How can the democrats act all cocky when they are a slight majority, what if something goes wrong, then what?

Question

The democrats are acting like a bunch of know it alls, what is going to happen if we pull out of this war, then the terrorist start striking here, and it can be traced back to Iraq.... then we are all screwed.

And don't answer, well by invading Iraq we likely caused more terrorist than we captured/killed......whats done is done....so does pulling out now make sense....we broke it, so now we should stay and fix it.....

but back to the question at hand, how can the Democrats act like such know it alls when first of all they are only a SLIGHT majority, and secondly aren't they setting themselves up for a big problem if we get attacked on our home land???? Lets face the fact, if a democrat was president this war still would have happened, and it is probably likely the republicans would be bitching and complaining---am i right????

Ha, it is funny how some of you have assumed that I may be something other than a democrat....I mean, honestly the democrats don't have all the answers, yet they are acting like they know it all.....

The interesting part is the democrats are going for the easy win, which someone with a low intelligence will automatically follow like a leming...pulling the troops out, we know the DEFINITE, troops come home, familys are happy, etc....nice quick instant gratification......on the other hand, leaving the troops there, one can argue well, the DEFINITE is that more troops will die...which is not good....

It is the brave that are willing to confront the unknown, even if the immediate DEFINITE is not a pleasant outcome.....Freedom is not FREE.....anything that is worth something does not come cheaply...God Bless Our Troops and the Troops of our Allies...

VOLLEYBALLGIRL-
Well, look at it this way, before we got to Iraq, things in there society were more or less stable, with a strong fisted dictator keeping everyone in line.

When we rolled in, WE threw everything out of balance.

So, how can we now just roll out and say, well, you guys are in a civil war (which WE pretty much caused), so, if you all want to kill yourselves go ahead-well, NO it does not work that way, it would be one thing if the population was a 50/50, but its not, this is not like the American civil war where there was a rather even number of northerners and southerners with an even amount of territory-well in Iraq, 65% are Shia Muslims, and 35% are Sunni-this is almost a 2:1 ratio AND they SHARE territory/oil.So how can we just throw up our hands and say, well Sunnis figure it out, or Iraq govt. figure it out. NO, we can not leave until there is some semblance of stability and peace otherwise attrocitys worse than when Sadam was around will continue-withUS2blame

Answer 1

Well, they can do ANYTHING and look better than the past 6 years, so they are pretty confident right now.

IF? If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his @$$. A lot is tied to an IF. So I think you might want to rethink that statement. I could say "What if we stay in Iraq, and the terrorists from Iraq all leave there due to the heat, and come here and strike anyways?" How is staying there any better? And how about "what if your house is struck by lightening, and you are killed?" The chances are the same. That pesky IF is there again.

And by the way, MR. IF, how can you state that something would have happened the same with different leaders? Different leaders means different reactions in similar situations. You sure are full of yourself, thinking that just because you can offer up hypetheticals, that makes you superior in thinking. I have a few IF's for you:

If Elvis wasn't on the toilet, would he have died?
If JFK would not have gone to Dallas, would he have been killed?
If Jimmy Hoffa would not have gone to the Red Fox, would he still be around?
If Al Capone would have paid his taxes, would he have stayed out of jail for the remainder of his life?
If the indians would have killed the first pilgrims as they came off the boats at Plymouth Rock, would there not be a United States?

(answer any way you like. I will accept your answers when you can PROVE them with 100 % certainty.)

addition:

I also feel that them coming home may not be the best of resolutions, but my issue with this "war" is that it is no longer ours. We are merely policing a civil war between two religious sects. And we seem to care more about keeping the peace in Iraq than those we are supposedly fighting for. We are risking our national security AND the lives of the men and women that joined the armed services to serve this country for an ideal we care more about than the Iraqi people. THAT is wrong, and that is the reason I oppose this thing we are still in.

I think that GW and his buddies need to realize that we have lost. We are done in Iraq, and we need to start pulling our troops out and bringing them home, so we have the troops for future altercations that are inevidable. I don't think that anyone is errogant enough to feel there will never be another attack on our soil, and we should have some here to fight that fight WHEN it happens (not if - for we all know that assuming we are the tough kids and no one has the balls to try anything against us. That was our mistake the first time around, and look what happened there). I think we are more vulerable now with our strength elsewhere. And if you think the terrorists don't see that, then you are living in a bubble. I think they are merely waiting for us to drop our guard further. And they will be back, and it is going to make 9/11 look like a day at the beach. . .

THAT scares me the most.

addition pt.2:

We have to stop meeting like this (ha ha). . .

Your points, while convincing and get down to it, don't convince me. It was wrong to go in there in the first place. GW was advised against that by most of his military advisors. Colin Powell was pushed out because of his opposition to the idea. And the man was a military lifer - if he couldn't be trusted for his military insight, then GW was very unjust and just plain stupid for going in the first place. And now, he is realizing just how grave his mistake was to begin with. He is trying to make it appear as if he knows what to do, but he doesn't. GW is keeping our troops in Iraq, along with wanting to add more, until he can figure out what to do next. This is something he doesn't know. Letting the military do what they are paid to do (from the Pentagon to the soldiers) would have eliminated all of this trouble. They are paid to war - the commanders train on tactics, senarios and know how to fight a war. But instead of letting them fight, GW decided to run this war, and everyone is seeing the results of allowing a politician to run a war. They try to please everyone instead of going in, kicking @$$, and then getting out and moving on. You would think that they would have learned from the last politically run war and its result (Vietnam), but alas, they have not.

Us leaving? Yes - we need to. Us remaining there is causing more damage than us leaving would do. We stirred the pot, and then tried to calm the tide, but could not. Does it seem more logical to allow our fine men and women to remain over there to be the targets of insurgents and terrorist attacks? I think it makes more sense to give the Iraqis a time line, and then STICK TO IT. We tell them - we will assist you for XX amount of time, and then we are going to be gone, and you will be left to figure it out. So it would be best to use us and our training assistance to the best of its capabilities, instead of using us as the entire policing force. And then make that plan, with the US stepping off more each month, and in stepping off, we send troops home, and shrink the amount of troops over there. This will force them to do something to cool the tempers.

We are doing more harm to the cause by remaining there and forcing our unwanted assistance on them. They make it perfectly clear everytime an attack happens, and all of the cheering against the capitalist pigs in their "celebrations". Just because we went in and got rid of the tyrant doesn't mean we are going to change the mindset of them. Time and time again we have seen it happen, and we never learn. We are like the kid desperate to be liked, and we continually come in only to be kicked and laughed at again, even after "saving the day".

We should get out - that will be the "lesser of the evils", if you will. We have overstayed our welcome, and now it is time to leave and let them do for themselves. If we don't we will be over there fighting for a very long time (I am talking decades) because they are not going to fight back out of fear. They don't have to do any fighting right now because we are there. One must remove the training wheels before you learn to ride the bike. . .

We have to leave.

Answer 2

Your logic is illogical!

Those states that voted for Bush have an average lower IQ than he does, below the 100's!

Slight majority! If I remember right, your president LOST the popular vote in 2004. HE HAD NO MAJORITY AT ALL!

Please with the homeland crap! Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist or 9/11! No Iraqi has ever set off a device or flown a plane into a building!

Those who did, have had 4 more tears to get stronger, and Bush is their poster boy recruiter! They can hit here any time they want! There is no such thing as a war on terror! There is such a thing as finding out why people are pissed enough to attack us and do something about it!

One thing is for sure, You haven't done anything about it as far back as 1996 when Clinton asked the Republican Congress and people like Hatch and The Speaker of the House, watered down Clinton's anti-terrorism bill! Bush DID NOTHING until 9/11 and then he attacked a country that had nothing to do with it!

Answer 3

Hey, why are we so afraid that it will all go wrong in Iraq? Once we pull all our troops out, and if the radicals and jihadists win, we just nuke off Iraq, plain and simple. We've bombed Iraq once - without moral conscience - and we can do it all over again. And the nukes will just get rid of them all... in one haste! So, where and what's the problem?

Answer 4

I guess they figure that they now have a mandate. Remember that famous word when the Reps narrowly won years ago?

Answer 5

The same way the republicans act "all cocky" weather they have a slight majority or not.

Answer 6

RIP to all the innocent people which have died in this war of choice.