2007-07-25 10:37:22 · 13 answers · asked by spjp p 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Lets support our troops there with better equipment, new and improved weapons, and cut all the polictical red tape.....
2007-07-25 10:38:09 · update #1
I ment to say "way"...sorry.
2007-07-25 10:40:55 · update #2
its too easy to pass the buck and blame it on bush. the problem is the pelosi/reid regime bends to poltical polls and being politically savvy DEFINITELY doesnt mean being correct.
2007-07-25 10:45:42 · answer #1 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 7⤊ 3⤋
That is what Dems do. They try and act as if they know how to run a war, or anything for that matter.
Remember Vietnam? They did exactly the same thing and look what happened. They micromanage everything into the ground. They used to listen to their commanders in the field. FDR did, why can't they now? I'd bet it has to do something with power and being able to take credit for something, even if it is a disaster.
All the Bush Administration HAS done IS listen to their commanders in the field. The ones that probably know better about what is going on militarily and politically in Iraq than Murtha, Reid or Pelosi could ever hope to understand.
2007-07-25 18:52:19 · answer #2 · answered by scottdman2003 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats don't really want to surrender. They just want to win elections and the only way they figure they can do that is run around saying, "We are different from Republicans and our ideas are better."
Unfortunately, they are doing this during war time (again!) and to try to upstage the President, they chose to say the Iraqi war is not what they would have done. (Except that most of them voted for it to begin with!) They would really like to tell the American people that they would do a better job of fighting the war, but they are cluesless and have no ideas, so the default is cut and run. It is the only stradegy that they know.
Most of their leadership are girlie-men, like John Kerry and John Edwards.
2007-07-25 20:21:47 · answer #3 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are playing politics before country. Public opinion polls show dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, so they pander to the polls. The Democratic base wants to see an end to what they see as "Bush's War". So their solution is to keep pushing unrealistic retreat proposals with no regard for national security. The funny thing is every one of the Democrats pushing these surrender plans agrees that we need to fight AlQaida and Terrorism......Gee isn't AlQaida heavily focused on Iraq? Lets bring our troops home and hand it over to them!
This is the most difficult type of war to fight because our enemy blends in with civilians, but that is no reason to abandon our efforts just because enough of the American public is war weary. I think the surge is the best approach to end this, but no sooner than our troops land in Iraq and Harry Reid is declaring our failure.
It makes me sick to my stomach that half of our country is supporting a party of complete sissies.
2007-07-25 20:17:07 · answer #4 · answered by heavysarcasm 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
But the comander guy is supposed to be in charge of the war and now you talk about the Democratic leadership. You can't have it both ways. It is not up to the Democratic leadership to surrender or fight. They fund the effort and the majority of the American public doesn't want the war to continue with America's participation. The Iraqi government says it is okay to leave so what is the problem?
2007-07-25 19:04:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Great question . I think it's because all of this nonsense of theirs is all for show and not much more . Sure , there's some liberals wacky enough to think nothin will happen if we withdraw , but I think most of em really know better , but just won't say it !!
I hope the Democratic answerers give this question the respect it deserves . This is definitely a valid point .
2007-07-25 17:53:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Surrender what?
Helping the Sunnis or the Shiites decide who wins their civil war that has been going on forever?
Surrender what?
Saddam is dead
Mission accomplished
What are we surrendering to?
You need to follow up and read more - stop listening to the constant remarks about al-Qaida in Iraq
Al-Qaida wouldn't be in Iraq if we were really fighting terror - they would be dead!
"War on Terror" I thought you said you would never forget
It looks like you already have
2007-07-25 18:08:12 · answer #7 · answered by scottanthonydavis 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Surrender? Yeah right, we're just going to hand Al Qaeda the keys to the white house and say "We give up - you won!" I don't think so.
What they want is to get our soldiers out of there. They are smart enough to realize that Iraq is not worth having our soldiers die.
If Iraq ends up imploding after we leave we can always just send in drones to blast anything that moves without risking American lives.
2007-07-25 17:54:32 · answer #8 · answered by Azure Z 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I really believe that if the current administration would put any sort of time line on ANYTHING we are trying to accomplish, you wouldn't see such a " get us the hell out of there" attitude.
It seems to me the Iraqi government is dragging their feet on everything just to keep us there. Our soldiers are trained in what, 6 months or less? How long we been training the locals over there? If we can't even accomplish that, then get us out.
2007-07-25 17:52:06 · answer #9 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
They don't want to surrender, they want to get our troops out of harms way and back home to their families. Let's let the Iraqis take care of themselves and let our troops protect our borders.
2007-07-25 17:50:21 · answer #10 · answered by go avs! 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋