The wrong question
The Democrats and the mainstream media keep asking, “When will the troops come home?” They push President Bush and the generals to come up with an answer.
The question should be, “When will al-Qaida and the terrorists who want to destroy America surrender?”
When this question is answered, then we will know when the troops can come home.
Darrel Richardson, Littleton
The troops will come home when we win.
Posted by on September 19, 2007 02:55 AMA very good question. Unfortunately it like most good questions posed to progressives will not be answered. It is ot a soft ball anbd they will choos to hem and haw over it hoping it will go away.
Another question to these supposedly "arm chair " generals is this. When will you let the troops fight this war without being hamstrung by B.S. restrictions to the rules of engagment?
Posted by Fed up on September 19, 2007 04:15 AMas I remember my history about WWII the troops started to come home right after Harry dropped the bomb.
do you think the dums of today would like to follow in Harry's way? now that is a solution they could think about, but then they would have to run around the world with rosie, kerry, babs, alec, hanoi jane, cindi. and the rest of the far left extreme liberals and kiss everyones butt who didnt like it.
Let's face it, the Dems want a "surrender" on Bush's watch, but he simply won't accomodate them. Although I disagree with how the war has been prosecuted, Bush told everyone that the war on terrorism will extend long beyond his presidency. The troops aren't coming home any time soon, especially as Iran and Syria remain a real threat to the entire middle east. No matter what party is in control, I fully expect to see 35,000 U.S. troops in Iraq come 2030. Why should iraq be any different than South Korea? Get used to it.
Posted by Hank on September 19, 2007 06:57 AMto 05:50: so to leave Iraq now would be inhuman to all the Sunnis, Shites, etc...who would contionue to slaughter each other. BUT lets just nuke the whole damn country???? That is some brilliant rightwing logic.
Posted by on September 19, 2007 06:59 AMWe will leave when we get the damn Republicans out of Congress and that idiot out of the white House. THEN the 70% of us who oppose this war will finally be heard.
Posted by on September 19, 2007 07:01 AMWhen we get people with religious differences to stop killing each other.
Posted by Never on September 19, 2007 07:27 AMHMMM,
If I remember correctly, we are still have troops in Germany and have for over 60 years and until 1990 the country was still considered an occupied country. We still have troops in Bosnia (Clinton's attempt to appear like a world leader). I expect to have troops in Iraq beyond my lifetime.
Posted by Dave on September 19, 2007 08:27 AMJust curious. Who is expected to sign a surrender? Who represents any of these groups? If you got one group who had a strong central leadership to surrender, what about all the rest? That is the problem when you declare war on a concept and not a country. You can't compare it to any of the major wars of the 1900's....WWI, WWI, Korea, Vietnam, even Desert Storm. They all had a government leader who could sign a surrender or an armistace or just pull back. Terrorism is a concept, terrorists are those that use that concept, they are not a government. Based on the view of fighting terrorism, the US will be at war forever and against everyone at one point or another.
Posted by Kelsey on September 19, 2007 08:39 AMQ;
“When will al-Qaida and the terrorists who want to destroy America surrender?”
A;
When the CIA tells them to.
Here's the most imporant question of all:
WHERE IS OSAMA BIN LADEN AND WHY IS HE STILL FREE?
Unfortunately it like most good questions posed to REGRESSIVES will not be answered. It is too much of hard ball question for them and they will choose to ignore it, hoping it will just go away....kind of like Bush's vow that he would bring bin Laden to justice for the murders of more than 3,000 people.
So, come on, Darrell Richardson, Fed Up, et al...
Answer that question! Cause we probably wouldn't need to be asking when our troops would be coming home if Bush had focused them instead on stabilizing the situation in Afghanistand and finding bin Laden.
Bush made a decision to show our might to the world by attacking Iraq. What he eneded up accomplishing was diluting our military strength by stretching our resources too thin and handcuffing us into two situations that we will never be able to extricate ourselves from without long term ramifications.
We are spending billions of dollars every month to finance our military presence in Iraq and there is no end in sight to this occupation..and that is what has become.
So, far, this war has cost YOU...yes, YOU...and every other taxpaying Americn more than $2,000 each.
Bush is effectively bankrupting our country to destroy and then vainly attempt to rebuild another country.
Meanwhile, the man who masterminded the incident the started the whole series of events is still free and his organization is larger and more powerful than it was when six years ago.
Now let's talk about who is asking the wrong questions.
Posted by on September 19, 2007 09:12 AMThe main street media should be asking the dems.why they won't support our troops and why they keep on lying to the American people.
Posted by Keith on September 19, 2007 09:45 AMWhen will the War on Terror will be over? Probably the same day the War on Poverty (LBJ, 7 trillion dollars so far) or the War on Drugs will be won. As long as individuals or groups doing it, never. Time to face reality.
Posted by Uno on September 19, 2007 10:20 AMLying is the Presidents job and he it's the one thing he is good at. I sure wish the Repukes would support our troops by vlounteering to join them..oops I forgot, they are chickenshit cowards and like war only if someone else does the fighting...and dying
Posted by anti-keith on September 19, 2007 10:21 AMLying is the Presidents job and he it's the one thing he is good at. I sure wish the Repukes would support our troops by vlounteering to join them..oops I forgot, they are chickenshit cowards and like war only if someone else does the fighting...and dying
Posted by anti-keith on September 19, 2007 10:21 AMNever@7:27
You got it right. What people in this country are unale to understand is that to the Islam terrorists this is a religious war, nothing less and nothing more. And their religion has no provisions for surrender, exactly the opposite. They are required to fight to the last man, because their reward will come in heaven via tons of virgins and all the vices you can handle which are denied to them in the life they live on the planet.
You can't use Weatern thinking to determinate the reasons they have for the way they live and die for their belief. Zealots of what ever cause are not open to anything that does not agree with their preconcieved beliefs, be they based on the truth or not.
This is also known as insisting on rule by ignorance in the West but, thought of as devine inspiration in the Islamic world. That's right friends, ignorance is the corner stone of Islamic religious law, without this religious insistance on ignorance of anything that is outside that law, it could not rule. That is why kids are taught radical Islamic law from the time they can crawl to the time they are grown and continues througout their lives.
They don't care if your republican or democrat, druid or catholic, rich or poor, the only thing that matters is you are a member of the Great Satanic society and as such worthy of any death they can come up with.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 19, 2007 10:50 AM1021 1021 now which president was impeached not long ago for lying?
Posted by on September 19, 2007 11:11 AM1021 1021 now which president was impeached not long ago for lying?
Posted by on September 19, 2007 11:11 AM1021 1021 now which president was impeached not long ago for lying?
Posted by on September 19, 2007 11:11 AM1021 1021 now which president was impeached not long ago for lying?
Posted by on September 19, 2007 11:11 AM1021 1021 now which president was impeached not long ago for lying?
Posted by on September 19, 2007 11:11 AM1021 1021 now which president was impeached not long ago for lying?
Posted by on September 19, 2007 11:11 AMAcoording to your post there must of been six of them, that is 6 of them were caught, the true number is unknown but, I would guess it would include all of them.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 19, 2007 11:26 AMBush invaded Iraq due to the eminent threat of NO WMDs being found in Saddam's control -- not because Saddam had them. No WMDs, no UN Sanctions as the WMDs were the only reason to justify said sanctions. No sanctions meant open season on Iraqi, and arguably more Mideast oil.
If or when some collective liberal brain flatulence causes us to tuck tail and remove our military from Iraq, we will be replaced (in a New York second) by Iranian Islamic fundamentalists. That would be a bad thing.
The ‘maybe’ threat of a Saddam Hussein Pan Arabian presence restructuring the Ottoman Turkish Empire would morph into a for real (far worse) Iranian erotic dream.
Iran would quickly stop using ‘Arab’ as a pejorative to the lofty ‘mo better’ Persian, and embrace their oil rich neighbors as ‘Islamic Brothers’. The U.S. Iraq vacuum would be filled by Iran…QUICK! Iran would consolidate strengths and assets against anything and everything tainted by ‘the great Satan’/and and all Western culture.
The U.S. and our allies would be epically S.O.L. (simply out of luck).
The ’08 presidential wannabes pontificate ad nauseum about when to withdraw troops, what troops to withdraw, ‘if I could, I would, I shoulda…’ etc., etc., etc….BULLFEATHERS!
Howard Greenspan suggests in his new book Iraq was about oil…and the crowd goes wild. Duh!?!? Of course oil was and is a key contributing fact to Iraq. If there were not oceans of oil under the Mideast, does anyone really believe we would or could care less what serial atrocities a gaggle of 13th century street gangs did to each other…Not even!
We are addicted to oil. We NEED oil. To suggest oil is not a contributing factor to Mideast strategic considerations is disingenuous, duplicitous and myopic.
Posted by on September 19, 2007 11:48 AM"WHERE IS OSAMA BIN LADEN AND WHY IS HE STILL FREE?"
Who cares? He's a figure head who pulled off or coordinated a devastating attack. He's not a commanding general of a standing army,; nor a political leader of a country -- he's a symbol.
While it would be a nice coup to capture or kill him, it won't stop the jihad. It'll give the terrorists a temporary boost by adding another name to the martyr list and then life will go on. Al Qaeda isn't going to collapse or fade into the wood work if this particular psycho is caught or killed.
Posted by on September 19, 2007 11:54 AMHey 7:01
Dont count on it. If the Libs take even more control, if it wont raise taxes or get them re-elected the party of pu***'s wont do it!!
Posted by on September 19, 2007 11:59 AMHank says: "I fully expect to see 35,000 U.S. troops in Iraq come 2030. Why should iraq be any different than South Korea? Get used to it."
He left out a little bit: "And since I won't be one of them, I can afford to be glib and cavalier about it."
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on September 19, 2007 12:19 PMAnd in case you missed one of 11:11's six witheringly snappy comebacks to 10:21's post, I repeat it here:
"1021 1021 now which president was impeached not long ago for lying?"
I wish 11:11 would tell us, at least once, how that proves that Bush is telling the truth.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on September 19, 2007 12:22 PMamazing how you equate the importance of a lie about a presidental BJ (which was really no ones busy but the pres, his wife and monica) with lying to a nation about the need to attack and destroy a soveriegn state ( which never attacked the US) and lose 3800 American lives to boot. Do you Republicans REALLY think the two equal each other!?!??!?!?!??!?!????!?!?!?!?!! my god how stupid are you people ( except for Keith and 11:11 who's stupidity are fairly obvious)
Posted by amazed on September 19, 2007 01:57 PMAmazed try that ploy in court and see how it works. "Well it wasnt an important lie" or "well it is not that bad of a lie"
Justify it any way you want. To think that either partys' lies are any better than the other is only lying to yourself.
Yor're right. It is the wrong question. The government doesn't have a choice about when the troops are coming home...they can't!
They can't just pick up and leave, because they have no way out. At best, they'd have to fight their way out. And even then they'd have to leave millions of tons of weapons and ordinance. We have to wait for the "saigon moment" before we'll see troops coming home.
An excellent point!
Posted by Brian Stuckey on September 19, 2007 02:54 PMTerrorists don't surrender. We have to be vigilant and try to reduce the effects they have on innocent people. There have always been terrorists. Remember, Timothy McVeigh thought he was doing his duty by bombing a Federal facility to get back at a what he perceived as a corrupt government? This has little to do with the failed policies in Iraq, however. We can't defeat terrorism, we can only contain it and Iraq is not the place. The fanatics who flew those planes on 9/11 were not from Iraq.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 19, 2007 03:14 PMOsama now just a figure head,
I love that response as to why Bush hasn't caught him or pay much attention to him. But boy can they slam Clinton for not getting him before 9/11. But after he "masterminds" 9/11 and kills over 3000 people it's not really that important to get him. With that thinking we should have let Mcveigh go also, afterall he was just a figurehead. What a response, it wouldn't do much good to get him now because it would just create another martyr. So to the cons it's perfectly OK that Osama is out there hangin with his peeps...
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 19, 2007 04:06 PM05:06 ahhhh a lawyer, probably the only thing worse than a repukican. You really see no difference between lying to your wife about an affair and a lie that results in the death of thousands?
Posted by on September 20, 2007 07:06 AMPosted by on September 20, 2007 07:06 AM you are justifying based upon your political affiliation. And I am not a Lawyer. Just wait. You will be using the same damn arguments when the Dems take over the Admin and the Reps are beating them up. What is a foul now will turn into SOP for you in just over a year.
Posted by on September 20, 2007 08:59 AMamazed,clinton must of lied saying Saddam was a threat to the U.S and if he didn't already have W.M.D'S,that he is trying to get them.Are you a tipical liberal who picks out or make up there so called facts?
Posted by Keith on September 20, 2007 10:07 PM