Will liberals and anti-war people explain this to me?

Question

The new general in Iraq, Gen Petraeus, has stated that we will not know until May how successful the surge will be. Our Commander in Chief has stated that he needs this surge to win. Why then are the Democrats proposing to leave Iraq before then?

The 2 people most involved in this war are General Petraeus and President Bush. They are in charge and are responsible to know what is going on.

The only thing I can conclude is the Democrats and spineless Republicans who are against the surge are doing it for political reasons or really want us to lose.

Follow up question:

Why is it that liberals always use emotional issues to garner sympathy?

If I support a plan that forces troops to die, I am against the troops?

Note to liberals: the rumors of the draft are coming from Democrats like Charlie Rangel, who proposed it in the last Congress and then voted against it.

Answer 1

I agree with you. But I was surprised that i did not realize until last night that the opposition by the Democrats is part of Bush's plan. The Democrats are blindly helping Bush's new strategy work. See, Bush knew when he presented the new plan that it would be opposed by a majority of Congress. This opposal is waking the Iraqi government up and making them realize that this is not an open ended commitment. So now the Iraqi government is already starting to shape up. The additional troops are there to help this government get it together now that they are determined to get things resolved. It almost pissed me off last night when Hillary Clinton said the Democratic Party is the reason The Iraqi government arrested over 600 Shiite militia members. I sat back and thought like a President, that was when i realized the Democrats are blindly supporting Bush's plan. If you ask me, I say that's pretty damn smart.

Answer 2

Wel let me help you understand. If you payed attention, you would know that all of the military councilors and advisors that just so happen to disagree with the President's scheme end up jobless. On the Charlie Rangel issue, it was a move to incite the overwhelmingly obvious convictions against the war of the American people, not a proposal for an actual draft. It seems to me you really do buy into the Bill O'Reilly culture war and that the entire left wing is full of people who generally dislike the country, and I am sorry if you really think that. Liberals are interested in the betterment of America and it's people, not just the wealthy, and not just the military. I will be happy to answer any questions you have concerning liberals becuase it seems you spend a great deal of time asking us questions that are obvious to most people.

Answer 3

Last I looked there were only four democrats and one republican who was not suporting this war and they have not been supporters since it began.
Calling democrats libral is a bait and not a debate tactic as there has been no liberal program except those passed by the Republican majority in the last six years.
The most conservatve man in all of DC is Ron Paul of Texas and he was against war from first get go.
Now of course he is a Republican who can think on his own and owes no loyalty or can be bribed to change his mind so he is indeed an exception.
That the majority of elected by a vast margin approve of this "war", what a BS term it has become, but disapprove of the way it was carried out is the real focus today.
If we have to kill one million more Iraquis it matters little as long as we do it quickly and as quietly as possible is what they all want.
Every elected official has a finacial , except for the 4 so called peaceniks, has a financial stake in keeping this war ongoing and to keep the voters back home happy until after the next election cycle.
Every state within the US is making money from this war/// so it will continue on in one form or another while children complain of liberals and conservatives just ot have something to gripe about.
They all spread the lies of our soldiers dying because of Iraquis fighting Iraquis and make excuses tht they been fighting for years when in truth almost all of our causaltys in combat come from insurgents blowing the hell either directly at our military intrusions or those who are helping with our takeover of their country.
None deny the right of our even making war in Iraq and if we could of done it quicker, no matter how many Iraquis died and without losing one GI then we would hear both partys singing haleilua to the winds.
Be Praising how well the free market works and the passing out of even larger checks on the floor of congress and in the halls would of been like party time.
All we have now is figures trying to get to be the ones who get the bigger checks.

Answer 4

Petraeus and Bush are not the only two people involved in this war.
The pathetic part is this; they think they are...AND sadly...people like you think they are.
Neither of these men have anything or anyone to lose; they have no price to pay for the war-decisions they make.

I would be more convinced about the success of this 'surge' if Petraeus and Bush would send THEIR children to the frontlines!
Until that day occurs, SORRY!...neither of them (and none of their supporters) will get one ounce of sympathy from me.

God Bless the Uunted States of America!
I believe the United States is the greatest country on earth!
I support ALL of our troops...but Bush, oh HELL no!

Answer 5

Very simple. Estimate about 1,000 more soldiers (at least), will die. These soldiers are fathers, sons, husbands, daughters, etc. We really don't &&%@ know what is there after death... Deep down inside even hard core theists aren't 100% sure that there is an "afterlife." So that these soldiers who die basically lose it all, every thing, they lost. They lose. Period. Let's get them the F out and give them life - and their daughters and sons a father or a mother. Not one more life fighting a cause which is not ours and never has been. (Also, a pull out may remove the Anti-American sentiment, and perhaps the sectarian violence, thereby sparring the life of millions of Iraqi's - and their life is worth saving as well). Better to have an Anti-American government in Iraq than millions of deaths.

Answer 6

Well we really shouldn't be over there to begin with. Why is it we boast of freedom yet we feel the need to go into other countries and control their government and how they live because it is not up to our standards? We are killing people there, ours and theirs, for no reason other than they have a different belief system then us.

Now people are talking rumors of the draft coming back. That makes me look at this as nothing more than a game. People are flooding into the military. I don't think they have had this big of a surge of applicants go voluntarily in a long time. Yet we still need more? And we need to force people who want nothing to do with this into it? What, is the military nothing more than a pawn in some sick and twisted game? Let's get more people, throw them out there and if they die, we'll just get more.

There is no "win" or "lose" when it comes to peoples lives being at stake. People are dying either way. Children are parentless and parents are looking their kids before their time. And you support this? Why?

Answer 7

Listen up Chainsaw, if you would bother to go back and read up on this war you would see that from the very beginning the generals that were running things in Iraq begged for more troops. For two years running they begged for more troops and better equipment which I might add was available. But Rummy and GWB in their infinite wisdom said NO STAY THE COURSE. Now that we have things so bogged down over there and have alienated ALL of our former allies and spent money to get expert advice WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED. NOW HE WANT TO INCREASE THE TROOPS? HE HAS BEEN TOLD THAT IT IS TO LITTLE TO LATE. WHY DO YOU AND THIS CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAVE SELECTIVE HEARING!!!!!!!!!

Answer 8

Maybe, it's time for Bush, Geneneral Patraeus and all those warmongering Bush supporters ought to explain why they are neglecting Afganistan and not consider a failed Afganistan as a success for the world's greatest enemies - the Al-Quedas. After all, wasn't it the Al-Quedas who brought our WTC down and killed so many American citizens right at our door steps? And yet we are allowing Bush to sucker the American Public into kowtowing to the al-Maliki government's demands for more American dollars, more American weapons and more American lives, while that government kisses the butts of and allow the anti-American Al-Sadr Shiites to expand and grow stronger and cause not only trouble within Iraq, but to Iraq's neighbors and the rest of the world?? How did the al-Sadr groups get their money and weapons and who are playing the middlemen in allowing and getting the money and arms across to them... if we were to believe that they all came from Syria and Iran????

Answer 9

Gen petraus and Bush are NOT the only people involved in this war. Our troops are involved, the Iraqie people are involved, you and I are involved by funding this war. We are all involved and we are all effected. General Petraeus wrote in his book that in order to succeed in Iraq that we would need over 150,000 troops in Iraq alone. He's not even going to get 80,000 after the 'surge' of new troops. All the other generals in the pentagon and the entire CIA are saying this isn't going to work. I'd say that is about 1500 to 2 that are saying this is already a failure. It just hasn't caught up with Bush yet.

Answer 10

They have tired this "surge" strategy FOUR TIMES already (under differant names) and it does not work.

People who really care about our troops don't want them killed in an insane attempt to implement a tactic that is already proven to be futile.

The fact that Bush's ego won't allow him to put the best interests of our troops--and the country--first is obvious--and the fact that he has picked a "yes-man" for a general does not change that.

Why do you care so little about the welfare of our troops?