We thought that if the democrats won the soldiers would come home very soon. We voted for them last November so that they would bring the troops home otherwise we wouldn't even hve voted. My best friend's boyfriend has been in Iraq for several months. I got up extra early in the morning to go vote before work to help her and all that for nothing.
2007-10-06 07:50:29 · 22 answers · asked by Alice in Wonderland 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
1. Democrats will say anything to get your vote.
2. Hitlary would not even consider bringing the troops home, and may even expand our presence in the mid east. Why? Because she is absolutely power hungry and there is no way that she will do anything which would cause her to be perceived as a WEAK WOMAN!
2007-10-06 07:54:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Too many people believed that the Democrats had a magic wand that could somehow sweep away the Republican opposition and stop Bush's veto power. That is not the fault of the Democrats, it's the fault of those who don't understand how their government works. You still did a good thing getting up early to vote that day. At least Bush does not have a rubber stamp Congress any longer. That was the main reason I voted Democratic in the midterms.
As far as your main question, it is because they are being realistic. There is no possible way to know what George Bush will be handing to the new President in January '09. That is a year and a half away from now and no one has a crystal ball, not even the Presidential candidates. All we know is that the war will still be raging in some manner when they do take office. Sen. Clinton understands the intricacies of the problems in the Middle East and she knows that before we can withdraw the bulk of our troops that Iraq has to come to some sort of workable political solution. She also understands that we cannot leave a weak Iraq to Iran and Al Queda. Which is the reason we will have to leave residual troops there in any case to protect our interests.
I don't like this war any more than you do. But it has become clear to anyone paying attention that pulling out en masse is simply not a viable option.
2007-10-06 08:27:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
During the debate, Russert tried to get them all to promise they would have all the troops out by 2013, but they all realize that with the mess in Iraq now, they probably cannot get all the troops home by then, so they couldn't make that promise. But they all said they would start bringing COMBAT troops home as soon as they took office. BTW Obama did not vote for the war. Bush started this mess and is sitting back gloating over the fact that Dems cannot undo the damage as easily as it was done.
2007-10-06 08:30:18 · answer #3 · answered by Havasoo 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They know that if they bring the troops home all hell will break loose and we will have to send them in there again and again.
When Bill Clinton sent troops to Bosnia they said they will be home in a couple of years...well guess what they are still there...if they leave more violence will ensue...you can believe that we will be in Iraq and Afghanistan for decades to come. We may not have 160,000 troops there in 10 or 20 years but we will have several thousand there.
2007-10-06 11:03:03 · answer #4 · answered by davedgreat2000 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I feel the same way. I think that Hillary has no intention of bringing them home, and Obama doesn't promise what he may not deliver. It isn't even our president who will ultimately make that decision. Those who are profiting off this war, and have an agenda are too powerful to allow it to end soon. If anyone tries to stop them, I'm sure Osama will conveniently be spotted in Iraq or Iran.
2007-10-06 09:20:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
First and formost... the troops wont be brought home by this or the next president. Why you ask? Answer.. Is because we live in a society where everyone thinks that political correctness is the ultimate goal...Politicians think in terms of how correct it would be to stabilize Iraq's Goverment vs withdrawing our troops and letting Iraq fend for itself. That Is the KEY as to why we are still going to be there 5 years from now. But whos fault is it that we have this type of government? Ours of course... We have dictated to the goverment what is ethical vs what is in the best intrest of America...Ethics require that we stay and finish what WE started, even though it is a drain on OUR economy..The best intrest of America would be to pull out and say "see ya" and let what ever happens, happen...That will never happen.... to many cry baby human rights adcovacy's, to many bleeding hearts, and to many corrupt politicians will NEVER allow the goverment or President (whoever that may be) to do what is in Americas best intrest....
2007-10-06 08:50:15 · answer #6 · answered by Jennifer 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
right here is what Edwards certainly stated: Edwards stated his place on Iraq grew to become into diverse from Obama and Clinton, including he would "in the present day drawn down 40,000 to 50,000 troops." it incredibly is form of one million/2 the a hundred,000 that Gen. David Petraeus, the suitable U.S. commander in Iraq, has indicated would desire to be stationed there whilst President Bush's term leads to January 2009.
2016-10-21 06:10:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are building permanent bases there. The democrats are likely to pull out the majority of the combat troops but leave special forces for training and fighting terrorists. One base will be right on the border of Iran and Iraq. It was too late to pull out the minute we stepped foot on their soil no matter which party is in power.
2007-10-06 08:11:38 · answer #8 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You know America has invaded Iraq with out any provocation and with out any valid and convincing reason.Untold damage is done during the war to Iraq's infrastructure, revenue generating resources and sites of very ancient culture.Though Saddam Hussein was very cruel, he was keeping Iraq united. With the war, a Pandora's box is opened. The different Muslim groups / sects are involved in a civil war.There is lot of blood letting. Nothing perceivable was achieved except the civil war. So can America leave it to the fate of the people immediately with out preparing sufficient conditions for a stable government. In the present conditions ,want or not , the presence of essential strength of army shall be required for some time to get those stable conditions . So which ever party wins and whoever takes over as President , even if some one promises immediate withdrawal now, can't do it for some time. So if some of them are telling now itself the fact , it is to be appreciated as such.
2007-10-06 08:14:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Hitlery did say in the last Democratic debate that she would have the majority of the troops home by the end of her first term!
She said that as if she already has the JOB???
2007-10-06 10:35:26 · answer #10 · answered by Working Man 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋