Are wars somehow nicer when a Democrat is running them?

Question

Why did all the shouts of "Out of Iraq Now!" stop? Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq won't bring the 'combat troops" out until 2011, and it will leave a permanent U.S. military base there.

Why is okay to stay in Iraq when the Democrats are doing it?

http://rwor.org/a/138/UFPAJ%20polemic-en.html

Answer 1

Because nobody cares about old news.

Anyone who says we need to leave now doesn't realize how much worse it would be.

Answer 2

Vietnam was rather unpopular and started by Democrats. It is just one party saying the opposite of the other.

Answer 3

Dubya has us in such a mess in the wrong country, we can't in good conscience just pull out unilaterally, even though we should.

Answer 4

Well the last War the Democrats ran had

over 58,000 KIA's...350,000 WIA's (VietNam)

Before that was Korea...Higher Numbers than Vietnam...

Before that was WW II...1,000,000 KIA, 2.5 Million WIA's

Before that WW I...500,000 KIA...75,000WIA's

Democrats just love to Micro Manage from DC...

Hence the KIA/WIA's have increased since they took

over the Government...

History repeating itself...

Answer 5

Democrats only take longer to lose a war.  Meanwhile they generate unease about  the war, supporting it, then denying that they supported it.  Obama is a perfect example.  He did not support the surge, he was against it.  Obama was WRONG!  

Answer 6

It would seem you are missing a massive point. Which is not unusual for republican types. That being the current TWIT IN CHIEF has already put in the bases with your wasted tax dollars so you going to use the base though not the way you are thinking it will be used. 1st the military will be a very token force of advisors at best and 2nd the Iraqi's will run the base not us. Also it might pop your balloon to know the Iraqi govt is kicking us out soon you should read the papers every now and again. As for whether Dem's run wars better than repub's well you only have to look in history book to see the record of each party I think the accounting is all on the Dem's side.

Answer 7

Democrats use a thing called diplomacy.

Republicans shoot before they aim.

Answer 8

Democrats are power hungry and believe only their opinions count.   I've got news for them, none of us are listening.  

Answer 9

Vietnam War?

I don't see how the 1st Gulf War of 1991 was successful, either. Saddam Hussein still remained in power.

Let the Republicans do the rest.

Answer 10

No, but it's the republicans (nixon, reagan, bush) that like to cut n run.

That would explain why you're NOT in afghanistan or iraq fighting today.

Answer 11

This is in response to all the little peace loving doves and kitties out there who have no concept of how the government, war and military work.

When war is declared, troops are sent, since it is better to tear up some other country than our own, to some far off place. The government reacts on information that has been supplied by who knows who, and what their agenda is or whether the news they bring is even true, but if you wait too long checking it out, you'll lose the advantage. It doesn't matter one itty bitty iota who is in charge, an elephant or a jackass. they will make mistakes, people will die, we will all lose someone from our families or friends. When it is over, we pull most of our boys out but always leave a few to play rear guard.

We still have troops and bases in nearly every country we fought. Why not this one?

And lastly,Those of you who cry, this war is illegal, stop and think, if we had not acted, they would be over here fighting us in our own streets and homes and you would then be forced to fight or die.

SEMPER FI!

Answer 12

I'M GLAD YOUR INTERESTED IN THE WAR AND "CARE ABOUT US SOLDIERS"? BUT THE ANSWERS YOU WILL GET HERE ARE FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THERE TALKING ABOUT, HAVE NEVER BEEN TO WAR AND GET ALL THERE INFORMATION FROM THE MEDIA. WHICH ENDS UP WITH DEMS BASHING REPUB AND REPUB BASHING DEMS. BUT TO GIVE YOU A GOOD ANSWER THAT YOU MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH OR UNDERSTAND. WE NEED A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IN OFFICE IN A TIME OF WAR PLAIN AND SIMPLE. OBAMA USED THE "OUT OF IRAQ NOW" TO WIN VOTES WITH THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THE WAR. AND NO MATTER THE NEXT PRESIDENT THE WAR WILL GO ON, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO JUST PULL OUT ALL OF THE SUDDEN. IT WOULD TAKE A FEW YEARS TO PULL OUT IF OBAMA WON.

Answer 13

It is not. It is just a measure of the hypocrisy and stupidity that govern politics and people. The "two" political parties can campaign on the same issue with the only difference being semantics and yet each side will support their party and oppose the other. It is the football game spirit that I like to think of as being the guiding principle in so-called democracy in the US. You have a team and root for that team. Nothing more than that. IF people actually thought, IF people actually analyzed situations, IF people were actually logical in their approach to solving problems, then things might be different. Obama is just a politician like any other and people are of course being duped. Incidentally I am not a republican or a democrat or a republicrat or a demublican or whatever you want to call these parties or, if truth be told, single party. Politicians in general only care about what will get them elected, get them a job or keep their job since this is how they make a living. It is a sad state of affairs. Although people will tell you that we get our democracy from Greece this is only slightly true. In Greece most political offices were filled by people selected at random from the general citizenship since the Greeks had a firm dislike of so-called professional politicians. Only a couple of offices, such as military or finance, where an expert was needed did they not use a general selection from the population. Incidentally, did you know that the first true professional politician was Adolf Hitler?

Note. After reading what some of these other responses are I think what I said is amply justified. It is because the people that do the "electing" are such a maleable lot that we get into these idiotic situations. A cowardly Clinton when it comes to protecting his own skin wages a brutal miitary action in the Balkans. A cowardly Bush when it comes to protecting his own skin actually invades other countries because of some mostly smoke and mirrors, mostly non-existent threat of terror that somehow a lot of people think (I don't know, it is all such nonsense) can actually harm them. As I like to point out the probability of your being killed by your neighbor is, at the present time, roughly 30 or so times higher than being killed by a terrorist (murders run at about 16000 a year or so but since they don't all happen at once and in the same place are generally just sort of noted "ho hum, another 3 dead. Say how are those Yankees doing?"). Your probability of dying in a car crash are about 75 or 80 times higher. And yet how much money have we flushed down the toilet, and how many dead and injured have we left in our wake, in these ridiculous little shams the media refer to as "wars"?

And a note on the math for those who are not mathematically inclined. In the last 7 years, I think that is how many, around 3000 people have died by terrorists in the US. During that same time I believe the number murdered is over 100,000 and traffic accidents have contributed another 280,000 or somewhere in that vicinity. Just do the division.

Answer 14

I think a better question is: why was Bush against Obama's plan last year, but now it looks like he's gearing up to do just what Obama suggested?

Once again, Dems are about a year ahead of the gop slow train.