How long are you willing to wait before bringing our troops home from Iraq?

my husband is iraq. i want the troops home NOW, or at the very least i'd like for them to be working for a worthy cause.... i don't know what our sacrifice is for... :-(

Nice question. Unfortunately until we and I do me "WE" the people are willing to reign in our so called public servants. Then we are getting what we payed for.

As a truck driver, after 9/11 I saw so many people running around with flags and stickers on their vehicles, showing just how much patriotism they had. Now you can barely find a vehicle shouting that we should get out of everything from the U.N. to Iraq.

I'm a 4th generation military person and to me patriotism is all about being willing to lay down your life for your beliefs and convictions. However, today's mindset is that patriotism is all about following blindly the governmental stance on anything.

I don't think the real question is how long are we willing to wait until the troops start coming home. But rather how much more are we willing to fleeced by a government that is our employee not our employer.

Am I calling for a revolution? Of course not but there has to be a better way of making it know just who is in charge here. Rather than waiting to have to vote in some other chuckle headed politician that doesn't have a clue.

I say it's time that we start holding those in office accountable for their actions. Until then lets just keep a prayer out for those that are serving in all theaters of operation.

1) The idea sounds nice, but I don't think it would work. If we leave only trainers, is that enough force protection to protect them? You do not just send trainers in with no force protection. So I so not see a significnat drop in troop numbers un Clinton's plan, only less capability. I think she will actually keep close to the same number that is there now, but they will have limited missions.

2) Same as above for Edwards, but his idea of protecting humanitain aid workers is compete BS. The HA workers want nothing to do with military, do not want the military following them around and most of them outright despise the military. They do not report where or when they go someplace so there is no way possible that 3-5000 soldiers could provide a safe and secure environment for aid workers, its just lip service. Edward's plan would leave Iraq in complete chaos (worse then now) or it will turn out to be a campaign promise that never gets fuffilled.

I am not doubting that is what those canidates are saying, but neither plan really viable.

Just like your additional comments.... you respect us, but then you undermine our recruiting.... how is that "Supporting the Troops but not the war?" That is undermining the troops. So don't tell me you respect us when you work against us.

Additional Comments:

Supporting the troops means more than putting Chinese made magnetic ribbons on the back of your SUV.---- Yes it is more then this, agreeded, but protesting the mission is not support of us. Undermining Military Missions, to include recruiting, is not supporting us. You can protest the war. That is your right, but trying to pretend that protesting supports the troops is hypocritical. It is either outright non-support of the troops with extreme protesters, or "sympathy"... not "support"... in mainstream protesters.

Supporting the troops means donating food and time to food banks because their parent(s) are serving in Iraq for the 2nd or 3rd time.-------> OK, that is better, but it does not give you permission to undermine a mision because you do this. It sounds like "Carbon Credits" to me. If you undermine the mission, you do not support us. Undermining recruiting is undermining the mission.

Supporting the troops mean expecting their President to have a plan for bringing the troops home. If said President is incapable of doing his duty to the military seek a timetable for bringing home the troops. -------> Supporting the troops means supporting the mission also. What you are doing is Sympothizing with the Troops and is often mis-interpreted as support as I mentioned above. You do not tell your child, "you are not going to win the race," but then say, "but I support you." That is sympathy. It is seeing the troops as victims of the President that require protection. We are not victims. We have a mission and we will accomplish it if we are allowed.

Supporting the troops means campaigning for full funding for the VA, planning for the mental and physical needs of the returning troops and not trying to nickel and dime the returning soldiers when they do return.---------> Agreeded here.

The track record is not very good. I believe that the last time we absolutely brought the troops home was after the American Civil War.

Ignore what the Democrats are saying. They are running scared because we are winning and they do not want to have to explain their betrayal of our troops.

Instead listen to what the people who have actually been in Iraq say. Bringing the troops home before they say it is time to come home is nothing more than betrayal.

At least have enough respect for the troops to let them win.

The sooner the better. The Bush administration placed us in this position to bring about some kind of permanent US position of strength in the heart of the muslim world, or more particularly in the heart of the oil bearing muslim world. Because of the technology of oil, the US has had interests in this part of the world since the end of WW1. Over that time US oil interests have extracted huge of amounts of money along with the oil. No problem there, but now in the 21st century the muslim world rejects western values. To stay in the middle east requires that the US use military force to subject the muslim population to accept our presents 'on their turf'. Ironically, at this point we have the technology to walk away from the middle east and their oil and come out ahead of the game. The established oil interests are not in favor of this policy as the extraction of oil and profit go together. The oil establishment has vast influence on 'our' government...to the point where it can influence 'our' government to use 'our' military forces as mercenaries to maintain their position in the middle east. In my opinion this is criminal no matter how many flags this administration waves in our faces. Withdrawing our miltary forces is no reflection on the forces as some complain. The military goes or returns on the orders of the civilian establishment. Considering that oil itself is the fuel of the past, the billions of borrowed dollars spent and the lives lost this entire operation has been a massive loser for the American people...and that's why it has to end.

They've been in Japan, Italy and Germany since 1945. They've been in Korea since 1950. I guess it could be a while before they are home from Iraq.

You leave a Regiment to "protect" the US embassy and they might as well rename the place Fort Apache.

If they come home now we lose and the one's who have died then would have died for nothing but a lost cause. That's not right and you should believe that whether you are for or against the war. We need to finish over there and then bring them back home.

All I can really say to that is....if if's and buts where candies and nuts we would all have a Merry Christmas.

Everyone talks the talk but when they get in office they will not walk the walk. They will either back peddle or they will play the blame game.

Bush is building a $560 billion embassy in Iraq. It is bigger than Vatican City. John Edwards has my vote because he has enough sense to know most of the public want our troops home alive and un-maimed, now. If he would play that up more he would surge ahead. That use is the correct usage for surge. Escalating a war is not a surge.

they all love to say the war is wrong and bring our troops home but wen the war comes to there house all they want is us to protect them wich our troops will do because there soldires.