Advertisement

Previous   Next

Do you agree with the House of Representatives’ decision to set a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on March 24, 2007

Browse the archives

Photo of August Thummel

“No, I don’t. Absolutely not. The withdrawal date should be much sooner than that. Like a lot of people, I don’t think we should have rushed in in the first place.”

Photo of Cheri Holliday

“Yeah, I really don’t think they should be over there in the first place. We don’t seem to be accomplishing anything over there besides getting people killed. It’s been time for them to come home for a long time.”

Photo of Bill Wempe

“Personally I don’t want to see a deadline because I don’t want to see us pull our troops out before the job is done. I think ultimately we will see a negative impact at home if that happens.”

Photo of Shimantini Shome

“Why withdraw them in 2008? Why not now? I think the timetable is too lenient and deadline is too far away.”

Comments

cool 7 years ago

NO we need to stay and clean up the mess including depleted uranium that we have spread throughout Iraq. Iraq birth defects have increased 500 % since May 2003 due to the use of depleted uranium in civilian areas.

Our own troops will be coming home and having increased birth defects in their children due to this same exposure. We need to clean up IRAQ and tell the truth to our troops !

0

mr_daniels 7 years ago

Reality is a very warm rifle! Was out at the local police range where I live along with a few dozen folks and somehow we resembled and sounded like a local militia! And we are American Indians. How about that Lefties! Thanking that 2nd Amendment indeed. Leftists watch your six! 90,000,000 of of us here in the hinterlands! Bet your sweet bippie we are keeping our powder dry!

Go get 'em boys and take no prisoners...yeah!

0

drewdun 7 years ago

Right-wingers are sick people. I'm glad this website exists so those of us living in reality can see just how sick most wingnuts really are.

BTW, gilcrouse is the worst person in the world. rt is a close second.

0

lefthanded 7 years ago

My, my alwayswrong, you are the sharp one. I indicated you had me pegged when you called me a Pinko. Next you write that you know I'm a liberal. What happened to Pinko? If you were going to call me names I must tell you that I prefer Pinko but if liberal offends then okay. As for acting as if I know you? That was just a lucky guess. Anyway, now you just seem weird.

0

Pilgrim 7 years ago

In a word, no. In two words, hell no.

0

beatrice 7 years ago

Yep, you might be right on that one.

Bone- that game was like your complaint about the war -- not enough offense.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years ago

"....what to do about the 400 lb. anvil?" -Beatrice

Oil companies and the entire energy loop insiders may have this answer already, its' obvious they are playing us like a fiddle. I don't blame Bush----this has been going on for years and years but in todays' cut throat corporate world----we are more than ever at their mercy.

Oil-----maybe IT is the 'white mans' burden'.

0

jonas 7 years ago

"Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on March 24, 2007 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"None of the pro-war posters have defined what the goals of our military presence in Iraq are.

So, I will ask again, what are the goals of the US military in Iraq?"- yourworstmightmare

Nightmare, I know you are sharper than this.

The goal is to win, silly."

It's like sports! Get more points, rebounds, etc.

0

beatrice 7 years ago

rt - you never cease to amaze me, although this time for a completely different reason: I actually agree with everything you wrote in your last post! Wow. Plus, I like this new approach of yours -- please keep it up.

I don't think protectionism is the last resort, but it is a very important issue. We must make the homeland much safer that it is now.

So another question is, what to do about the 400 lb. anvil? More digging or new technology? I'm in the new technology camp, since no matter how much more oil we find, it will still be a finite resource. And it will remain a finite resource that will still almost certainly require us to deal with the Middle East, where too many countries turn a blind eye to the radicals among them. We must learn to rely on our own resources.

That is it for now -- I'm off to watch the ballgame with some friends. Enjoy the afternoon.

0

Bone777 7 years ago

Agnostick - Yeah, that is what I meant.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years ago

Beatrice, I can meet in the middle: It is a mess, I hope our "solutions" will serve us. It bothers me, yes.

This is an extremely FUBAR situation, coupled, I admit by W adm. blunders, and it's scary.

This very well may be a non-winnable thing; more of a "maintencane" mode will need to be employed, ie, your intelligence plan---and I have said this too. And it may NEVER end.

Take all the money being spent now and go over-the-top-crazy here on US soil in a smart and productive manner.

Is protectionism the last resort?

Oil is hanging over us like a 400 lb. anvil---again---scary.

0

beatrice 7 years ago

Or, we could stay in the middle of a civil war, spending billions upon billions of dollars and killing 100k plus civilians in the process, and pretend that this will stop a handful of people from hijacking an airplane and crashing it into a building here in America. Chuckle over that one for while.

The war against terror will have to be won on intelligence, not with bombs.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years ago

"The goal now is to clean up the mess Bush and the Republicans made and to get American soldiers out the middle of a foreign country's civil war, silly."- Beatrice

OK. Then what?

Squeeze our eyes shut, plug our ears and go "LALALALALALA" and hope terror goes away and radical Islam praises our withdrawal and now likes America?

You guys are a hoot---I'm really sitting here chuckling---really.

0

beatrice 7 years ago

rt - "Can I ask, what are the goals of the Democrats? That, today more than ever, is the question."

The goal now is to clean up the mess Bush and the Republicans made and to get American soldiers out the middle of a foreign country's civil war, silly.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years ago

"None of the pro-war posters have defined what the goals of our military presence in Iraq are.

So, I will ask again, what are the goals of the US military in Iraq?"- yourworstmightmare

Nightmare, I know you are sharper than this.

The goal is to win, silly.

Can I ask, what are the goals of the Democrats? That, today more than ever, is the question.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years ago

"just_throw_bozo_from_this_bus"

Possibly the best forum handle to date....excellent whoever you are. You are immediately branded an idiot by 90% of this forum. It's not you, it's the forum. Welcome.

Alwaysright, I relate to your life, I know the sacrifices made in a military family. Not me, but raised in one. I feel like I know you, strangely. You too, if you have not already experienced it, will be subject to heavy abuse, yet for anything you say, you will be fingered as an angry, wacko far-right nut and most of the posters will hit the "suggest removal" button as often as they re-adjust their avante gard eyeglasses or wiggle their Birkenstock tethered toes.

OK, so you terrific far-left folks must have missed me today. I just got back from getting my monthly pedicure and all I want to say now is:

Who cares if I agree? Noone.

AQ, Hezbollah, Hamas, Amhedinajerk and millions of radical Islam terrorist agree; what more needs to be said.

Oh, one more thing. Mark September '09 on your calendar, and between September '08 and September '09, keep a personal "terrorist" diary.

Good luck ya'll. And God bless.

0

yourworstnightmare 7 years ago

None of the pro-war posters have defined what the goals of our military presence in Iraq are.

So, I will ask again, what are the goals of the US military in Iraq?

The reason no one has answered is because there are no goals. This is an open-ended war that is putting our servicemen and women in harm's way for no purpose.

Without defined goals and benchmarks, we are no better than the colonial occupying powers of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Quagmire, quagmire, quagmire. Support our troops. Get them the hell out of Iraq.

0

Agnostick 7 years ago

Pay $2.50/gallon for gas? You mean the way we've been doing the past 18 months, Bone? And the foolishness in Iraq is supposed to alleviate that... how?

Like Lee Raymond is gonna get any less fatter and richer when we "win" in Iraq? Like he's not gonna proceed with the installation of his sixth chin (est. completion summer 2009) no matter what happens?

I agree that you don't send your military to do a political job. If serving as a protection squad for war-contract private truck drivers isn't a "political job," then what is...?

You shot your own self in the foot with your comments.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com http://www.uscentrist.org

P.S. We won't lose the Iraqi oil because we were outfought. We'll lose the oil because we were outbid (by China and/or India...)

0

Bone777 7 years ago

Agnostick - my mention of removing the liberal media, was so that the military could do as the military is suppose to do in a "war". Kill, kill, kill. You don't send your military to do a political job. It doesn't work. People get exploded and sniped. I don't expect us to ever really fight a war over there, so we should leave some really, really big remote controlled bombs and tell them to behave, or else.

I agree with the fact that this is financially motivated. I would hate to have us lose the oil this country provides.

Can you imagine having to spend over $2.50 a gallon for gas...

0

just_throw_bozo_from_this_bus 7 years ago

GW is the greatest president this country has ever had at a time when we need one the most. Congress and the rest of us should be behind him 110%. I think we should allow him to serve two more terms to make sure the job gets done right.

0

cool 7 years ago

NO

the Commander in Chief is the President who unfortunately happends to be George Bush.

he should be in charge of the WAR. Congress is in charge of funding 'unless' they want to pursue IMPEACHMENT ?

please go for it !

0

beatrice 7 years ago

alwaysright: "Instead we are hamstrung by a bunch of liberals who protest under the banner of "bring the troops home"."

How then does this explain the past four years when your conservative Republicans were in complete and absolute control of all branches of government? They didn't listen to us liberals at all, yet they managed to completely make a mess of things. Your blaming liberals now is just another example of how conservatives are always whining about something and trying to blame somebody else for their problems. "Its the liberals, its the gays, its the non-Christians, its the abortionists, its the gun-control nuts ... waaaaaa." Be a man and take accountability for the fact that the party you support is driving our nation to ruin.

And I love America and Americans enough to say so.

0

cool 7 years ago

NO

This is the PRESIDENT's WAR, let him lead !

look how great he is !

0

alwaysright 7 years ago

Okay Leftyhanded. Now I know you're a liberal because only a liberal would try to jump bad on a blog and then go on to act as though you know me. To answer just a few of your questions, Marine Corps, Married, 5 kids, self employed, and living 2000 miles from my nearest relative. IF you actually have a brother-in-law who is a Ranger I'm sure he can pick his own fights. As for you, quit hiding behind your "brother in law" and admit to yourself. You are probably all of those things you tried to hang on me. I'm not trying to provoke a fight on a blog. If I want to do that I'll do it the real way and I won't fire any shots accross the bow.

P.S. I've been on both ends of buttwhoopins, sorry to say, it's better to give than receive although you probably don't think so.

0

Agnostick 7 years ago

Jean1183 and mr_daniels, I take great comfort and will no doubt sleep better tonight knowing that your "powder" will be dry.

In fact, I have no doubt that you will do anything and everything to keep said powder dry. You will avoid any and every situation--and I do mean ANY and EVERY situation--in which said powder could be drowned by a single drop of moisture, buffeted by even the mildest gust of wind.

I'm glad you will hunker down... perhaps down in the basement... warm and dry and safe, perhaps in your pajamas, under the covers of a bed or daybed, safe in the corner, tucked under with your precious powder, always safe and dry, never to be put at risk, or expended in any way.

Yes, do please keep that powder dry...

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com http://www.uscentrist.org

P.S. "Armchair quarterbacking." Indeed. Pot. Kettle. Black.

0

Agnostick 7 years ago

3) FIGHT A WAR LIKE A WAR -- I'm still waiting for the whole "shock & awe" I was promised back in '03. I remember watching the TV that day, when the bombing of Baghdad started. I was neither shocked nor awed. Yeah, there were a few big explosions, but nothing of import.

How many civilians have been abducted & beheaded, their final moments shared on YouTube? How many kidnappings? How many car bombs? How many assassins? I personally lost faith in all this in April 2004, when it was clear that the city of Fallujah would remain standing, following the "Blackwater Killings." What should've happened is that we should've given our troops 24 hours to evacuate the city, and then we should've firebombed it, "Dresden-style," until it was nothing but a black smudge in the sand. (How's that for "armchair quarterbacking," Jean1183?)

4) DON'T PAINT A TARGET ON SOMEBODY UNLESS YOU PLAN TO FOLLOW THROUGH -- Jill Carroll, a journalist for the "Christian Science Monitor," was kidnapped in January 2006, by Muslim extremists; six or seven months later, in August, a crack team of Marines captured the kidnappers. Carroll returned home to America.

Osama bin Laden helped orchestrate, finance and inspire the World Trade Center bombings on September 11, 2001. More than five years later, bin Laden is still free, and still inspiring terrorists with his regular videotape releases. Today, he's celebrating birthday #50, and as a free man who is still orchestrating global terror. I guarantee he will celebrate #51 as a free man, and there's a good chance #52 will be the same.

Bush swore to make bin Laden's capture a priority. Why is bin Laden still free?

Guess what, folks? There are no easy frackin' answers to this, or anything else. There is no clear, single plank in either party that will solve this. The solution is somewhere between the extremes (and the extremists).

The War on Terror is vaild, and should be waged in a forthright, responsible, and skillful manner.

Profits should come from peacetime commerce and trade, not wartime scams and hoodwinks.

Raise any and all necessary funds to give our troops the best of everything. Rescind tax breaks and even raise taxes if necessary. We should pay for this war, not our future generations.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com http://www.uscentrist.org

0

Agnostick 7 years ago

Did Jim Robinson leave the gate open this morning? Seems like a bunch of his sheeple got loose from the pastures of Freeperland...

I could go on for hours, really, on all the "fool fodder" provided here by the likes of Jean1183, mr_daniels and their ilk.

Bone777, while missing home plate, actually manages to get the ball somewhere in the upper bleachers of Truth Ballpark. This war isn't a true "war," it's more of a multi-level marketing opportunity in a military uniform. First and foremost, our Iraq mission is about money. It's an elaborate scheme for siphoning off the government coffers, into the pockets of Cheney, Halliburton and other profiteers and speculators, petroleum companies at the top of the list.

The profiteers are the real problem, not the so-called "liberal mediia." Too bad, Bone, that your ears, mouth, and eyes are so stuffed with partisan rhetoric that you are deaf, dumb and blind to this aspect of things.

The left extremists haven't "hamstrung" anything or anyone, any worse than the Conservative Republican extremists who parade around in their fake patriotism, hiding behind the Constitution, rather than standing in front of it.

1) MAKE IT PLAIN -- Hey, how about an actual, bonafide, formal Declaration of War? We haven't had one since 1941, in the fortnight immediately following Pearl Harbor. We need not issue a DoW against any one or more nations--we can surely issue one against Al Qaeda "and any nations that harbor its members, capital, equipment, assets, or finances." Make it plain that we have nothing against civilians--but if they get in the way, we won't lose sleep over killing them, either.

2) "NATION BUILDING" AFTER THE WAR, NOT DURING -- Truck drivers and contractors have no business being in a war zone, unless they're in an official military uniform (as opposed to a bunch of camoflauge stuff from the Cabela's catalog). The Berlin Airlift happened in 1948-49, not 1942-44. If we want to offer aid & assistance to the Iraqi peoiple (or the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, SAUDI ARABIA etc.), do it after a formal, unconditional surrender. And you can't have a formal surrender without...

[more]

0

lefthanded 7 years ago

Well Always, you pegged me. I know plenty about war myself, just haven't fought in this one. Please tell me what branch of the service you are in plus details? Your favorite brand of recliner and internet search provider will have to suffice I suppose. Also, when have you ever been hit with anything besides kids gloves or kicked the crap out of anything besides a microwave burrito and a grape slurpee? Finally, why don't you try getting out of your parent's basement. Try kissing a girl or something. BTW Alwayswrong, my brother-in-law, needs no applause from you, still he may like to meet you sometime.

Well, I've certainly never been called a "pinko" before, nor had it implied that I was liberal. I've never considered myself a person who holds advanced liberal or moderately radical political or economic views. Hmmm, I could get to like this especially if it causes such consternation with those such as yourself.

PS. if you do take my advice, leave the spock ears at home.

0

cool 7 years ago

NO

we should stay in IRAQ and fix it !

just because we let a STUPID PRESIDENT and his henchhman CHENEY lead us into a tar pit of misunderstanding (Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11) we have a humanitarian duty to clean up the mess.

WAR CRIMES trials later after 2008 torture use of clusterbomblets use of depleted uranium lies & deception BUSH & CHENEY deserve FULL CREDIT !

0

Bone777 7 years ago

Gareth - thanks for noticing.

I couldn't agree more about these people being countries with armies. That is my point exactly. We need to take them and their terrorist armies out. Dumbass.

0

alwaysright 7 years ago

Hey Lefthanded, I applaud your brother for everything he did and for the fact that he hated being in Iraq, that proves he isn't a nut. The soldier always hates war the most, but he does what he is told by his leaders. Soldiers turn complaining about their leaders into an artform, but that doesn't mean they are right. If it wasn't for people like you we probably would have taken the kid gloves off long ago and kicked the crap out of the enemy. Instead we are hamstrung by a bunch of liberals who protest under the banner of "bring the troops home". What you really want is for this country to cease to exsist, along with its EVIL capitalistic system. Admit it, you're a pinko.

0

lefthanded 7 years ago

If this war is really about oil, and it probably is, all the people implying this is a negative should do something to make us less dependent on fossil fuels or least foreign sources. Since oil was discovered in the middle east we've had a presence. We used to be in tight with Iran, no more. Saudi Arabia, not so much any more. So we're hoping for Iraq. If we're not there, the Soviets, er, I mean the Russians will likely become the controlling entity there. The Russians are already having unprecedented meetings with the Saudi's.

My brother-in-law just returned from a 13 month stint in Ramadi, Iraq. He is an Army ranger, socially conservative and a registered Republican. He hated being in Iraq and doesn't like to talk much about it. The reason he doesn't like to talk about it is b/c he has seen first hand how futile our efforts are and as such we shouldn't be there. He indicated that the Army at least has no idea what it's doing and has incompetent leadership. Also, he indicated that the Iraqi people have no desire for us to be there and are unappreciative of any of our efforts which have benefited them. He further indicated that the Iraqi's he was familiar with expected Allah to do everything and so they didn't need to lift a finger to do anything for themselves.

The "war on terror" is such a stupid name for whatever it is we're engaged in. Terror is just a technique or weapon or system, who is executing the terror? A war on terror is akin to calling WWII a war on Panzer tanks or aircraft carriers.

Remember when we said we were going after the terrorist and anyone who harbors or aids them? As such, we need to be at war with Iran, N. Korea, Russia, China, a whole host of African and Latin American countries and some European ones too. No doubt, I have forgotten some. We're facing a dilemma in Iraq right now if we pull out soon. There are tens of 1000's of Iraqi's who've bought into what we're selling and have aided us. They are dead men if we pull out, and leave them behind. Just like Vietnam.

0

Gareth 7 years ago

Sorry -- that should read "are NOT countries with armies."

0

Gareth 7 years ago

We're not going to win a "war on terrorism" with military power, dumbasses.

Terrorism is an international criminal problem -- these people are countries with armies, they're thugs with weapons who have delusions of grandeur and occasionally pull off big operations by doing the unthinkable. The way to combat terrorism is through intelligence operations, performed whenever possible in concert with other nation's agencies.

However, since BushCo has gutted our intelligence agencies through politicization, that's going to be immensely difficult to do .

Only an idealistic idiot would try handle these criminals militarily. We didn't bomb the crap out of Italy when we were fighting the war on organized crime, and we didn't send hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy Columbia during the war on drugs.

Then again, neither of those countries produce oil in vast amounts. Do the math.

0

Gareth 7 years ago

Bone777: " the last one would appropriately have " Allah akbar!!" somewhere in there."

Nice racist stereotyping, you ignorant hayseed.

0

jonas 7 years ago

"Posted by Bone777 (anonymous) on March 24, 2007 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bea...yipe, yipe, yipe.

What needs to happen is we need to get the liberal press out of there and take the kid gloves off. Drop the really big bombs, destroy the neighborhoods and towns, where the problems are, and kill, kill, kill, until they are no longer a threat."

Yes, that will certainly solve the terrorism problem, and free those Iraqis. Liberating them from the mortal coil is still liberating them, I suppose.

Since terrorism is simply an expression of hate, backed by armaments, then creating more hate by impartially destroying everybody will simply create more terrorism. Even if we destroy ALL the muslims, won't we be surprised when we realize that hatred and, thus, terrorism, is not limited to those of arabic descent.

Should we do what you suggest, we would deserve to get attacked by terrorists.

0

beatrice 7 years ago

Bone, I think the "kill, kill, kill" approach is the wrong way to win the war on terrorism. Kill one and two seem to sprout from the soil. Kill 1000, that doesn't mean there won't be a handful to fly a plane into a building. No, the war on terrorism will be a continued battle fought with proper intelligence information. Other than that, I think we might be on the same page.

0

Bone777 7 years ago

Bea - good to hear from you.

I totally agree that we should have kept our focus on Afghanistan. I was 100% sure that Iraq didn't have any WMD and I wasn't afraid to tell anyone. I think that we should have planted some though. It would have been good for the country.

Back to my kill, kill, kill. If we are not going to try and win "our battle on terrorism" we need to get the frick out. I sure as heck would not want to go over there with out a clear objective or enemy and walk through the streets.

Wars have battle lines. There are no battle lines....

0

beatrice 7 years ago

bone - "kill, kill, kill"? Really? And how does that help "liberate" the Iraqi people? It doesn't, or rather it liberates them from breathing, but that is all. The killing there just makes more and more enemies. So I'll take "yipe, yipe, yipe," as you put it, over "kill, kill, kill" anyday. We should have kept our focus on the Taliban in Afghanistan, you know, the people who tried to "kill, kill, kill" us.

faceit- "This war was voted on and approved by congress before a single soldier was sent." Not exactly, but close enough. And now congress is voting on ending the war. Why aren't you down with congress having the say this time? Congress is only allowed to push the GO button, but not the one that says STOP?

I'm also not surprised any supporter of this war doesn't want to bring up WMDs. I wouldn't want to if I were in your shoes either. As far as doing the "right thing," why aren't we in the Sudan, or fighting North Korea? Get real. This war is about oil and that is all. Do you really think anyone in the Bush administration gives a gnat's fart about the people of Iraq? I suspect they are more likely to think "kill, kill, kill" like some mutant war-monger zombie -- or like John McCain, which ever one is closest.

0

faceit 7 years ago

Merrrill, "Illegal war" ? Get you information together This war was voted on and approved by congress before a single soldier was sent. Don't bring up WMD because even without WMDs, Iraq violated the sanctions without retribution for over a decade. He had every opportunity to avoid this. The cost is not the issue here; it's about doing the right thing.

0

Jace 7 years ago

I think the recent Iranian/British incident is just the sort of....Ahem!...."Gulf of Tonkin incident" that Bush needs to keep this thing going...and to have it spread/spill over into neighboring Iran.

0

mick 7 years ago

$100,000 every second of every minute of every day.

0

Richard Heckler 7 years ago

Support the The Troops - Bring Them Home - Pay Vets Their disability - Provides All Vets The Care Need - Fix The Vets Hospital - GW is adding plenty of new taxes the longer this war goes on cuz illegal wars cost big bucks - War does not come for free - Support the The Troops - Bring Them Home

Two Trillion Dollar War: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html ==================================== Trillion Dollar War Chart http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12572 ================================== As for the real costs of the war, they could hardly be clearer. Targeted for cutbacks in federal money are virtually all social programs--Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, housing, job training and child care, education and student loans, environmental protection, public transportation, science research, even veterans' benefits and school funding for children of military personnel.

Even as Iraq moves into a sectarian civil war, four big oil companies are on the verge of locking up its massive, profitable reserves, known to everyone in the petroleum industry as "the prize."

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/?comments=view&cID=257615&pID=2574112003-04/13du_boff.cfm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2132467.ece

The War in Iraq Costs $410,261,880,433

See the cost in your community

Or compare to the cost of: PRE-SCHOOL KIDS' HEALTH COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIPS PUBLIC HOUSING PUBLIC EDUCATION

0

Bone777 7 years ago

Bea...yipe, yipe, yipe.

What needs to happen is we need to get the liberal press out of there and take the kid gloves off. Drop the really big bombs, destroy the neighborhoods and towns, where the problems are, and kill, kill, kill, until they are no longer a threat.

0

beatrice 7 years ago

God no! This is the worst thing ever! Instead of saying we should leave a civil war in a foreign land, why, the Democrats should just continue to allow the current administration to sign blank checks for ever and ever so the President and his oil man Vice President can keep us as close to the oil fields as possible. That is what is needed. Who cares that it is a quagmire of our making and that almost everyone now understands that it was a very bad idea to go into Iraq in the first place. We are there, and we can't stop until everyone in that country is dead. Then we will know the country is stabalized.

How dare the elected Democrats follow the American people in saying "enough is enough."

In the meantime, I think I finally understand the Republicans' and Bush's longterm plan to end the war. He kept saying, "They hate us for our freedom." So, by continually stripping Americans of those freedoms -- privacy, due process, rights not to be tortured, bias judges -- eventually we will no longer have freedoms for which to be hated! There you have it, the end of the war!

0

gilcrouse 7 years ago

If you are a democrat you'll love this stunt. It hurts the troops, it hurts America, and of course it helps the enemy. Thank God not everyone in this country hates it like the democrat party. Those of us who believe in our way of life will always answer the bell and fight for this country, heck I know it's ironic but we'll even fight for you lefties who hate us. The left won't admit it but when the enemy comes marching into their town they'll be looking around for the M1 tanks to come bail their back sides out. It's kinda like most of them hate cops until someone kicks in their door or they shoot their mouth off in a bar and get their butt kicked, then they reach for the phone and call 911 and the very thing they hate comes and protects them. We'll win in the end though, we don't abort our future leaders.

0

Linda Endicott 7 years ago

If we wait to leave until we have defeated terrorism in the area, then we'll be there until the end of time. How do you defeat terrorism in an area that has never known anything else?

I just don't see how we're accomplishing anything in Iraq. The majority of the people there aren't going to listen to anything the Americans have to say, and they don't give a damn whether they have democracy or not.

Yeah, we got rid of Saddam. Big whoop. Where did that get them? Left to their own decisions, they will probably abandon the floundering "democracy" and go back to electing another dictator.

Which should be their right to do. They should have the right to run their own country however they want to. And we should have absolutely nothing to say about it.

Should the troops come home now? I'm one of the people who thought they should never have gone there to begin with. Now that they're there, though, what's the solution?

I wish I knew. While pulling out all at once seems kind of drastic, we did so in Vietnam, and the world didn't fall apart.

And I really can't see that we're accomplishing anything in Iraq...

0

sgtwolverine 7 years ago

Sometimes I would rather see them set a deadline for their withdrawal from the House of Representatives.

0

yourworstnightmare 7 years ago

The Topekan said: "Personally I don't want to see a deadline because I don't want to see us pull our troops out before the job is done."

Good point. Trouble is, what is "the job". What are the goals and objectives in Iraq? First, it was WMD. Then it was nation-building and freeing the Iraqis. Now? What is our goal, out job? Defeating terrorism? Please.

Define "defeating terrorism" or our other goals in Iraq, and we can start talking about when the job is done.

As it is now, there are no clear and achievable goals in Iraq, and this is the point of the congressional vote. Our troops are in an open-ended conflict with no defined goals or objectives. This is also called a quagmire. It is time to get out.

If you disgaree, then please define our goals in Iraq and how we will know when our "job is done" there.

0

Gareth 7 years ago

Guys, tribes in the Middle East have fought off occupying armies for more than a THOUSAND feckin' years. Do you really think that we've got a chance in hell over there? It's not like they're going to just give up.....

The historical ignorance being displaced by the majority of posters here is simply stunning.....and really sad.

Iraq has sod-all to do with our national security, kids. Zip. Nada. Invading made about as much sense in the "war on terror" as invading Switzerland would make sense if you were fighting the Mafia. ("Well, there are Italians who live in Switzerland, y'see....and the Mafia are Italian....and there's CRIME in Switzerland, and the Mafia are criminals.....It's a no-brainer, right?")

0

conservativepunker 7 years ago

No. All the badguys will have to do is relax and bide their time. The Liberal Dems are just masturbating over another "fall of Saigon"-like scenario.

0

Jean1183 7 years ago

nbnozzy---EXACTLY!

mr_daniels---"Keeping my powder dry!" A very few of us know what that means, lol. Keeping our powder dry here too. ;^)

0

mr_daniels 7 years ago

Dems put their party first. Country's security is their last thought. They may be drinking blood but they do not have the meat. We will wait for the Senate to come up with the President's wanting only a clean Bill. In the meantime money will be needed to fund our soldiers in Iraq and Ahghanisthan and Radical Islamn's dander has risen and the fight will begin in earnest. MoveOn.org is celebrating along with their raghead pals overseas and those already incountry. Keeping my powder dry!

0

nbnozzy 7 years ago

When the majority of the military in Iraq say they should stay despite the threat to theirs lives, I say let THEM decide and keep the politicians out of it, for they know best.

0

mick 7 years ago

Congress is doing what it can to express the will of the majority but Bush will veto this. This will leave our troops unfunded and each party will blame the other. Not only are our troops caught in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, they are caught in the crossfire between the Democrats and Republicans. Bet they didn't count on that when they enlisted.

0

Bone777 7 years ago

I read the responses from the people on the street and of the four only one of them seems to have his head screwed on right.

Two of them need to have "yipe, yipe, yipe" following their responses and the last one would appropriately have " Allah akbar!!" somewhere in there.

0

jonas 7 years ago

Although, now that I start to think about it. . . . due to the fact that the war in the first place was made-up political bullsh@#, that might make this an appropriate way to end it. Or, at least a nice, circular way.

0

jonas 7 years ago

No. Deadlines should be realistic and wholistically feasible and helpful to the situations, not made up political bullsh#$.

0

Jean1183 7 years ago

What you will see KS, is that ~most~ LEO's (of whom a large portion are ex-military) and ~most~ of the current military, all agree with the Mr. Wempe.

That's what I don't understand: why not listen to the people who are ACTUALLY IN THE SITUATION (or have been in)? Most of the "arm chair" quarterbacks don't know what they are talking about and only serve to embolded the insurgents which puts our soldiers in even more danger.

0

KS 7 years ago

Sorry, I see I gave credit to Wahburn when it should have been to the Topeka Police Department. A lot of Topeka folks in town yesterday.

0

KS 7 years ago

Looks like Washburn is teaching somethng. The rest of those folks can't see the forest becasue of the trees. Little picture versus big picture. Congress needs to stay out of it. This really shows the intelligence of the Dems. It will come back to bite them.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.