It's not very clear I don't get it.
2007-12-29 07:12:01 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The details among them vary, but here's mine:
Bring the troops home as soon as possible. Engage UN security forces and aggressive diplomacy to bring an end to the civil war and rebuild. Initiate negotiations with Syria and Iran to stabilize Iraq -- they have just as much interest in preventing a power vacuum as we do in Iraq.
Meanwhile, offer equal aide to Israel and Palestine until peace is achieved. However, if officially attacked, the US will continue to back Israel.
Talk with any foreign leader who is willing to negotiate peace. No more unilateralism or labeling countries as "axes of evil."
2007-12-29 07:22:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
It is very simple.
Go to the web sites of the different candidates and see what they have to say. Watch some of the debates.
It should come clear to you that different Democrats have different views on the Iraq War and foreign policy.
They want to win with honor, then get out. They do not want to do things the Republicans have been doing that they paint as dishonorable, making things worse.
2007-12-29 07:24:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I don't think the Party has any unified policy. Building a Democratic Party platform really is like herding cats. My own views are:
1. Don't invade Iran just yet.
2. Tell Saudi Arabia that we are pulling out of Iraq in 6 months and from now on they have to do their own dirty work. And we will sell them enough of whatever we still make here to do it with. If they want to supplement their forces with mercs, we know where they can get those too.
3. Pull our troops out after the deadline. Rest and refit the regular troops back up to full combat capability.
4. Send as much of the Guard and Reserve Home as possible.
5. As our regular units are restored to full, start moving them in to Afghanistan, to finish off the Taliban, and renew attacks on Al Queda.
6. Provide a high firepower mobile strike force for local governments against insurgencies and invasions--which is what our current military was designed to do.
7. Use Federal Organized Crime Strike Forces to go after waste and fraud by suppliers and extend statutes of limitations to allow maximum recovery of funds. Sell the new Embassy Complex to Dubai for future development as a theme park. God knows it's big enough.
8. Use the recovered funds to cover budget shortfalls, with some of them set aside to upgade Veteran's Services.
Is that clear enough for you? If so, let's find a way to get the Democrats to back it.
2007-12-29 07:54:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Vietnam counting on once you have faith the war began lasted a minimum of 11 years and killed over 50,000 human beings. Iraq continues to be happening so as to ought to permit history come to a determination. perfect now my vote grew to become into putting Saddam Hussein in potential and giving him weapons. Regerugg you ought to provide a definition of victory, with the aid of fact I nevertheless see the President making ask your self visits to Iraq and now a distant places provider Officer has suggested that going to Iraq to paintings interior the embassy is tantamount to a dying sentence. If this is victory i in my view hate to work out your definition of dropping. As for Vietnam, we had a enemy that grew to become into capturing at the back of rocks and wood jointly as we've been marching in a as we communicate line. We had an enemy that had no longer something to lose and have been scuffling with for what they observed grew to become into perfect. seems I keep in mind this in yet another war. beneficial shall we've grew to become Vietnam right into a parking storage, yet what grew to become into the element in that.
2016-10-20 07:30:33 · answer #4 · answered by derverger 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not clear at all. You are right. The truth of the matter is many dems love war just as much as the next republican (other than Ron Paul). The Democratic Party will never change. They support at first because Americas opinion was high, but as soon as opinion starts to change their opinion changes. The Democratic Party should rename itself to the Lack of Backbone Party.
2007-12-29 07:54:23 · answer #5 · answered by Barack O Bankrupt 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
As with Repubs, there is not one consistent view. But clearly they generally lean toward getting out of Iraq and toward not starting wars unless it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to our national security. It's every bit as clear as that of the "Republicans."
2007-12-29 07:59:34 · answer #6 · answered by golfer7 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The Dems don`t really know themselves they keep changing depends on which city they are in and who there talking to.
They change a few times a week.
If they are in a far left group they will call for troops to come home now and that the war was wrong.
2007-12-29 07:26:34 · answer #7 · answered by ken s in area 51 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
It's not clear because currently the War s going well. Attacks are down, deaths are down, and Al Qaida has lost alot of it's support structure. Now that the War is going well, denouncing it doesn't resonate with the electorate as well.
2007-12-29 07:26:25 · answer #8 · answered by arkainisofphoenix 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I wasn't aware that the Democrats HAD a platform or stance.
They pander to the left and claim they'll pull out... but then realize that they'll be vilified if they harm the troops... and then again, they have to pander to their corporate masters too so that the cash rolls in...
2007-12-29 07:28:36 · answer #9 · answered by mariner31 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Probably supporting it...politicians are good at that. GIVE PEACE A CHANCE MAN!
2007-12-29 07:42:47 · answer #10 · answered by Amanda Overmeyer-Janis of today! 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋