The U.S. and the Coalition forces entered Iraq in 2003 on "information regarding weapons of mass destruction." Since then, nearly 4500 Coalition casualties have been reported, nearly 4200 of those being U.S. soldiers. The number is more than four times the death toll in Afghanistan, which is only in triple digits at the moment. As we all know, no WMDs were found.

Considering the lack of progress in Iraq, many people have wondered whether we should have entered Iraq in the first place, including myself. Were we right to enter Iraq based on the intelligence we had, or was this just a wild goose chase that would lead to a situation we could not win?

Discuss.

As if the excuse for attacking Afghanistan was bad enough, the excuse for Iraq is non-existant. It's like they got bored of hearing news of them not accomplishing anything in Afghanistan and tried to look better by attacking the next closest place (and failed).

Any possible good that might (and probably won't) come out of it, will never amount to the bad.
As part of NATO, the USA needed to have the permission of their fellow members to "search" Iraq, and never got it. The USA should never have been allowed to enter Iraq, yet they did. And then they ask allied countries for help, even though technically they didn't have to since they went against the call of NATO, they did.

So what did this war accomplish so far? The foreign view of the USA has lowered (as if it wasn't low enough already), gas prices have sky rocketed (War use up tons of fuel, ships for cargo, planes for transportation, humvees, etc), and destabilization of a country's government.
Which leaves it with this, now that the government is no longer stable, pulling out would just make things worse. And rather then lose face by doing so, the USA are forced to stay n Iraq until it's stable again. Its a lose-lose situation they could have avoided by not going there in the first place.

Since when did we need NATO's permission to do something, again?  NATO was a way of sharing our nuclear shield with Europe against the Soviets... For all essential purposes, we control it.

If you're referring to the UN, well, that's a different matter, but again, since when does anyone listen to them?

You're attributing gas prices to the war?  Do you have any proof, other than a relative handful of military vehicles are using gas?  It's still very, very, very little amount when you're referring to the total amount of oil used daily all over the world.

Iraq is pretty stable actually, with oil output equal or greater than it was before the conflict.  There are much less stable places in the Middle East, that's for sure.  If you consider pre-conflict Iraq as a stable place, then you don't know your history.  

Not saying we were or weren't justified in invading Iraq, just wanted to clear up a few things.

This post was last modified: 09-24-2008 06:35 AM by z6joker9.

When your bombed by people who are literally paid by the Saudi Royal Family to fly plains into your buildings, then it's a far stretch for any intelligent person to say going into Iraq was a good idea for any reason.

When someone claims that we had to because Hussein was such a bad guy, well just tell them to shove that idea, because North Korea has millions of "families" in prison camps right now, and the people who are "free" have to wait in line for food, because the military and leaders get first pick over everything.

Don't let anyone use the Bush tactics to justify what we've done in Iraq, because it's just a ploy of the weak-minded to scare people into doing things, when the greater threat is on the loose.

What? I'm not sure I follow the logic. Who was paid by the Saudi's, and why exactly?

Well, yes, but this discussion was based on the "weapons of mass destruction" argument which we seem to assume came from bad intel now. The could throw in the argument of "one at a time" but I'm certainly not going to argue that point. Can you source anything from your last sentence?

Eh, it's all misdirection anyway. X was more important than Y but the other group focused on X... how dare them! Elect us instead and we'll focus on Y!

Of course, we don't realize that we should be looking at Z, and they both fail to mention that.

Why do you think they just keep trading power back and forth? Whatever group is in power gets blamed for all of the bad, and then it shifts, as if the previous group to screw everything up can now fix it. The cycle continues!

We know from the 9-11 commission that the people who flew planes into the twin towers were funded by those in the Saudi Royal Family.

NATO is about the North ATlantic Treaty which is... (partly, I don't feel like posting the whole treaty)

Yes it's a defense organization. At first against the possible threats of the Soviets, but that "main" purpose is long gone. After all, Russia's part of NATO now.

Also, its remarks like that, "We control it", that give you guys bad relations with foreign countries. How can you speak of democracy and freedom when you say you control others?

NATO an the UN work together, so yeah, I meant them too.
Anyone who likes to maintain good relations with foreign countries/allies do. Shaky relations equals shaky alliances.

Fair enough, I'm only saying war raised the gas prices because that's the excuse oil companies are using. The populations been using gas before the war, but as soon as it began oil companies had an excuse to hike prices. Much like they blame hurricanes, no matter how insignificant the damage is.

What does oil output have to do with stability? Funny how you brought up oil though...
Its stable? I was under the impression that troops where still in Iraq to keep it stable. If it's stable why are we there? Yeah I know, if we pull out then all will break apart and it'll be anarchy. A country that relies on other countries' military to keep it in check can hardly be called stable.



Why was I saying Iraq was stable before? Because (perhaps) it was. Maybe not by our "democratic" standards, but to the Iraqi people, it was fine.

But lets go ahead and say the Iraqi government was not stable. By following that logic, we should be invading half of Africa, many parts of Asia, and South America.

This post was last modified: 09-24-2008 10:33 PM by Rawrmander.

I hardly think we can consider Iraq 'stable'. Stable does not mean that US troops are dying regularly. Stable does not mean a weak government that would fall apart without or support. Stable is not when the country is still in chaos.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that US troops were dying regularly.  Notice how we haven't seen death tolls in the news lately?  That's because we've lost less than one solider per day (on average) for this entire year.  

Do you realize how insignificant that is?  I'm not going to debate the value of human life with you, but 264 soldiers have died during this entire year so far... compared to how many in a city like Detroit from gang related violence every month?

Iraq security forces have lost as many people in September alone (263) as the US has lost all year (264).  To say that we are carrying the brunt of the load would be a gross misstatement.  

GFT, please find me a source for the Saudi family funding terrorists.  I must have missed it.  

RAWR, sorry I can't touch on your points more right now, it's pretty late and I have to work tomorrow.  As you can see from above, it's not exactly unstable.  It's relatively stable.  No, it's not like the US, but only a handful of countries are.  That system of measurement would be unfair.  I don't remember saying that the previous Iraq government was completely unstable, or that their lack of stability was the reason for invasion.  I'm not even arguing the point that the invasion was justified.  I'm counterpointing to expand everyone's views a little.  You guys should just try to argue a point that you don't hold to be true, just to see if you can set bias aside to fully explore an idea, or whether you are controlled by those that have influence over you (peers, family, news, etc).  

And yes, sorry, the US does control NATO and to a lesser extent, the UN.  NYC is the UN headquarters for crying out loud, and the predecessor to the UN failed because the US did not join.  Other (veto-holding) countries ignore the UN when it comes to a decision that conflicts with their interests.  NATO exists so that we can stick our nuclear arsenal all over Europe.  I'm not saying it is right or wrong... it just is.

This post was last modified: 09-25-2008 12:20 AM by z6joker9.

You gotta be kidding me. You don't remember how the 9-11 commission was censored and told they could not include Saudi Arabia in any part of the 9-11 findings? That's been all over the television and the internet.

Blunty put..but to the point xD(referring to response to Rooster/me)

And yeah, now we're on the same page. I guess we just didn't understand each other. (I didn't really express my argument very well really, so not you're fault.)
And my responses where only counter-arguments to your counter-arguments. Your first post clearly says that you don't believe it validates or invalidates the invasion; I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking you're premises (which could go for, or against the invasion) and showing why they would only work in an argument against the invasion.

Since you already know this, I'll just spell it out for others.
the NATO/UN argument has been nullified, it no longer stands ground in this argument. The question of stability in Iraq is still in argument (though me and Joker now share the same feelings for it, up to others to keep that argument alive still)
And the actual question of why we've invaded Iraq in the first place has yet to surface. (Though, in my opinion Joker has brought it up already by mentioning oil production. [/wink wink])

now.. carrying on with the argument...


I can understand when you say that you (the USA) has control over the UN and NATO. You have the upper hand thanks to your military power/influence, however, "control" is a very strong word. the UN HQ is in NYC, yes, but it used to be in Paris (I think? Don't quite remember. Didn't move to NYC until not that long ago).

But could you give me a link talking about how NATO's used for expanding your nuclear arsenal? Cause their site, and as my history teacher says, they're strictly a defense organization; crisis management and peacekeeping.

And by expanding your nuclear arsenal.. what exactly do you mean? I thought American nuclear weapons where solely on American soil?
(Last I heard of American nuclear weapons not being in the US was those in Turkey, which where retracted after the Cuban Crisis.)
Though I must be under-informed, it seems very possible for you guys to have nukes in other countries.

Oh, you're referring to the conspiracy theory regarding that issue- that some agents of the Saudi government helped fiance the plan. Again, give me a credible source, if you can.

Hmmm... do we really want to get into that? Because I would certainly say that it could be the issue, and I could even argue that it wouldn't be wrong to do so. Securing our stability, etc, right?

Not sure. NATO is in Brussels I think.

I hate to use Wikipedia, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_sharing

NATO was really just to counter the USSR, and the weapons sharing was countered by the Warsaw Pact.

The nukes are on foreign soil but under the control of the US, guarded by US soldiers. During wartime, these nukes can be used by the member nation (generally by loading them on a plane as I believe there are all free-falling type only).

Nukes were brought into Cuban specifically to counter US weapons sharing with Turkey (I think) since at the time, Turkey's location would give the US direct strike abilities against important USSR targets (most of the Eastern European countries under Russia's control were a buffer- Turkey could get past the buffer).

Isn't that exactly what this debate is about though? d:

That would be correct.

Yes, I've already mentioned that was the primary focus of NATO, but the Warsaw Pact has long since disbanded, as did the URSS.
What's it's purpose now?

China maybe? Mainly just to keep US influence in all of these areas, IMO. As was my point earlier.

yeah cus 2003 was when the trouble started, and not with dear older bush and hussian invading kuwait.

Anyway, the whole thing was screwed up from the start, the reason bush jnr went into iraq was to finish the jobby his pa started, under the guise of going after the 911 terrorists/removing the WMD's and seen as they were already in afghanistan, well iraq's on the way home.

Also gaining control of all that oil *under mostly american corperation control now* maintaining output *and still hoofin the price right up the greeeeedy begers, but someones gotta pay the politians for the war*, and shipping it to the rest of the world, was surely just an afterthough, (last comment both skeptical and sarcastic).

It makes me wonder at the reasoning behind it, and as all good conspiracy theorists will point out, did they let 9 11 happen just to have the excuse to go in.

You may also not that no-one seems to be doing anything about the drug farms in afghanistan, even tho coelition forces at there in force.

Okay, this is a bit of a stretch. We liberated Kuwait and that was championed by the American people and the world. Bush Sr. had the highest approval rating in history for his handling of this conflict.

One could argue that it started well before that, when the US equipped Iraq (under Hussein) with weapons to counter Iran's power. We know what weapons they had... we gave them to Iraq.

Yeah, we need the oil for stability and future of our country. If we didn't invade Iraq (or meddle in the middle east at all), we might be paying $10/gallon and thus be very upset with our government for not taking action in the middle east to secure our supply of oil. Who knows?

Okay this is outright false. Alot is being done about it. We are sending Guard troops from agricultural states to Afghanistan to teach them how to grow crops... not to mention that they've been voluntarily switching to crops now that the demand for corn and beans and such as gone through the roof.

Iraq is an unwinnable war!  We are battling for oil, and other things, but lets face it; the people of Iraq have been fighting each other for resources and religion for 100s of years...WE ARE WASTING MONEY!!!  NOW WE ARE MOST LIKELY GOING INTO ANOTHER GREAT DEPRESSION!!!  THANKS PRESIDENT BUSH!!!   All is in the hands of the next president...we need to end the war!  At the beginning of elections, McCain said this while shaking his hand and I quote "I will hunt Osama down for as long as it takes, even if it takes 100 years, I will take Osama down!"......wow...what were republicans thinking...and Mcain picking Palin?!?!  She disagrees with most of McCain's outlooks and wants to start a war with Russia to defend Georgia!  with the country this bad?!? He only picked her to get the female vote "Oh I'm a pitbull, I wear lipstick!" WHO GIVES A D@#M!
"OH, PALIN'S JUST LIKE ME...SHE HAS A PREGNANT DAUGHTER AND A KID WITH DOWN SYNDROME, SHES JUST LIKE ME, NOW I'M GOING TO BUY SOME $200 PALIN GLASSES"
...wow...people are stupid...Palin is more radical than McCain...our only chance is Obama! VOTE FOR OBAMA! ...wow...I really got off topic...Iraq is bad...and I realize that this whole long topic, i was spelling 'Iraq' with a 'c'...

Mod Edit - Please stay on topic.
P.S. Fixed some spelling/grammar for easier reading

This post was last modified: 09-26-2008 03:14 PM by Rawrmander.

My brain just stalled, I think, from reading all that.

The only thing I wanted to point out was that if you consider Palin as being radical, then Obama must be... very radical? They are just on opposite ends of the spectrum. Obama's record is extremely left. McCain and Biden are both much more central, of course (balanced ticket and all). Also, Obama picked Biden. They disagree on quite a bit, and Biden has made some remarks that Obama quickly made him recant, so that they can be more aligned. Oh, and again, thank your Democrats for putting us into financial chaos... that's already been touched on several times, but again, the war and all military spending combined is costing us about 5% of the GDP, or pretty much normal historical levels, maybe even a little low. Go look at how much money the Democrats have put towards projects... few billion here, few million here. Easily much more than the "war" is costing us.

tsk tsk joker, i'm supprised you put such a low cost on your fellow american lives.
because that is the true cost of this war

(for z6joker9)what are you talking about?  i respect your choice but we are spending Billions each day in iraq and the republicans gave Wall st. 700 billion dollars (our $700 billion) Why are we paying for the mistakes of major banks anyway, they make a mistake, WE pay for it and this is a REPUBLICAN project iraq was REPUBLICAN, with bill clinton, we had a money surplus, and then came bush...spent trillions in iraq and billions for bank mistakes (with our money)  and also, why does McCain say obama's not ready to lead...hes like 72 and if he dies in office from a heart attack or something, were stuck with someone with less exerience than obama (palin) what is she doing trying to be vice president anyway...in my opinion, Palin has no buisness being in that position...obama wasnt really my choise in the beginning though...but i just hated all of the republican canidates so my choice was the democratic nomonie...im just hoping...just hoping...that obama wins...also McCain wants to break up cunstuction unions...if he becomes president...my family PERSONALLY, will bs screwed.

This post was last modified: 09-26-2008 01:01 PM by Tom And Ian.