting. Good for you.
Click to expand...

I didn't know they handed out college educations in history to GI's. Or at least they did to the ones that took them I guess. Are you one of those?
 
MKULTRABOY said:
I didn't know they handed out college educations in history to GI's. Or at least they did to the ones that took them I guess. Are you one of those?
Click to expand...

Cuz GI's is stoopid, right?
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its already beginning to look like the house of cars we built there is already showing signs of stress without the presence of our military to prop it up.
 
mac said:
No, I don't, but unless a case is brought in international court, and found valid, then it's just conjecture and rumor.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. If the law says the speed limit is 65 and you're driving 150, you're speeding whether anyone charges you or not. It's not conjecture. It's not rumor. 150 mph in a 65 mph zone is speeding.

I have never understood this silly strategy on the aprt of war supporters. What we signed is not conjecture. It is not rumor. It is written down and accessable for everyone to read.
 
a777pilot said:
So you served in Vietnam? Interesting. Good for you.
Click to expand...

You misread. You said:

I read every book I could get my hands on about Vietnam . . .

I said so have I. I came in to the service just after VN, worked with a lot of vets. I am well educated on VN both from vets and from study. My college honors work was VN, as was some a good bit of my elective work. Not to mention several really good books. You are factually wrong on enough that I doubt you on a few fronts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom