• 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 Iraq War "Worth it"

Was the Iraq War Worth it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 6.4%

  • No

    Votes: 65 83.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 8 10.3%
  • Total voters
    78
The Iraq War will go down in history as a long, painful episode of pathetic and misguided decision making by the elite that rules over us.
 
shrubnose said:
You have my permission to get on over there right now and do whatever that you feel needs to be done.
Click to expand...

Captain America said:
Good points. But some of the military people who are much smarter than I, (or anyone else here,) advise against going back in so I suppose the latter option you suggest would be the wiser option.

PS... Your avatar RULES! Pink Floyd is God.

I dedicate this to all our esteemed neocon colleagues here that are always up for a good ol' military conflict.

Click to expand...



Obama is already on it. He just announced they're sending 300 advisers, with other assets -F/18's flying off the Carrier group gathering intel and scaring the sand gnats off the ISIL. The problem with propping up Maliki again is that the whole region will crumble without continued support.
 
cpwill said:
The Bush administration certainly did listen to what they wanted to hear. However, what they wanted to hear was also what was available. Had there been serious dissent within the Intelligence Community over whether or not Saddam had WMD,
Click to expand...
There was.


WMD: How it went wrong | World news | The Observer
"'There were dissenting views, analysts who were right. But the dissenters were pushed to the side.'.. It is a claim corroborated by former CIA anti-terrorism expert Larry Johnson. 'I know for certain that there were analysts in the Defence Intelligence Agency and the State Department and the CIA who took an alternative point of view. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and ultimately George Bush chose to ignore their cautions. Worst-case scenarios were being taken by policy makers who were picking and choosing intelligence,' he said."


Doubts, dissent stripped from public version of Iraq assessment | Iraq Intelligence | McClatchy DC
"The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com
"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again."

CIA and MI6 were told Iraq had no active WMDs: Report - Economic Times
"Two senior Iraqi politicians told Western intelligence that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) on the eve of the US-led invasion in 2003 but their warnings were ignored and then not reported to the subsequent Butler inquiry, a BBC Panorama documentary has claimed."



or had we had serious dissent with our key allies on that issue,
Click to expand...
We did.
"French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. “According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam’s Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this timeIt [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA’s analysis”5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a “phony threat.”
Institute for Science and International Security › ISIS Reports › Iraq › U.S. Allies Were Not Persuaded By U.S. Assertions on Iraq WMD


But as far as what was available, that did not happen.
Click to expand...
Yes it did.

Yes, yes we did. Feel free to read the relevant NIE, or, if you like, a post-mortem of the analytic process that went into that assessment by the guy who did the CIA's post-mortem for the failure to anticipate the Iranian revolution in 1979 and is, himself, a bit of a left-leaning anti-Bush academic.
Click to expand...
Feel free to ignore the fact that your "facts" are not facts.
 
cpwill said:
The Bush administration certainly did listen to what they wanted to hear. However, what they wanted to hear was also what was available. Had there been serious dissent within the Intelligence Community over whether or not Saddam had WMD, or had we had serious dissent with our key allies on that issue, and he had still made an uncritical case - then yeah, you could accuse him of cherry picking, and he might very well have. The administration was (like our current one) self-reinforcing in its assumptions. But as far as what was available, that did not happen.



Yes, yes we did. Feel free to read the relevant NIE, or, if you like, a post-mortem of the analytic process that went into that assessment by the guy who did the CIA's post-mortem for the failure to anticipate the Iranian revolution in 1979 and is, himself, a bit of a left-leaning anti-Bush academic.
Click to expand...
In hindsight, our intelligence isn't so intelligent, is it.

About the only intelligence I have ever believed in my life span was the photos taken from a US spy plane depicting missile installations in Cuba, which I believed are truthful. Since then intelligence from other sources, other than the USA could be construed as being doctored or inaccurate.

I'd imagine that most people might appreciate more accuracy and definition of evidence.
 
grip said:
Obama is already on it. He just announced they're sending 300 advisers, with other assets -F/18's flying off the Carrier group gathering intel and scaring the sand gnats off the ISIL.
The problem with propping up Maliki again is that the whole region will crumble without continued support.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




And that will likely never change.

The whole Iraq situation reminds me of a Merry-go-round without a stop switch that needs a lot of maintenance work.

It's going to be mighty hard to patch that up without shutting it down and doing a total re-build.
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
Of course they did. He used chemical weapons to kill his own people.
Click to expand...
There were none in 2003. He disarmed after the 1st gulf war.


No, it wasn't just that.

  • Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.
Click to expand...

  • We worked with the MKO! Hell the MKO isnt even a terrorist organization anymore.
    [*]Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.
    Click to expand...
    The PLF is nothing but a petty threat. That have done little to no attacks since 1990

    [*]Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.
    Click to expand...
    Hasnt been active since 1994.



    [*]Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.
    Click to expand...
    all statements on this were inconsistent and were labeled as false.
Link
Click to expand...
Figures same faulty intelligence Apacherat used on another thread.. The bush archives..
 
AJiveMan said:
In hindsight, our intelligence isn't so intelligent, is it.

About the only intelligence I have ever believed in my life span was the photos taken from a US spy plane depicting missile installations in Cuba, which I believed are truthful. Since then intelligence from other sources, other than the USA could be construed as being doctored or inaccurate.

I'd imagine that most people might appreciate more accuracy and definition of evidence.
Click to expand...

The thing is with all of our intelligence services what they gather is disseminated on a need to know and security clearance. Then too it is all compartmentalized. You can have two different analysts working for the same agency in two different offices come up with two opposite opinions depending on what intel was given them, how much, what their office job was which would determine which pieces of intel they get. They would not get any intel that wasn’t directly related to their job, project, department within any particular agency.

Of course these analysts are working with raw intel and photos which also may led to a wrong conclusion if they do not have all that they need. It is a tricky game and sometimes relies on ones best guess.
 
shrubnose said:
And that will likely never change.

The whole situation reminds me of a Merry-go-round without a stop switch.
Click to expand...

It's because the whole region is so sectarian in nature. They're split over irreconcilable issues and we effectively supported the removal of the only stabilizing forces they had, by removing Saddam and allowing Gaddafi and Mubarak to be overthrown. You can't go into fundamentally, religious countries and mind control them, it's just stupid.
 
Lursa said:
I'm on the record on another forum, in 2003 before we invaded saying this is exactly what would happen in Iraq...and it did and it makes me sick. I take no pleasure in having been right.

That someone with no geopolitical background could KNOW (and I did know...it was clear as a bell) and not one person properly advised the last administration? Or maybe they did but it just didnt fit their agenda.
Click to expand...
I'm with ya.

I've thought about this before, and the best explanation I can come up with is this: People at that level of leadership are so arrogant and egotistical that they honestly believe that they are above the lessons of history. They honestly believe that they will be the one to be different and solve the problem.
 
Perotista said:
The thing is with all of our intelligence services what they gather is disseminated on a need to know and security clearance. Then too it is all compartmentalized. You can have two different analysts working for the same agency in two different offices come up with two opposite opinions depending on what intel was given them, how much, what their office job was which would determine which pieces of intel they get. They would not get any intel that wasn’t directly related to their job, project, department within any particular agency.

Of course these analysts are working with raw intel and photos which also may led to a wrong conclusion if they do not have all that they need. It is a tricky game and sometimes relies on ones best guess.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, that's all the more reason why they should be consulting each other, either in the office or their private little circle. As we know now, the FBI dropped the ball, or someone did in the Boston bombings.
 
ecofarm said:
I value those I know more, that's human nature. But I still value the lives of strangers. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Would you sacrifice your loved one or your loved ones' financial well being to save a stranger? I wouldn't and this is how I look at interfering with other countries. Americans and their financial well being should not be sacrificed for the lived and well being of foreigners.
 
jamesrage said:
I do not think we should sacrifice American lives and money for the sake of people in other countries.

When it comes to your loved ones and random strangers, whose lives do you value more?
Click to expand...
Simple, my family comes first and foremost. Period end of story.
I understand that wars happen, but I think its time to let the chips fall where they may in that part of the world. We helped him. Bailed them out, defended them, trained them. Poured billions into their nation and infrastructure. What do we have to show for it?
 
TheNextEra said:
Sure it is, you claimed Iraq was ok to go after cause they were burning our flags and threatening us. North Korea and Iran have been doing that for years. Your logic is flawed seriously.
Click to expand...

Not what I said. I said you didn't see that in Germany and Italy or Japan.
 
Ikari said:
That is what end game means, the conditions under which we would win. We knew what end game was, developed a competent plan to get there, executed. And we won in far less time than we've been fighting this quagmire. There's a reason why haven't had a clean "war" or "victory" since WW II; it was the last time we declared war and had to think about ending a war.
Click to expand...
End game means you have a plan for the end. In WWII and WWI we had no idea if we were going to win. Hell we may not have won what we did in Iraq without the surge.
You cant plan for the victory dance, before the game starts.
 
AJiveMan said:
In my opinion, that's all the more reason why they should be consulting each other, either in the office or their private little circle. As we know now, the FBI dropped the ball, or someone did in the Boston bombings.
Click to expand...

True, but a lot of all these different agencies do not talk to each other. Even when they do they guard their own secrets jealously.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Not what I said. I said you didn't see that in Germany and Italy or Japan.
Click to expand...

Yes, you used that as some sort of reason. It wasn't a good reason either. You are all over the place trying to support YOUR war that you love so much.
 
Navy Pride said:
No only because we "Cut and Run" before we finished the job.
Click to expand...

Much like the USA did in Vietnam and Korea, cut the losses, run away before it worsens and we lose even more. Like gambling, except it's people's lives and money spent for stupidity. The USA needs to stop being the world's police force.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, you used that as some sort of reason. It wasn't a good reason either. You are all over the place trying to support YOUR war that you love so much.
Click to expand...
Show me where I support the "war I love" so much. Quote me. Just because I said it had to be done, don't mean I love it.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Simple, my family comes first and foremost. Period end of story.
I understand that wars happen, but I think its time to let the chips fall where they may in that part of the world. We helped him. Bailed them out, defended them, trained them. Poured billions into their nation and infrastructure. What do we have to show for it?
Click to expand...

Nothing except for dead troops,lots of money wasted and the fact no one in any party is saying ".Saddam has WMDs we need to take care of him".
 
Navy Pride said:
No only because we "Cut and Run" before we finished the job.
Click to expand...

Obama could have invaded Maliki's government and resisted a troop withdraw, but that didn't seem viable at the time, I suspect.
 
CRUE CAB said:
End game means you have a plan for the end. In WWII and WWI we had no idea if we were going to win. Hell we may not have won what we did in Iraq without the surge.
You cant plan for the victory dance, before the game starts.
Click to expand...

But you can figure out what the victory dance is. Symantics aside, our quagmire has and has no end game and no plan which is why it's not comparable to WW II. It's silly to compare imperial occupation to officially declared war. Declared war has an end game known from the start.
 
jamesrage said:
Nothing except for dead troops,lots of money wasted and the fact no one in any party is saying ".Saddam has WMDs we need to take care of him".
Click to expand...

He may or may not have had WMDs in the normal sense, but he did kill thousands of people within his country.
He did ignore around 20 UN resolutions.
He did sent a hit out on Bush the senior.
Many believe he gave aid to Al Queda.
Those things by themselves were enough to do what we did, but should have only been enough to dethrone him and make sure his sons didn't take power. Period.
Not stay a few more years and build a new government and nation.
 
CRUE CAB said:
He may or may not have had WMDs in the normal sense, but he did kill thousands of people within his country.
He did ignore around 20 UN resolutions.
He did sent a hit out on Bush the senior.
Many believe he gave aid to Al Queda.
Those things by themselves were enough to do what we did, but should have only been enough to dethrone him and make sure his sons didn't take power. Period.
Not stay a few more years and build a new government and nation.
Click to expand...

if the problem was saddam and his sons, why did we also dismantle the entire baath party and republican guard?
 
Ikari said:
But you can figure out what the victory dance is. Symantics aside, our quagmire has and has no end game and no plan which is why it's not comparable to WW II. It's silly to compare imperial occupation to officially declared war. Declared war has an end game known from the start.
Click to expand...

You are all over the place here. We didn't have to go to Iraq any more than we had to go to Europe. Neither were a immanent threat to mainland US.
That said, both dictators had to be stopped. We have put ourselves out there as the worlds police. Once you decide to be the bad boy on the block, you cant back down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom