Some people might have been optimistic about that in 2004.
Many were gullible enough to believe it in 2006.
Is there ANYONE we won't have war in Iraq AND Iran if a Democrat is in the White House?
2007-09-27 09:18:02 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You really think Hillary Clinton is a force for peace??!?!
2007-09-27 09:21:49 · update #1
There is no real evidence to suggest that Democrats have even a shred of interest in peace. Just like the Republicans, they have consistently raised defense spending to feed the military-industrial corporate state because both parties feed from the same corporate trough.
2007-09-27 19:07:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Today's Democrats can't stand any war. They are the talk and die bunch that were around back in the late 1930's and early 40's (although most of those folks were Republicans). Democrats don't understand that you must have military force as an option on the table at all times for diplomacy to be an effective option.
Ever wonder why the bad guys hate Republicans? Today's Republicans tend to use military force when diplomacy ain't working. Examples of this since the 80's:
Reagan: Grenada and Panama. Although the former Russians were VERY scared during the cold war.
Bush '41 - First Gulf War
Bush '43 - Second Gulf war
Oh, and Clinton did have the Bosnia thing.
2007-09-27 16:35:27 · answer #2 · answered by chefantwon 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Vote for Hillary! Support the war with Iran scheduled for 2009!
2007-09-27 16:26:19 · answer #3 · answered by freedom first 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. The Democratic/Republican thing simply appeals to superficial people who have been trained to not digg deeper for truths. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich(a Republican and a Democrat) are the only two presidents who intend on upholding our Constitution, our sovereignty as a nation, and end this war. Specifically, Dennis Kucinich is a true believer in non-violence. Strangely enough, our aupposed Christ(who was by no means a soilder/warrior)-followers in this country want to see "blood" and revenge and are unlikely to vote for someone who is nonviolent.
2007-09-27 16:25:21 · answer #4 · answered by chicalinda 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
looking back through history, it does not seem that it would be the case. promising peace is a good way to get votes in a time of war.
2007-09-27 16:31:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way. Do you think Hillary wants to be the first woman president and then turn around and end the war? I predict she will be just as tough as Bush even if only because she doesn't want to be seen as a weak woman.
Mark it down. She's already stumbling all over that question.
2007-09-27 16:30:22 · answer #6 · answered by Robert S 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
LOL! Even if we stop fighting, our enemies won't. There will be no peace without victory. Just look at the Clinton years. For 8 years we did nothing about terrorism, did it stop the war? No, the terrorists kept attacking us.
We are in a war, whether we want it or not. It just makes sense that we should recognize that fact and fight back, not just sit around and get murdered without a fight (9/11).
2007-09-27 16:25:35 · answer #7 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I certainly hope not! We HAVE to destroy the despots and dangerous islamic terrorists of this world! You are naive if you think that we don't. There are worse things than war. Don't you understand that? What about a Great Depression or most especially nuclear terrorism?
2007-09-27 16:26:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Both parties are the same on key issues. They try to focus attention on gays and abortion to keep the voting public off balance and divided.
2007-09-27 16:49:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
2007-09-27 16:57:27 · answer #10 · answered by 45 auto 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋