Does anybody really believe that the other half of the War Party will be any better than the half which is currently in power? The War Party has been in power constantly since 1896 and with the exception of the 1920s and part of the 1970s (when public opinion made it impossible to continue warmongering), the War Party has been attacking countries left-and-right ever since. Just switching which branch of the War Party is in power will not change anything. The only way to end the policy of warmongering is to stick a true anti-war candidate into the White House (a Classical Liberal such as Ron Paul or a Ultra-Left candidate such as Kucinich or Gravel).
2007-08-29 05:18:47 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Just to clarify, I want to make this clear to everybody. I don't support the stupid war policies and I don't support candidates who merely pretend to be anti-war.
2007-09-05 15:57:32 · update #1
You do have a good point - and the problem is really deep rooted - it's the militarization of American society, politics, and policy that has been a hallmark of US foreign and domestic policy for the last 60 years. We have a large standing military force that has gone beyond actual US national defense needs - but is increasingly used for getting into wars of choice, rather than necessity. The institutionalization of bases and facilities outside US territories unfortunately, encourages any US government to use this for external projections of force and intervention in the affairs of foreign countries. This unfortunately does little for the ordinary American in the street - and in fact, harms him by sucking up resources that could be used for education, domestic infrastructure, health care, etc.
The same thing happened to the Roman Empire - when it overextended itself, it began to decline.
2007-08-29 06:11:27 · answer #1 · answered by Silverkris 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Kucinich can not be president because the mother ship will pick him up long before the election.
Gravel isn't really running for president, he thinks he's in a chat room.
Ron Paul will faint if he were elected for fear somebody might recognize him.
You are right about one thing though. If George Bush were preaching diplomacy and productive talks with Al Queda, the Democrats would be locked and loaded demanding military action.
2007-08-29 12:32:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
People remember that even the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.
Anyone who knowing supports a corrupt political party is at least partially to blame. There is not a Republican politician or voter in this country with clean hands.
2007-08-29 13:39:55 · answer #3 · answered by buffytou 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
thats the million dollar question....my educated guess would be that sadly, Americans are simple minded...we are so used to blindly following celebrities and have gotten so lazy that we just let hollywood do all of our thinking for us...Al sharpton got on tv and convinced millions that hurricane katrina was a storm started by george bush to wipe out black people. thats just the first thing that came to mind...the fact is most americans believe anyone infront of a camera or microphone
2007-09-03 09:24:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. But I don't see either of these people you mentioned receiving the votes required. Kucininch and Gravel scare the hell out of people. Paul I don't know. I'm keeping an eye on him. People are so conditioned to the status quo that a different type of thinking threatens them.
2007-08-29 12:29:09 · answer #5 · answered by gone 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
For the very same reason conservatives are foolish enough to support their phony but warmonger politicians. But you know what I do not trust the "gurlies" either.
2007-09-04 19:55:07 · answer #6 · answered by FILO 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A. Dumb
B. Hipocritical
C. Blind
D. Hipocritical Hipocrits
2007-08-29 12:22:38 · answer #7 · answered by train120 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Lack of Education!
2007-08-29 12:31:13 · answer #8 · answered by john 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look at the foolish people who have supported "pro-war" Republicans and where it has gotten us?
2007-09-04 01:48:55 · answer #9 · answered by johny0802 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
War never solves any problems, it just puts off the solution for a lot longer.
Why did Bush fail at diplomacy with Afghanistan? What was Bush diplomatic solution for Afghanistan, Give us Osama bin Laden or we attack.
Why did Bush fail at diplomacy with Iraq? What was Bush's diplomatic solution in Iraq, Get out or we attack!
A real diplomat would have gotten them to give up Osama bin Laden without war.
A real diplomat would have gotten the job done in Iraq without war.
2007-08-29 12:22:31 · answer #10 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋