If they do cut funding of the military and lose this war would this hurt the democrat party?

Question

Majority of America want victoy in Iraq

I think people who think we lost are going to think we can never win a war again we if you think that we might as well put on turbins and get a prayer rug because thats what terrorist want.

Answer 1

Yes.
But that's just typical switch and bait.
The Republican government made an intractable mess. Anybody responsible enough to simply put an end to it now gets blamed with "losing the war". Same goes for the deficit. The right thing to do is to reign it in. But the first politician to do that gets blamed for all the consequences of overspending in the past.

Answer 2

NO
The war was lost a long time ago. Most educated people already know this. Cutting funding would force an end to the war, we would still be over there but not fighting for a cause that we don't even know. I know people that have been over there and they don't even know what to make of the whole situation. But I'm from the north and we seem to have a different perspective on this than people from the south so I don't think it would hurt a democrat from the north, maybe one from the south it would.

Answer 3

If they cut funding and we leave Iraq we have not lost a war that we never had a strategy for winning. If you know how you would define winning this debacle, and some kind of plan to get there I would be interested in seeing it. As it exists today the best thing we can do is stop pouring fuel on the fire. Make the Saudis clean their own back yard. Stop playing cowboy with Georgie boy, and humbly ask the UN Security council to help come up with a diplomatic solution.

Answer 4

As you probably noticed from some of the answers so far, the democrats are primed and ready to blame President Bush if the war is lost.

Whether or not that will hurt the democratic party is complicated. Losing will certainly make their base very happy. It will not have much effect on die hard democrats who care about other issues. It will displease the more moderate democrats or what is know as the "Reagan democrats".

It remains to be seen if those moderates are disgusted enough to jump parties. It may cause them to consider themselves Independents. I don't know what effect that will have on the democrats.

These Reagan democrats are mostly hard working union members such as construction workers. If you drive past any construction site in America you will see an American flag. These people tend to live conservative lives and hold conservative values but support democrats because of their union.

In summation, I don't think it will seriously damage the modern democratic party but it may hurt them in general elections.

.

Answer 5

The war, sadly, has already been lost. No amount of money, no amount of manpower is going to turn this around. By the time we left Vietnam, there were people hanging from US helicopters trying desperatley to escape the wrath of their countrymen that they have incurred for helping us while we were there.

No one thought Saigon would fall, just like no one thinks Baghdad will ever fall, but the previous did and as for the former it is only a matter of time.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse it will be for democracy in the region. Everytime a roadside bomb kills or maims, everytime a picture of a beaten and raped Iraqi prisoner of war shows up, it is just more people who will never forgive us nor the people who helped us. We are driving more and more people to the opposition daily.

EDIT: Honey...losing the war doesn't mean buying prayer rugs. When we lost in Vietnam we didn't have to become Communist, did we? No, it just means we have to pull our troops back and stay out of their business. Losing a war doesn't mean what it used to mean.

Answer 6

The Real Ed-Mike is right! This war was never intended to be won. They always intended for it to last as long as they could get away with keeping it going. This war has been nothing but a lie from the very beginning. It has never even been a real war.....it was only a police action, masquerading as a war! *sm*

Answer 7

er... I think it hurts the Republican party more...

most people seem to think it's a mess... and NO ONE in either party seems to have the slightest bit of a clue on how to fix it...

the Reps started the war, just like the desm started vietnam...

The Reps ended Vietnam (and didn't get blamed for the mess in Vietnam)... just as the dems probably won't in Iraq...

Answer 8

The war was never winnable.

All anyone had to do was read the book Bush’s father wrote in 1998 (‘A World Transformed’). In it, he - Bush the Wiser - explains why invading Iraq and removing Hussein from power would:

1. result in America becoming stuck in a no-win Vietnam-like quagmire;

2. result in America losing its friends and allies;

3. result in America losing its standing in the world and its ability to lead and influence international political events;

4. result in jeopardizing America’s own interests in the Middle East, undoing decades of intense effort to put ourselves in a position to be politically effective in the region;

5. result in increased hardship for both those who live in the Middle East and America’s own citizens; and

6. further destabilize the already volatile region with the possibility of causing regional (or greater) armed conflict.

If Bush had listened to his real father instead of the imaginary one he hears in his head we would not be in this mess.

And, it is time for you neocons to grow up and learn to accept responsibility for your own f’ck-ups. It was your combination of ignorance + arrogance + political power that caused all of this, so start acting like adults instead of blaming everything on any- and every- one else.

Answer 9

I think cutting funding to the military would be a very poor decision by Democratic leaders. Republicans would have a field day with it. Think about it, the Democrats cut funding to our men and women overseas as a part of a political game. That will not go over well with the majority of Americans.

Answer 10

uh, pick up a newspaper, they didn't cut funding