So is it begining to dawn on people that neither candidate will get us out of the war?

[Neshanic]

Is if finally sinking in that we will be there in some form or another with troops no matter which Democrat or Republican wins?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Nope. I'm going with naive optimism.

I am prepared to be brutally disappointed. Meanwhile, my official position is: either candidate will get us out of the criminal occupation of Iraq and not take us into war with Iran. McSame on the other hand will continue the occupation as a staging area for the invasion of Iran.

[Neshanic]

3. Well that works for you, what about the others?

[Warren Stupidity]

22. We know what McSame will get us. I'll take my chances and so

should everyone else.

[Neshanic]

24. Well his comes with the suprise of a draft. So yes he obviously is worse.

[Butch350]

15. I Don't Know...

There is a lot of money that changes hands during a War or Military conflict.
Defense contractors, all contractors involved makes tons of money.

I think America is being run by Corporate and Military interests. They have
to be appeased - trying to re-arange the distribution of Wealth might piss someboby off.

[GarbagemanLB]

2. I am well aware there will be a presence in Iraq for years to come. I just think Obama is much less

of a hawk in foreign policy than Hillary.

[Neshanic]

6. Really. Wait till the gang gets to him and tells him the real story. He will turn into

Mr. Escalation.

[leftofcool]

4. I have known this since the beginning.

[dogday]

5. I get that feeling too...

I don't think we will be seeing it soon... They want a presence over there to watch over our oil....

[zonmoy]

20. our oil.

I suppose we did steal it fair and square.

[Buzz Clik]

7. No. I think that both Dems will be more receptive to getting out.

One moreso than the other.

[Neshanic]

8. So what's your take? Couple of months and every soul is out? What ?

[Buzz Clik]

12. I really can't predict.

It's clear that the current Iraqi "leadership" is not interested in leading at all but having power and access to wealth. It's like enabling your children their entire lives and then wondering why they have no appreciation of money or how to live independently.

As soon as our evacuation -- with a timetable -- is facing the Iraqis, they will be faced with getting it together or getting out of the way.

Two years? :shrug:

[Neshanic]

13. So it could be two...three, maybe four. Of course only if he's in the WH we will know for sure.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. It is CONGRESS that must do this. The President is just one of 3 branches.

Seriously people, unless the makeup of Congress is radically changed and that means the Senate, then bills to extract troops are going to be fought against and filibustered and watered down and whatnot. What a Democratic President might do is try to repair the bridges that were torched by the repukes with the U.N. and hope that some sort of multinational peacekeeping force can replace our troops.

[KoKo]

35. Bush got us into this war on FIAT of "Pre-Emptive Strike" and dragged his cronies in Congress

to go along while the Wall St. Crowd and Neo-Cons filled the coffers of the reluctant. A new President will have Bush's AWESOME POWERS....but, they won't use them to get us out. Too much money is at stake for Defense and Government hiring for war as we go into Recession. It would mean tremendous job loss and bringing those troops home in middle of Recession...where are the jobs for these returning vets? :shrug:

[redqueen]

10. That was obvious long ago.

We didn't build that giant frickin embassy for nothing. And I expect we'll have a military presence on the same scale as that.

*sigh*

[theoldman]

11. Unfortunately we are between a rock and a hard place.

There is no easy out. It will have to be slow and I am sure that it will be determined by the situation between the warring factions. The oil is a factor and I don't think we want China to get all of it.

[Neshanic]

14. So both candidates are lying then. Would that be an honest assement?

Thay they propose that all our troops will be out in the first term of one of their presidencies?

Is that even remotely believeable?

[Neshanic]

16. It sees to me that this is issue 1 that needs to be clarified. Seems to me that

neither Hillary or Obama supporters want to touch this with a ten foot pole.

[flowomo]

17. Bush knew this... it was a key part of the strategy...

the decision to go to war was infuriating, but equally if not more so was the knowledge that getting out would be nearly impossible. And Bush himself has said that the war will be somebody's else's problem... he's done his "bit." Neither Obama nor Clinton nor Congress will have much room to maneuver on this. The time-frame is not clear, but I don't see it happening quickly.

[Taxmyth]

18. That's been a given

There are bases built for military personnel in Iraq. I think the oil companies should have to pay big time for all that protection.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. This no difference between the parties bullshit

IS WHAT GOT US INTO IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[zonmoy]

21. no what got us into iraq was the democrats

playing obedient lapdog to the republicans.

[RichardRay]

23. Withdrawal will take from six months to two years...

If we decided to blow up the munitions in country, using them to wreck the equipment and destroy anything of tactical value except transport needed to get to the border we could be out in six months. That would leave a substantial environmental disaster for the Iraqis to deal with and they have absolutely no chance to succeeding at that.

If we decided to move as quickly as possible but withdraw equipment and material we're looking at two years, minimum. Just washing down the equipment before shipping it back to th U.S. will take most of that time. If we stay in Kuwait to do it we present a target that the Kuwaitis aren't going to be too happy about.

How To Leave Iraq

The fact of the matter is that there are no good short term solutions. Anybody who says we can just stick the troops all on airplanes and have them home in a couple of weeks needs to think about it a bit harder.

I'd far rather have candidates for president dealing with what can really be done than telling me what I wish were true.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Well no, withdrawal could be done in weeks.

The months and years bullshit is part of the rational for continuing to occupy Iraq and kill Iraqis. We can simply bug out. I am sure we have the plans to do just that all set and good to go, all it takes is the political will to give the order.

[RichardRay]

30. It takes longer than that to withdraw

if everybody were to just drop their gear and start moving for the border. I'm talking about the time required to get them back to this country, not just out of Iraq. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but the mess it would leave behind is even worse than what we've got now. How much of an environmental disaster do you want to leave the Iraqis with in addition to everything else we've imposed on them?

None of our 'allies' in the region want any part of 150,000 US troops staged in their countries waiting for transport. I think our best shot is to create strong points on the borders, followed by concentration of people and material in those strong points, followed by withdrawal directly back CONUS would work, but even that's not gonna happen in weeks.

Again, I'm not saying it's a good idea - THERE ARE NO GOOD IDEAS LEFT.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. We have a set of huge bases in Qatar and Kuwait

from which we staged the invasion. Unstaging the invasion just brings those troops and their gear right back to those bases. Our allies Kuwait and Qatar were and are fine with us and our huge bases. The retreat just packs up onto planes and trucks everything we need to take out, and the rest of the stuff is either handed over to the Badr Brigades/KDP/PUK( otherwise known as the 'Iraqi Army'). We go out the way we came in, and in about the same time. Weeks, not months or years.

[RichardRay]

38. I thing we have different opinions, but the same goal...

We both want the US out of Iraq as fast as possible, without further concern about the 'success of the mission'. I just feel that 'as fast as possible' is longer than what you want. The best way to find out is to get started, though, and the niether Currrent Occupant nor his clone are going to move in that direction!

[Warren Stupidity]

39. I have said for over two years that the next new stunt

they are going to pull (after they stop pulling the current stunt that is) is to agree to get out and then take forever to do it. When they finally give up on 'victory is right around the corner' (phase 23), the political cost of admitting defeat will be too high for any politician to accept, so we will indeed take months and years going through the motions of setting up the neccessary conditions that somehow will never be met so that we can bug out without looking like we are bugging out. We've been here before, and we are not the first imperial power to find out that the political cost of starting a war is near zero while the political cost of ending a war is nearly infinite.

[Forkboy]

26. Troops will stay and continue to give the Iraqis the gift of freedom.

[dchill]

27. No.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

28. I don't think leaving that up to politicians is an option.

So, I guess that's a "yes".

[dansolo]

29. How about getting us into another war?

Even if I were to buy into your premise that neither one will get us out of Iraq (which I don't), why don't you ask yourself which candidate is more likely to get us into more wars (hint: who voted for Kyl-Lieberman)?

[LWolf]

36. The candidate that voted for kyl-lieberman

is not the candidate that has said he would entertain unilateral military action in Pakistan. The candidate that didn't vote at all on kyl-lieberman.

Neither of these candidates has the high ground on issues of war and peace.

[KoKo]

32. Yeah it's kind of sinking in. And our spinless New Congress of Dems

sort of pointed that way. But, we will all feed good with Hope & Change over Lies and Monica Baggage.

So, at least the "Feel Good" will give a boost before we realize that either Clinton or Obama are just "War Light" at this point. It takes over a year for a new President to start to make a change, anyway. So...it's just what it is.

[NaturalHigh]

33. It dawned on me a long time ago.

[LWolf]

34. I've always known that, which is why I've refused

to jump on either bandwagon.

[here_is_to_hope]

37. Nope, I am beyond hopeful that our nominee will

get us the hell out.
Or else.