Do you think the Democrats are really going to end the war?

Question

and if so what will be the out come.

Answer 1

The democrats can't even end a sentence without it blowing up in their faces let alone end a war they promised in their campaigns over a year ago, to end.

Answer 2

They can't end our involvement in Iraq totally, and they know it. First of all we don't know what the picture is going to look like when the Democratic President takes office in Jan '09. And we can try and force the Iraqis to do something about their political problem so we can extradite ourselves from fighting their civil war. But we cannot leave Iraq entirely. We have too many interests to protect and we simply cannot hand a weak Iraq over to Al Queda and Iran. We'd have more problems than we have now if we did. Thankfully, the top tier Democratic candidates understand this and have said very clearly they understand it. We will remain in Iraq inn some capacity no matter what, much like Germany after WW II and Korea after the Korean War. We're already building permanent bases there and we are also building the largest American embassy ever in Baghdad. That's reality, though many don't like it.

Answer 3

If the voters are dumb enough to elect a Dem, here's the likely scenario. Clinton and a few others realize that a US pullout in Iraq would lead to civil war, and would bring about an invasion by Iran, Turkey or another country to either occupy Iraq or safeguard their own borders. So HRC will leave troops stationed in Iraq, not to stop secular violence, but to deter any invasion. With the situation rapidly spiraling out of control, HRC will be forced to intervene once again, or to let chaos reign.

Richardson and others promise to pull US troops out, regardless of the outcome. If that happens, the Iraqi govt will quickly be overwhelmed. Shiite and Sunnis will break into open warfare with each other, and against the Kurds. The Kurds will move into Turkey, either as refugees or armed to unite with other Kurds in Turkey. Turkey will respond by sending troops into Iraq. Iran will follow suit, to support Shiites against the Sunnis. Saudi Arabia will arm the Sunnis, or maybe send in troops to counter the Iranians.

General warfare will break out, and last for years. Eventually, Iraq will be partioned between Iran, Turkey and Shiites dominated by Saudi Arabia. In the meantime, the chaos will destabilize the middle east, possibly leading to an attack on Israel, and threaten oil supplies around the world.

In other words, a catastrophe.

Answer 4

I will vote for a democrat in the upcoming election, but I do not believe that they will end the war. Yes, the democratic party has a different viewpoint on the war and different ways to solve the problems surrounding it, but it seems like we are at a stand-still right now. Just because there is a new person in office does not mean that things will magically get better. I hope that someone does figure out how to end it because it never should have started.

Answer 5

They won't until after the 2008 Presidential election. The War in Iraq is a good issue for their candidates to run on.

Answer 6

You might want to watch the last debate again. They already said that there isn't anything they could do until the end of their first term. Which translates into a promise to do something about it in their second term. Which of course means that they wont do anything in their second term because they are out of office at the end of the term anyway and it wont affect them.

Answer 7

Not before jan. 2009 a tthe earliest. At this point we cannot leave unless we want iran to invade that country and that could take longer than jan 2009.

Answer 8

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction.” (Brendan Riley, “Nevada Leaders React To Iraq Bombing,” The Associated Press, 12/17/98)


Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On U.S. Led Military Strike Against Iraq," Press Release, 12/16/98)


Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)


Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Remarks At The Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies, 9/27/02)


Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10305)

What war???

Answer 9

nope
clinton continued papa bush's plan for the new world order
"w" continued clinton's plan for new world order
clinton, the chosen one to follow 'w", will continue new world order
illegals will be given amnesty
north american union will proceed
and the dems will invade iran if "w" does not accomplish before 08 election

Answer 10

Apparently you did not see the last debate where they said they couldn't really commit to anything before 2013. You really should pay attention to those folks. They tell you in advance, its just their constituents don't listen.