What is the democrats solution to Iraq?

Question

Bush's plan is a troop surge in hopes that is enough to crush the resistance and give the iraqi government power to rule. All i have heard from democrats are we need to ge out of there, does that mean their plan is simply to just leave iraq, and let whatever happens happen? I heard Hillary talking about we need to use diplomacy instead of fighting, while that sounds nice? I would hope that we have continually used diplomacy even while fighting, to try and come up with a solution, if not why not, after all isnt diplomacy just talking, we can always talk. I also heard that we set deadlines for the iraq government to take control. thats fine but what happens if we set the deadlines and they still dont come through, do we really just say "well thats the deadline we are out of here, good luck?". So Bush's plan is we send more troops. whats hilary's whats obama's whats the democrat plan?

Answer 1

The "Plan" is... first, and by any means possible, make the U.S FAIL in the Iraq War. Then, get a Democrat in the White House. Then get the inexorable ball rolling to SOCIALISM. From there, it's a hop skip and jump to the U.N. plans for wealth redistribution.

Just think, if "they" can get enough people sucking the Gov. dry,... they will never be out of office.

High ho high ho...it's off to work....

Answer 2

Bush has never used diplomacy, please give an example of where he has even attempted to use diplomacy before attacking a country or threatening one - it hasn't happened. Bush is sending the same amount of troops that he did twice before in 2006. It didn't help then and it isn't going to help now. Most military strategists, most foreign policy experts, most of America, and most of our politicians know this is true. The democrats have put forth several interesting ideas, here are a few:

1) For instance, the fact that the Iraqi government needs to be put on notice and not just with mouth service. Real teeth need to go into our demands that they make a better effort to attempt to govern themselves and train their military and police forces. The Dems have suggested using real incentives like removing the incredible funding we put behind their military, police and governmental chaos. As it is now, Maliki thumbs his nose at Bush's demands and hasn't been shy about doing it publicly either. And why not? There's no teeth in the demands Bush keeps making.
2) Instead of sending 21K+ troops to Baghdad, a move tried twice already in the past year that didn't work then either, those troops would be better used in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is defiantly setting up serious shop again and welcoming no shortage of young Islamic extremists who can't wait to join Jihad against the United States. I'm encouraged that the Democratics clearly want to really address the War on Terror instead of using our military forces like policeman in a street war between the Sharks and the Jets.
3) They have stated time and again that until the politics of this war are settled nothing will change. Military tactics will not make this happen. They have suggested, strongly, along with the Study Group, that Bush organize a diplomatic series of talks with all interested parties in the Middle East and among our Allies. Anyone who has studied history knows negotiation and sometimes compromise is something that is done with those who oppose you. That's at the very heart of diplomacy. The fine art of diplomacy and the benefits of exhausting it before attacking a country seems to be lost on our President.
4) The Dems have called specifically for the phased withdrawal of COMBAT troops. They are well aware that we have to maintain a presence in Iraq and that we need to help properly train the Iraqi military and police forces. What is required for that to work is for the Iraqis to want to actually learn how to not only defend themselves, but to do so as a united country. They must be pressured to solve their political chaos, something we cannot do for them.

These were four suggestions I have heard from the Democrats, including Hillary and Obama, just off the top of my head. These are alternative suggestions that they are asking be seriously considered, and it's NOT only Democrats who are asking for these things any longer. Please don't forget the many Republicans, long time staunch supporters of Bush, like Warren, who are also saying enough is enough, this situation has become intolerable. I think it's perfectly fine to disagree with them, many people have strong feelings about this war. But it's disingenuous for Bush supporters to keep saying the Dems are offering no alternatives. Two months ago they weren't, but they sure have been lately. Maybe Fox news is failing to report it for some reason.

Answer 3

The Democrats do no longer have a answer for Iraq. there is not any answer for Iraq. that is a organic unmitigated clusterfuck. Iraq as a rustic is executed for. it will be chop up into 3 countries in an uneasy truce with one yet another, or proceed to be indefinitely as a lawless bombed-out wilderness run by technique of warlords, radical clerics, and gangsters. no one needs to hearken to this reality, yet Republicans are extra effective than Democrats at telling human beings what they want to hearken to. in reality, Republicans dragged us into an unlawful, unwinnable conflict, for the most morally reprehensible causes, mismanaged it for 3 years, and performance finally exceeded off the ball to Democrats merely in time for them to take the blame for "dropping" Iraq. The Bush administration has no answer both, yet they proclaim that in the adventure that they merely "stay The direction" we are able to win. They recognize that is a lie- yet by technique of letting Democrats be those to tug the plug, they could keep declaring that if we had in user-friendly words had the "Will To prevail" issues might want to were diverse, and that's each and every of the fault of those bleeding coronary heart liberal sissies for giving up and Letting The Terrorists Win. individuals listen that on Fox information, take it as gospel, and ignore who initially all started the conflict and why. project finished.

Answer 4

well the officia democrat presidential nominee plan is a " troop cap" ( obama, hillary, and the other guy,) the say it all the time.
that's it. there plan however is garbage.
the situation in Iraq can not be solved miltarily. plain and simple. so if that statement is true, then why send more troops.

one way to look at Iraq and understand it, is too look at similar situations. for example Lebanon in the 80's. america had troops on the ground for 3 years, but left becuase they realized there efforts where futile. but look at the country now, it is stable, and it is not becuase america dumped thousands of troops in. it was bloody as hell, but somehow turned out well in the end, without american intervention, which proves it is possible for democracy to emerge without US pressure. that's a fact.

I believe bush wants to bring more troops in simply becuase he does not want his legacy to be the guy who destroyed Iraq and then left it too rot. the problem there is that it;s just tough luck, Bush made the deccesion to destablize the governemnt ( something his father was not willing to do) so bush should suffer the consequences of that action. Sadam was a bad guy, don't get me wrong. but Bush is responsible for far more Iraqi deaths then sadam ever was, and that is a fact.
bush is brionging in more troops, and wants america to " give his plan a chance" becuase he knows he only has to last two more years until it becomes someone elses fault. but the bottom line is bush made a mistake that there is no solution for, and putting more troops in harms way is not going to solvce it.

the democrats howvere have no spine, but i guess that's better then having no brain.

Answer 5

They want diplomacy in the region, but unfortunately, the president refuses to have any discussions with Iran or Syria. Don't be suprised when this guy has a full scale invasion in Iran next, because that's what it looks like their planning.

Answer 6

First off, it's an escalation, not a surge.

1. Listen to the Iraq Study Group

2. Solve the refugee problem that this war created

Answer 7

Their plan is to fight the war on terror, but not in Iraq.

That means every terrorist on Earth now knows that Iraq is their haven - go there and the US won't follow.

This was pretty much their position before the war too.

Answer 8

I don't think they have one or else they would have spoken up. All I ever see is them being opposed to anything and everything that Bush proposes.

They said for a long time that we need to send more troops to Iraq and then as soon as Bush tries to send more troops to Iraq they're suddenly opposed to it.

Answer 9

They want to give up.

Answer 10

I'm sick of this question.