• 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
And now, after being caught repeating an untrue statement, you follow it up with another untrue statement.

Okay, here you go:
but Glaspie's cable has been released at the Bush Library and placed online by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

“ We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not confrontation — regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?



“ 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.
 
When did we become the Sith? WTF happened to peace and commerce with all nations?

As I said, I'm an Isolationist. Peace and Commerce with all nations has NEVER been part of my ideology.

This depends on one's mental health and how this affects one's outlook... So, its OK, T....your "philosophy" , and I hope that you are smart enough NOT to posses a gun....as I am... After all, bullets have no effect on ghosts.

I possess and carry firearms on a regular basis and have for more than a dozen years.
 
Okay, here you go:
but Glaspie's cable has been released at the Bush Library and placed online by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

“ We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not confrontation — regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?



“ 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.

I see that as more of a "we're ok if you use whatever means necessary to resolve your dispute with Kuwait" not so much "we're ok if you invade an annex Kuwait.".
 
As I said, I'm an Isolationist. Peace and Commerce with all nations has NEVER been part of my ideology.

wait...you don't believe in "commerce" with all nations? just where the hell am I supposed to get my scotch?
 
wait...you don't believe in "commerce" with all nations? just where the hell am I supposed to get my scotch?

According to Tigger...no where...alcohol should be illegal
 
I see that as more of a "we're ok if you use whatever means necessary to resolve your dispute with Kuwait" not so much "we're ok if you invade an annex Kuwait.".

That makes sense. But what is left unsaid by these cables is how Saddam took it. He was already receiving Intel from us and covert aid. He probably thought that what April said was more or less a tacit do what you will and in public we will condemn you, but continue to aid you since you are an enemy of our enemy.
 
Remember those fancy weapons inspectors? They had the best intelligence, and it was right
Seems to me that whoever told you that selectively forgot to mention that those UNMOVIC, UNCSOM and ISG "fancy weapons inspectors" found a huge amount of WMDs in Iraq. Did that very relevant and factual piece of history get lost in their obviously partisan memory hole?
 
Last edited:
wait...what?

Just repeating things I've seen from the guy. He and I are on opposite sides of a lot of arguments....but he is entitled to his totalitarian beliefs.
 
I don't like it whatsoever that oil dependency controls our military policy, especially knowing we have other options. Drive Electric: Military - YouTube

That's not the say I think President Bush was not fully convinced Saddam Hussein was on the path of having WMDs that he would use directly or indirectly against the American people and led the nation to war with Iraq over nothing greater than his concern for us. What I'm saying is the complex circumstances that led to the war were created by the monopoly petroleum had and still has over the American people and our ability in engage in commerce. The quicker we have other viable transportation energy options, the better for a peaceful world and I think over the mid term, a more robust US economy.

The Future Is Electric Cars: Fmr. GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance



All the evidence points more to it being about control of the oil than to WMD.

I think McCain put it best, "an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."
 
A majority of us are conservatives, sadly...


figure I'd split some hairs here...it's true that plenty of conservatives are hawks, but some of the most vocal doves are also on the right. likewise the progressive movement seems to be split as well, plenty of progressive hawks out their pushing humanitarian intervention...this is one of my major problems with the whole left/right paradigm it's served to pigeon-hole ideologies and limit the voice of any viable peace movement.
 
wait...you don't believe in "commerce" with all nations? just where the hell am I supposed to get my scotch?

That's your problem. If I believed that consumable alcohol was proper I'd suggest making it yourself, though you'd obviously have to wait quite a while to get the good stuff.
 
Yes, it was the right thing given the fact that many nations believed Sadam had WMDs. We should do the same to Iran soon. Regardless, the world is better without Sadam.
 
Yes, it was the right thing given the fact that many nations believed Sadam had WMDs. We should do the same to Iran soon. Regardless, the world is better without Sadam.

So, I would like to probe a little further on this. It has been demonstrated through multiple outlets, and from multiple people with in the DOD and the intelligence community, that said the level of certainty being portrayed, did not match the level of reliability, when it comes to the information that led us believe WMD's existed within Iraq. So, knowing what we know now about how that intelligence came to be, you would say it was the right thing to do? Regarless of whether or not the world is better off without Saddam. That's not why we went to Iraq, we were told we were going into Iraq because Saddam had WMD's, that could be selling to terrorist, with the intention of harming Americans. That was the narrative and the jusdification for invading a sovereign nation like we did.
 
That's your problem. If I believed that consumable alcohol was proper I'd suggest making it yourself, though you'd obviously have to wait quite a while to get the good stuff.

ok...how about fruit out of season? can we engage in international commerce for that?
 
figure I'd split some hairs here...it's true that plenty of conservatives are hawks, but some of the most vocal doves are also on the right. likewise the progressive movement seems to be split as well, plenty of progressive hawks out their pushing humanitarian intervention...this is one of my major problems with the whole left/right paradigm it's served to pigeon-hole ideologies and limit the voice of any viable peace movement.

Agreed.

The greatest doves often happen to be retired soldiers, especially commissioned officers. Dwight. D. Eisenhower made several "dove" speeches during his terms and closed with the now world famous warning about the "military industrial complex".

I known one or two and read about a few others, generals mainly, and they always seem to be Republicans.
 
So, I would like to probe a little further on this. It has been demonstrated through multiple outlets, and from multiple people with in the DOD and the intelligence community, that said the level of certainty being portrayed, did not match the level of reliability, when it comes to the information that led us believe WMD's existed within Iraq. So, knowing what we know now about how that intelligence came to be, you would say it was the right thing to do? Regarless of whether or not the world is better off without Saddam. That's not why we went to Iraq, we were told we were going into Iraq because Saddam had WMD's, that could be selling to terrorist, with the intention of harming Americans. That was the narrative and the jusdification for invading a sovereign nation like we did.


And what does it say that they stayed long, long after, well into another presidency in fact even though Saddam was caught, tried, and killed and they had no WMD's?
 
So, I would like to probe a little further on this. It has been demonstrated through multiple outlets, and from multiple people with in the DOD and the intelligence community, that said the level of certainty being portrayed, did not match the level of reliability, when it comes to the information that led us believe WMD's existed within Iraq. So, knowing what we know now about how that intelligence came to be, you would say it was the right thing to do? Regarless of whether or not the world is better off without Saddam. That's not why we went to Iraq, we were told we were going into Iraq because Saddam had WMD's, that could be selling to terrorist, with the intention of harming Americans. That was the narrative and the jusdification for invading a sovereign nation like we did.

Looking back now I would not have had Iraq as a priority. But at the time when the decision was made given the info we had (that many in the international community seemed to agree with) it was the right thing to do.
 
ok...how about fruit out of season? can we engage in international commerce for that?

No. I'm not sure what part of Isolationism you're missing. No oil. No out of season fruit. Nothing.
 
hell yeah he did...trade with the "good" guys, bomb the "bad" guys.

:lol:



OK, to a first grader, I guess that would serve as a foreign policy. As an aside, after 25 years in political journalism I am still connected in some circles. While Brian Mulroney loved Reagan and Democrats usually get along with Canadian prime ministers, Clinton and Chretien loathed one another. I am told that Clinton thought Chretien an idiot, easy to do since he had a heavy French accent and a speech impediment, while Chretien thought Clinton was a 'airhead'. Things actually improved under Bush, in that Chretien was able to get Bush to accept Canada was NOT going into Iraq; Harper and Obama are "chilly" with one another and it is said the two men dare not talk policy at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom