Why do liberals want to lose the Iraq war?

Question

The time tables the dems are trying to vote in will only make this war impossible to win.

If George Bush was able to do anything without the democrats getting in the way, we might actually be able to win.

Answer 1

the "i told you so" factor

if they can get us to fail, they will be viewed as seers, and sought after to run our country. nevermind that Iraq is a self-fulfilling prophesy. nevermind this hurts our troops. nevermind this hurts our standing internationally.

dems will do ANYTHING for power.

Answer 2

First, how do you define "victory"? This definition depends on what the proponents of the war had as their objectives when they started it.

What were the goals of the war?
- Make sure Iraq has no WMDs. This has been done!
- Get Saddam Hussein out of power. Wow, success here too!

Personally, I think this should have been enough for us to declare victory and go home. However, somewhere along the line we had some mission creep, with a new goal added:
- Create a stable, democratic, pro-U.S. government in Iraq.

This third goal is impossible to achieve by force of arms. The vast majority of Iraqis view us (correctly) as an occupying foreign power, and this makes it impossible to have a stable and democratic government that also is pro-U.S.

Our political leaders are smart enough to realize this, and they've decided that "pro-U.S." is more important than "stable" or "democratic". Hence, we've ended up with a de facto puppet government that's resented by the Iraqis and violently opposed by the Sunnis. Yes, I know they had elections, but it's painfully obvious that the U.S. is pulling all kinds of strings - much like the Soviets did in the old east block countries. The current Iraqi government has no credibility or respect among Iraqis, and its leaders would likely be killed if the U.S. stopped protecting them. Indeed, that's one more reason why they're so interested in keeping the U.S. happy.

The new mission-creep goal is impossible to achieve. If you define "victory" in terms of that goal, then the war was "lost" the moment we picked such an impossible goal, and our continued presence in Iraq merely serves to delay the inevitable end - while getting thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed.

You know what's worse than having soldiers die in vain? Having more soldiers die in vain. That's why we should end this war as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, the democrats don't have the guts to actually end it. Don't worry about the time tables, they have no bite: the legislation allows the president to waive them at will. The only purpose of the time tables is to provide political cover for the largely pro-war democratic politicians against their overwhelmingly anti-war constituents.

BTW, I'm no liberal. I'm just anti-war.

Answer 3

How long are you willing to stay until we "win" that war? 10 years, 20 years 30 or more? You'd better be ready for more than 10. More and more Republicans are falling in line. Even the Administration has been making noises about setting milestones for exit. At least now they have some sort of idea of an exit plan. That is more than they had before.

Also I would like to hear a definition of "win". I have yet to hear one from anyone. At what point do we decide we have won? We have been told that the mission was over and that Al Qaeda was in the last throes sever years ago and yet we are still there. Maybe, I'm serious here, you can help us understand when we will know we have won.

Answer 4

Simple. They hear the majority of us are not happy with the progress made in the war, so they suddenly decide they are against it because they think it will get them votes (Even though most of them gave the president a declaration of war - remember, only congress has that power, not the president)

They want you to believe they were fooled. What about all of those that had the same intelligence like the national intelligence committees in congress?? If they were fooled, then they shouldn't be able to keep there jobs. They are there to make sure we only go to war when we should. That is there responsibility in our form of government, not the presidents.

Liberals will say or do anything to get their way. They will take the country down if that is what it takes. Look at the facts. Don't believe the news media and hollywood.

Answer 5

define win! we've already done what we said we were going to do so lets leave! This war is a disaster and whatever happens in Iraq, China, or Mars is none of America's business! We should be here fixing America... What if the Chinese who believe in Communism invading America to bring communism to us because we didn't have it before? Oh and don't say they'll follow us home because that's total rubbish. it's not like they'll jump on the back of our helicopters and tanks and ride to America or go buy a ticket and come here immediately

Answer 6

they don't -- no longer outright, that's. the fashionable flesh presser speaks by a form of one/2-truths, ambivalences, and fluff by that you'll (even though it isn't going) discover substance could one make an attempt to penetrate all of it. most of the undesirable one hears about Iraq is one, the different, or all 3 of those -- although in a contest, 1/2-truths might want to win hands down therefore. And in case you rather pay interest, they don't need to lose the conflict -- yet they don't rather want to win, both. See, to a political candidate, a conflict is little better than a reason for political progression; the morals, motives, and outcomes are in simple terms such an excellent number of bulky information to artwork by. If President Bush were to announce an instantaneous withdrawal to be finished by technique of this time next week, human beings might want to be up in hands -- contained regarding the liberal politicians, for each of the incorrect causes. Bush-bashing has grow to be an staggering device for garnering political help between the louder, better severe left-wing; the Iraq conflict is, as verified so aptly by technique of our nationwide media, their accepted source of ammunition. eliminate that from the equation, and all of us rapidly discover ourselves dealing with such petty squabbles because the commutation of a sentence or the firing of numerous criminal professionals -- on none of that you'll base a political platform. Assuming a Democrat of the at modern-operating ilk is elected to the Presidency, you are able to relax guaranteed that the Iraq conflict gained't end for a sturdy lengthy time period because it is going to nevertheless be politically expedient responsible each thing on George Bush for numerous years after he's lengthy gone. no longer purely will this boost the hot President's political status (yet purely between the bright communities to whom she or he's presently pandering), even though it is going to also absolve her or him of any duty for any disasters which happen in the course of the hot Presidential time period. it truly is all in a useful, incredibly little field, isn't it?

Answer 7

Power. The left is now invested in defeat. If the result of the Iraq War is a stable middle east, it will prove that Bush was right.

Answer 8

If we actually won the war, Bush would come out looking good. Dems can't afford to have that happen.

Answer 9

Sorry that the Democrats are attempting to do what the MAJORITY of the American public wants them to do --- END THE WAR.

Answer 10

I thought the war was over already? You mean we're still in that quagmire?

The Democrats are "in the way", because of Democracy. Voters rule...look into it!

Answer 11

Bush lost this war due to his arrogance and bungling and lies.

Liberals had nothing to do with it.