The Democrats have now positioned themselves politically so that they can only benefit if America suffers a defeat in Iraq. If the President's troop surge results in the pacification of Baghdad and significant increase in the stability of the country, the President will be proven right and the Democrats wrong. Rising casualties in Iraq will benefit the Democrats so long as they advocate a strategy of "the faster we pull out, the better"
2007-04-14 18:17:05 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Absolutely.
The democrats have made their position on this war crystal clear - if they're proven wrong, it will be a crushing blow that they won't soon recover from.
2007-04-14 18:28:36 · answer #1 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
That's just messed up on so many levels.
The troop surge will surely mean rising casualties - that is what democrats would like to prevent. It would take more troops than the president could deploy to truly stabilize the country anyway - he is not going to make out well in this situation.
Unfortunately - there is a young government and a country in chaos stuck in the middle here that needs to get up and running. How effective has the U.S. presence been in that capacity so far? Civil war is breaking out anyway.
Like it or not - some people are considering more than just their own political gains or losses in this war - there is the welfare of our troops, and the welfare of the Iraqis. We're really no longer doing them any favors by being there.
2007-04-14 18:25:42 · answer #2 · answered by hippychic1981 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, whenever you oppose a failed policy, having that failed policy magically start working certainly does make you look bad. Unfortunately for America, we live in America, not Narnia, so magic isn't an option. No one of serious intellect is still arguing that we can bring a miliaty solution to what is entirely a political problem. Since Bush is either unwilling or simply unable to engage in the dialouge necessary to move Iraq forward, we are simply destined to be stuck in the middle of a civil war, firing in all directions, in support of a government that has more allegience to Iran than the US.
And I supposed you didn't notice that a bomber just blew up a bomb in PARLIAMENT. Or that TWO of the eleven bridges across the Tigris have been destroyed in the last 2 days....We are not succeeding. To pretend otherwise merely means that more Americans will die in vain.
2007-04-14 18:25:55 · answer #3 · answered by truth be told 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Even if somehow we manage to make Iraq work...
It won't change the fact that Bush lied about Iraq initially (no WMDs)
That the war in Afghanistan has suffered a great deal because we have so many troops in Iraq.
Its too late for Bush.....there is nothing for him to do, except veto every democratic bill passed for the next year and a half.
2007-04-14 18:28:16 · answer #4 · answered by Julian X 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
One big supposition, my friend:
'If the President's troop surge results in the pacification of Baghdad and significant increase in the stability of the country....'
And if not,..........which is much more likely,.............. will you support a Democrat President?
If not, why not?
2007-04-14 18:32:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Firstly, I must ask if you met a soldier, but found out he was liberal would you still ask him this question? Would you still be so biased?
Ok as for my answer, no it doesn't mean that. Success in Iraq is victory for America. And therefore, Americans. Liberals are Americans, whether you like it or not. So are conservatives. Stop whining about it and give over it.
2007-04-14 19:01:42 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
that should point no longer something to the liberals, they at the instant are not getting re- elected by lifeless Iraqis, they only get elected by mendacity to there spoon fed sheep. they desire to point out the worlds failures, declare there no longer a factor of them however the Pubs are. And the sheep clap there little hands and make little noises. So Obama now has to break the undesirable information that per risk its no longer as undesirable. however the pubs nonetheless brought about all of it and consequently ought to be hated.
2016-12-29 12:24:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What constitutes "success" or "winning" in an invasion? I understand what success means in a war is but this isn't truly a war as such. There is no possibility of "pacification" of Baghdad so then what?
2007-04-14 18:27:42 · answer #8 · answered by MissWong 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, the democrats just want out. They don't want US deaths, or defeat in Iraq. Is that too hard for you to understand?
2007-04-14 18:25:16 · answer #9 · answered by Gordon Freeman 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
seeing that we have no visible signs of success in the last 4 plus years i think the dems are dead on right!even the Iraqis are getting more frustrated day by day and don't forget turkey to the north to complicate thing abit.
2007-04-14 18:27:43 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Considering how often the definition of success changes for Iraq, I'd have to say no.
2007-04-14 18:22:32 · answer #11 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋