• 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
Simple yes or no question.

The war was far from perfect, but even as things are today, stoping Sodom from basing his oil on the Euro instead of the us Dollar was the right thing to do.
 
The war was far from perfect, but even as things are today, stoping Sodom from basing his oil on the Euro instead of the us Dollar was the right thing to do.

Just like stopping genocide...

or I mean... getting nuked

or stopping them from supporting Al-Quackeda

or giving them democracy

it was one of those I made up after all the reasons we went there were found to be lies. :shrug:
 
The war was far from perfect, but even as things are today, stoping Sodom from basing his oil on the Euro instead of the us Dollar was the right thing to do.

Yeah your perspective is pretty clear there:

blood_vs_oil-yar-dua.jpg
 
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.

A house of cars made up of Shelby Mustangs, Dodge Prowlers and Chevy Chevilles would be SIMPLY AWESOME!!
 
Signatories do. Sorry.

no, we don't.

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

and yes, they did. I realize that it's inconvenient for you, but a series of "just-so" statements does not wash away multiple Security Council Resolutions, however long you repeat them, or however much you insist that their existence is "factually incorrect."

Nope. Just recognizing thehistory of these conversations

well that certainly is true - though you have skipped ahead to the part where you abandon even the pretense of responsibility to provide evidence.
 
You misread. You said:

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

then I would recommend to you Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, and Bing West's The Village.
 
I think a better question would be, who benefited from the Iraq War?
 
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.

How about it as a strategy for non-war supporters? I don't "support" the war in Iraq. I think there are plenty of things wrong with having gone into Iraq, and I don't need to make stuff up to be against it. However, unless found guilty...you're innocent.
 
How about it as a strategy for non-war supporters? I don't "support" the war in Iraq. I think there are plenty of things wrong with having gone into Iraq, and I don't need to make stuff up to be against it. However, unless found guilty...you're innocent.
no. NOT innocent
only not (yet) found guilty
there IS a difference
 
Page one had mostly 'no' voters, most seemed to understand we were mislead by the Bush WH into a war that only benefitted the private contractors.

Yet 82 people voted yes. Dare I read the rest of the threat?
 
Page one had mostly 'no' voters, most seemed to understand we were mislead by the Bush WH into a war that only benefitted the private contractors.

Yet 82 people voted yes. Dare I read the rest of the threat?
isn't that mindblowing?
 
Page one had mostly 'no' voters, most seemed to understand we were mislead by the Bush WH into a war that only benefitted the private contractors.

Yet 82 people voted yes. Dare I read the rest of the threat?

Sometimes, I is suspicious of poll counts on this forum. They do some amazing night moves. Could be indicative of what?
 
Sometimes, I is suspicious of poll counts on this forum. They do some amazing night moves. Could be indicative of what?

That's why when you make your polls, you should turn on the "show people who voted" option in case of people voting multiple times.
 
Page one had mostly 'no' voters, most seemed to understand we were mislead by the Bush WH into a war that only benefitted the private contractors.

Yet 82 people voted yes. Dare I read the rest of the threat?

It appears that the war benefitted Iran and gave the terrorist another front that they could fight from sine neither Iran or the Bin Laden led terrorist could operte out of Iraq while Sadam was still in power
 
It appears that the war benefitted Iran and gave the terrorist another front that they could fight from sine neither Iran or the Bin Laden led terrorist could operte out of Iraq while Sadam was still in power
It appears you are correct, where are you from my friend you seem to be having a hard time commanding the English language, as i noticed many spelling errors in your post?
 
It appears that the war benefitted Iran and gave the terrorist another front that they could fight from sine neither Iran or the Bin Laden led terrorist could operte out of Iraq while Sadam was still in power

Great point.

I forgot about that.

The war benefited the military contractors, many subsidiaries of Halliburton, + the terrorists + those we helped put into power to run the country.

Many probably don't recall the $6.6 Billion in cash that went missing back in May 2004. Shrink wrapped bricks of $100-bills were stacked on pallets and loaded onto 20 cargo planes--a $12 Billion stimulus package to grease the wheels in the rebuilding of Iraq. And this year, the auditors closed the books on the mystery:

For the first time, federal auditors are suggesting that some or all of the cash may have been stolen, not just mislaid in an accounting error. Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an office created by Congress, said the missing $6.6 billion may be "the largest theft of funds in national history."

The mystery is a growing embarrassment to the Pentagon, and an irritant to Washington's relations with Baghdad. Iraqi officials are threatening to go to court to reclaim the money, which came from Iraqi oil sales, seized Iraqi assets and surplus funds from the United Nations' oil-for-food program.

It's fair to say that Congress, which has already shelled out $61 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for similar reconstruction and development projects in Iraq, is none too thrilled either.

So, whoever got their hand on $6.6 Billion of U.S. dollars, I say REALLY benefitted from the Iraq war.

While we're on the topic of tax-payer dollars paying for the reconstruction...In Paul Wolfowitz's memo that made the case for the war, we were supposed to finance the operation by selling the seized oil fields. That was supposed to be a benefit for us.

On March 27, 2003, Wolfowitz told the House Appropriations Committee[42] that oil revenue earned by Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war; he testified his "rough recollection" was[42]: "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but ... We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."[43] By October of that year, "Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said 'prewar estimates that may be borne out in fact are likelier to be more lucky than smart.' [He] added that earlier estimates and statements by Mr. Wolfowitz and others 'oozed with uncertainty.'" Di Rita's comments came as a much less optimistic secret Pentagon study—which had been complete at the time of Wolfowitz's testimony—was coming to public light, and when actual production results in Iraq were coinciding with those projected in the less optimistic Pentagon study.[42]

LINK

So, we went to war over lies, damn lies, and pipe dreams.

No WMD.

No Oil Profits.

New breeding ground for terrorists.

Iraq is this generation's Viet Nam. Yet 106 people believe it was worth it. I guess they must all be invested in Halliburton.

We could have covertly assassinated Saddam and his sons and, over time, orchestrated an uprising to overthrow the government--the South American CIA playbook is very cost effective.
 
How about it as a strategy for non-war supporters? I don't "support" the war in Iraq. I think there are plenty of things wrong with having gone into Iraq, and I don't need to make stuff up to be against it. However, unless found guilty...you're innocent.

Not making up reasons. Stating fact. Not being charged is not equal to being innocent. Even when tried, they rarely declare someone innocent. You're deliberately trying to miss the point. As I said, the document is there to read. All one needs is average intellegence and a willingness to honestly read it.
 
no, we don't.

We don't have an obligation to honor agreements we sign? Wow, can I do that as well?

You do think very little of the US and think our word is meaningless. I find that interesting to find that out about you.

and yes, they did. I realize that it's inconvenient for you, but a series of "just-so" statements does not wash away multiple Security Council Resolutions, however long you repeat them, or however much you insist that their existence is "factually incorrect."


Notice how you ignore the evidence presented before the statements. Funny stuff.


well that certainly is true - though you have skipped ahead to the part where you abandon even the pretense of responsibility to provide evidence.

So far, I'm the only one between us who has presented evidence. When you leap into something, you should read the links first. You are funny. :coffeepap
 
no. NOT innocent
only not (yet) found guilty
there IS a difference

Well, that's just a fundamentally un-American attitude, right there. See, I've always understood it to be innocent until proven guilty...
 
Not making up reasons. Stating fact. Not being charged is not equal to being innocent. Even when tried, they rarely declare someone innocent. You're deliberately trying to miss the point. As I said, the document is there to read. All one needs is average intellegence and a willingness to honestly read it.

They don't have to declare them innocent...they ARE innocent, unless proven guilty.
 
Well, that's just a fundamentally un-American attitude, right there. See, I've always understood it to be innocent until proven guilty...

Unless they're Iraq....

ZZZZIIIIIIIING!!


:lamo
 
They don't have to declare them innocent...they ARE innocent, unless proven guilty.

You confuse many things. Odd that. again, if the speed limit is 65 and you're going 150, you're speeding. Now, we have the document, and if we break our agreement, we broke it. Being charged, let alone convicted, has nothing to do with it. You can read and look at actions as well as anyone.
 
You confuse many things. Odd that. again, if the speed limit is 65 and you're going 150, you're speeding. Now, we have the document, and if we break our agreement, we broke it. Being charged, let alone convicted, has nothing to do with it. You can read and look at actions as well as anyone.

Assuming that you actually are going 150 rather than just someone thinking you were going 150. You assume your "evidence" is true, that's where you are screwing up.
 
Back
Top Bottom