If there is no military solution available, why are the Democrats even bothering to fund the war? Why are they setting forth timetables, most of which make sure troops STAY in Iraq until late summer/early fall 2008? It's not a matter of needing a veto-proof majority; just don't pass a funding bill.
I Strongly believe we need to succeed in Iraq. but I'm trying to understand the reasoning. Sincerely. Thanks.
2007-04-27 07:02:57 · 11 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Being a old Marine from Vietnam I know how it feels to not have support from home. It was not a good feeling. I now have a son serving his second tour in Iraq and do not want the same to happen to him. If we leave now the brave military men and woman who have died will have died in vain. Those who die while waiting for the time table to take effect will feel their lives are on the line for no reason. We are there we need to finish what was started. We can not use our troops as political toys. The only time you lose in War or Life is when you say I quit. Saying we are leaving on a certain day no matter what is saying I quit.
Thanks For Listening
Bruce Bayer
2007-04-27 08:12:37 · answer #1 · answered by bruce b 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What happens late in 2008? That's right, the next President of These United States is elected.
Opposing the War is the Dems' big issue, they need to keep The War, in the public consciousness, and keep blame for it focused on Bush and the Republicans. Legislating immediate defeat by de-funding wouldn't do that. It would shift blame to the Dems, and, by the election, the war would be old news - leaving a danger that some other issue, possibly one that wouldn't favor the Dems, would dominate debate.
So the timetable is perfect, it allows the Dems to 'support the troops' by continuing to fund thier efforts, while scheduling the loss of the war by Bush to coincide close with the election of Hillary or Obama, or whoever they decide our next president should be.
It's just good politics.
2007-04-27 07:21:06 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's a great point. If the war is lost, what's the point? If we can't win militarily, which is what they keep saying, then why keep the military there at all? And what's different from Afghanistan, why does that require/justify military presence but not Iraq?
The problem friend, is that you're trying to apply reason to an unreasonable position. The Democrats' position is not rational, it's political. They cannot support the war because a large majority of their base is hard-code anti war (mind you, not all wars of course, they didn't protest Bosnia/Kosovo/Iraq in 1998, and some want our troops in Sudan, a civil war ironically, or hypocrtically depending on your POV). So, to continue winning elections, they have to be against this war, regardless of the outcome and consequences.
Bruce Bayer - thanks for your service!
2007-04-27 07:12:58 · answer #3 · answered by Tired o 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Is it reliable that they are coming living house? particular. Is it achieveable that the job isn't executed and Iraq would desire to slide back into the anarchy that prevailed after Saddam became into deposed? particular, very. is this probably a wade with the aid of the Obama administration to curry desire with the left wing of the Democratic social gathering? Now, does not I be the cynic to think of that?
2016-12-10 13:03:27 · answer #4 · answered by eisenhauer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it is consistent with saying we have won. And all democracies rise out of the chaos of a civil war...we cannot protect them from the work they will need to do to maintain what we gave them. The problem lies in that they did not necessarily want a democracy, so they may not be invested in maintaining it. No amount of US presence can make that go away.
2007-04-27 07:32:47 · answer #5 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The funding ensures that troops have everything they need until the pullout. Since they are not leaving today they still have to protect themselves until the pullout date. You can't just leave them with nothing while they are there.
And no it is not saying we lost. just we need another approach. The one we should have started with and the one the Iraq Study Group chaired by James Baker agreed needed to be in place.
2007-04-27 07:11:00 · answer #6 · answered by David M 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Tough question...but try to look at like this..there is no winning or losing in Iraq...It is a civil war...I like the fact that we went over there, we need to get a foot hold on the area to fight terrorist, but we have no need there now...
Time to get ready for Iran, and maybe N. Korea...Sad to say...
Bush must go....you stink Mr. Bush...but dam do I love this country..God Bless the USA
2007-04-27 07:12:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It truly is not a matter of winning it is now just a fight to keep as many people alive as we can. If we leave I'm sure it will get much worse. If things are this bad with us helping the Iraqi people, think of how bad it will get if we leave them to fight alone.
2007-04-27 08:16:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think so yes.
The Democrats don't want the political backlash for not supporting the troops, so they will vote to fund them.
I wonder if the Democrats are ready to take responsibility for the carnage if the troops are pulled out?
2007-04-27 07:08:07 · answer #9 · answered by Sean 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I just don't see this war as a win /lose situation. We got rid of Saddam we are trying to give them a democracy, we have done everything we can, if they don't choose to run with it, they are the losers, not us. It's time for them to make it or break it. It's time for us to pull out.
2007-04-27 07:09:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋