She has not said something or not voted on something that leads me to believe hat she will not end this war.
Can anyone show me differently?
2007-10-29 03:23:51 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hillary has said that she won't have all the troops out by the end of her term in 2113, but the difference between her and a Republican candidate is that she would not start new wars.
2007-10-29 03:30:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Honestly, I think most of the Democratic candidates want to end the war but they are reluctant to make a public statement basically promising to end it. I don't think anyone of the candidates running for President knows quite what they're going to inherit in the Iraq War, so they are reluctant to make promises. If someone makes a highly publicized promise in the campaign and don't follow through on it it can ruin their chances for re election. Like in 1988 when George Bush said "Read my Lips, no new taxes", and then was forced to raise taxes they trusted him less and it likely cost him re-election. So they are being very wary of that because they don't know what is going to happen.
But I think this election is like the 1968 election, in which you had a very unpopular war, Vietnam, and an unpopular Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson, and even though Republican candidate Richard Nixon did not promise to end the war he still won because the other candidate was Humphrey, Johnson's VP, so they thought they had a better chance of ending the war by electing the opposition party.
Still, if a Democrat is elected, it will be a sign that people want the war to end, and if they cannot do that relatively soon the people will likely be sick of them pretty quick and it will hurt their chances for re-election.
2007-10-29 03:33:59 · answer #2 · answered by Super Tuesday 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In history we have two examples of new presidents dealing with unpopular wars. In Korea Eisenhower stopped the fighting far short of victory and stayed for over 50 years. In Vietnam Nixon tried to win and was forced to withdraw completely. No US president will leave Iraq with a loss if they can avoid it, but the question is which example will/can Hillary follow
2007-10-29 03:53:49 · answer #3 · answered by meg 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The worst part about this is NOW it needs to be stopped. It should have NEVER been started! He has turned this country in to a disaster, and now someone ANYONE has to fix it, and everyone will find fault with whatever they do. Try to base your vote on what you see and hear and check out the facts, talk to people and see what there views are. Don't just do something cause someone else thinks it's best, We need major change in this world.
2007-10-29 03:48:23 · answer #4 · answered by J7129 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hillary needs a war.
This one is tailored made for her legacy building.
If things keep going well, she will get the credit saying she did what Bush could not do.
If it goes bad, she will say that Bush's mess was beyond repair and leaving was the only option. The massacre and the Persian unification will be laid on the door step of the Bush library.
She can't lose here.
2007-10-29 03:38:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it have been a decision between the two. Which as many have spoke of does not be a achieveable adventure. i might vote for Senator Clinton as via far the terrific of two undesirable options. I stay in Arkansas and can want to make certain the total Clinton crowd out of skill. He became right into a bad Governor, a bad President and that i think of his spouse, who has taken the comparable funds could be virtually as undesirable a President as he became into. we've have been given to locate a thank you to instruct our government right into a gadget that doesn't symbolize company country. the 1st step in doing that's that this 12 months. Vote against absolutely everyone who's already in place of work. From city Council on up. If we shop rejecting the persons in place of work possibly they gets the message. Our entire crowd of persons in place of work has did not symbolize the pastimes of the yank people. turn them out!
2016-12-15 11:33:48 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it will, because its the right thing to do. They will talk all about removal of troops and such, but it will have to be finished because there are too many consequences otherwise. The elections are all talk, good ideas, but all talk.
Politicians say what they want to do for elections, but what they actually can do is a totally different deal.
.
2007-10-29 03:30:20 · answer #7 · answered by McClintock 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Frankly, I haven't seen any of the front runners, Republican or Democrat, show any intention that they plan to put a stop to the the conflict in Iraq, have seen a lot of excuses why it may continue though.
2007-10-29 03:34:11 · answer #8 · answered by Black Dragon 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oh, it will. Only everyone who was so against it will suddenly say what a good idea it is and how she's a great president for keeping us over there. Lord help us all if that woman is voted into office.
2007-10-29 03:27:33 · answer #9 · answered by Dani 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
She will end the war during her second year in office.
2007-10-29 03:45:22 · answer #10 · answered by Brandon ツ 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋