Should we risk putting a democrat in office while were involved in  war?
601955
We should never, repeat after me- NEVER! risk putting a Democrat in office no matter what.\n\nDid we learn nothing the last 6 times?\n\nThe Clinton administration?  Apathy, what a deadly, double edged weapon that turned into for us.\n\nCarter?  Thanks for the inflation and the Mariel boat lifts, buddy.\n\nJohnson?  How not to run a war?\n\nKennedy?  Good job on the Bay of Pigs, pal. \n\nTruman?  Two words: North Korea. Should've let MacArthur do his job, you think?\n\nRoosevelt?  Isn't he the *sshole who started welfare in the first place?\n\nNever let those jag offs take the wheel again, wartime or peace.
267161
Some of us Americans morn the Iraqi deaths as well as the American. War is bad for living things, we should have never been there in the first place. Our invasion was completely wrong and should have never happened, our leadership made a bad decision and continues to make bad decisions and there is little we can do until the next election.
624106
With Bush in office...probably. He seems to use any excuse to go to war with anyone.
834270
It will be an interesting challenge.  Many of the Democrats' supporters indeed are part of the anti-war hard left.  But the Democrats won in part because they ran more conservative candidates.  (The leaders are NOT moderates, though.)\n\nMinority parties can afford to be ideologically "pure."  Governing majorities have to juggle many warring factions.  The left may well end up grumbling about Pelosi, et. al.\n\nBut past experience indicates to me that the Democrats will overplay their hand.  But the Republicans' appearance of beng entrenched, bloated, corrupt spendthrifts more interested in holding office than in getting things done will linger.  A far cry from 1994.\n\nLots of chellenges here for everyone.  Maybe Bush pulled his punches too much in Iraq, thinking a major military operation to "clean out" the insurgents would sink the party.  I dunno.\n\nSince I'm on it, I think we see again how the Democrats and Republicans have different beliefs and spoke to different audiences.  Democrats thought the war was unnecessary and said things - comparing our troops to Naxis, etc. - meant for domestic consumption but picked up and exploited by our enemies.  Bush knows we are at war - his "stay the course" rhetoric was meant to show our enemies that we had resolve, but played domestically like he was arrogant and out of touch with the American people.  Bush lost the public relations war.\n\nMy big concern is defense.  I hope the Democrats don't force a retreat, and cripple our national security.  I fear they will, given their rhetroric, signalling weakess to our allies and enemies.  (Either that, or they will grudgingly support more of Bush's policies now that they are in power, having merely used the anti-war groups cynically to get votes.)  A Democrat program to "stop the killing" in Iraq and hobble surveillance programs having nothing to do with Iraq could lead to many, many more American lives lost in the long run than a policy of strength would.\n\nI hope I'm wrong.  But I have grave fears for the future.  I hope we don't look back at this election as a "Neville Chambrerlain" moment.\n\nThen again, it was hard for many conservatives and others to take Bush entirely seriously on homeland security when he seemed so lax on our own borders.\n\nJust some honest, rambling thoughts from a long-winded conservative.\n\nWhat happens next?  Time will tell . . . \n\nPS  I have to add - I think the people have spoken, and we have to respect that.  but I do fear for my country when I read all the idiotic posts here - "Bush caused 9/11," "Bush is in cahoots with the oil companies," etc.  What are they teaching kids these days?  Unbelievable.
887661
This is true my husband came back from Iraq with nothing, no money, no health insurance etc.. We hear stories of fellow veterans that got screwed too. It's disgusting. Democrats are the only hope for veterans. If you don't believe me, look at the voting records of our leaders. Vote Democratic on Tuesday, it's the only way to really support the troops. \n\nI was a republican before the army experience now I see the hypocrisy and lies. Read to reports, read the voting records.
141776
Got this answer off the web, puts some perspective on the whole situation.\n\n"Don't gush, lad, it doesn't leave room for the cartoon. Cecil does not dispute the general proposition that war between democracies is relatively rare. Common sense alone suggests that embarking upon a military adventure is simpler for a king or dictator than it is for a head of government answerable to a parliament. But proponents of this idea argue that a war between democracies has never occurred. One arrives at this comforting conclusion chiefly by setting up the rules to exclude all the non-conforming cases. The most egregious omission is civil wars, which account for a high percentage of the world's violent conflicts--159 of 575 wars between 1816 and 1980, by one count. The spectacle of the American Civil War, in which two popularly elected governments engaged in four years of the most brutal slaughter, refutes the bald notion that citizens will not vote for politicians who send them off to be killed. Clearly they will if they think the stakes are high enough.\n\nOK, you say, but at least democracies won't get into wars with one another for purposes of foreign aggrandizement. Here we get into the issue of what constitutes a democracy. The U.S. and Britain fought in the War of 1812; Britain at the time had a parliament and a prime minister. So did imperial Germany prior to World War I. Advocates of the peaceful-democracy school account for these cases by saying that neither Britain in 1812 nor Germany in 1914 were liberal democracies. The definition of liberal varies with the teller, but the simplest formulation, proposed by Dean Babst, who first advanced the peaceful-democracies idea in 1972, is that "if a hereditary ruler, such as a king, can choose the prime minister of president, then the country is not considered to have an elective government." This takes both Britain and Germany out of the picture for the period in question. That's fair enough in the case of Germany, where responsibility for the war can be laid pretty clearly at the feet of Kaiser Bill and the Junkers. But the War of 1812 was largely the work of the War Hawks in the democratically elected U.S. Congress.\n\nThe more basic objection to excluding all but liberal democracies is that throughout most of history the number of such democracies has been small. According to political scientist Michael Doyle, there were only 13 liberal democracies prior to 1900, and just 29 between 1900 and 1945--and many of those did not endure. Doyle counts 49 liberal democracies as of 1983; setting aside the confusing instance of Israel vs. Lebanon, none has fought another since 1945. But it may be argued that this merely reflected the postwar Pax Americana.\n\nOne would like to believe democracy = peace, but if we look at the big picture we find little to persuade us that it's a sure thing. Nazi Germany was not a democracy after 1933, but Hitler had been freely elected and the Nazis dominated the democratically chosen Reichstag. The United States and France conducted wars of great savagery in Vietnam and Algeria. The U.S. helped topple the elected Allende regime in Chile, with murderous consequences for the Chilean people.\n\nOne can easily make the case that what prevents war between democracies is not their liberal scruples but their wealth, coupled with the recognition that war would mean economic ruin. If we look down the list of wars over the last 50 years we see that in almost all cases one or both of the belligerents was poor. We now have a proliferation of poor democracies in the wake of communism's collapse. Will they refrain from attacking one another, as their authoritarian or totalitarian predecessors did not? One considers India vs. Pakistan, Russia vs. Ukraine. Clearly the notion that democracies will not make war on one another now faces its great test."\n\n--CECIL ADAMS
747370
Actually the Democrats want to start doing a draw down on troops as soon as they take office. I sure wouldn't want to be one of the last ones there. Come home in a box that is for sure.
332784
Even though this current administartion has made several mistakes, the answer to your question is yes ! Just listen to both sides of every report that you see or here. Just one example is the retired generals speaking out against the war. How many interviews have you seen on the retired generals supporting the action ? On the WMD issue. Go back and listen to what our president said before the war. WMD's were one of many issues. The list goes on and on. The true possible demise of our president will be in the immigration issue and not the war. He needs to support a majority view and not a political view.
965334
that would explain why democrats are against this war...  they've served and know what it's like...  they know it's NOT WORTH IT...
872776
The CIC still controlls the military, so don't expect the Democrats to do much. Sounds to me like they just used the war to get elected in. Now they do not care.
1135533
no war can ever really be justified ,unless youre invaded and have to defend yourself.\nbut this does not deter politicians who can justify everything including ,genocide
795986
It is a good point that you make and might I add, infighting has hurt the troops more than any comment.  The fact that the Republicans believe it should be done only one way and the Democrats are acting like T.O. doesn't help our chances.  \n\nIf you go to war, you better be prepared to make it work.  This isn't some backyard game, you don't just quit and go home when you make a decision to go to war.\n\nAll political parties and the public should be ashamed of themselves.  This isn't what our soldiers need right now, they need a country that supports them.  We need to give them what they need to execute and make their mission successful.\n\nTeam work - we forget the concept at the highest level. - brilliant.
704954
Not me.  The ending of a war is determined on the battlefield, not with what happens in a political election.\n\nI hope the Dems realize that troops should be withdrawn when the job is done -- not when it's politically expedient for them.\n\nThat's what happened in Vietnam -- the antiwar left convinced our leaders that we had to leave, they convinced our country that we were in a "quagmire," and millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians soon became dead or exiled as a result.   \n\nA hasty withdrawal from Iraq would yield similar results.\n\n.
1056610
No, if it had we would have pulled out of Iraq. Typical democrats though, always pulling out before the job is done. Makes me wonder how they ever managed to have children.
935536
the Democratic party can ask bush all they want to bring home the troops . but its all up to him not them. if we brought them home today in less than a week there would be another attack on us soil . trust me ive been to iraq. those people are nuts
385536
Get involved. I've written my congressmen and 2 senators every time they voted on legislation involved with the war to either show my approval or disdain. Make sure they hear your voice. Some may write you back, Some may not. Register to vote or, if you can't, get involved with candidates (no age limit to do this) and maybe even join a Young Republicans or Young Democrats group. Volunteer for a candidate. Just get involved. As much as possible.
155857
Because they're Democrats lol. But lets think... if we never went to war and a terror attack happend again.. who do you think would be the first to say "oh we should have done something in the first place?"... the Dems. but hey.. whatever lol