Deeply troubled

I am becomming incresingly troubled by reading all these articles and hearing all this talk, that not ONE SINGLE one of our top level candidates would/will pull the entire troop force out of Iraq, when they take office... that it will take years upon years for a withdrawel, that we need to leave a force of troops in there to protect our interests etc..etc..

I have just written to Clinton, Obama and Edwards, asking for a clarification of their perspective policy towards this issue. I want answers and straight ones! Will let ya know when I hear back.. IF I hear back..

they will leave troops in Iraq (maybe under the guise of 'special forces'), they will have permanent US bases in Iraq.

And why not? Two of them voted for the war, the other voted to fund the war.

Who didn't? And who will with-drawl all troops as soon but also as safe as possible? Who will not keep permanent bases in Iraq? You know his name. (Check my avatar.)

by cutting off all future funding and saying use the $90B to get them out, no more coming - damn the consequences?

hmmm...

Continue to fund the war, continue to see American kids dieing in vain in Iraq.

http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm


excerpts:

(by my math that's 1000 still in-country, but they say "its remaining 2500", so I guess there is round-off error in the other numbers)

The troops were out of VN when the symbolic funding cutoff occurred. All it stopped was further bombing.


I want them out SAFELY

then why do you pretend you want to debate about it? You've obviously already made your choice: you want to vote for the guy who connected 9/11 with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2002 and who voted for the illegal occupation of Iraq.

i don't want to "debate" someone who considers facts irrelevant. I have rebutted two of your wild-eyed unfounded assertions with facts, and in each case you change the subject. You sound like bush - "it's run its course; we're moving on"

You do a disservice to the candidate you so slavishly praise with your unthinking zealotry.


And I do not have a chosen candidate. I like fact-based discussions. That is all.

It is a fact Kucinich did not. It is a fact that Kucinich would with-drawl the troops as soon as possible and as safe as possible, with an international peace-keeping force going in as American troops move out.

It is also a fact that you have smeared and attacked me by implying I would vote for Republicans, when I never said I would. It is also a fact that all your posts are disguised as dicussion, but are all intended to smear Dennis Kucinich.

He has never voted for the war, and when President, he will get them out. What matters now is not "polls" or the MSM telling us who is "top tier". Kucinich needs two things-money and votes. Donate now, and vote in the primary!

I donated to the Kucinich campaign after hearing him speak truth to power at the AFL-CIO and LOGO appearances. Dennis rocks!

Or as "immediate" as humanly possible. He's "top level" in my book! And don't give me that "he's unelectable" bullshit. LISTEN to the man! He speaks for me, and probably for you, too. He's also the only candidate proposing a single pay health care system (the only plan backed by Michael Moore).

Let's not let the MSM (or the DLC) select the next Democratic nominee!

After all, he's funny-looking & has big ears. He could never get elected President.

The ruling elite has decided that they, being wiser, and privy to insider knowledge we mere mortals do not have, are in a better position to decide what is good for us. It matters not who we elect any more. Their belief that they are the ruling elite gives them, so they think, the right to ignore us ignorant peons and do as they see fit. The voting public is becoming irrelevant.

About twenty years ago I was in my 6th year as chairman of the city planning commission of a small city in Oregon, and I suddenly realized that I had reached the point where I honestly believed that my experience with planning issues made me better fit to decide what was best for the city and it's people. This attitude, I then noticed, was shared by other members of the commission. We, as a group, began to develop a definite feeling of superiority to the "mere mortals" who came before us to testify about planning issues affecting their neighborhoods. It was that realization that made me decide to resign my position and turn the commission over to some new people who, lacking that feeling of being "special", could represent the people.

I honestly believe that this is a universal tendency in human nature, and that the more entrenched politicians can't help but to begin to see themselves as better than their "subjects". Perhaps the natural course of evolution is for democracies to eventually evolve into oligarchies, completing the circle, and setting the stage for the next evolutionary (or revolutionary) development, whatever that may be. The only possible cure I can see for this universal tendency for democracy to become oligarchy is to institute SEVERE term limits, so that no one may serve long enough to start feeling like they have a God given right to "rule".

And also for acting on them.

how long ago was WWII?