After Seven Years, Final U.S. Combat Brigade Leaves Iraq

[Winehole23]

Is the wifey putting viagra in your cornflakes, yoni? You sound downright cheerful.

[LnGrrrR]

You're right. I should clarify that any time frames should be kept between top government officials, and not publicly announced. It allows for more flexibility, and keeps the enemy off guard.

Do you agree with telling the enemy your timetable for movements?

I agree that, if possible, we should give the enemy as little information as possible. However, the American taxpayer is funding the effort, so their needs must be kept in mind too.

As you well know, given your stance on welfare and the like, if you give someone your money, but put no specific deadlines on when you expect it to end, it gives less incentive to the person to help themselves out of that jam, right?

The same goes for the taxpayers. If they keep funding the effort, they should expect some visible signs of progress. If that progress is not seen, then it should be expected that they would want a timeline for certain levels of progress.

The problem is, though levels of performance were never defined, meaning the public was never at ease. And when we DID get to specific levels of performance (remember the purple finger brouhaha?), then it still wasn't ENOUGH justification for leaving the country.

I disagree there. Once you engage in a war, you stay until you can claim victory, or defeat.

War is not for quitters.

Is it ethical to continue fighting the war if a majority of the people dont' want it continued? Remember, declaring war, raising money for an army, all of these actions were placed firmly in the "Legislature" section of the Cons ution, meaning those actions were to be decided by the people.

We disagree.

The public all wanted to go in. Democrats and republicans alike, a majority in each. War is an effort you commit to. It's not a game.

And then the public wanted out. Don't citizens have the right to change their minds? If they're not satisifed with the way their money is being spent on the War, due to little visible progress, shouldn't they be able to stop funding it?

Keep in mind, I realize that many en lement programs could be considered unethical in the same way (for instance, if you don't approve of X program, it could be considered unethical to force you to fund it anyways). [Side Note: That's why I think there should be categories on taxes that show which areas you want your dollars to fund. But that's just my pipe dream. /offtopic ]

[LnGrrrR]

Was it a lie, or thought to be the facts?

Remember... We were dealing with information cultivated from the Clinton years. Let's not forget Public Law 107–243, where we declared regime change in Iraq, signed by President Clinton.

PUBLIC LAW 105–338—OCT. 31, 1998
IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998

Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 482

Doesn't that bolster my case for the public changing their mind on the war? After all, if you got sold a car by a dealer who said it would go 100 MPH, but it's top speed was 50, you might want to return it too.

Link please... that connects Osama and Saddam... I have yet seen one that says what liberals try to say republicans said.

Here's one:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/

[boutons_deux]

"The public all wanted to go in"

You Frickin Lie.

America gave the Repugs the benefit of doubt that the Repugs in times of crisis and trauma would not lie the USA and world, but the sewer-rat Repugs did lie.

Many saw through the lies, like Magic Negro, and did not want to go in.

[Wild Cobra]

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was NOT a declaration of war. In fact, it says so specifically, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces in carrying out this Act".

No Sherlock. It has the same effect however. Remember the Islamic Imams and radicals saying we brought on 9/11? It's because of policies like that.

That act was really just a lame attempt at giving the IRAQI democratic opposition the support and resources necessary to overthrow ITS OWN government. Its original intention obviously failed, but it certainly wasn't a decleration of war, just an attempt to plant the seeds of an Iraqi Coup d'état.

Interfering with a sovereign nation in a chicken way.

Do you need a link to know who the leader of Al-Qaeda is too?

http://www. ed-online.com/articles/00000006D9F9.htm

It took me like 2 seconds to type in and do a google search. You can find plenty more, it's really not that hard.

Like I said, there was no direct link. They were loosely connected though.

[Wild Cobra]

I agree that, if possible, we should give the enemy as little information as possible. However, the American taxpayer is funding the effort, so their needs must be kept in mind too.

Enough was said. I know that only some media outlets repeated it, but it was said we had no exact time frame, and needed to wait on certain events to unfold.

As you well know, given your stance on welfare and the like, if you give someone your money, but put no specific deadlines on when you expect it to end, it gives less incentive to the person to help themselves out of that jam, right?

Yes, this was highly discussed on talk radio.

The same goes for the taxpayers. If they keep funding the effort, they should expect some visible signs of progress. If that progress is not seen, then it should be expected that they would want a timeline for certain levels of progress.

There was plenty of visible progress. The mainstream media only focused on disasters, while talk radio did talk about progress. Want to blame someone on that point, blame the media for being partisan.

The problem is, though levels of performance were never defined, meaning the public was never at ease. And when we DID get to specific levels of performance (remember the purple finger brouhaha?), then it still wasn't ENOUGH justification for leaving the country.

I see the problem as liberals using any problem noted as political talking points, hampering our efforts and the public's perspective.

Is it ethical to continue fighting the war if a majority of the people dont' want it continued? Remember, declaring war, raising money for an army, all of these actions were placed firmly in the "Legislature" section of the Cons ution, meaning those actions were to be decided by the people.

We disagree.

I suppose it's proper then to jump off a roller-coaster when it scares you rather than waiting for it to finish.

There are some things you have to stick with when you commit to them.

And then the public wanted out. Don't citizens have the right to change their minds? If they're not satisifed with the way their money is being spent on the War, due to little visible progress, shouldn't they be able to stop funding it?

Sure, but was it really a majority? Look at how the polling questions were pushed.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's one:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/

That is the only incident that can be found. I don't trust CNN. Do you?

What is the full question and answer in context. Find that for me, and I'll admit I was wrong. Even if I'm wrong, he was the only republican stating it. Everyone else said no connection was found between Saddam and 9/11.

[DMX7]

No Sherlock. It has the same effect however.

NO, it doesn't. Not even close. Trying to force a regime change is not indistinguishable from starting a war in which you spend trillions of dollars, lose thousands of American soldiers, and have thousands more come home without arms and legs or both. Not to mention a host of other consequences like paying to take care of a new generation of veterans and diverting resources from the war in Afghanistan.

But nice try though.

Remember the Islamic Imams and radicals saying we brought on 9/11? It's because of policies like that.

Interfering with a sovereign nation in a chicken way.

You mean "blowback"? Welcome to the United States of America.

There will probably be blowback for the War in Iraq as well. Although hopefully not.

[LnGrrrR]

Enough was said. I know that only some media outlets repeated it, but it was said we had no exact time frame, and needed to wait on certain events to unfold.

YOU feel enough was said. Others don't. Can you fault people for not trusting the words of the government? You do the same yourself quite often.

There was plenty of visible progress. The mainstream media only focused on disasters, while talk radio did talk about progress. Want to blame someone on that point, blame the media for being partisan.

Plenty of visible progress in YOUR eyes. There were relatively few distinct goals that were achieved. The vote was a big one, and rightly touted. But since then, what? It's been a struggle to hold and maintain areas. There's strong belief out there that as soon as we leave, all will collapse into chaos, that the Iraqi Security Police are undisciplined and will fail to hold the peace.

I see the problem as liberals using any problem noted as political talking points, hampering our efforts and the public's perspective.

And do Republicans do any different when it comes to liberal policies? Don't all Republicans focus on the negative consequences of Democratic lawmaking? Doing so keeps the excesses of the other party in check, and is an important and healthy function of our democracy.

Do you think it would be more American to prevent criticism?

I suppose it's proper then to jump off a roller-coaster when it scares you rather than waiting for it to finish.


There are some things you have to stick with when you commit to them.

Just because YOU feel we should have to "finish" doesn't mean everyone else does. Tell me, how would you define us being "finished" in Iraq? What does that mean? Does it mean a completely stable country? Does it mean one that has a democracy? One free from terrorism?

A war against terrorists is not like a war against a foreign nation that can 'surrender', and thereby has a definite 'finish'. There will be no 'finish' against the war on terror, because there is no one that can claim responsibility over all terrorists.

Your logic could be used in any number of faulty beliefs. We've already started the healthcare process, now we have to finish it. We've already started the bank bailouts, now we have to finish it. Etc etc. There's no formal logic behind that statement; you just throw it out there like it's a postulate.

Sure, but was it really a majority? Look at how the polling questions were pushed.

Yes, it was. A great number of different polls performed by different pollsters showed that the American public was against the war by... 2006 I believe it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular...vasion_of_Iraq

And here are the way the questions were worded in some of them, if you want specifics.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Do you favor or oppose the US war in Iraq?" is a pretty open-ended question, don't you think?

[LnGrrrR]

That is the only incident that can be found. I don't trust CNN. Do you?

What is the full question and answer in context. Find that for me, and I'll admit I was wrong. Even if I'm wrong, he was the only republican stating it. Everyone else said no connection was found between Saddam and 9/11.

I'd say most of the connections stated were implied if anything, by saying "Iraq and Al-Qaeda were involved together" without clarifying that they meant senior intelligence officials in Iraq, and without clarifying that it wasn't related to 9/11. After all, there were a high number of people years after 9/11 who still thought Saddam was responsible for it.

[DMX7]

The reason they did not clarify repeatedly is because they wanted to capitalize on people's ignorance and their post-9/11 paranoia.

[LnGrrrR]

No answer, WC?

[boutons_deux]

"high number of people years after 9/11 who still thought Saddam was responsible for it."

A large percentage of military were convinced that Saddam did 9/11, therefore justifying wasting their ignorant selves grabbing the oil.

[Winehole23]

[Wild Cobra]

No answer, WC?

Answer to what?

I am saying that there is no direct connection between 9/11 and Saddam. The one story that states such isn't even showing quotes in context. My point is the media and liberal hype that republicans are making that connection is the fallacy. I would sat the only ones that are, are those who listen to the Main scream Media.

[Wild Cobra]

"high number of people years after 9/11 who still thought Saddam was responsible for it."

A large percentage of military were convinced that Saddam did 9/11, therefore justifying wasting their ignorant selves grabbing the oil.

Link please.

[LnGrrrR]

Answer to what?

To post 110.

[boutons_deux]

I can't find the link now about military believing Saddam - WtC, but Americans in general were at 70%, thanks to Repug/neo-c*nt lying, esp head

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm

So it's no stretch to believe that well over 50% of military, who happened to be Americans, also believed Saddad-WTC lie.

[LnGrrrR]

Link please.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

But that's early, you say, right?

How about 2007?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Po...ddam_0624.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3253552.shtml

From Wikipedia regarding Newsweek

Newsweek Magazine polls
The Newsweek Magazine poll "What America Knows", conducted Princeton Survey Research Associates International, regularly asks American citizens a wide range of questions relating to world events past and present and a number of more trivial questions of general knowledge.[7] On five occasions the following question has been asked:
"Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

• September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
• January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.
• September 2004 responses: 42% Yes, 44% No, 14% not sure.
• October 2004 responses: 36% Yes, 51% No, 13% not sure.
• June 2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure.

[Wild Cobra]

Enough was said. I know that only some media outlets repeated it, but it was said we had no exact time frame, and needed to wait on certain events to unfold.

YOU feel enough was said. Others don't. Can you fault people for not trusting the words of the government? You do the same yourself quite often.

Others don't because they limit who they hear the news from. We cannot force the mainstream media to report what they don't consider mainstream.

There was plenty of visible progress. The mainstream media only focused on disasters, while talk radio did talk about progress. Want to blame someone on that point, blame the media for being partisan.

Plenty of visible progress in YOUR eyes. There were relatively few distinct goals that were achieved. The vote was a big one, and rightly touted. But since then, what? It's been a struggle to hold and maintain areas. There's strong belief out there that as soon as we leave, all will collapse into chaos, that the Iraqi Security Police are undisciplined and will fail to hold the peace.

Again, blame the MSM's. If you listen to other news sources enough, you know progress was ongoing in so many other important ways. Decades of instilled behavior cannot be changed abruptly.

I see the problem as liberals using any problem noted as political talking points, hampering our efforts and the public's perspective.

And do Republicans do any different when it comes to liberal policies?

Sure, but liberal policies are damaging to this nation. You forget, prominent democrats signed on to this war. This was bipartisan. When you have almost no republicans agreeing to liberal policies, you know something's wrong.

Don't all Republicans focus on the negative consequences of Democratic lawmaking?

Not in my experience if watching politics these last couple decades.

Doing so keeps the excesses of the other party in check, and is an important and healthy function of our democracy.

There is keeping the other side in check, and there is ramrodding policies that infuriate so many of us.

Do you think it would be more American to prevent criticism?

Constructive criticism is good, but we see little of that.

I suppose it's proper then to jump off a roller-coaster when it scares you rather than waiting for it to finish.

There are some things you have to stick with when you commit to them.

Just because YOU feel we should have to "finish" doesn't mean everyone else does.

Well if they were initially agreeing with the war, then those pussies can go home and cry with their mommies holding them.

Tell me, how would you define us being "finished" in Iraq? What does that mean?

I haven't decided where to draw that line for my own viewpoint. I would be happy if we could restore the freedoms most the population had before Saddam took over.

Does it mean a completely stable country? Does it mean one that has a democracy? One free from terrorism?

I'm not sure what works best for their culture. I just know we cannot leave when things are fragile enough to resort back to a Saddam style leadership.

A war against terrorists is not like a war against a foreign nation that can 'surrender', and thereby has a definite 'finish'. There will be no 'finish' against the war on terror, because there is no one that can claim responsibility over all terrorists.

i think we have to become more ruthless than we have been, and simply kill on site anyone whi claims to be Al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc.

Your logic could be used in any number of faulty beliefs. We've already started the healthcare process, now we have to finish it. We've already started the bank bailouts, now we have to finish it. Etc etc. There's no formal logic behind that statement; you just throw it out there like it's a postulate.

Bull .

Not even close to the type of commitment. For those who think this is important, that start a foundation with like-minded people. Contribute your own money and ask for donations from others. just stay out of my wallet. If I like your foundation, i will give freely to it. Just stop the legal theft of my money for the purpose of giving it to others when I may have a cause I support more, and then have less money to give to. This is America. Not a Marxist nation. Let me stay free with my money.

Sure, but was it really a majority? Look at how the polling questions were pushed.

Yes, it was. A great number of different polls performed by different pollsters showed that the American public was against the war by... 2006 I believe it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular...vasion_of_Iraq

Shows the power of the media. A majority support until after the images of war and news hit. partisan reporting, all the bad they could dig up, with little or no good. I went backwards from 2008... Funny how it's not updated for 2009 and 2010! Looks like a partisan wiki entry to me. Anyway, I didn't see where people said we should "pull out." Just that they disapproved.

You know, sometimes we drive a different path to go to work, the store, etc. and find it's not worth it. maybe it took longer to drive it. that doesn't mean we turn around, and start over. Even when we disapprove of our chosen route, most of us drive it to our destination.

And here are the way the questions were worded in some of them, if you want specifics.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Do you favor or oppose the US war in Iraq?" is a pretty open-ended question, don't you think?

Another BS poll.

Where's the poll that says we should pull out, leaving Iraq to fend for themselves?

[Wild Cobra]

I can't find the link now about military believing Saddam - WtC, but Americans in general were at 70%, thanks to Repug/neo-c*nt lying, esp head

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm

So it's no stretch to believe that well over 50% of military, who happened to be Americans, also believed Saddad-WTC lie.

The reason people believe it is because the main Scream media was trying to make the connections that republicans were saying it was true. I would say such a poll simply reflects the spin of the media and what people hear.

Show me where our leaders were making that connection, rather than the media spin.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

But that's early, you say, right?

How about 2007?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Po...ddam_0624.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3253552.shtml

From Wikipedia regarding Newsweek

Consensus is not fact. My point remains. There is no evidence anyone has been able to come up with yet that has republican leaders showing any connection between 9/11 and Saddam. The media twisted our presidents and others words, creating their own dogma among viewers. Of course, their viewers are going to reflect in, polls, what the media made them believe.

[boutons_deux]

"Show me where our leaders were making that connection"

were in America in 2002/2003?

curveball?

head went on repreatedly making the WTC-Saddam connection for a couple years after 2003.

dubya finally came out and essentially called head a liar (the only thing dubya got right in 8 years) by saying there was no connection between WTC and Saddam.

[DarrinS]

If I hadn't read the le, I woud've assumed that this was a 5 year old thread.

[Wild Cobra]

"Show me where our leaders were making that connection"

were in America in 2002/2003?

curveball?

head went on repreatedly making the WTC-Saddam connection for a couple years after 2003.

dubya finally came out and essentially called head a liar (the only thing dubya got right in 8 years) by saying there was no connection between WTC and Saddam.

Bull .

Show me the transcript, youtube, or something.

You are wrong.

He made a connection between the terrorists and Saddam. He did not say Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.