2006-09-19 01:28:08 · 8 answers · asked by Darrell 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Such as the Liberal Democrats?
2006-09-19 01:28:38 · update #1
This is not a question about the legitimacy of the anti-war position.
2006-09-19 02:06:48 · update #2
Like the rest of the people in Britain today I support the anti-war movement and have done for a long time. When we first took part in the eighties we had mostly Labour Party support and many were members, but the party was a socialist party then pre-Blair. As the party moved more to the right so our members started fading, if it hadn't been for the dedication shown by SNP it would have collapsed. The Liberal Democrats or should I say Charles Kennedy took a stance against the war in Iraq because I honestly think he knew it was wrong, but now that he is gone will Ming do the same ? I do not think so........
2006-09-21 21:27:38 · answer #1 · answered by pat P 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
What war? The acts of violence in Iraq and Afghanistan (if this is what you mean) are attacks led by insurgents and terrorists, not by a warring nation state. These people are criminals attacking civilians of a democratically elected Govt the US and the Coalition fostered, and are thus, attacking their own nation. I think the Stop the War bunch should realise that this isnt about Iraq or oil anymore, but fundamentalism between Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, wereby the Coalition represents the only obstacle to one side obtaining absolute power and ruling absolutely (back to Saddam-like way of life).
If you mean the War of Terror, then why would you want to end an engagement designed to stop the slaughter of innocent people by extremists. I fear the true nature of the conflict has been undermined by poor leadership, in the form of Bush, and the Media's overly generous representation of extremist minorities.
2006-09-19 08:50:24 · answer #2 · answered by AaronO 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The 'Stop the War' coalition are organised by marxists who see this as a good way to attack the government. The war is a shambles but I will not support the loony left on this issue. You can be against the war and still find the Stop the War Coalition to be sanctimonious and puerile.
2006-09-20 12:48:07 · answer #3 · answered by intelligent_observer 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You can be against the war and yet realise that pulling out completely and immediately would be worse.......Stop the War coalition is just an agenda run program like everything else....and the war is not as unpopular as the media you trust so must tends to make you believe.....
2006-09-19 08:32:46 · answer #4 · answered by lost&confused 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It's all about money.
These Anti-War groups bring in millions of dollars from people who never support any conflict.
Many of these Anti-War people set and wait for a conflict just so they can make money.
ANTI-WAR IS A BIG MONEY MAKER.
2006-09-19 08:51:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because not all liberal and/or democrats believe that the immediate pull-out of troops in in the best interests of America or Iraq. We need to fix what we broke, first. I am for incentive-based withdrawal. When power is 90% restored, for example, we pull 10,000 troops. When Bagdad is secure, we pull another 5,000. It gives them both and incentive to work with us a basic timeline for withdrawal.
We need to step back and let them step up, not the "we'll stand down when they can stand up" argument the NeoCons are pushing.
2006-09-19 08:48:37 · answer #6 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
More to the point why are Stop the War not out there marching against what's happening in Darfur?
2006-09-19 14:25:34 · answer #7 · answered by bob kerr 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because MANY Thousands of people realise the the true dangers facing the Free World
2006-09-23 10:46:12 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋