Why does it appear that the Republicans are fighting the Iraq War to just dump it on the democrats to end?

Question

It seems crazy to continue fighting a war that is lost. Fighting a lost War is just a plain crazy old strategy to save face which European Builders.

Answer 1

Who says it's being "lost"?

Answer 2

They think that if they can push it off onto the Democrats, they can say it was the Democrats fault it was a failed mission because they didn't stay until the job was done. The problem is, the mission was a failure right from the start because the Bush administration would not take the advice of the experts(the generals at the Pentagon).

Answer 3

i think of war is in basic terms too sturdy a word, yet I do understand the element you're attempting to make. The partisan rhetoric in this usa has reached an endemic point. we'd all be extra applicable served to talk subjects extremely than human beings. the problem is that discussing subjects demands info and what I see from many of the type of persons you describe is they do no longer understand the info and as a result motel to the backside undemanding denominator. i've got faith this habit reflects an absolute frustration, yet additionally an lack of ability to precise it top. the main suitable tactic while encountering this sort of difficulty is to submit uncomplicated info and attempt to stay above the divisive ineffective comments of the questions or solutions extra often than no longer. Sinking to their point will on no account produce a win and a minimum of for myself would not make me sense extra applicable approximately something.

Answer 4

This war was never fought to win. Boasting to have the biggest & best military in the world a rag tag group of vigilantes are fighting us to a stand still. This war is being fought & prolonged for corporate America to make as much as possible(just as the war in Viet Nam was fought. We used the blood of our people for the pursuit of money, just as we are doing now). The end will come when we have control of the oil in Iraq. It will make no difference who is president. I believe they are all owned & controlled by the wealth of America. This is not a republicans war,remember, both parties in congress voted to support this war. I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.

Answer 5

boy you really believe that filth the pelosi/reid regime is spewing dont you? the war is far from lost. sections are being handed over to iraq now to manage and unilateral surrende will do nothing for the safety and security of this country. how you liberal extremists figure surrender emboldens this country is WELL beyond the reason of most WORKING americans.
your question has no answer as your premise is not only off base, its not in the same ball park.

Answer 6

to answer this question accurately, you have to realize that it is not about republican or democrat. the 2 parties are indistinguishable and are definitely not working for the American people. i support the troop 110 %, they're heroes and should be treated with the upmost respect. i beleive the war in iraq is crazy. when will bush seal the borders? i dont know man, it's just messed up

Answer 7

I'm thinking that the war would have been WON by the Coalition troops a long time ago if the media had been kept the hell out of it.

War is ugly. It always has been.

However, letting cameras shoot is more dangerous than the guns and rocket launchers.

Kick the media out of Iraq and the war will be over in a month.

Answer 8

We won the war in a few weeks, its the police action that's hurting. I say have the oil pay for the security or lets get out . 2 trillion is enough to pay for nothing

Answer 9

Sounds like a topical Democrat non-Veteran question to me

Answer 10

Clinton started the war, dumped it on Bush. Lost war! not true. You must have not been listening, no Democrats intend on ending the war if they are elected, they voted for it. Most all are saying maybe in 2013, that is only because they want to be in office for two terms, so Dems will keep the troops in the wars for as long as they can stay in office after 08.

Defeatist Dems Won't Hear Of Victory In Iraq and
Sometimes I feel I must be one of the few people left in America who is not a military expert. For example, all sorts of politicians have been talking about all sorts of ways we ought to "redeploy" our troops.

People who have never even put on a uniform are confident they know how our troops should be redeployed. Maybe this is one of the fruits of the "self-esteem" that is taught in our schools instead of education.

The biggest flurry of amateur military pronouncements occurred just before Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress on the situation in Iraq. Many Democrats publicly dismissed what he said before he said it, and some implied that he was a liar before he opened his mouth.

The real problem is that many Democrats have bet the rent money on an American defeat in Iraq, and without that defeat they could find themselves in big trouble in the 2008 elections.

Politically, the Democrats are caught between Iraq and a hard place. Their left-wing base has been angrily pressing them to cut off financial support for the war in Iraq, but congressional Democrats dare not outrage the rest of the country by doing that.

Leaders of the Democrats in Congress have already tried various ways of sabotaging the war effort, with arbitrary timetables for withdrawal and financing the war for only short periods, so that President Bush would be forced to pull out American troops and could then be blamed for the defeat.

But that hasn't worked either, because not enough Democrats in Congress are willing to risk political suicide by obstructing the military in ways too blatant to pass muster with the public.

The next best thing politically for the Democrats is to say that the situation is hopeless. The last thing they need to hear is that there is now some progress in Iraq.

Not only is Gen. Petraeus reporting progress, so have a couple of Brookings Institution scholars who have studied the situation in Iraq — and who are liberal Democrats who worked for Sen. Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004.

Progress does not mean inevitable victory, much less quick victory. Nor is it easy to define what "victory" would mean in the messy circumstances of Iraq. One of the most realistic of all the insightful statements by Gen. Petraeus was, "We are not going to kill our way" out of the problems in Iraq.

There has never been a moment when anyone in Congress, the White House or the military has ever advocated anything other than getting out when the time is right. All the arguments, the rhetoric and the shouting are about when is the time right.

Nobody thinks American troops have to stay in Iraq until the last terrorist is killed or driven out of the country. It is a question of reaching the point where the Iraqis themselves can deal with the terrorism and other problems of their country without American troops. That is the direction in which the Iraqis seem to be moving already. It is not that we have "won the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people.

The foreign terrorists — whom our media still insist on calling "insurgents" — have turned both Sunnis and Shiites against them with their barbaric attacks on innocent civilians. You cannot be an "insurgent" in somebody else's country by killing the people of that country.

Those who warn that Iraq could be "another Vietnam" need to get their history straight about Vietnam. The South Vietnamese government continued to defend itself against military invasion from the north after American troops withdrew.

Only after congressional politicians pulled the rug out from under them by cutting off financial aid, while their enemies were still receiving financial aid from other countries, did South Vietnam fall to the invaders.

Only similar congressional sabotage, in response to similar left-wing supporters, can make Iraq another Vietnam.

Answer 11

That's the same thing Bush did to Clinton in Somalia. Its another Republican dirty trick.