English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

There is RESPECT party in the UK which won seats in the House of Commons. Why not a party in the US that is strictly anti-war. Green is anti-war but it is one issue of many... why not an exclusive anti-war party.

2006-10-27 14:15:59 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

DAR you are a craven blockhead, re-read the question, stop adding your universal quanitifiers to my question then answering... it only exposes your muddled logic when you answer like that.

2006-10-27 14:29:39 · update #1

20 answers

Galloway Vs. The U.S. Senate 6/2005 transcript

"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.

“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.

"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.

"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.

"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."

2006-10-27 14:24:27 · answer #1 · answered by dstr 6 · 2 0

A cute answer is there is an exclusive antiwar party already. It is called The Democratic Party. Democrats will not support any war for long.

So enough of being cute. It should be abundantly clear to any one with minimal intelligence that there is no antiwar political party because THERE IS NO DEMAND for a antiwar political party. You want to start one.......have at big boy......have at it. But you are gonna be very lonely......very lonely.

Even guys like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader could not sustain alternative political party interest for more than a very brief period. So what makes you think persons of lesser abilities and name recognition could do so? There simply is no demand for an antiwar political party and that is why there is none. Is that over your head Sonny Boy?

2006-10-27 14:32:05 · answer #2 · answered by barrettins 3 · 0 0

once upon a time, interior of my reminiscence, the Democratic party became a conservative anti-communist relations-orientated exertions pleasant party. that each and each and every one replaced in 1980 even as the hot deal/straightforward deal contributors of the democratic party stumbled on themselves contained in the minority with all the more youthful 'pink doper diaper little ones' of the hot Left protesting the Korean and Vietnam Wars. President John F. Kennedy, the author of the 'eco-friendly Berets' and the Vietnam warfare, became the ultimate of the hot Deal/straightforward Deal conservative Democrats. The Democratic party began its decline with JFK's assassination. In 1980 conservative contributors of the Democratic party (Jean Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Felix Rohatyn) defected to the Republican party and grew to change into prevalent because the 'Reagan Democrats', or Neo Conservatives.

2016-12-05 07:29:54 · answer #3 · answered by tedesco 4 · 0 0

CJ's right there is a California Peace and Freedom party that was started in 1964. Some platforms of theirs:
**End homelessness; abolish vagrancy laws; provide decent affordable housing for all.
**The United States should take the initiative toward global disarmament (BOLD) by eliminating nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Withdraw U. S. troops and weapons from other countries, and reallocate the resulting "peace dividend" for social benefit.
**Abolish the death penalty.
**Provide full free quality public education through university level. Teach the history of workers' struggles and labor's creation of society's wealth and progress. Restore and strengthen bilingual education.
**Legalize marijuana, decriminalize drug use, and make substance abuse treatment freely available.

The above are some platforms copy and pasted off the Peace and Freedom Party official website below is the link to their website.

2006-10-27 15:25:29 · answer #4 · answered by Jillian 2 · 0 0

Because their platform would be too narrow, they would have no chance of winning in a strictly two party system of government, and no one would vote for people weak on national defense during these times, or ever

2006-10-27 14:21:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The Peace and Freedom party,a bunch of leftover freakin smelly hippies.

2006-10-27 17:58:23 · answer #6 · answered by AngelsFan 6 · 0 0

I would never vote for a one-issue party. i also think that war should be very limited but not ruled out completely. Most liberals believe in defense.

2006-10-27 14:20:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

I am anti war. But I wouldn't want to tie the governments hands together, just in case we have to defend our selves.

2006-10-27 14:19:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Dennis Kucinich, Democratic Congressman from Ohio, has been trying to establish the "Peace Department" of the U.S. Government but Bush and his Republinazis refuse to even consider such a suggestion.

2006-10-27 14:19:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

Americans Love War.

2006-10-27 14:17:38 · answer #10 · answered by askance 4 · 1 5

fedest.com, questions and answers