What is more important to Democrats, winning elections or winning wars?

Question

I think we all know the answer.

nostradamus, it's refreshing to hear that kind of honesty coming from a liberal. Let's see if any of the liberal politicians will admit that they would rather win elections than the war in Iraq.

Answer 1

You question smacks of political bigotry.

Still, I'm a patriot, first, a democrat, second.

I see your point regardless.

I support this war because my family escaped Islam in the 1950s. I KNOW what is in store for us if we lose.

I love much of Islam. I will never be Islamic.

I am a democrat. I will never be seditious.

For some of us (a large number of us) you will find that we put our country first. Don't mistake the vocal few as the whole. The Democratic party is as diverse (if not more so) as the Republican party, though of late I have to admit I have been called "Republican" a few too many times to actually feel like the party understands that anymore.

Keep speaking up. Your point is valid, even it if is simplistic and somewhat politically bigoted.

I believe in free speech, including for those who disagree with me.

Answer 2

Hmmm...could it be that the more appropriate question should be, "Do Republicans start wars to create fear and win elections?" Your silly question is exactly what Rove, Cheney, and the other Neo-Con thinkers wanted: blind support of a war simply because the United States is--in this case dubiously--involved.

Despotism is easy: Start a war, and then call everybody who argues against it unpatriotic or cowardly. Use the ensuing nonsensical drivel to cover up a complete takeover of the powers of government.

You are such a lemming for even asking the question...

Answer 3

Elections

Answer 4

Are they mutually exclusive?

Actually democrats have a good record of winning wars and winning elections at the same time.

Answer 5

DEMOCRATS ARE JUST IN TOUCH WITH REALITY. TOO BAD CONSERVATIVES CAN'T HANDLE REALITY. THOUGH SOME ARE GETTING IN TOUCH WITH IT...

Kissinger says U.S. victory in Iraq is impossible


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/19/iraq.kissinger/index.html

LONDON (Reuters) - Former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger said on Sunday it was impossible for the United States to achieve military victory in Iraq.


"If you mean by clear military victory an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control ... I don't believe that is possible," he said.

"An international conference should be called that involves neighbors (of Iraq), perhaps the permanent members of the Security Council and countries that have a major interest in the outcome, like India and Pakistan," he told BBC television.

Answer 6

Very true, to most Democrats the words National Security is a joke. They proved it in the 90s.

Answer 7

what war are you talking about - do you mean the completely needless war we're currently in in iraq.

you know, the one that had nothing to do with 9/11, american security or the global war on terror.

is that the war you mean - because if that's what you mean, i go with dems winning elections every time.

maybe that's why the repubs will be gone within 20 years...

Answer 8

In order of importance:
1) elections
2) taking your earnings (taxes)
3) taking your family inheritance (more taxes)
4) limiting your free speech
5) limiting your choices on what you spend your left over money (after taxes)
6) generally running your life for you
7) weakening the army so we can be overrun by an enemy
8) making Mexico our 51st State

Answer 9

The GOP has failed at both over the last 3 years

Answer 10

Perhaps respecting the Constitution of the United States, something that seems exceptionally difficult for the Esteemed Mr. Bush and his administration.

~