Have Democrats given up talking about ENDING bush's wars?

[Philosoraptor]

It seems like no Democrats are brave enough to talk about ending bush's war, they always seem to hush up about the subject, and add addendum's like, easing us out of Iraq, or reducing the number of troops gradually, but I rarely hear anyone say 'end bush's war, bring the troops home immediately'. I wonder why?

Is it taboo? Is it because bush has created a war that we are unable to end, ever? Is it because it would make Democrats look bad, or weak, or unpatriotic?

What's the deal? It seems like everyone has just accepted everything that has happened since nine eleven and moved on with their lives. Like this is all somehow perfectly normal, like the war is never ending, but, whaddaya gonna do?

What's the deal?

[mike_c]

1. it's damned nearly like 2004 when the Kerry camp banned all antiwar...

...sentiment from the convention and campaign. It's called complicity.

[atreides1]

2. Money

Some of them are as deep in the pockets of the MIC, as their Republican warmonger friends!

It's a theory anyway.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. I have heard some talk about it, even during...

convention speeches.

But, ending a war is not that simple. It will take up to a year to get all the troops and equipment out of there, IF you can get enough congresscritters and a President to agree to get them out.

Time now is to get people elected, not worry about actually doing anything.

[Philosoraptor]

4. If we started tomorrow, how long do you think it would take to pull out?

[TreasonousBastard]

6. I have no idea just how long, because...

it's not just military units and combat equipment, but vast amounts of civilian support over there, too. I hear "about a year, at least" from what seems to be informed sources-- like military people who understand transport issues.

If we just leave the nontactical stuff over there and bring back a couple of hundred thousand troops and civilians with their personal effects and equipment, that's not trivial, either. Just stuffing 400 people on a 747 means about 650 trips if there are 250,000 Americans over there coming back. Could squeeze a few thousand on a cruise ship, if you can get your hands on one, like we did in WWII, but then there's all those tanks, HumVees, missiles, helicopters, and other stuff that has to come back. It's a pretty big job. And all through one port in Kuwait.

And define "pull out." Doesn't seem like there's much stomach in a lot of quarters to just walk away amd say "Sorry about that" for the mess we'll be leaving behind. And that's not even counting the quarter that thinks a US base in the Middle East belongs in Iraq.

[Lilith Velkor]

5. Yes.

Contractors gotta get paid, y'know.

[guitar man]

7. Michelle mentioned it in her speech last night (nt)

[Truth2Tell]

8. Plenty of Democrats never STARTED talking about it.

So how could they stop? :shrug:

[Fumesucker]

9. Dunkirk..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk

Number of men rescued (in chronological order):

* 27 May (7669 men)
* 28 May (17,804 men)
* 29 May (47,310 men)
* 30–31 May (120,927 men)
* 1 June (64,229 men)
* 2–4 June (up to 54,000 men)


It can be done, if there is the will.

But there is no will, and we all know it.