Are the democrats guilty of playing politics with the lives of Iraqi citizens and American soldiers?

Question

How many people have died, or indeed have to die, in order for the democrats to take over the US government?

It's shameful...

Answer 1

Even though I was not for the invasion - I believe we have created a problem, and we must stick around to solve the problem. I support my troops - not my government.

Answer 2

Thay are neither supporting our troops fully nor doing everything in their power to stop the war.

They either don't have a principled stand on the war, or are deliberately trying to play some game of heaping criticism on the President for political purposes for their own gain.

Yes, they are playing politics. I hope America never forgets what they are doing, and did.

How much more evidence does America need that the Democrats are not serious about national security? The events of the last 30, and perhaps 60, years should be enough.

Or, just ask Joe Lieberman.

Yes, I'm disgusted too.

Answer 3

I agree that it would be shameful for someone to do that. However, I hope you will agree that those playing politics with the lives of Iraqi citizens include the Reagan administration, which cultivated Saddam Hussein, supplied him with WMD technology and encouraged him to use it, actively covered up the incident in 1988 when he used that technology against Iraqi Kurds, and winked at his use of torture. Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, went to Baghdad to praise Saddam for using chemical warfare against Iran, and went to Congress to deny Saddam had done so against the Kurds.

Those shamefully playing politics with the lives of Iraqi citizens and American soldiers include two generations of Bush administrations. The first one continued to coddle Saddam until they foolishly gave him the impression they would tolerate an invasion of Kuwait and provide veto cover in the U.N. Security Council. (Paul Wolfowitz is reportedly not responsible for that one, as he had the sense to recommend a tough warning.) They are further responsible in that they made sure their "negotiations" over Kuwait went no where, preferring a war they thought would ensure a second term.

They then deliberately deserted Kurdish and Shiite uprisings they had encouraged, leaving those people to Saddam's tender mercies while avoiding disabling his Republican Guard troops. They followed that war with a set of unenforceable "sanctions" pushed through the Security Council, which did nothing but commit the next administration to a useless set of gestures.

The second Bush administration deliberately faked excuses to resume the war, again solely with an eye to domestic politics. They then attempted to conduct that war on the cheap, exposing soldiers and Iraqi civilians to much more danger than necessary.

Yet you have the nerve to blame the Democrats?

Answer 4

whether or not you are for the war is not what is at issue here, the problem lies at the feet of the Democratic leadership who were so sure the war was lost Reid announced it as so in July. Now that he is sitting with egg on his face because the surge is proving to be succesful and Iraq is showing signs of vast improvement he wants to cut off funding for the war unless a troop withdrawl date is set in stone. Unfortunately for him a troop withdrawl is already happening, The 4-1 Cav is returning from Iraq as we speak with no unit lined up to replace it. Other units are schedualed to return home with no replacements set to go in and take over. His hatered for the administration and ambition have blinded him and many others on the left side of the aisle.

Lets be honest with ourselves, will we always have troops in Iraq and Afganistan? Yes, but it will not be the number that are in country now. Look at Germany, Japan, and Korea we still have troops there. If we pull out completely it will seem to the terrorist that we are leaving with our tails between our legs and they will chalk it up as a victory when in fact we are the ones winning.

Answer 5

they're very form human beings. mutually as i replaced into on patrols in many cases we've been invited into their residences to have tea and snacks with their families. We geared up reliable lasting bonds with the Iraqi human beings. human beings cant carry the movements of a few against each and all of the persons in Iraq.

Answer 6

I agree it's very shameful, civilized human of the 21 century?!
Some animals are more civilized than us human ?!
And this type of horror will continue as long as we have the Elites and big fat corps in charge ?!

My Regards.

Answer 7

Your logic is amazingly illogical. If anyone is guilty of playing politics with the life's of Iraqi citizens and, American soldiers the blame lies squarely at the feet of the current administration.

Answer 8

Just how do you propose they do that?! I don't see the Republicans simply saying "Hey we screwed up, let's let the Democrats have a go at it." I think a few folks misread your question. I know I initially did.

Answer 9

Since the Republicans started the war, isn't it shameful to blame the other party for the atrocities?

Answer 10

4000 U.S. troops and nearly a million Iraqi citizens have died because of Bush's war of choice. That is the SHAME......... These deaths lie squarely on the shoulders of the man who would consider NO other options. GWB

would you care to give an example of these deaths you claim are caused by Democrats.