• 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
If Iraq breaks apart into three different provinces or countries from a Civil War was it worth it? As bad as Saddam was, like Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia the separate ethic factions were more afraid of him than slaughtering each other. And it already seems like Islamic Fundamentalism is becoming more widespread, especially with the bombings and threats of more violence. Saddam was a Socialist Baathist, who at least kept the Islamists in check. If Iraq comes under the control of fundamentalist militants and religious rule like the rest of the removal of repressive regimes in the Middle East are heading US involvement could....... TURN OUT WONDERFUL!
 
well it relates directly to the Bush admin. I felt it was pretty close to home :D

That didn't address international law, but international politics...not the same set of rules. In fact, I don't think there are any rules in international politics, until they break international law and then that must be proven in an international court. :shrug:
 
Well, that's just a fundamentally un-American attitude, right there. See, I've always understood it to be innocent until proven guilty...

then let's examine why you would then be wrong

using your assumption, bernie madoff was INNOCENT until he was found guilty
don't think so
however, he was NOT GUILTY until found guilty

there is a significant difference
 
106 lost souls say that war was worth it. bullocks
 
That didn't address international law, but international politics...not the same set of rules. In fact, I don't think there are any rules in international politics, until they break international law and then that must be proven in an international court. :shrug:

I mean it simply in that they assumed their evidence and pretense to go to war was true.
But now we know its not.
Yep.
 
Interesting question. Not a simple yes or no though. We have no idea what it has yielded, it hasn't been long enough.

Basically in history the full effects of events are not fully understood until several decades later. The reason is simple. Everything is interconnected. What could be yielded from Iraq might have changed the course of action of something that might lead to something else later? At any rate our military occupation has certainly taught the US military and Intelligence community some new tricks that we might use later. That might be it...or maybe a pro-US state might emerge in Iraq. Perhaps an understanding of Arabic cultures might be an advantage later on for the United States? Who knows? I mean there is no end to the possibilities of things that could have come out of Iraq. We won't know if they were worth it till we get to spend those intangible things.

Or maybe it was a totally worthless venture?

At any rate I won't be hardlining an opinion of this war until I find out what came out of it...on my 60th or 70th birthday.
 
Last edited:
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:



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.



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.

If you were to lose $6.6 Billion in a real business, you'd be fired. And investigated.

What happened to the guy in charge of the Iraq reconstruction when all that money went missing?

d2e658b218c31cf504a9ed7bd2339f7d


"Heh, heh... hey, Pauly, you can tell W. Where'd you stash all that cash?"
 
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.

Exactly. You clock the speeder. You read the document signed. Both tell you, and you don't need court or a verdict to see either.
 
Exactly. You clock the speeder. You read the document signed. Both tell you, and you don't need court or a verdict to see either.

Even the clocked speeder can defend himself in court. I'm sure you are quite the expert in treaty law, but I'm sure your accusations deserve a more qualified hearing.
 
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?

That you for affirming that I am correct. We must be from the same area it seems we both have problems. Did you say and I quote
 
that's cute. what years did you deploy?

I didn't, I believe in private property rights, and have no interest in making big oil richer. I served my country by volunteering to serve my fellow citizens through Brethren Volunteer Service. My pay the first year was room & board plus $15/month, the second year my pay was increased to a whopping $20/month.
 
Even the clocked speeder can defend himself in court. I'm sure you are quite the expert in treaty law, but I'm sure your accusations deserve a more qualified hearing.

Know more about practice than you might think, but not the point. You do a lot of side stepping the point. An act can be illegal, known to be illegal and there be no charges and no day in court. You can read the document, just as you clock, time or drive with the speeder.
 
Know more about practice than you might think, but not the point. You do a lot of side stepping the point. An act can be illegal, known to be illegal and there be no charges and no day in court. You can read the document, just as you clock, time or drive with the speeder.

Sure it can be, and may be, but doesn't mean it IS until proven. Basic legal principle, right there. That's not side stepping, son, that's the way it works in civilization.
 
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.

Thanks for the constructive suggestion, but I think some people need to know that their "friendly" board members won't know which way they voted. A little privacy, like an election.
 
Vote Early. Vote Often. Al Capone.
 
Sure it can be, and may be, but doesn't mean it IS until proven. Basic legal principle, right there. That's not side stepping, son, that's the way it works in civilization.

So, you have no interest in trying to keep your government accountable. Aslong as you can ignore it because they can't be charged, you're fine. After all, what is our word worth?

I'm sorry but you can read the document and look at our actions. It is really no harder than that.
 
Sure it can be, and may be, but doesn't mean it IS until proven. Basic legal principle, right there. That's not side stepping, son, that's the way it works in civilization.

"until proven" does not mean the same as "until proven in a court of law"

It has been proven. You're side-stepping
 
So, you have no interest in trying to keep your government accountable. Aslong as you can ignore it because they can't be charged, you're fine. After all, what is our word worth?

I'm sorry but you can read the document and look at our actions. It is really no harder than that.

Sure I do....take it to a court of law. You can also read the UN resolutions that leave enough ambiguity to be interpreted to make it legal. It would take a court, not some nay-sayers, to determine what is actually illegal, under the UN resolutions and what is legal.
 
"until proven" does not mean the same as "until proven in a court of law"

It has been proven. You're side-stepping

Show that it has been proven in international court, or show the UN declaration that the invasion was illegal.
 
So, you have no interest in trying to keep your government accountable. Aslong as you can ignore it because they can't be charged, you're fine. After all, what is our word worth?

I'm sorry but you can read the document and look at our actions. It is really no harder than that.

Ain't that Mac sumpin' though. Like having a discussion with a grapefruit. Don't put nothin' in and crap still comes out. No-brainer comes to mind. I don't know why!
 
Back
Top Bottom