Quiz #4: Which of our top three candidates would keep troops in the ME to fight terrorists?

[Sparkly]

Which would keep troops in or around Iraq to fight terrorists, as they deem necessary?

[cosmik debris]

1. Vague and misleading. Bad spin.

Remember that Iran has been declared a terrorist organization. So when you say "fighting terrorists" it is impossible to know what you mean.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[Sparkly]

3. Al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations.

Is that better?

(Btw, Iran has not been declared a terrorist organization.)

[cosmik debris]

6. Terrorism is a tactic, not a political position. n/t

[Sparkly]

8. Um, no kidding.

What's your question again? :shrug:

[cosmik debris]

10. My point was that your poll is vague and misleading

We can not fight against a tactic, only against those who use that tactic. The term terrorist is not a defined term. It includes the Blackwater, the IRA, the PLO and Hamas, the IDF, and a few members of the United States Military Forces in Iraq.

[Sparkly]

11. I'm trying to use terms common to the campaigns involved...

I clarified: Al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations, which I believe I saw on at least one of their sites.

That would mean, in case you aren't familiar, loosely-organized, non-state-supported, transnational, non-uniformed groups that use terrorist tactics -- targeting civilians -- to achieve political ends.

Clear enough for you?

[cosmik debris]

12. You are using the terms of the Neocons/ Bush Administration

And you are welcome to it.

[Sparkly]

13. LOL

Maybe another poll question would ask which of the top three candidates doesn't believe in, speak about, refer to, or address "terrorists" and "terrorist organizations?"

It seems you're working at this for some reason.

[NC_Nurse]

2. Depends on what day you ask and what the polls say.

Yes, I'm cynical.

[Sparkly]

4. Each of them has been consistent in what they've said on this.

Their websites, speeches, debates have all stated and restated a position for each of them. If any have said different things, please let me know -- I haven't seen that.

[NC_Nurse]

7. You're probably right. I guess I'm just

seeing most of their positions "evolve" at least in their speeches. I have not been to their websites in quite a while.
Frankly, I'm pretty over this whole primary thing. I'm waiting for the general to get behind whoever the candidate is.
I don't have much say in the primaries anyway. NC doesn't vote until May. Personally, I think that sucks. :-(

[MethuenProgressive]

5. The answer is all 3. Only Bill Richardson will get us out before 2013.

www.2013IsTooLate.com
www.TheDifferenceOnIraq.com

[Sparkly]

9. Unless Al Qaeda needs to be fought in Iraq.

http://richardsonforpresident.com/issues/iraq?id=0006

We must redeploy some of our troops to Afghanistan to stop the resurgence of the Taliban and to fight the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. While all American troops in Iraq must be removed, we need to maintain a military presence in the region, in countries like Kuwait where they are welcome. We must always have the capacity to use air power, special forces and other means to strike Al Qaeda anywhere. We do not need American troops in Iraq to perform this essential task.

The "essential task" is merely the readiness. So they'll be outside Iraq, until they're needed to go into Iraq. It's a fine distinction I believe one of the top three candidates has made, as well.

[sakabatou]

15. Only Richardson?

What about other candidates like Kucinich who wants a withdrawal of the troops?

[unc70]

14. I misread and misvoted. 3 (?) in ME, 2 in Iraq.

Edwards leaves troops in the ME but not in Iraq but ceases all combat operations including those described as anti-terrorst.

This is essentially the position of Richardson, too.

[Sparkly]

16. .

:kick: