• 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
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.

Hmmm, I find that interesting. I've seen a lot of interviews with members of the intelligence community who say the President's administration used them as scapegoats to promote exactly what you are saying here. I've heard and read quite a few different accounts of that intelligence being manipulated in order to make the case that WMD's were there. I guess it's one of those unanswerable questions, because it can always be spun one way or another.
 
No. I'm not sure what part of Isolationism you're missing. No oil. No out of season fruit. Nothing.

now look here I can handle the lack of scotch and strawberries in January, but your stance would severely limit my ability...indeed the ability of thousands of young Americans just like me, to hook up with Polish girls...and that sir, I can not abide.
 
Hmmm, I find that interesting. I've seen a lot of interviews with members of the intelligence community who say the President's administration used them as scapegoats to promote exactly what you are saying here. I've heard and read quite a few different accounts of that intelligence being manipulated in order to make the case that WMD's were there. I guess it's one of those unanswerable questions, because it can always be spun one way or another.

There will always be those that disagree or hold a conspiracy theory. It wasn't just the US that believed Sadam had WMDs, many in the international community also believed that was the case and several other nations helped us in the endeavor. Knowing what we know now I probably wouldn't go into Iraq. Knowing and believing what we did at the time I would support it.
 
now look here I can handle the lack of scotch and strawberries in January, but your stance would severely limit my ability...indeed the ability of thousands of young Americans just like me, to hook up with Polish girls...and that sir, I can not abide.

You're young. You'll get over it. Find yourself a nice American girl, settle down, get a job, marry her and have a couple kids. I'm sure you'll forget all about it in a couple years.
 
OK, to a first grader, I guess that would serve as a foreign policy.
or francis fukuyama

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.

considering how well Canada seems to be run relative to the US that makes no sense.
 
You're young. You'll get over it. Find yourself a nice American girl, settle down, get a job, marry her and have a couple kids. I'm sure you'll forget all about it in a couple years.


can.not.abide.

I'm curious though...why do you feel this way?
 
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?

We needed time to get the oil law changed there and a government set up that could enforce it.
 
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.


that's a tough call to make considering we, the general public that is, really aren't working with the info they had.
 
I'm curious though...why do you feel this way?

I believe that society only works when its foundations are strong enough to maintain the society built on top of those foundations. Whatever the ideals of that society are/were at the time of its founding need to be maintained for the most part, or the foundation begins to crumble. It can be patched and in extreme cases parts of it can be replaced; but for the most part allowing that foundation to deteriorate will eventually lead to undermining of the entire structure. The morals and values that I believe this nation was founded on are long since gone from this society. That can only mean that we're in the process of chipping away at our own foundation. That is what I was taught and what I believe.
 
There will always be those that disagree or hold a conspiracy theory. It wasn't just the US that believed Sadam had WMDs, many in the international community also believed that was the case and several other nations helped us in the endeavor. Knowing what we know now I probably wouldn't go into Iraq. Knowing and believing what we did at the time I would support it.

Fair enough, I just don't think it's conspiracy theory. From the things I've seen come out from the acutal people who gathered the intelligence, I don't think it's just a theory, I think it's what happened. But as I said, we can never know for sure, and that's a fair enough statement.
 
I believe that society only works when its foundations are strong enough to maintain the society built on top of those foundations. Whatever the ideals of that society are/were at the time of its founding need to be maintained for the most part, or the foundation begins to crumble. It can be patched and in extreme cases parts of it can be replaced; but for the most part allowing that foundation to deteriorate will eventually lead to undermining of the entire structure. The morals and values that I believe this nation was founded on are long since gone from this society. That can only mean that we're in the process of chipping away at our own foundation. That is what I was taught and what I believe.

but the founders were a bunch of drunk international merchants...
 
or francis fukuyama



considering how well Canada seems to be run relative to the US that makes no sense.

It's been my experience that politics rarely does; 'strange bedfellows' and all that.

Canada was never so attached to the United States, so well off because of the trade which was 80% of our GNP, as in the 60's and 70's; yet Pearson detested Johnson personally, Trudeau scorned Nixon who referred to Trudeau as "that asshole up North" and throughout, the US State Department was completely miffed at Canada's acceptance of draft dodgers.

And who would ever have guessed that Tony Blair and Dubya would get a man crush on each other?
 
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."

I think part of the untold story of the War in Iraq was the government finally made the connection between the Islamic Holy Land of Saudi Arabia and its motivation for 9/11, that we needed to get out of Saudi Arabia over Islamic sensitivities to their Holy Land being contaminated by our infidel presence in the face of our continued need for oil. Moving north to Iraq helped fit that bill. One justification, but not the entirety of the motivation. I think Bush honestly believed in a post 9/11 world the likes of Saddam Hussein and what turned out to be an imagined association between all Arabs who wanted us dead, IE: Al Qaeda, the US was vulnerable to more 9/11 type attacks but in the future with NBC munitions if Hussein was left in power.

None of this would have ever been a threat at all from the Iranian Embassy Crisis during the Carter years, to Desert Storm, to the attack on the USS Cole, to 9/11, The War on Terror, to AQ Khan's nuclear proliferation campaign, to The War in Iraq if we oil were not a monopoly over American transportation.
 
It's been my experience that politics rarely does; 'strange bedfellows' and all that.

Canada was never so attached to the United States, so well off because of the trade which was 80% of our GNP, as in the 60's and 70's; yet Pearson detested Johnson personally, Trudeau scorned Nixon who referred to Trudeau as "that asshole up North" and throughout, the US State Department was completely miffed at Canada's acceptance of draft dodgers.

And who would ever have guessed that Tony Blair and Dubya would get a man crush on each other?

leaders develop weird crushes...I'm reading a bio of Truman right now and both he and FDR felt lots of man-love toward Stalin.
 
I think part of the untold story of the War in Iraq was the government finally made the connection between the Islamic Holy Land of Saudi Arabia and its motivation for 9/11, that we needed to get out of Saudi Arabia over Islamic sensitivities to their Holy Land being contaminated by our infidel presence in the face of our continued need for oil. Moving north to Iraq helped fit that bill. One justification, but not the entirety of the motivation. I think Bush honestly believed in a post 9/11 world the likes of Saddam Hussein and what turned out to be an imagined association between all Arabs who wanted us dead, IE: Al Qaeda, the US was vulnerable to more 9/11 type attacks but in the future with NBC munitions if Hussein was left in power.

None of this would have ever been a threat at all from the Iranian Embassy Crisis during the Carter years, to Desert Storm, to the attack on the USS Cole, to 9/11, The War on Terror, to AQ Khan's nuclear proliferation campaign, to The War in Iraq if we oil were not a monopoly over American transportation.

I think the key to it all is your last paragraph. We don't hold property rights quite so dear when they belong to another country.
 
I think the key to it all is your last paragraph. We don't hold property rights quite so dear when they belong to another country.

well pretty much the only property rights we respect now-a-days are those of the fortune 100.
 
LOL

I just channel surfed on the TV and realized that MSNBC is giving the GE zombies at DP their marching orders for the day regarding the conflict in Iraq. Half of them are probably just stupid people who don't know how duped they are by the media into thinking that there was no AQ or WMD in Iraq. The other half are simply disgusting evil liars.
 
LOL

I just channel surfed on the TV and realized that MSNBC is giving the GE zombies at DP their marching orders for the day regarding the conflict in Iraq. Half of them are probably just stupid people who don't know how duped they are by the media into thinking that there was no AQ or WMD in Iraq. The other half are simply disgusting evil liars.

"And doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefs I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program. And that`s when I began to believe they`re getting serious about this. They want to go into Iraq." - Gen. Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM commander

Yup, what a lemming that guy is, jeez dude, turn off the tv alread. Or wait, is on on the evil liar side? I can never decide when it comes to those pesky central command guys.
 
I...wah? when did Saddam declare war on us?

Hitler had not declared when we were sending pilots to Britain to fight

We understand, people being tortured, raped and murdered is not your problem
 
Hitler had not declared when we were sending pilots to Britain to fight
yes and there was lend-lease too. but we didn't invade fortress europe until after the idiot declared war on us.

We understand, people being tortured, raped and murdered is not your problem

1. why is it yours?

2. if it is your problem why should it be applied so arbitrarily?

3. shouldn't the first place to confront things like rape, torture, and murder be your own state?
 
"And doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefs I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program. And that`s when I began to believe they`re getting serious about this. They want to go into Iraq." - Gen. Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM commander

Yup, what a lemming that guy is, jeez dude, turn off the tv alread. Or wait, is on on the evil liar side? I can never decide when it comes to those pesky central command guys.
Out of context quotes often influence idiots.
 
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?

Other. In some ways it was good, other ways it was bad.
 
Out of context quotes often influence idiots.

lol, it's not out of context. He sat down for an interview for the Hubris documentary, and that quote is perfectly in context. You can watch it yourself. I'm sure you won't, but you definitely can.

Zinni also wrote in his own book, "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption." You can read it for yourself. I'm sure you won't, but you definitely can.

The man has done countless interviews, written articles and books, all explaining what he saw and was involved in, as far as Iraq goes. Simply dismissing your opposition's argument doesn't strengthen yours, it just shows you have no interest in hearing anyone who disagrees with you.
 
yes and there was lend-lease too. but we didn't invade fortress europe until after the idiot declared war on us.



1. why is it yours?

2. if it is your problem why should it be applied so arbitrarily?

3. shouldn't the first place to confront things like rape, torture, and murder be your own state?

Actually liberals need to learn to take care of themselves first
 
Back
Top Bottom