Iraq war officially ends

[TheDancinMonarch]

And with the soldiers back here in America it will be easier for them to have their anti-O'Bama votes counted next year.

...As the republicans cut their benefits and keep their wages deflated

Throwing "Republican" at me is kind of a waste of your time. I hate them just as much as you do. But as a thinking person, I hate the Democrats just as much. Two groups cut from exactly the same cloth with the same goal of deceiving as many people as possible.

[kalm]

...As the republicans cut their benefits and keep their wages deflated

Throwing "Republican" at me is kind of a waste of your time. I hate them just as much as you do. But as a thinking person, I hate the Democrats just as much. Two groups cut from exactly the same cloth with the same goal of deceiving as many people as possible.

Well then, I apologize.

[Gil Dobie]

Looking back, this war should never have been fought. The paranoia of Sadam having WMD's following 9/11, and false information that was pumped by our media since Clinton beat BushI. When it was discovered that Sadam did not have the WMD's, this thing took a political nose dive that cost the country dearly. Thousands of Dead and wounded Americans, a terrible economy and a big hit to our personal liberties. Time to wrap things up in Afghanistan and start working on the US of A.

[89Hen]

Throwing "Republican" at me is kind of a waste of your time. I hate them just as much as you do.

Probably not.

[D1B]

Looking back, this war should never have been fought. The paranoia of Sadam having WMD's following 9/11, and false information that was pumped by our media since Clinton beat BushI. When it was discovered that Sadam did not have the WMD's, this thing took a political nose dive that cost the country dearly. Thousands of Dead and wounded Americans, a terrible economy and a big hit to our personal liberties. Time to wrap things up in Afghanistan and start working on the US of A.

A war built on lies.

For the record the following conks supported the war, then derided Obama for not getting troops out the minute following his election:

AZ, Tman, Gil Dobie, All the fucks who went to the Kidatal, 89Hen, GannonFuk, Appaholic, St. Wronge, SuperFucket and a few more.

These assholes voted (twice ) for the knuckleheads who ruined our nation and cost us our jobs/economy.

[Ibanez]

Looking back, this war should never have been fought. The paranoia of Sadam having WMD's following 9/11, and false information that was pumped by our media since Clinton beat BushI. When it was discovered that Sadam did not have the WMD's, this thing took a political nose dive that cost the country dearly. Thousands of Dead and wounded Americans, a terrible economy and a big hit to our personal liberties. Time to wrap things up in Afghanistan and start working on the US of A.

A war built on lies.

For the record the following conks supported the war, then derided Obama for not getting troops out the minute following his election:

AZ, Tman, Gil Dobie, All the fucks who went to the Kidatal, 89Hen, GannonFuk, Appaholic, St. Wronge, SuperFucket and a few more.

These assholes voted (twice ) for the knuckleheads who ruined our nation and cost us our jobs/economy.

I doubt they voted for all the Democratic and Republican Congresspersons that had more of a hand in it thatn Clinton, Bush and Obama. Stop generalizing everything, it's pathetic. Be realistic. It's not one partys fault.

[Gil Dobie]

Looking back, this war should never have been fought. The paranoia of Sadam having WMD's following 9/11, and false information that was pumped by our media since Clinton beat BushI. When it was discovered that Sadam did not have the WMD's, this thing took a political nose dive that cost the country dearly. Thousands of Dead and wounded Americans, a terrible economy and a big hit to our personal liberties. Time to wrap things up in Afghanistan and start working on the US of A.

A war built on lies.

For the record the following conks supported the war, then derided Obama for not getting troops out the minute following his election:

AZ, Tman, Gil Dobie, All the **** who went to the Kidatal, 89Hen, ****, Appaholic, St. Wronge, SuperFucket and a few more.

These ******* voted (twice ) for the knuckleheads who ruined our nation and cost us our jobs/economy.

We were duped by Clinton, Gore, Bush and Obama. Fool me once and I won't get fooled again.

[kalm]

A war built on lies.

For the record the following conks supported the war, then derided Obama for not getting troops out the minute following his election:

AZ, Tman, Gil Dobie, All the fucks who went to the Kidatal, 89Hen, GannonFuk, Appaholic, St. Wronge, SuperFucket and a few more.

These assholes voted (twice ) for the knuckleheads who ruined our nation and cost us our jobs/economy.

I doubt they voted for all the Democratic and Republican Congresspersons that had more of a hand in it thatn Clinton, Bush and Obama. Stop generalizing everything, it's pathetic. Be realistic. It's not one partys fault.

True, but I doubt that we would have invaded Iraq under a different president.

[ASUG8]

I doubt they voted for all the Democratic and Republican Congresspersons that had more of a hand in it thatn Clinton, Bush and Obama. Stop generalizing everything, it's pathetic. Be realistic. It's not one partys fault.

True, but I doubt that we would have invaded Iraq under a different president.

Maybe.....no telling where we'd be with a Kerry/Gore presidency(ies). I doubt either of those guys could have withstood the public outcry to get somebody's head on a stick post 9/11. We might have invaded Iran or North Korea and be in an even bigger mess.

[kalm]

True, but I doubt that we would have invaded Iraq under a different president.

Maybe.....no telling where we'd be with a Kerry/Gore presidency(ies). I doubt either of those guys could have withstood the public outcry to get somebody's head on a stick post 9/11. We might have invaded Iran or North Korea and be in an even bigger mess.

I doubt it. The perps weren't in either of those countries either. The neo-cons own Iraq. They had a hard on for it from the get go with the Project for a New American Century and figured we needed to be in the War on Terror and against islamo-fascism for the long haul. Remove Saddam from power and set up a bulwark in the middle east - two birds with one stone. BTW, I still recognize that this might actually work for stabilizing the region in the term and at least some credit for the Arab spring needs to go towards Bush. Just don't think it was worth it or our place to do so.

[Gil Dobie]

I doubt they voted for all the Democratic and Republican Congresspersons that had more of a hand in it thatn Clinton, Bush and Obama. Stop generalizing everything, it's pathetic. Be realistic. It's not one partys fault.

True, but I doubt that we would have invaded Iraq under a different president.

From what Gore was saying during the Clinton administration, he may very well have invaded Iraq had he won.
R and D after their name, IMO, means nothing.

[AZGrizFan]

I doubt they voted for all the Democratic and Republican Congresspersons that had more of a hand in it thatn Clinton, Bush and Obama. Stop generalizing everything, it's pathetic. Be realistic. It's not one partys fault.

True, but I doubt that we would have invaded Iraq under a different president.

[ASUG8]

Maybe.....no telling where we'd be with a Kerry/Gore presidency(ies). I doubt either of those guys could have withstood the public outcry to get somebody's head on a stick post 9/11. We might have invaded Iran or North Korea and be in an even bigger mess.

I doubt it. The perps weren't in either of those countries either. The neo-cons own Iraq. They had a hard on for it from the get go with the Project for a New American Century and figured we needed to be in the War on Terror and against islamo-fascism for the long haul. Remove Saddam from power and set up a bulwark in the middle east - two birds with one stone. BTW, I still recognize that this might actually work for stabilizing the region in the term and at least some credit for the Arab spring needs to go towards Bush. Just don't think it was worth it or our place to do so.

If you recall, Clinton did some sabre rattling regarding Saddam's WMD's well before Bush II took office. It's not much of a stretch to believe that either Gore or Kerry would have followed a similar path as GWB. We can fault GWB's intel on Iraq's capabilities, but it seems that Clinton shared those beliefs.

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/poli ... LLPOLITICS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GannonFan]

Maybe.....no telling where we'd be with a Kerry/Gore presidency(ies). I doubt either of those guys could have withstood the public outcry to get somebody's head on a stick post 9/11. We might have invaded Iran or North Korea and be in an even bigger mess.

I doubt it. The perps weren't in either of those countries either. The neo-cons own Iraq. They had a hard on for it from the get go with the Project for a New American Century and figured we needed to be in the War on Terror and against islamo-fascism for the long haul. Remove Saddam from power and set up a bulwark in the middle east - two birds with one stone. BTW, I still recognize that this might actually work for stabilizing the region in the term and at least some credit for the Arab spring needs to go towards Bush. Just don't think it was worth it or our place to do so.

I agree about the neo-cons and their New American Century idea and I agree that their plan may actually work in the long run. I disagree that they totally own Iraq - we may have gone in there for different motives, but I think we would've still gone in there regardless of who was President. Maybe we would go in differently, but we'd still be there in some manner. There was such unanimity in Congress when it came to this that I don't think that was entirely due to Bush being a very persuasive President. The slow lurch towards dealing with Iraq was likely something we wouldn't have turned away from.

[kalm]

I doubt it. The perps weren't in either of those countries either. The neo-cons own Iraq. They had a hard on for it from the get go with the Project for a New American Century and figured we needed to be in the War on Terror and against islamo-fascism for the long haul. Remove Saddam from power and set up a bulwark in the middle east - two birds with one stone. BTW, I still recognize that this might actually work for stabilizing the region in the term and at least some credit for the Arab spring needs to go towards Bush. Just don't think it was worth it or our place to do so.

If you recall, Clinton did some sabre rattling regarding Saddam's WMD's well before Bush II took office. It's not much of a stretch to believe that either Gore or Kerry would have followed a similar path as GWB. We can fault GWB's intel on Iraq's capabilities, but it seems that Clinton shared those beliefs.

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/poli ... LLPOLITICS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Key phrase being "saber rattling". Leaders do it all the time but rarely follow through. Sure it's possible and there were many international threats before 9/11 but the priorities would have changed for most as soon as we were attacked by non-iraqi terrorists.

[kalm]

I doubt it. The perps weren't in either of those countries either. The neo-cons own Iraq. They had a hard on for it from the get go with the Project for a New American Century and figured we needed to be in the War on Terror and against islamo-fascism for the long haul. Remove Saddam from power and set up a bulwark in the middle east - two birds with one stone. BTW, I still recognize that this might actually work for stabilizing the region in the term and at least some credit for the Arab spring needs to go towards Bush. Just don't think it was worth it or our place to do so.

I agree about the neo-cons and their New American Century idea and I agree that their plan may actually work in the long run. I disagree that they totally own Iraq - we may have gone in there for different motives, but I think we would've still gone in there regardless of who was President. Maybe we would go in differently, but we'd still be there in some manner. There was such unanimity in Congress when it came to this that I don't think that was entirely due to Bush being a very persuasive President. The slow lurch towards dealing with Iraq was likely something we wouldn't have turned away from.

Perhaps, but don't you think it also had a lot to do with not appearing politically weak and unpatriotic?

[93henfan]

Recipe for stupidity:

1. Take country run with iron fist by minority Sunnis.
2. Destabilize it.
3. Allow Shiite majority that is sympathetic to Iran take over.

I've only been saying this for about, oh, eight years now. Invading Iraq was complete stupidity, founded on lies. But, like everything else in this country, the perpetrators will never be held accountable.

[ASUG8]

If you recall, Clinton did some sabre rattling regarding Saddam's WMD's well before Bush II took office. It's not much of a stretch to believe that either Gore or Kerry would have followed a similar path as GWB. We can fault GWB's intel on Iraq's capabilities, but it seems that Clinton shared those beliefs.

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/poli ... LLPOLITICS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Key phrase being "saber rattling". Leaders do it all the time but rarely follow through. Sure it's possible and there were many international threats before 9/11 but the priorities would have changed for most as soon as we were attacked by non-iraqi terrorists.

Jeez man, he lobbed 27 freakin' missiles into Iraq WITHOUT having the benefit of post 9/11 public support. Sabre rattling might have actually been light wording for Clinton's actions. You don't activate military assets against another sovreign state unless you've got decent intelligence to back it up.

[GannonFan]

I agree about the neo-cons and their New American Century idea and I agree that their plan may actually work in the long run. I disagree that they totally own Iraq - we may have gone in there for different motives, but I think we would've still gone in there regardless of who was President. Maybe we would go in differently, but we'd still be there in some manner. There was such unanimity in Congress when it came to this that I don't think that was entirely due to Bush being a very persuasive President. The slow lurch towards dealing with Iraq was likely something we wouldn't have turned away from.

Perhaps, but don't you think it also had a lot to do with not appearing politically weak and unpatriotic?

The push would've still been there, and therefore the need not to be weak or unpatriotic, even if Gore was President. And Gore wasn't one who was very nuanced when it came to foreign affairs - he was always pretty rigid and uncompromising in that regard, so I can see him definitely being pushed by a strident Republican consituency in Congress to go that direction. And remember, it just wasn't us who thought that there were WMD's in Iraq - everyone else thought they had them too. The only difference between us and say a France or Germany is what should be done about it - Gore would've/did think there were WMD's there too. Would've been very likely that he would've gone in too. Like I said, maybe how we did it would've been different, but we would've attacked Iraq regardless of who was President.

[kalm]

Perhaps, but don't you think it also had a lot to do with not appearing politically weak and unpatriotic?

The push would've still been there, and therefore the need not to be weak or unpatriotic, even if Gore was President. And Gore wasn't one who was very nuanced when it came to foreign affairs - he was always pretty rigid and uncompromising in that regard, so I can see him definitely being pushed by a strident Republican consituency in Congress to go that direction. And remember, it just wasn't us who thought that there were WMD's in Iraq - everyone else thought they had them too. The only difference between us and say a France or Germany is what should be done about it - Gore would've/did think there were WMD's there too. Would've been very likely that he would've gone in too. Like I said, maybe how we did it would've been different, but we would've attacked Iraq regardless of who was President.

I'll agree to disagree. Could have happened, but highly unlikely.

[Seahawks08]

You guys who say that Gore would have done the same thing are probably right. The problem we have is that there is an AMERICAN foreign policy, not Rep/Dem policies. Therefore, the outcome probably would have been the same with either an invasion of Iraq or massive airstrikes. The only way I see getting out of the current foreign policy would be if Ron Paul became president. Since that won't happen, don't be surprised when Iran and/or Syria are attacked by Obama/Gingrich/Romney.

[Ibanez]

You guys who say that Gore would have done the same thing are probably right. The problem we have is that there is an AMERICAN foreign policy, not Rep/Dem policies. Therefore, the outcome probably would have been the same with either an invasion of Iraq or massive airstrikes. The only way I see getting out of the current foreign policy would be if Ron Paul became president. Since that won't happen, don't be surprised when Iran and/or Syria are attacked by Obama/Gingrich/Romney.

There isn't a single person in our Government that cares for the well being of the nation. THere isn't a person in Congress that puts thier political career on the line, by doing the right thing.

[kalm]

Recipe for stupidity:

1. Take country run with iron fist by minority Sunnis.
2. Destabilize it.
3. Allow Shiite majority that is sympathetic to Iran take over.

I've only been saying this for about, oh, eight years now. Invading Iraq was complete stupidity, founded on lies. But, like everything else in this country, the perpetrators will never be held accountable.

[GannonFan]

The push would've still been there, and therefore the need not to be weak or unpatriotic, even if Gore was President. And Gore wasn't one who was very nuanced when it came to foreign affairs - he was always pretty rigid and uncompromising in that regard, so I can see him definitely being pushed by a strident Republican consituency in Congress to go that direction. And remember, it just wasn't us who thought that there were WMD's in Iraq - everyone else thought they had them too. The only difference between us and say a France or Germany is what should be done about it - Gore would've/did think there were WMD's there too. Would've been very likely that he would've gone in too. Like I said, maybe how we did it would've been different, but we would've attacked Iraq regardless of who was President.

I'll agree to disagree. Could have happened, but highly unlikely.

Yeah, it would've been as unlikely as Obama becoming President and holding onto virtually every one of Bush's much maligned policies, including the Patriot Act. I mean, it could have happened, but it would've been highly unlikely.

[D1B]

Perhaps, but don't you think it also had a lot to do with not appearing politically weak and unpatriotic?

The push would've still been there, and therefore the need not to be weak or unpatriotic, even if Gore was President. And Gore wasn't one who was very nuanced when it came to foreign affairs - he was always pretty rigid and uncompromising in that regard, so I can see him definitely being pushed by a strident Republican consituency in Congress to go that direction. And remember, it just wasn't us who thought that there were WMD's in Iraq - everyone else thought they had them too. The only difference between us and say a France or Germany is what should be done about it - Gore would've/did think there were WMD's there too. Would've been very likely that he would've gone in too. Like I said, maybe how we did it would've been different, but we would've attacked Iraq regardless of who was President.

Bullshit. Bush didn't call the shots, Cheney, Rumsfield and Rove did, you fucking idiot. Take those fucks out the equation and even Bush doesn't attack.