|
Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
23-04-07, 07:30 AM | #1 |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
If the they weren't more interested in playing politics the Democrats would work with the president, send him a funding bill he'd be willing to sign, and before you knew it the they would have gained enough political capital to force Bush to begin staged withdrawals. They could say, "We want Iraqis to win this war, not us," and people would support them, myself included. Their cooperation would mean they were looking forward to a positive outcome at the end of the war. Unfortunately they don't give a damn what happens to Iraq in the end, and while Bush is still president every American soldier who dies guarantees their dominance in the next election. They're not in the business of saving lives, which is why this war won't end before 2009.
|
23-04-07, 09:15 AM | #2 | |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,023
|
Quote:
- js. |
|
23-04-07, 02:47 PM | #3 |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
So you're saying this is the Republicans' war to loose. I agree. Because Democrats didn't start this war they have everything to gain from advertising how bad it is, a job made easier by the rising body count. I wouldn't go so far as laying blame for the war on them, but they do benefit from it politically. Both parties have their share of opportunists, and those among the Democrats fully understand that they swept congress because of the war's unpopularity. But in times of peace the people tend to elect a president from one party and a congressional majority from the other, so if the war ends before Bush's term then the Dems' chances of taking the White House are slim. For them it all comes down to a simple choice: they can end the war or they can win the presidency (it's unlikely they'll do both). Knowing what you know about politicians in general, which choice do you suppose they'll make?
On a side note, implying that the sectarian conflict in Iraq is none of our business because it constitutes a civil war is lame. If it is a civil war then we are responsible for starting it and that makes it our business. |
23-04-07, 03:49 PM | #4 | |
--------------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
|
I will quote a a professor at a major research university, a registered Democrat, a liberal by some measures, but a radical conservative relative to the large majority of his colleagues.
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...zing-iraq.html Quote:
Harry Reid fails to see what al Qaeda has been doing which is provoke a civil war and convince Americans the war is lost.
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - February 17th, '07 | JackSpratts | Peer to Peer | 4 | 18-02-07 10:07 PM |
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - October 28th, '06 | JackSpratts | Peer to Peer | 1 | 26-10-06 08:48 AM |
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - August 19th, '06 | JackSpratts | Peer to Peer | 1 | 17-08-06 12:16 PM |
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 3rd, ’05 | JackSpratts | Peer to Peer | 1 | 01-12-05 01:41 PM |
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 5th, '03 | JackSpratts | Peer to Peer | 10 | 08-07-03 02:32 AM |