What is the Democrat viewpoint on the mission in Iraq?

Question

The Dems confuse me.

They say they support the troops.

They say they don't support the mission.

Or maybe they DO support the mission.

Henry Waxman said we have already been defeated in Iraq.

They don't support increasing the number of troops.
-But if we increased the troops, wouldn't that be SUPPORTING the troops? They would be safer.

They say they want a gradual withdrawal.
-Why gradual? Why not bring the troops home now?

They say they want the mission ended.
-Wouldn't increasing the number of troops help to speed the mission along?

Personally, I think we should send as many troops as we can, and get the job done.

What is the Democrat viewpoint on the mission in Iraq?

Love Jack

07821 BlTCH

Answer 1

As long at the Democrats viewpoint is different then the Republicans viewpoint, then that is their viewpoint on anything. Of course the reverse is also true. If both would work together and quit trying to be always right, I believe our country would be in a lot better shape. Right or wrong, at least Bush has keep another 911 away from American soil.

Answer 2

Approval rankings for congress are heavily tied to progression in Iraq, an similar because the presidency. If United countries involvement in Iraq, by some miracle, leads to ethnic reconciliation america military will be loose to commence phased withdrawal - the numerous purpose of Democratic congressional administration. If and at the same time as that were the case, the Bush presidency and the GOP nevertheless have a lengthy record of scandals to address. as well to, because the Democratic the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, has made it sparkling that she stands by her initial vote to authorize a military invasion. As such, this can in effortless words help her candidacy. Democrats haven't to any extent further some thing to lose the following.

Answer 3

First off, there are as many view points as there
are Democrats - just like with Republicans.

Generally, Democrats think that GWB was an idiot
for getting us into this war. Most of them think it
would be better to get us out more quickly than
GWB seems capable of doing it.

From there, things get dicier.

"Supporting our troops" means keeping them
safe - not increasing their numbers. Arguably
the best way of supporting our troops would
be to bring them home immediately.

However, Congress does not have the power
to do that (The military is controlled by the
executive branch, except for money).

That is, if the troops have to be there because
the idiot in the White house says they do, they
should at least have suitable armor, weapson, etc.
THAT is supporting them.

Continually putting the troops in harms way
is NOT supporting them. Now, there are
reasons we occasionally put troops in harms
way, but supporting is NOT ONE OF THEM.

When our troops went off to World War II,
we supported them by sending them weapons
and armor and food, etc... not by putting them
on the front line. We put them on the front
line to win the war.

Please understand the difference. Both were
noble objectives, but they were DIFFERENT
objectives.

I'm sorry if I sound like I am talking to a child
but there are so many people who seem to want
to dismiss the "support the troops, not the mission"
because they don't understand (or don't want
to understand) the difference.

I suppose adding troops would make any given
soldier over there safer - but it would also increase
the over-all body count (that is, a smaller percentage
of a larger number would die).

However, bringing them all home would make
them ALL live longer.

If Congress starts cutting the military budget to
try to get the President to remove our troops,
you can imagine GWB simply reducing the
resources any given soldier has and then
blaming the Congress, when the Congress's
intent was to bring 'em home, not have 'em
fight with less.

The REAL question is now that the idiot
in charge has gotten us into this mess, will
more people die if we leave quickly than if
we stick around or increase our troops there.

Clearly, less Americans will die in the near
future if we withdraw immediately, but the
instability left in the region could cause a
higher American body count later. We're
pretty sure that the Iraqi body count after
a rapid American withdrawl will be nasty.

However, we have no reason to believe that
hanging around will change that - it just
prolongs the number of people dying while
we're hanging around.

Personally, I believe that having a SIGNIFICANT
(i.e. 300000+) INCREASE in military there MIGHT
actually do some good - but we don't have the
stomach for the draft and it smacks of imperialism.

So, given the 3 options on the table (withdraw,
stay the course, small increase in troops), withdrawl
seems to have the lowest body count.

What makes people who support adding a small
number of troops believe that it will improve the
situation? The majority of people on the front
line do NOT think so - and frankly, when the
President quotes his intelligence, he has lost
all credibility.

I think Waxman was right - we have been defeated
in Iraq. We were defeated the day we tried to
achieve a non military objective with only military
means.

The thing is - we defeated ourselves. All the
insurgents had to do was keep the status quo.
Every day we're there, we end up motivating
MORE people to join their cause.

It is a terrible waste of life and money and our best,
most credible, evidence says that continuing on
or even ramping up slightly, will only make it worse.

Answer 4

I can only speak for myself here. My viewpoint is this is a terrible war. BUT, I think it's too late to pull out. It's such a mess over there and leaving won't solve anything. Granted, I want our troops home, but I want us to be safe too. This war should not have been started in the first place, but that is a moot point now. I do think we need to come up with a plan. Like at such and such a time if things have not improved we need to just pull out. There has to be a cut off at some point.

I know my view isn't a popular one, but we started this mess. It's like going over to a friends house to play, pulling out every toy and dish and just leaving without cleaning up first. We have to make some effort. We have to have some sort of plan.

Answer 5

you are trying to hang labels on people, or assume everyone that belongs to a party has the same opinion on all topics. Fortunately that is not true of any of the parties.

Get real--most Americans of any party think we have been in Iraq too long. What else can we do there other than send our kids into the middle of a civil war and spend Billions of $. Let's just get out. They'll figure it out without us. Even Bushy doesn't really know what the mission is anymore.

Answer 6

My view as a Democrat is that we should never have gone there to start with. The whole thing was reckless and poorly planned by the Bush administration. This mission was not clear at the start. First it was WMD, then freedom to Iraq. He lied to everyone and said it was for WMD and terrorists. He has caused destruction to a country and death to hundreds of thousands of people with his poor wisdom. He has made far more terrorists by making martyrs of the innocents. I think we should not increase this error because to send more is to have more killed. Iraq does not want us there and the American people do not want them there. It is time to bring them home. This thing has already lasted longer than World War 2. Did we learn nothing in Viet Nam? You do not fix a mistake by doing it more and on a bigger scale.

Answer 7

Both political parties have mission in Iraq. To get the troops back home.

Answer 8

The democratic viewpoint? I'm still trying to figure out what Bush's point of being in Iraq is. Exactly what is the mission in Iraq? Do we know?
The war is lost in terms of U.S involvement. There are Iranian factions supporting shiite extremist militias and there are now Saudis supporting the Sunni extremist militias. The war is now regional. And, Bush has sent another 2 warships to the gulf region on top of the dozen or so there already with their arms aimed at Iran. You tell me what's going on. In the mean time, our deficits are skyrocketing and more people are being laid off from blue collar middle class jobs.

Answer 9

The Democratic viewpoint (along with some Republicans who actually read mail from their constituents) is to abandon the current plan which is failing and begin a dialog about what to do to best mitigate the damage.

In my own viewpoint, if throwing a bucket of gasoline on a fire seems to make things worse, I don't consider throwing more gas on it. I look for something else and if nothing is available, I move away and let it burn itself out.

Answer 10

For how long do you beat a dead horse? Isn't that exactly what we're doing in Iraq? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. Please stop with the same worn out cliches. To support the troops is to save their lives and limbs. The war never should have happened. The only sane course of action is to minimize our losses. And the quicker we get them the hell out of Iraq the better.