The problem with the Democratic Party frontrunners.

[mmonk]

Continuing the American imperialism.

Following bush the 1st's Gulf war, the United States has been a consistent target of groups like al Queda. There was the attack on the Cole, the barracks in Saudi Arabia, the World Trade Center, an American embassy, and of course, 9/11. What was a key reason for so many attacks? Our base in Saudi Arabia. Current front runners won't separate themselves from a continuing military presence in Iraq through their first term. And what if there is no second term? Changing the mission particulars is not changing what foments conflict in this region. If you want a real change in policy, don't attach yourselves to the front runners and the nuanced continued American imperialism.

[LWolf]

1. Great point. n/t

[undeterred]

2. Dennis Kucinich.

[porphyrian]

6. Yeah. - n/t

[Rhiannon12866]

8. I second that...

:patriot:

[Whisp]

10. third!

he's the man. Last Chance for America. Time to change things.

[Rhiannon12866]

17. I agree, Whisp, and welcome to DU!!!

It's great to have you with us!:toast::hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. But..but..they kinda, sorta, maybe, want to end the war...someday.

But, right now, and in the foreseeable future, they need to impress voters by being "tough and terrorism" and "strong leaders".

[dysfunctional press]

4. that's life in the fascist world of the corporatists.

where the media decrees who the candidates and winners shall be.



the only thing "progressive" about the frontrunners is how they want to keep moving the country progressively to the right- albeit not as quickly as most of the repugs might like to.

[TheDoorbellRang]

5. One of the main reasons OBL gave for terrorism vs USA

was our military presence near the Islam holy city of Mecca. We quietly folded up our tents and left there in 2003:

Chicago Tribune April 30, 2003

Military to leave Saudi Arabia
U.S. moving amid strained relations

In-Depth Coverage By Stephen J. Hedges

Marking the end of an era, the United States will soon withdraw about 7,000 U.S. military personnel from Saudi Arabia and terminate a significant military presence there that lasted more than a decade, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced Tuesday.

Appearing at a press conference in Riyadh with Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz, Rumsfeld said the Pentagon was ordering the redeployment, which involves mostly members of the U.S. Air Force, because there no longer is a threat from deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The changes are to take place this summer.

The Persian Gulf, Rumsfeld said, "is now a safer region because of the change in Iraq." He also said U.S. planes no longer are needed to enforce a "no-fly" zone over Iraq. American military aircraft patrolling the southern half of Iraq did so in part from Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. also is likely to continue to use air bases in Iraq, increasing its military "footprint" in the region overall.

The decision to draw down forces in Saudi Arabia, though largely symbolic given the many U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf, reflects a shift in the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, which built military ties during the 1980s. Though the two countries were once close, dealings between them have become strained since the Sept. 11 attacks and the discovery of evidence linking Saudi citizens and charities to Al Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for them.

Many Saudis resent the presence of U.S. forces in the nation that is home to Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, and some--including Osama bin Laden--had used this as a justification for terrorism.

more...


http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030430-psab01.htm

Bold highlighting is mine. Since this was one of the major beefs OBL held against us, he could spin this easily into how he "won." The sad thing is, if our foreign policy had any sensitivity at all, we wouldn't have had a military base near Mecca in the first place, and for all of the * blathering about not giving in to terrorists, that's just what he did, sort of like a big ox moving off your foot -- not because you're poking, prodding, and screaming, but because there's some green pasture just up ahead.

[tavalon]

9. Thing is,

I think this has always been a shell game, with OBL and the administration in collusion, therefore OBL wouldn't bring that up because OBL against the US has always been just a ruse. I think he's still on the payroll, if you know what I mean.

[mmonk]

13. Yes. Thanks for that.

Continued occupied presence allows for recruitment which leads to the blowback that terrorism is under such policy.

[frazzled]

7. All three oppose permanent military bases

Clinton: "we will begin re-deploying our troops as soon as I am President, and we will do so in as expeditious a manner as possible, as few troops as necessary with no permanent occupation, and no permanent bases."

http://senate.ontheissues.org/Archive/MoveOn_Town_Hall_2007_War_+_Peace.htm

Obama: "I 've been very clear we should not have permanent bases in Iraq."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-07-17-obama-interview_N.htm

Edwards: "America's troops will continue to play an important role in the region after withdrawal, but the strategy should not involve permanent bases."

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070602-permanent-bases-iraq/

I understand your objection is that you don't think they will erase our presence quickly enough ... that is legitimate. But I don't think any of the three have designs for a permanent occupation or the idea of "continuing American imperialism." I think they are all being cautious.

[JackRiddler]

11. Really? Who among them is for being out by even 2013?

Permanent is a relative term.

[mmonk]

16. They won't promise to remove troops by 2013.

So what is their plan? And if they only have one term, they can't guarantee there won't be permanant bases. It's a sham as they go around saying they are for ending this.

[fightindonkey]

19. No, That's ALL Troops. The War Will Be Over, Period. However, Redelpoyment

is in order. Nothing has been done to actually defeat terrorism, ie, getting al Qaeda. We should also get off Saudi oil and everything else from them.

[mmonk]

20. We have moved to get off Saudi soil in a military way.

Keeping troops on Iraqi soil, especially in regards to them finding their own solutions and the stewardship of their oil resources, is counter productive and gives reason for someone to continue targeting us.

[vssmith]

12. Sad to say but

Bill Clinton had 8 years to get us out of that base. That is among several reasons I have difficulty with him and his wife.

[puebloknot]

14. Well said. We need to hear more from all the other candidates...

...including Dennis Kucinich. Clinton and Edwards were heard to be discussing narrowing the field in the debates to the top three candidates, two of whom were themselves, of course! Or so I heard.

[Rhiannon12866]

18. I heard that too.

I think that it's important to have a lot of voices in this campaign, especially Dennis Kucinich, and also Mike Gravel, since they bring up issues that all the candidates need to address, which the "front runners" also have to weigh in on even though they aren't "safe," and could be controversial, but we need to know what they think. And, you never know... Bill Clinton got off to a slow start too.:shrug::D

[puebloknot]

21. You're right. There's time before us, and the more "rowdiness"...

... there is on the part of We the Voters, the better chance we'll be heard. I'm not holding my breath on that, because I fully can accept the "paranoid" view that "the fix is in" for our next Prez, even though it might be a Dem (Hillary). There are numerous ways to steal an election!

I want Helen Thomas to be the gal in charge of the debates from here on out. She wouldn't hesitate to make them squirm.

[BelgianMadCow]

15. I couldn't agree more

the imperialism is why the world is angry at the US.