true or false?

Question

democrats are setting themselves up for a failure since they have adopted a pro-war policy?
most likely the next president will be a democrat and as a result of their pro-war policy will not last longer than one term!

Answer 1

Most dem candidates are war mongers too and here's why:
We've been seeking wars not for the good of our country, not to neutralize any immediate threats, not to protect ourselves, but to protect the interests of the people who make our foreign policy decisions for us.
To understand why we have our swords drawn the way we've been carrying on, we must understand the reasons why we're attacking other nations after we make up lame excuses and why we're willing to send our precious young lives as well as our hard earned money after it.
A secondary, but perhaps more of a head scratcher question, is that while one party is doing this, the other stands idolly by and allows it to happen. Why?
The answer lies in debunking of the flawed premise that these wars are for OUR interests. In fact these catastrophic mistakes are for the benefit of some very powerful poeple who are pulling some very bipartisan strings. The all powerful Israeli lobby AIPAC.
In defense of the many decent Jewish people world wide I must say this: The exposure of a corrupt lobby group is not an attack on Jewish people. There are many Jews who are against Zionism and are even against Israel's illegal occupation. http://www.jatonyc.org/
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/


Back to our discussion, let's ponder this for a moment: Why did we turn on Saddam? Saddam might have been a blood thirsty tyrant in the midst of his blood bath, but he was our unmistakable ally during his reign of terror with our blessing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxPMrtfOTvQ&watch_response

Then we suddenly decide that he's a dictator and has WMD's eventhopugh the evidence was against it. Why did we do this?
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml

Are both parties covered? You bet> That's why they stand by and allow it to happen:
http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/970117/aipac.html

############
Now it's dejavu all over again:
Top General and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, after an extensive and expensive investigation, concludes that Iran is NOT involved with the resistance fighters in Iraq and they are NOT providing the road side bombs used in the attacks. Here, take your pick of any source you like (including even Fox News which mentioned it only in passing and more reluctantly than any other source) About this fact:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu.y.ZkRHlxIBXSpXNyoA?p=Iran+involved+doubts+pace&y=Search&fr=ks-ans&ei=UTF-8
This fact is now suddenly pushed aside. They're actually brain washing the masses by calling the Iraqi resistance attacks as Iran's attacks on our soldires and recently they've even started to say that if we strike Iran that it will not be pre emptive because we're already in a "proxy war" with them, so it would only be a counter attack!
Israel through AIPAC has dictated the course of our foreign policies for a long time, but in the last decade they've been in turbo gear and they've taken our democracy which dictates that OUR people, the American people be represented by our elected officials and turned us into a lobby driven (by the way, somehow this most powerful lobby remains unregistered) country where our resources and our lives are put on the line on a daily basis for another nation.
We give them loans in the billions per year and the olans somehow all get forgiven. We have armed them to the teeth with WMD's and nuclear weapons and yet they remain our biggest bill in foreign aid every year:
http://www.rense.com/general31/rege.htm

Let's look at the Bilderberg branch of AIPAC. We need to wake up and see who's attending these secret meetings and how is it impacting the way we, as Americans end up in our lives. Why don't we have a say anymore?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg

Please research this secret society more and see how both democrats and republicans alike have been purchased to facilitate a lush life for another country as ours goes to ruins, and while our global standing is smashed to smitherines.
We deserve better than what we're getting. We need to get our democracy back. and NOW.

Sorry, I didn't mean to give such a long answer (I think it's a record length for me), but I think we need to get our democracy back before we lose it forever to foreign interests. Steps toward lobby reform would be a great begining.

Answer 2

What the blazes are you talking about? You've got the democratic candidates admitting that they won't be able to get the troops out of Iraq during their first term, but that's not pro-war, that's just intelligent. No one with more than two brain cells to rub together thinks surrender in Iraq is a good idea or that it's to our benefit to run, fleeing the nation, to abandon the Iraqi people, leaving hundreds of thousands to be slaughtered.

But then you have a congress who is STILL trying to force surrender despite the fact that our efforts in Iraq now are going better than anyone could have dreamed. It's like pulling the funding from our troops just as they were landing on Omaha beach. Is that crazy, insane and stupid or what?

So please. Democrats pro-war? You've really got nothing to back that question up.

Oh, but 'True'. Democrats are setting themselves up for failure, but not for the reasons you think. America won't abide a loser. Democrats surrender in Iraq and they will never have power again.

Answer 3

false. after flip floppin' back and forth (depending on how the wind blows, i guess), ms clinton has (more or less) admitted the troops will not be out for at least four years.

it's curious that some still think ms clinton is anti war. after she voted for the war in the first place (and the patriot act). after she has approved more money every time asked to.

a pity that so many who think that they are anti war are indeed not. a vote for any repuglycan is a vote for war. [not taking doctor no seriously]. and most dem candidates don't have a solid plan to end the war, except, of course dennis kucinich.

* joe biden voted for the war and the patriot act. wants to "Responsibly Drawdown US Troops."
* hillary clinton voted for the war and the patriot act. definitely pro war! wants to keep "a significant level of troops" in iraq.
* Christopher Dodd voted for the war and the patriot act. full of empty platitudes.
* John Edwards is the only 2008 Democratic presidential candidate to have not only voted for the war, but also cosponsored it. helped to write the patriot act. Edwards has stated that he cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
* Barack Obama, to his credit wants to remove the troops from iraq by spring '08. however, regarding iran, he says the US "should take no option, including military action, off the table." he's talked about invading pakistan. hmmm.
* Bill Richardson "Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act." tsk. on the other hand states, "I will instruct our military leaders to get our troops out [of iraq] as quickly as possible. whatever that means.
* Mike Gravel "Pull American troops out; it can be done in 120 days." awesome.
* Dennis Kucinich unquestionably the peoples candidate. voted against Patriot Act. voted against the iraq war. has an inspired 12 point plan to deal with the iraq situation.

umm, wait. what was the question?

Answer 4

The current war was not engineered to be won or lost, just sustained. The next President will most likely be Hillary given that she is a member of the Bilderbergs. The war will continue, and we will see an invasion of Iran not too far off. The likelyhood that this presidency will only last one term is not something I can agree with, given the Bush set up. The Bilderbergs have bought and paid for our next president, regardless who it might be.

Answer 5

False, if war is imminent you got to defend yourself, every other president will do the same. What I don't like is going into a war for the sole purpose of the oil. I feel that we have been used and nobody likes that. Now that we have committed ourselves, we have no choice but retrieve gracefully. I have every confidence that Hilary with some help from Bill will be able to solve the mess we are in. The new president will be confronted with 2 wars - Afghanistan and Iraq or a third one Iran.probably a fourth if Bush goes into one of his tandrums. Are there any other candidates that will qualify or come close to Hilary and Bill on matters of handling world affairs ? None I daresay. Also, as a good deal, you got two for the price of one. What more do you want.

Answer 6

False, and I don't know of any Democratic candidates who are in favor of the war. But, they all seem to be talking about getting the troops home by 2013 or something...with the exception of Mike Gravel, who had a plan to get the troops home by Christmas of this year that no one in Congress or the Senate would listen to. Also, I can't remember what Kucinich's plan was, but I am sure that he is also against the war. *sm*

Answer 7

That statement is false. All of the Democratic candidates state that they want to get out of Iraq. We definitely need to get out of Iraq, so voting Democratic only makes sense. Among the Republicans, only Ron Paul emphatically wants to get out of Iraq. His philosophy and candor have brought him many followers, but the Republican Party is not backing him at all, thus leaving him without the necessary funding. It's a shame that money wins elections, but it is a sorry fact.

To remain in Iraq, whether the Surge is successful or not...and as I have said before, you cannot believe a word this Administration tell you...will mean countless years of babysitting this country, quelling violence, soothing governmental disruptions. We need to pay attention to the problems in our own country, and Bush has wasted our Treasury on this War, and wants to submerge the nation even more in a conflict with Iran.

Young people will inherit this debt. They will inherit the hatreds apparent in the Middle East, and Bush and his War have created many more terrorists determined to retaliate against the U.S. They will inherit the sale of our Infrastructure, the Think Tank Globilization which will guarantee them a lack of jobs, lower-paying jobs, a struggle for health care, a suppression of the freedoms always enjoyed by Americans.

You will also inherit the Israeli-Palestinian problems and must realize that American funding of Israel and the displacement of Palestinians has created a climate of terror. A Palestinian state and an equality of funding should help the situation, as Jimmy Carter has pointed out.

To repeat the party line at this time is the shadow of blindness. Open your books, glue yourself to the Internet, read, listen and learn. Your future depends upon it. Your children's future depends upon it. It is long past time for the generation of youth to realize that their stance on issues today will play a huge role in the world they will live in tomorrow.

Answer 8

True, but they were never ant-war to begin with they all voted for war except for a few. Their constituents were and when the Dems got in on mandate from the people then they turned around and stabbed us in the back.

It's just like the whole impeachment thing. They know their constituents want impeachment but if they do start the impeachment process they will look foolish for the fact they have rubber stamped practically everything from the Republican controlled congress.

Answer 9

As a Canadian, I don't see much difference between the two parties.
Both are happy to drop bombs are screw the poor. At least the republicans are straight forward and say outright they like dropping bombs and screwing the poor.
The next pres (unless it's Ron Paul) will be more of the same

Answer 10

Neither True nor False.There were only very few people against war initially.It is the anti incumbency wave that will decide who will win.The problem of immigrants is another major issue.