PRIVATE POLL: Question; Do You Think We Should Get Out Of Iraq, Or Stay There?

[KarlMarx]

// java class that models liberal thought processes
public class liberalMentality extends far.left.wing.lunacy.from.the.1960s{


// constructor - creates a single instance of a liberal
public liberalMentality(){

MarxistDoctrine();

}

// method that mimics liberal behavior
public String liberalBehavior(String otherPersonsOpinion){

if(otherPersonsOpinion == anAcceptedLiberalPosition()){
return compliment(otherPersonsOpinion);
}
else {
return abusiveComments(otherPersonsOpinion);
}

}

// method that mimics the liberal's idea of debate
public String liberalsIdeaofDebate(String issue)
{

String ignore = factsAboutIssue(issue);
String rubbish = liberalPositionOnIssue(issue);

return rubbish;
}

}

wait a minute, scrap the whole idea. I just realized that this code is a Java class, and we all know that liberals have no class....

[red states rule]

wait a minute, scrap the whole idea. I just realized that this code is a Java class, and we all know that liberals have no class....

damn good one Karl

Had to rep you for that one

[DrJohn]

Hell, everyone know that we went in to get the WMDs.
They didn't have them so let's leave.

[Pale Rider]

Now why would I do that?

Why do it here?

[Kathianne]

Hell, everyone know that we went in to get the WMDs.
They didn't have them so let's leave.

There were others:

You can read the reasons, here.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...c4NTljYjkwNWQ=

...

But after September 11, and the realization that state-sponsored terrorists from the Middle East had the desire to destroy the United States and the capability to do it great harm, the decade-long containment of Saddam Hussein, in light also of his serial violations of both armistice and U.N. accords, was considered inadequate. Few disagreed.

So both houses of Congress, backed by an overwhelming majority of the American people, authorized the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein, at the vigorous request of the President.

The WMD Debacle
Though the Congress in October 2002 formulated 23 different reasons why Saddam posed a threat to our security, the administration — in easy hindsight, quite wrongly — mostly privileged and exaggerated just one writ: Saddam’s arsenals of weapons of mass destruction might enhance Middle East terrorist operations enough to trump even what we had witnessed on 9/11.

Supporters of a narrow war to remove WMDs relied on a past, though false consensus of such an existential threat; it was one, however, that had nevertheless prompted embargoes, sanctions, no-fly zones, and periodic bombing. Perhaps they were sure of such a WMD danger because it had been formulated at home in the 1990s and echoed abroad by both European and Middle Eastern agencies — and alone would galvanize the public in a way the other sanctioned casus belli might not.

Nevertheless, when such weapons were not found in Iraq, and the insurgency imperiled the brilliant three-week victory, the case for the war, in the eyes of many, collapsed. It did so on both moral and practical grounds. For some reason, no one cared that the other twenty-some Congressional causes were still as valid as when they had been first approved in October 2002.
...

[red states rule]

Hell, everyone know that we went in to get the WMDs.
They didn't have them so let's leave.

They probably went to Syria before we went into Iraq. Hell, the Dems made Pres Bush give Saddam enough time to ship them out by wasting time at the UN

[DrJohn]

They probably went to Syria before we went into Iraq. Hell, the Dems made Pres Bush give Saddam enough time to ship them out by wasting time at the UN

Didn't the repubs control Congress at that time?

[red states rule]

Didn't the repubs control Congress at that time?

One of the big mistakes Pres Bush made for years was trying to work with and appease Dems

He wasted alot of time trying to reason with the thugs who hate the US at the Useless Nations - and that is what the Dems were telling him to do

[Pale Rider]

Hell Iran, and Venezuela are two countries that are hating America so if we went into Iraq to control the oil then why the hell are we still buying from them?

Going in for the oil is the fucking lamest excuse ever, it's been stated since the begining yet nobody offers any evidence or benefits of all this new found oil wealth. Saddam was getting richer by the second with the UN's oil for food program but we opted to put the lives of our soldiers in harms way instead of joining the corruption for oil business because the US as a nation could never do something like that?

Well fuck, fuck, fuck. Did I say fuck?

Well I think WMD's is the lamest FUCKING excuse ever. We had some sketchy intel that led us to think he still may have some, but we didn't know for sure. Even so, if chemical warfare weapons are reason enough to invade a nation, who's next. I'm sure we're missing out on invading another 100 nations or so.

You can think what you want. That's your right, and so can I. We went in there to secure those oil fields.

[DrJohn]

One of the big mistakes Pres Bush made for years was trying to work with and appease Dems

He wasted alot of time trying to reason with the thugs who hate the US at the Useless Nations - and that is what the Dems were telling him to do

Maybe he put up the pretense of appeasing the Dems because he is the Great Unifier!

[red states rule]

Maybe he put up the pretense of appeasing the Dems because he is the Great Unifier!

Pres Bush tried to work with Dems but all he got in return was a slap in the face

Dems ran on their hate for Bush in 2 elections and lost both

In this election, Bush is not running and they are still running on their hate

[5stringJeff]

There were others:

You can read the reasons, here.

Linky no worky.

[Kathianne]

Linky no worky.

Thanks. I'll have to copy, it was probably the 10th click I made through Thomas.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--H.J.Res.114--

H.J.Res.114

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

.....

[LiberalNation]

Why do it here?

Cuz I enjoy exploring my views in a nice safe environment.

Now I said, I was pro-war in the beginning because I thought it would liven up the news with a new war going on and thought we'd win, not end up in some long occupation winning nothing.

That probably wasn't exactly true back then but with time to think and looking back with clearer eyes I'd say it sums up what most American thought even if they didn't realize or put it in those words. War fever had gripped the nations, 75% of Americans supported it, it was something new and quite exciting, we were gona go in a whoop Saddam’s ass, no one thought there may be real consequences or it would drag out for years. Most were not and did not have relatives in the military, they weren’t gona hafta fight it so it was just detached excitement. Something to watch on the news and get into heated discussions about with nice catch phrases like WMD's, yellowcake, nukes, al quedia.

[avatar4321]

I certainly understand the desire to get out of Iraq. I don't want my friends going out to risk their lives if there isn't a good reason for being there.

But I am not sure there isnt a good reason to be there. If we leave too quickly, Iran has stated they will go in. If Iran moves, then so will Saudi Arabia and Turkey creating a regional war.

And as much as it would be nice to act as though this has no effect on us, it does. We don't live in the same world we did the last century where we can sit safely on our continent and have nothing to worry about from over seas. Let's face it, our economy is built on energy, specifically produced by oil. And if we let this region fall into war, the oil prices will spike and our economy will tank. That will leave us vulnerable to attack.

We also have two other major problems.

1)the chaos may allow terrorists to gain control of the energy supply. Which means in order to keep our economy going we will have to pay the terrorists money. Money they win in turn use to attack us.

2)We don't know the extent of weapons of mass destruction in the region. (Which can seriously increase if the Pakistan government collapses).

I am not saying I want to stay in Iraq indefinitely. I dont think that's a good solution. But I do think we need to be reasonable with the withdrawal. It would be a bad idea for a rapid withdrawal. It would be a bad idea to leave with Iraq having an unstable government.

If we do this, we have to do it right. I dont have the details on how to do that, but if we don't do it right it will have negative consequences for us and them.