• 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
Fisher said:
North Korea has known WMD's, is threatening to nuke the US, and we are moving defensive missile batteries west. If those are you standards, do you fault Obama for not doing anything to North Korea?
Click to expand...

So do, among others, England and Israel. Obviously it is situational.
 
I think it was great that Saddam was removed from power and his mass murdering stopped, but the follow up rebuilding of Iraq failed in many ways.
 
Navy Pride said:
!. the best intelligence says there was....
Click to expand...


The best intelligence was filled with mights and maybes with a truckload of uncertainty. It speaks volumes when your number one source is an alcoholic taxi driver making drunk phone calls to the German embassy. Even more when you present everything he says as fact even after German Intelligence tells you quite plainly that the man is a psychotic chronic liar. After all, he wasn't assigned the code name "Curveball" for a love of baseball.

Navy Pride said:
1. That is so much horse****..........Saddam was paying them off........One got 100K.
Click to expand...


Not really. Even Bush's own hand-picked ISG determined that Iraq had destroyed its wmd in compliance with UN Resolutions. The inspectors were 100% right.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
So do, among others, England and Israel. Obviously it is situational.
Click to expand...

Based upon your non-answer to the question, I will assume "situational" means it is only your standard for Republicans not Democrats
 
Fisher said:
Based upon your non-answer to the question, I will assume "situational" means it is only your standard for Republicans not Democrats
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand either the point I was making, or maybe response to you.
 
Damn, voted for the wrong option. Fail.

No, not the best idea in our history.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So we are nearing the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war, and with that happening and looking back 10 years ago i have a quick question for you guys here.
With all that happened, the regime change in Iraq, all the deaths, controversery and what not; Was invading Iraq and going to war in Iraq, was it the right choice?
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't the right thing to do, nor was going into Afghanistan. Neither of those countries attacked us, and what we've been doing is fighting an illigitimate action in two countries, under the guise of "fighting terrorism", which isn't anything that can be fought in an actual war.
 
Lizzie and TheDemSocialist are in agreement.


What. The. ****.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So we are nearing the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war, and with that happening and looking back 10 years ago i have a quick question for you guys here.
With all that happened, the regime change in Iraq, all the deaths, controversery and what not; Was invading Iraq and going to war in Iraq, was it the right choice?
Click to expand...

Invading was right, nation building was wrong.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Not that we had anything to worry about anyway.



Yet it doesn't anger you that they basically died for nothing... as there were no WMD's, not even a potato gun...

And don't give me this "Oh well Iraq is better off now" because that's bloody debatable.

Saddam was a bad guy, and I'm glad he met his fate but life for the average person in Iraq is pretty damn bad either way, sectarian violence has made their lives a living hell.

I knew an Iraqi girl who's dad was murdered by militants following the invasion.
Click to expand...



Jet is right. Some places still don't have electricity or running water. children are still witnessing violence on a daily basis and many US troops have unnecessarily died.
 
I don't think that it was necessarily a bad choice. However, I definitely think that the war was poorly managed after the initial invasion.
 
Redress said:
Source?



Still does not address my point. Hint: my point is that it was not worth American lives to solve their problems.
Click to expand...

Come on Redress your smarter then that. You remember the American inspector who Saddam gave 100,000K to.

You would play that game if I said it going to rain today to ask me for a link. I will give you the Inspectors name.........It was Scott Ritter.
 
Navy Pride said:
Come on Redress your smarter then that. You remember the American inspector who Saddam gave 100,000K to.

You would play that game if I said it going to rain today to ask me for a link. I will give you the Inspectors name.........It was Scott Ritter.
Click to expand...

So you do not have a source. How unusual.....
 
With the info we had then yes. We all thought that they had WMD, and people blame Bush when we simply were mistaken. I was also the right choice because of better safe than sorry, protect our ally Israel, and how the ME hates us. They still hated us before because of certain things that idk if I'm allowed to mention on this board, and how Clinton was an idiot in bombing a Sudanian pharmacy, not releasing the test results, and getting involved in Bosnia and surrounding countries. Keep in mind I wasn't alive or barely around when this stuff happened with Clinton but I've read up on history to make up for it. My 2 cents.
 
When you stay to fix the Iraqi stock market that is running on dry erase boards and nation build with slides no ne can understand (see No They Can't) by John stossel. That's where we messed up
 
No it was not, we were lied too about WMD's, simply shocking that the government would do that.
 
Our Nation has always profitted handsomely on war. Well, more specifically, some already wealthy defense contractors that have profitted handsomely on Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Iraq, drugs, terrorism and a plethora of monopolistic infrastructural cash outlays. Now, Wars run on energy, so our very large and monopolistic Energy Corporations always make the first profits. Then, of course, if your war brings new resources into the Big Energy distribution network, then profit is assured into the next generation. You would think the wars are about business. Would all this coincidence fund a large number of K Street lobbyists? Keeerist, do you have to be slapped up side the noggin to recognize reality. Hell yes, if you're reading USA media. In 1977 the Church Committee found 400 CIA and Intelligence employees on Media payrolls adjusting our NEWS, I'm sorry, I mean fiction. Then the Church Committee was squelched. Do you think those 400 were laid off, fired or promoted. My guess is that there are thousands now. Just my guess. These people from the group that named a building after Bush 1. No, it's just unthinkable that these agents/assetts would be Bush 2 apologists/loyalists, because if they were they might write NEWS that was adjusted for a defined agenda like WMDs, Nukes, Niger, Yellowcake, and brainwashing people to spout nonsense or superstition like you see on these boards. Was it worth it. Hey, we got the OIL. Lots of no-bid contracts have generated great retirement packages and terrific stockholder returns, if you bet on war, because you know it is very profitable, the economy was very good for business, and a disaster for taxpayers. There is no such thing as a good war, but Iraq was a bad WAR, morally, ethically, economically, personally, and ignoring that is ignorant. We haven't even discussed the dead, injured, displace, refugees, and birth defects being caused by DU, willy pete, mercury, etc.
 
The info was cherrypicked to support the intended war. Dubious supporting info got through, good but contradictory info was screened out.

" ...Fresh evidence is revealed today about how MI6 and the CIA were told through secret channels by Saddam Hussein's foreign minister and his head of intelligence that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction.

Tony Blair told parliament before the war that intelligence showed Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programme was "active", "growing" and "up and running".

A special BBC Panorama programme tonight will reveal how British and US intelligence agencies were informed by top sources months before the invasion that Iraq had no active WMD programme, and that the information was not passed to subsequent inquiries... "

MI6 and CIA heard Iraq had no active WMD capability ahead of invasion | World news | guardian.co.uk
 
Manc Skipper said:
The info was cherrypicked to support the intended war. Dubious supporting info got through, good but contradictory info was screened out.

" ...Fresh evidence is revealed today about how MI6 and the CIA were told through secret channels by Saddam Hussein's foreign minister and his head of intelligence that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction.

Tony Blair told parliament before the war that intelligence showed Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programme was "active", "growing" and "up and running".

A special BBC Panorama programme tonight will reveal how British and US intelligence agencies were informed by top sources months before the invasion that Iraq had no active WMD programme, and that the information was not passed to subsequent inquiries... "

MI6 and CIA heard Iraq had no active WMD capability ahead of invasion | World news | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...

Gee, who woulda' thunk it?

"In 1977 the Church Committee found 400 CIA and Intelligence employees on Media payrolls adjusting our NEWS, I'm sorry, I mean fiction. Then the Church Committee was squelched. Do you think those 400 were laid off, fired or promoted. My guess is that there are thousands now. Just my guess. These people from the group that named a building after Bush 1. No, it's just unthinkable that these agents/assetts would be Bush 2 apologists/loyalists, because if they were they might write NEWS that was adjusted for a defined agenda like WMDs, Nukes, Niger, Yellowcake, and brainwashing people to spout nonsense or superstition like you see on these boards"
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So we are nearing the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war, and with that happening and looking back 10 years ago i have a quick question for you guys here.
With all that happened, the regime change in Iraq, all the deaths, controversery and what not; Was invading Iraq and going to war in Iraq, was it the right choice?
Click to expand...

No, I was against the war from the beginning. But that was not the case for the majority of Americans. Back in 2003 60% of Americans approved going to war with Iraq if the UN concurred vs 27% against and 53% approved of going to war even if the UN nixed the idea and those against jumped to 37%. So hindsight makes everyone's vision 20/20.

Actually the war itself was fairly easy, 2 divisions defeated the entire of what was left of the Iraqi Army. But it is this nation building thing where Iraq got down right ugly. IMO with this nation building thing we became occupiers and forced our type of government upon the Iraqi people.
 
Gipper said:
50%

First time it was. Second time it wasn't.
Click to expand...


I am not so sure the first war was actually justified, although I supported this one. Our Ambassador Glaspie who basically told Saddam the U.S. would take no action if he invaded Kuwait. Here is what she said, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

It also should be noted we were giving Iraq all sorts of intel and other covert assistance at the time. Basically Saddam was our man until he wasn't.
 
Your Star said:
No it was not, we were lied too about WMD's, simply shocking that the government would do that.
Click to expand...

British Intelligence said he had WMD........Even the lefts biggest hero Clinton said we should take Saddam out..........I would list the things Obama has lied about but I don't have all night to do that.
 
Perotista said:
I am not so sure the first war was actually justified, although I supported this one. Our Ambassador Glaspie who basically told Saddam the U.S. would take no action if he invaded Kuwait. Here is what she said, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

It also should be noted we were giving Iraq all sorts of intel and other covert assistance at the time. Basically Saddam was our man until he wasn't.
Click to expand...

Good evening, Pero.

So was the Shah and others we have propped up for a while. Unfortunately Ms. Glaspie was made to look bad by saying what she did. It does make one wonder.....
 
polgara said:
Good evening, Pero.

So was the Shah and others we have propped up for a while. Unfortunately Ms. Glaspie was made to look bad by saying what she did. It does make one wonder what is actually going on today.....
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom