The problem I have found with most discussions is they aren't. Instead people come in with stances, and they hold to them, setting absurd standards of proof to be dissuaded, and spouting absolute lies in their defense. I get angry at so called discussions, because almost all of them revolve around a troll, the troll says things that aren't true, and everyone else rises to the bait foolishly, and tries to change the troll's mind, which won't happen. The troll is there to prove that his mind can't be changed. Almost always the troll relies on two fundamental lies. The first lie is that the troll can't be a bad person, because that would break the discussion. The second lie is that the troll has good motivations. He doesn't.
In the case of the Iraq war, the first lie is that we were there to remove a dictator. We were not. Saddam could have been removed without invasion. No action that we took in the aftermath was designed to bring about democracy, but instead to loot the country, the way the precious artifacts were looted.
Anyone defending the war now is a murderer and a criminal. You cant' change the mind of a criminal, because the criminal knows his livelihood depends on continued crime. I've patiently watched the years pass by, but in this I will no longer be patient. If you want to be a murder I can't stop you. But from now on, when I meet a murder, that is how I will call him, because it is the title he has wanted and earned.
Why should I deny him what he wanted?