Why is it that Democrats want the United States to lose in Iraq so badly?

Answer 1

It seems that the democrats want anything that will make GWBush look bad - and to hell with anything else that actually may benefit the country.
Their actual agendas and policies are so full of rhetoric, they can't even get enough listeners to sustain Air America.
Cut and run, amnesty for illegal immigrants, national health care, income redistribution, diplomacy with psychopathic Islamic radicals, and on and on and on it goes.
May God have pity on America if these nut bags get back in power !!!

Answer 2

You should probably take a look at what exactly you mean by win and lose.

I am not a Democrat, but I am liberal. A victory for me in Iraq would be for not one more person to die over there, no matter who they are or where they are from. I believe that if the Democrats could decide on a definitive platform, it would include something similar.

A victory for the administration in power is an ethereal target called "freedom." They don't care how many lives it takes, they want to make a puppet pseudo democracy in the middle east. This goal has failed MANY times throughout history and the repurcussions of the United States' interference with other countries are still causing severe problems today.

A George W. Bush victory in Iraq would just be one more straw on the back of terrorist organizations worldwide.

It's a real shame when wanting people to live can be construed as a loss.

Answer 3

As a democrat verge of liberal, I think that there was a good reason for us going there in the first place. Though I believe that the genocides going on should have been dealt with by United Nations, the fact that it was not does not matter anymore. Regardless of what should have happened, what did happen was for a good reason initially. Though I would hardly call Bush a humanitarian, genocide is a good reason to start a war. Was the genocide going on in Germany not the cause of a World War? Would you consider that unfounded? No. But this issue has been dealt with. Sadaam was captured long ago.

We are not there because we are getting revenge on 9/11. I think 9/11 was a tragedy, as does New York, but the majority of terrorists who planned this attack were not from Iraq. The majority were from Saudi Arabia. Does this mean I think we should start a war with Saudi Arabia? No. A small group of extremists did this. NOT the government. That is like another country making war with the United States because Skin Heads bombed their government building. Do skin heads make up the majority of American Citizens ? NO! Do they make up American Government? HELL no. It is the same thing.

One other argument, that we are helping them by forcing a new democratic government and that is why we are there. Wow. First of all a democracy is a greek word literally meaning people power. The greek people founded the idea of a democracy. Though the Greek form of democracy was sexist in that they excluded women from voting, history still considers this the roots of a democratic government. A democracy gives power to the majority of people. Regardless of what kind of democracy a government has the basic idea is that power is given to the people instead of one, two or three people. What we did/are doing in Iraq is not implimenting a democracy for two reasons. First, we forced it on them. This defies the roots of what a democracy is. Its a oxymoron. Though there was a group of Iraqis who did want a democracy the majority did not. This is the second reason it is a joke. A democracy is based on a majority vote. The majority of Iraq does not want a democracy for whatever reason. So forcing one on them would be hypocritical to the nature of what we are trying to do.

So personally I don't WANT the U.S. to lose the war with Iraq. We have already lost the war in Iraq.

Answer 4

George W. Bush has been fighting a losing battle from the get-go,, invading Iraq was a huge error for America,, and the stay the course, of course was the wrong course

Answer 5

It has nothing to do with "winning" or "losing".

Those who would have us pull out of Iraq want us out because we had no business being there in the first place. They want us out because every day we are there, we make the world less safe, with more terrorists, who are more likely to target us. They want us out because we are spending a billion dollars a week on a cause that we have NO exit strategy on.

They want us out because they are tired of watching flag draped caskets coming home 3 years after the dictator was deposed. They want us out because those flag-draped caskets are coming home at a rate that is getting faster instead of slower.

They want us out because we are so damn busy protecting Haliburton, Chevron and Shell's interests that we have no ability to protect the US interests by containing countries that clearly DO have weapons of mass destruction.

Insanity is not hitting yourself in the head with a rock. Insanity is hitting yourself in the rock a second time so that you can look like you did it the first time on purpose.

Answer 6

Many efficient international places have fallen in turbulent circumstances. The victors do no longer inevitably could be counted on weaponry. the classic Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had subdued their enemies by using warfare innovations and had subsequently governed extensive tracts of land. They themselves capitulated thank you to the two inner and exterior aspects which contain ethical decay, treachery, disunity, desperate invading forces and over-stretching of supplies. Like many as quickly as effective international places such because of the fact the united kingdom, France, Germany and Turkey, the U. S. have been invaded earlier and occupied via distant places forces. that's a mistake to anticipate that that's immune from any intrusion.in terms of length, inhabitants and subculture, India and China are larger or greater progressed, yet they have been attacked and plundered. the U. S. had the main important and maximum state-of-the-paintings arsenal of weaponry interior the Vietnam warfare; it replaced into compelled to retreat in a hurry, leaving tens of millions of human beings interior the hands of the badly geared up yet greater persevering Vietcong. even with its militia could, it has did no longer quell insurrection in Afghanistan and Iraq. What did the 9/11 horror inform you? It needless to say confirmed that the U. S. replaced into and nevertheless is vulnerable. The Pearl Harbour catastrophe additionally verified that the international's maximum efficient military could be attacked via a smaller u . s .. that's on no account the toughest u . s . interior the international for invasion. Like China, India and the former u.s., that's huge with assailable territories open to a marvel offensive. Malaysia, then noted as Malaya under the British rule, replaced into invaded no longer via fighter planes and submarines yet via eastern infantrymen driving bicycles! What had got here approximately to the so-noted as superpowers and effective conquerors like Russia under its tzars, the Roman empire, the Ottomans and Germany under Hitler? They fell one via one. history shows that no longer a single u . s ., no longer even an all-efficient one, can get away an invasion whilst its foes are bent on doing it. the U. S. isn't loose from it.

Answer 7

Actually, the far left has always been anti-establishment. They see any war at all wrong and immoral. They tend to believe that if we talk long enough, twelve years to Saddam Hussein, than people will finally all of sudden wake up and be peaceful. These are the same people that believe that if you do not agree with them than you are not allowed to say it even though they preach freedom of speech. I am slowly getting tired of the left complaining that the silent majority is wrong and needs to get on their bandwagon.

Answer 8

not nearly as bad as our administration.... which has not supplied our heros w/ the tools they need to do their jobs and a plan that will actually work in Iraq..... instead of saying........ "stay the course...... they hate us for our freedom"

all the while people like you blame democrats for pointing out that we are not winning in Iraq and American soldiers are dying for this so-called war on freedom!!!! to bad it's not our freedom and we are not safer!!!!!!! don't believe me..... our own government has conceded the point!!!!!!!!!

PS. we don't want the u.s. to lose this war...... it was lost before it started because we can't fight for somebody Else's freedom...... they must make their own democracy!!!!!!!

and if you want to help the iraqi people so badly get your A S S over there!!!!!!

Answer 9

Your question poses some soul searching on my part.
I am 53 years old and a product of the VietNam era. I also served two tours in VietNam in 1971 and 1972. I spent 6 years in the US Navy as a Medical Corpsman (Medic) serving with the Marine Corp. Iraq is very similar to the mess we took on in VietNam, and the end result appears to be working out the same.
No one, myself, or the "Democrats" want the USA to lose in Iraq!
Please attempt to understand that this war (even though it has good merit) was not planned out well. To depose a leader of a country with military force requires that as the vanquisher, you assume responsibility to rebuild a new government. In our case, we naturally would like to see a "Democracy" of sorts be installed as that new government. Unfortunately, many countries are not prepared for democracy as it requires much give and take on the parts of many folks that feel power is easier to seize than it is to earn. In the case of Iraq, it has a political history of a constant power struggle with many influences of differing religious beliefs and clanism. These groups with varying idealisms don't mix, have not mixed in the past, and want to duke it out in a major power play. Sadam Hussein controlled the government by eliminating any and all adversaries before they could assume any base of power, as he, with his specific clan and cronyism ruled the country even though he was a minority sect in the country.
In VietNam, we deposed a seated government, tried to install a different government, but without the backing of the people. Its the people that must decide on the form of government that they believe will work best for them, its the people that must decide what beliefs best represent them. Sometimes, reliance on past governments for basic life staples, (food, shelter, etc.) or religious beliefs, clanism/religious sect relations, mean more to people than free government and self determination.
Prior to entering this conflict, many known statesman that had a vast knowledge of middle east affairs, (Colin Powell was one) told President Bush that we would end up owning Iraq as the people were not ready or willing to take self control of the region. We had poor intelligence that was utilized as a purpose to proceed to war, we had no plan to handle the country after we took control of the country.
Democrats didn't then nor now want to lose the war, but a plan to victory, a plan to maintain the country, and a plan to surrender power back to a newly established government was not planned well. President Bush needs to accept responsibility for this issue, and the bungling of the whole mess. It really is not a problem of the Democrats or the Republicans, it is a problem with a Commander in Chief, self serving his own desires, with poor planning, therefore poor results.

Answer 10

Why don't you run down to your local Army recruiter, sign up, and go fight in Iraq and in 6 months you'll be begging the Democrats to bring you home.