Democrats decide on anti-war stand for November 2006 election , Good or Bad Idea?

Question

I just listened to John Kerry's latest speech on his endorsing of 3 anti war candidates for November's election.

Don't bother attacking me in your answer . This ain't Rome and I am just the messenger , as the saying goes.....

Personally I think walking away from Iraq and leaving it to the "fanatic terrorists" would be asking for them to come here. But I want to know what the general population thinks.......

From some of the reactions in the middle east (people I have spoken to in chatrooms), most think America will cut and run home with the proverbial tail between her legs because Americans want instant victory and gratification or nothing. While persons in the middle east have patience and a just cause on their side. Your opinion??

Answer 1

I have seen articles that say alot of vets are coming home and entering political race under the democratic party. I see that being good. Backing an anti-war canidate the may have not "been there"...it could be a double edged sword. I would say the best thing would be rally around the Iraq war vets running as democrats. They have more credibilty.

Answer 2

In an off year election this may work to help the democrats win some seats back in both the house and the senate but it will not have the legs for the 08 presidential election. It is capitalizing on the over all discontent with everything from Katrina, gas prices and, Iraq. The Democrats will run on a slogan of some sort of time table for withdrawing the troops from Iraq and will get some traction with the voters. But it will backfire on them in the long run because they will look weak on the war on terror.

Answer 3

Democrats can endorse whichever people they want. Being able to describe their plan for Iraq would be a good idea.

Personally, I want to know what the point of staying is, some other reason besides leaving is "cutting and running". I think things are being handed over to Iraqis in a somewhat orderly fashion, so I wouldn't push for an immediate withdrawal. On the other hand, I picture everything being handed over in 2-3 years. I don't think troops in Iraq stop terrorists from planning things in other places. Keeping troops there provides propaganda for terrorists, live training enemies for terrorists (our troops weed out the dumb ones - the rest get better), and makes us less ready for other emergencies.

The people in the mideast may think America will run, it's a bit late for instant victory already. Iran thinks we're too busy to mess with them because we are busy in Iraq.

Answer 4

I think that continued support on our side for Iraq and Afghanistan will continue for years regardless of our actual physical presence there. I think that the bottom line is that if we don't start withdrawing our troops sooner rather than later and an immediate catastrophe is to happen to us where we have to commit troops, we're screwed. Our troop levels not being maintained by new enlistments, coupled with our war weary veterans puts the US on a train wreck collision due to our over extension of current forces abroad. Also the only real way to know if Iraqi troops will be able to stabilize their own country is to give them the necessary tools and let them get the job done. As for the Mid East and their "patience", don't kid yourself. Patience is a virtue neither the US nor our enemies ever wants to perpetuate.

Answer 5

Somebody, somewhere...maybe even on Yahoo..I don't remember suggested moving all the US troopw up to the friendly (to us) Kurds and let Iraqies fight their own civil war on their own...they the troops go in an clean up the mess and straighten/set up a government for them. It was the best solution Ihave heard yet.

Answer 6

I think it's wait and see

Answer 7

GOOD!!!!