If America can fight Iraq why can't a democrat fight a repugnican?
492043
it is a difficult question.\nRepugs are willing to do whatever it takes? Lie(war info), Cheat(Supreme Court says no counting), Steal(Your info) they are willing to destroy each other (remember how Bushs Campain attacked Macains black daughter, and service)\nThey are willing to dishounor military sacrifice (Max Cleveland, left 3 limbs in Nam, they trashed him)\n\nAt the end of the day you can not become the thing you hope to stop.....sometimes you lose but never stop fighting.\nFight the good fight....
414609
The biggest problem is that it will take my family's, family's, family, to even get close to balancing the debt of this Administration since they wont contribute to America. Selfishness and greed are not the agendas of the Democrat party's politics. Clinton cleaned up their mess from Ronald Regan/George Bush seniors years, in 5 years with reserves. They are just mad and scared they will have to contribute. Well I say if they don't want to then they can leave America and live in Iraq. Americas Democrat soldiers are also tired of cleaning up the Neo_Con's messes.
227101
The United States military does not target civilians intentionally. Thats what the terrorist do! And yes there was terrorists there before we took Iraq. To be an "Insurgent" you must be a member of a political party. What political party do the so called "Insurgents" belong to? Answer, none! The terrorist hide behind the innocent! If you cant figure that out, your in need of an EDUCATION DEVOID OF LIBERALISM! Would I send my son there? If he wanted to go then I would support him. I can't force him to do anything. He will have to make that choice on his own.
672558
gridlock at every turn.the dems don't dare let bush succeed especially in Iraq,or they may never get the white house back.unfortunately the democratic party has been hijacked by the liberal wing,self loathing defeatists that think the worlds problems are entirely of our making.this thought process isolates,good leaders like Bill Bradley and, Joe Liberman.
844802
Iraq could be bombed back to the stone age but this is not what is wanted or desired. All out war to annilated every Iraqi citizen would be immoral though at this point probably desired by the Republicans to make the problem go away. Since the results with regard to the war on terror would be unknown the job will have to be finished.
436216
By the "Iraq War", I will -assume- you mean the fight between the Iraqi insurgency (and Al Qaeda terrorists) vs. US (and Iraqi Defense Forces). Occupation, police action, whatever you want to call it.\n\nThe reason why we cannot defeat the insurgency is because the United States has not learned much from history (I would place most of the blame on the incompetent civilian leadership, regardless of party).\n\nThe civilian leadership did not have a contigency plan that geared towards reconstruction and defeating a potential insurgency. Their love of their doctrine and dreams blinded them as to what might happen. The military leadership, trained to make Plan Bs, tried to warn the civilian leadership of their folly, but were ignored. Remember General Shinseki telling Rumsfeld that at several hundred thousand US troops would be needed to pacify Iraq? Well, he is suspected of having been sacked (officially he "retired").\n\nNext, after the invasion, Iraq's infrastructure was destroyed by "shock and awe," followed by tensions between the Iraqis and the US troops. Remember that the civilian leadership thought that when the US came in the Iraqis would celebrate us as liberators? Well, Iraqis know their history. They know the West's past involvement in the Middle East, known as colonialism. They remember what the French did in Egypt. They remember what the British did in Iraq. The Iraqis did not trust us either nor do they like us (traditional vs modern culture clash). Also, the Iraqis lost power and water and all the essentials for everyday life due to all the bombing campaigns. These factors combined created a massive backlash against the US presence.\n\nAlso, the military uses conventional strategy and tactics to deal with its enemies, the way it has been trained. Unfortunately, most of this is outdated WWI/WWII military thought, which some call "Second Generation Warfare" (the German blitzkrieg is an example of Third Generation Warfare, and the VC element in Vietnam is an example of Fourth Generation Warfare). This is in layman terms of taking ground and destroying the enemy with superior firepower. Unfortunately, such conventional strategy/tactics do not work when you are facing insurgents and terrorists. When dealing with insurgents and terrorists kinetically (means blowing things up, shooting things up, arresting everyone in sight, etc), you can cause massive damage in the civilian infrastructure and create a large amount of collateral damage. This enrages the people, who would then decide to shelter the insurgents and terrorists from the US military, because they want the Americans out. Mao's fish in water illustration. As well, a lack of cultural understanding also makes the tensions escalate. When the Americans carried out their cordon and searches, they disrespected Iraqi customs and violated individual Iraqi's honor. Such gross disrespect of another's culture (especially when you deal with traditional people) is unforgivable, and makes more enemies than allies. This can fuel the insurgency and create support for it.\n\nLastly, our grand strategy must put emphasis on political, social, and economic issues, as opposed to military issues. The goal should be to gain the moral high ground and to use more psychological warfare as opposed to physical warfare. By forcing Iraqis to create a "democracy" (which is actually a republic; democracy is the wrong term to use if you have read Madison's Federalist #10), we are ignoring that these people have a traditional culture who have not been given the time to embrace Western ideals. Remember in history, it has taken several hundred years for the West to develop and embrace Western ideals such as "democracy" and "equality" and etc. Now we expect Iraq to eat all this in one or two decades? Also, we need to focus on at least giving the Iraqis the basic necessities in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
905140
Canada is a beautiful place, been there several times. I have several friends that I communicate in this forum from Canada. I'm a compassionate Liberal myself, but America is best lead by Democrats. I'm not against fighting for our Country when it comes down to it, but invading Iraq without WMD's wasn't a valid reason. I don't agree with George Bush nor his father before hims actions and direction they have lead America too.
431652
I don't think so.  The democrats tried to but I believe the Republicans would not allow it.  Good job everyone who voted Repub.!!
1060037
Well, it's a little different when you invade a democratic country as opposed to a dictatorship. In a democracy, if the people don't like their government, they change it. You don't have that option under a dictatorship, so the only way to change it is through force. Since the citizens are often oppressed and organizing a resistance is illegal, they usually need to rely on outside help.\n\nIf someone invaded the U.S., we as citizens would unite and defend our country against the invaders. It would not be a situation like Iraq where most of the people welcome the invaders, while a handful fight against them. We as citizens own and are responsible for our government, and if it is overthrown it would have to be by oppressors, not liberators. We are already free, the people of Iraq were not.
919198
IT IS AN AL QUEDA PLOT TO DESTABILIZE THE COUNTRY AND TO GET THE REST OF THE WORLD TO BLAME THE US FOR THE PROBLEMS. THE MAJORITY OF THE TROUBLE MAKERS ARE NOT EVEN FROM IRAQ. THE PROBLEMS IS THAT THE IRAQI FACTIONS ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE INSURGENTS TO KILL THEM WITH OUT A FIGHT. IT SEEM LIKE A CIVIL WAR BUT IT IS AN INTRICATE PLOT TO DESTROY THE AMERICAN PROCESS. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO STICK IT OUT. IF WE RUN WE WILL BE ASKING FOR FURTHER PROBLEMS ON OUR HOMELAND.
995462
America and our western allies DO NOT HAVE the support or TRUST of the people of Iraq! Our soliders will continue to be killed because we cannot win the hearts, minds, and faith of the people of Iraq. \n\nThe people of Iraq continue to suffer due to our occupation there. Our soliders have killed ( a kill is in the line of duty) and murdered (an unjust taking of a life) hundreds of thier people. Terrorist have done the same. The people of Iraq DO NOT SEE a difference between the Insurgents and our soliders...our being there has caused the death and suffering of many innocent people over there. Without the TRUE support of the people of Iraq America will not win.\n\nIf we kill one "Big Daddy" another one will take his place...this is a fact...Bush and the idiots on "the Hill" don't know sh*#!
1018642
Not a viable one. It's been tried. The Democrats and Republicans have the game locked up.
792269
Leaving Iraq would open the door to such evil that you cannot imagine it. What if the terrs get their hands on a nuke? What if they use oil to blackmail the rest of the world? What will be the fate of all the people who supported their first chance at freedom in decades? The Democrats want to cut and run from a fight for our nation's survival. We face an enemy every bit as cruel and evil as the Nazis were in the 1940s. To run from them like little schoolgirls would tell them and all our enemies around the world that we won't fight for our country, our freedom or our future. Don't you think the Communists in China would like to know what kind of stomach we have for staying free? I guarantee you they are watching all of this very closely...
933993
Simple answer: "might is right!" B ush and his cohorts have been able to cajole and bully the so-called 'alliance of the willing' to do his bidding - soverignty of independent nations be damned! Further, the victors could claim all rights and spoils.  In any case, the USA has arrogated to itself the right to interfere in every nation's affairs and to force upon others its form of "democracy"  As events now proved. the USA has taken on more than it can swallow and its reasons to topple Saddam all wrong and immoral.
568452
I think the war in Iraq is a failure of the Bush adminastration. Iraqi's are engaged in a civil war and we are in the middle of it. Only way out is to get out and let them settle for themselves. I always wondered how many repugs were acturally fighting in the war. Now I know. It is a shame.
397390
Well as to date America has over 17,000 wounded soldiers that are missing arms, and legs, or both. Most of them  the ages 18-25 and it's for the rest of their lives. This isn't including the 100,000 men, women, and children the Iraqi's have lost due to America's invasion. The American death toll in addition the wounded is around 5000. I have gotten this information from the U.S.GOV. web-site. America has absolutely no diplomacy policies or programs going on with the other surrounding Countries that have concerns with Iraq financially in the Middle East region. Iraq's infrastructure is still in shambles, and they really have no way to support themselves without the aid of the United States military. There is also a Civil War going on in Iraq, and Iraq doesn't have any present Government system in place; because they can't agree who's going to be in charge. It's a mess that's what is going on.
791932
Because everyone is sick of republicans and their policies. People felt that if their democrats in the senate the war in Iraq would be over soon. Basically with democrats in the senate and in congress, there wouldn't be any more senseless things happen.