• 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 Invading Iraq the Right Choice?

Was invading Iraq and going to war in Iraq, was it the right choice?

  • Total voters
    96
ocean515 said:
No, they don't. Then they threw out the inspectors, after refusing to comply with the UN directions and resolutions they agreed to follow.

Bad decision...
Click to expand...

Ok I'll concede that, but wouldn't a better solution be to bomb the ever-living-snot outta the suspected sites? (opposed to invasion and occupation that is)
 
Catawba said:
I'll go with head of the inspection team and the UN decision that their technical violations did not merit attack on Iraq. You act like my opinion is not shared by most of the world. When you have to start claiming most of the world is wrong and you are right, it would behoove you to reexamine your position.
Click to expand...

:lamo

I don't act like anything. I'm mearly pointing out the documented facts presented to the United Nations by the multi-national IAEA team who were on the ground in Iraq.

What I don't do is make a habit of projecting fantasy and opinion and then ball them into feelings that I try to sell as representing what "most of the world" believes.

I do try to maintain a fairly high degree of credibility, and avoid projection as a method of communication.

Perhaps a concept worth exploring?
 
Eynon said:
Ok I'll concede that, but wouldn't a better solution be to bomb the ever-living-snot outta the suspected sites? (opposed to invasion and occupation that is)
Click to expand...

I'm can't argue with your approach. However, we bombed the pee out of Tora Bora, and didn't get the big Kahuna. Plus, collateral damage doesn't win friends. I don't think leveling large swaths of Iraq would have been a good idea.

Today, we have a much greater capability of doing that kind of door knocking, with precision, so the offshoot of the last 10 years of experience is an improved ability to pick the lint off the sweater.

I think it's a tragedy that people in the Middle East live to kill each other, especially when they have resources that could make a big difference in everyones lives. What a waste. I guess that is why they chose to remain in the desert, and they cling to such crude philosophies and ideas.
 
ocean515 said:
:lamo

I don't act like anything. I'm mearly pointing out the documented facts presented to the United Nations by the multi-national IAEA team who were on the ground in Iraq.

What I don't do is make a habit of projecting fantasy and opinion and then ball them into feelings that I try to sell as representing what "most of the world" believes.

I do try to maintain a fairly high degree of credibility, and avoid projection as a method of communication.

Perhaps a concept worth exploring?
Click to expand...



All you have pointed out are the technical violations that did not confirm any threat to anyone. That is why the UN did not approve our attack on Iraq.
 
Catawba said:
Than why were you comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan? Saddam was less connected to al Qaeda than many, many others. They did not get along.

So where does such fear come from in the most powerful nation on the planet?
Click to expand...

I was pointing out the consequences of not dealing with the threat. We were never fearful about being invaded by Germany, but were drawn into the war to support our friends, who felt Hitler could be contained through appeasement, much the same way we could be drawn into the same scenario with Saddam attacking Israel or helping terrorists develop WMDs that could hurt us at home or abroad. Your simpleton perspective of: as long as Saddam doesn't step on my soil, then we can just ignore him, is naive given the lessons from history dealing with murderous assholes...
 
Awesome! said:
I was pointing out the consequences of not dealing with the threat. We were never fearful about being invaded by Germany, but were drawn into the war to support our friends, who felt Hitler could be contained through appeasement, much the same way we could be drawn into the same scenario with Saddam attacking Israel or helping terrorists develop WMDs that could hurt us at home or abroad. Your simpleton perspective of: as long as Saddam doesn't step on my soil, then we can just ignore him, is naive given the lessons from history dealing with murderous assholes...
Click to expand...

Germany was invading its neighboring countries. Iraq had no such capability after Desert Storm and the CIA and the Pentagon have confirmed there was no Saddam/al-Qaeda link and that there were not WMD. The head of the UN inspection team said the same thing before the war.

We supported Saddam when he was at his most murderous assholedness, so that can't be the source fear by some in the US. I just don't get the fear by some in the most powerful country on the planet!
 
Catawba said:
Germany was invading its neighboring countries. Iraq had no such capability after Desert Storm and the CIA and the Pentagon have confirmed there was no Saddam/al-Qaeda link and that there were not WMD. The head of the UN inspection team said the same thing before the war.

We supported Saddam when he was at his most murderous assholedness, so that can't be the source fear by some in the US. I just don't get the fear by some in the most powerful country on the planet!
Click to expand...

How did we let Germany invade other nations. How could they possibly rebuild their military to levels that were clearly in violation of the treaty? Because we and our allies let them. Same scenario with Saddam. He was always going to be a threat to our interests in the region as well as being a potential supplier of weapons to terrorist groups, or even worse if he died and his country dissolved into absolute chaos with his retarded sons in power. We may have a similar government like Iran in power there.

The fear is real because we are very vulnerable with our open borders. It wouldn't take much to hurt us with this new threat of terrorism regardless of how "powerful" we are.
 
Awesome! said:
How did we let Germany invade other nations. How could they possibly rebuild their military to levels that were clearly in violation of the treaty? Because we and our allies let them. Same scenario with Saddam. He was always going to be a threat to our interests in the region as well as being a potential supplier of weapons to terrorist groups, or even worse if he died and his country dissolved into absolute chaos with his retarded sons in power. We may have a similar government like Iran in power there.

The fear is real because we are very vulnerable with our open borders. It wouldn't take much to hurt us with this new threat of terrorism regardless of how "powerful" we are.
Click to expand...

Unlike Germany, he was currently decimated at the time we invaded. Unlike Germany, he was not killing at the levels that warranted invasion (something we didn't about Germany until we got there, as the camps were a surprise). Unlike Germany, Saddam was not currently invading anyone when we invaded. Unlike Germany, Saddam and Iraq did not have the remotest capability to resist us, let alone truly threaten us.

The comparison simply doesn't work.
 
Catawba said:
All you have pointed out are the technical violations that did not confirm any threat to anyone. That is why the UN did not approve our attack on Iraq.
Click to expand...

All I did was confirm technical violations?

I understand it may be impossible to operate outside of your agenda and ideology, but the fact is those technical violations were reported for years by IAEA inspectors, and were contained in reports submitted to the UN. Those violations were so egregious that the IAEA appealed to the UN to hold Iraq accountable for the violations. Which they did. Further, those demands then led Iraq to kick the weapons inspectors out of the country before they would allow them into places their investigations indicated were suspicious.

And yet you only call that technical violations? I can't address delusion.

As to the UN's conclusions, I frankly don't understand why anyone would put any weight into what the pathetic UN has concluded, given the fact they let Iraqis starve while they lined their pockets with blood money.
 
ocean515 said:
All I did was confirm technical violations?

I understand it may be impossible to operate outside of your agenda and ideology, but the fact is those technical violations were reported for years by IAEA inspectors, and were contained in reports submitted to the UN. Those violations were so egregious that the IAEA appealed to the UN to hold Iraq accountable for the violations. Which they did. Further, those demands then led Iraq to kick the weapons inspectors out of the country before they would allow them into places their investigations indicated were suspicious.

And yet you only call that technical violations? I can't address delusion.

As to the UN's conclusions, I frankly don't understand why anyone would put any weight into what the pathetic UN has concluded, given the fact they let Iraqis starve while they lined their pockets with blood money.
Click to expand...

Whether you put weight into it or not, those were UN restrictions. Only they had the authority to enforce their restrictions. The inspectors knew most weapons had been destroyed. Anyone looking knew there was little evidence of any more being created. And at the time of the invasion, we had inspectors on the ground calling for more time. So any argument for invasion on those grounds is weak.
 
Boo Radley said:
Unlike Germany, he was currently decimated at the time we invaded. Unlike Germany, he was not killing at the levels that warranted invasion (something we didn't about Germany until we got there, as the camps were a surprise). Unlike Germany, Saddam was not currently invading anyone when we invaded. Unlike Germany, Saddam and Iraq did not have the remotest capability to resist us, let alone truly threaten us.

The comparison simply doesn't work.
Click to expand...

second...Hitler had one of history's greatest militaries under his command...Saddam had scared conscripts and Soviet surplus.
 
Boo Radley said:
Whether you put weight into it or not, those were UN restrictions. Only they had the authority to enforce their restrictions. The inspectors knew most weapons had been destroyed. Anyone looking knew there was little evidence of any more being created. And at the time of the invasion, we had inspectors on the ground calling for more time. So any argument for invasion on those grounds is weak.
Click to expand...

No argument for invasion was made. Any argument that it was known there were no WMD's is weak, and not supported by any credible evidence. The fact the inspectors were asking for more time proves this to be absolutely true.
 
ocean515 said:
No argument for invasion was made. Any argument that it was known there were no WMD's is weak, and not supported by any credible evidence. The fact the inspectors were asking for more time proves this to be absolutely true.
Click to expand...

damn it man! this is the internet, you can't make subtle arguments here!
 
ocean515 said:
No argument for invasion was made. Any argument that it was known there were no WMD's is weak, and not supported by any credible evidence. The fact the inspectors were asking for more time proves this to be absolutely true.
Click to expand...

We knew pretty well concerning the WMDs that there were likely a few left over weapons. We had no credible intel that there were any programs to develop new weapons. The burden of proof lies with the person saying Saddam was a growing threat (new programs).
 
Boo Radley said:
We knew pretty well concerning the WMDs that there were likely a few left over weapons. We had no credible intel that there were any programs to develop new weapons. The burden of proof lies with the person saying Saddam was a growing threat (new programs).
Click to expand...

It's the "pretty wells" that can get you killed...Ask the Kurds.
 
Awesome! said:
How did we let Germany invade other nations. How could they possibly rebuild their military to levels that were clearly in violation of the treaty? Because we and our allies let them. Same scenario with Saddam.
Click to expand...

Are you completely unaware of the the first war on Iraq where we utterly destroyed Iraq's military capability? And are you also unaware that the time in between the first war and this last one we did not allow them to rebuild their military?


The fear is real because we are very vulnerable with our open borders. It wouldn't take much to hurt us with this new threat of terrorism regardless of how "powerful" we are.
Click to expand...

If you are that frightened living in the most powerful country on the planet, than maybe we should stop creating enemies? You do realize that our war on the Iraqis created more terrorists than we killed do you not?
 
ocean515 said:
All I did was confirm technical violations?

I understand it may be impossible to operate outside of your agenda and ideology, but the fact is those technical violations were reported for years by IAEA inspectors, and were contained in reports submitted to the UN. Those violations were so egregious that the IAEA appealed to the UN to hold Iraq accountable for the violations. Which they did. Further, those demands then led Iraq to kick the weapons inspectors out of the country before they would allow them into places their investigations indicated were suspicious.

And yet you only call that technical violations? I can't address delusion.

As to the UN's conclusions, I frankly don't understand why anyone would put any weight into what the pathetic UN has concluded, given the fact they let Iraqis starve while they lined their pockets with blood money.
Click to expand...


I understand perfectly. You use the UN technical violations but ignore UN decision that their own technical violations did not merit an attack.

And they were right, and you were wrong, as there were no WMD!
 
Catawba said:
I understand perfectly. You use the UN technical violations but ignore UN decision that their own technical violations did not merit an attack.

And they were right, and you were wrong, as there were no WMD!
Click to expand...

You never learn.

How can I be wrong, if all I have done is post the direct findings of the IAEA inspections? Are you trying to suggest their reports are fabricated, and don't exist?

I'm thinking there are actions and events in life that must pose quite an conumdrum for you.
 
ocean515 said:
You never learn.

How can I be wrong, if all I have done is post the direct findings of the IAEA inspections?
Click to expand...

The difference being is that you interpreted them as a threat, and you were wrong.
 
ocean515 said:
It's the "pretty wells" that can get you killed...Ask the Kurds.
Click to expand...

Not by those they weren't. And we didn't help the Kurds (BTW, we didn't because of Chalibi's betrayal -- something you should look up). We waited until the killing wasn't happening (I linked this on either this thread or the other one) and added injury to injury.
 
Catawba said:
The difference being is that you interpreted them as a threat, and you were wrong.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not really sure why you want to put yourself on such public display.

I didn't interpret anything, the IAEA did. I''ve provided excerpts from actual documents, and links to sites where more can be viewed.

The carved in the stone tablet of history fact is, they were so concerned about what they had discovered, they demanded Iraq make available the sites they wanted to inspect, and got kicked out of the country as a result.

That's in the reports. I've only presented those reports. Unlike you, I haven't offered the opinion of an ideologue.
 
ocean515 said:
Again, I'm not really sure why you want to put yourself on such public display.

I didn't interpret anything, the IAEA did. I''ve provided excerpts from actual documents, and links to sites where more can be viewed.
Click to expand...


And no where in their reports do they confirm WMD in Iraq as a threat, which is why the UN that commissioned the inspections decided it did not merit attack on Iraq.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not by those they weren't. And we didn't help the Kurds (BTW, we didn't because of Chalibi's betrayal -- something you should look up). We waited until the killing wasn't happening (I linked this on either this thread or the other one) and added injury to injury.
Click to expand...

So now I'm told "we didn't help the Kurds". Where did I ever comment about our involvement with the Kurds? Fact, Saddam used weapons of mass destruction to massacre his own people. I'm sure we "pretty well" didn't think he would do that.

I'm sorry, but I haven't been around Debate Politics that long. Perhaps it's always been part of the landscape here, but it seems to me there is some disconnect from reality that is going on.

I can appreciate that one "camp" has as part of it's ideology a requirment to reject any and all ideas that go against the party line, but facts are facts.

To try and suggest the IAEA and the UN knew there we no WMD's in Iraq is folly.
 
Catawba said:
And no where in their reports do they confirm WMD in Iraq as a threat, which is why the UN that commissioned the inspections decided it did not merit attack on Iraq.
Click to expand...

:shock:

And I'll bet if you saw a person with bombs strapped to their chest you wouldn't see them as a threat either.

Why don't you go ahead and cling to your opinion. Everyone should have one.
 
ocean515 said:
:shock:

And I'll bet if you saw a person with bombs strapped to their chest you wouldn't see them as a threat either.

Why don't you go ahead and cling to your opinion. Everyone should have one.
Click to expand...


It wasn't just my opinion it was the opinion of the head of the inspection team, as well as the UN who decided the technical violation did not merit an attack on Iraq.

And we were right! There was no WMD threat in Iraq!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom