Instead of two pro-war candidates?
2007-12-11 02:05:41 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes please nominate both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. They knew it was wryong from the beginning and voted that way. The Iraq War is unjust.
2007-12-11 02:10:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Obama promised troop withdrawal from Iraq, and has given us a timetable for withdrawal. that is why people are not protesting anymore. Hillary Clinton lost the Dem universal because of the fact she initially supported the conflict. @McDonald's vet: decrease the bullshit. Iraq never attacked the united states. Japan *did* (for the duration of WWII). no person antagonistic the conflict in Afghanistan. those protesters antagonistic the conflict in IRAQ. Get your info on the instant, republitard. @Fido particularly the media exchange into overwhelmingly in prefer of the conflict. grievance of the Bush administration in user-friendly terms began to trickle into the media in 2005, 2 years after the conflict started, and no WMD were got here across. undergo in recommendations, the united states initially went to conflict because of the fact the Bush adminstration claimed it had evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMD. for sure, that exchange right into a lie, and that they've been mentioned as out for it. different than on Fox information, of direction. lots of Democrats additionally initially supported the conflict; they now say that they were misinform by potential of the Bush administration. Many Republicans might sense the comparable way, yet they might never openly criticize somebody from their very own political occasion.
2016-10-11 01:29:06 · answer #2 · answered by favaron 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you confuse the facts.
Yes, a vast majority want the war to end, in fact I would be surprised to see anyone want a war to continue forever. But to want someone who is anti-war as our commander and chief, is to say to the world, hit us now.
Note this is not to say I am looking for a pro-war person, my hope is to find someone who can make the tough decision of when it is time to fight, and when it is time to talk. ( Running, giving up, or bending over for the world is not an option )
Two candidates like that would be good in this election.
2007-12-11 02:25:03 · answer #3 · answered by heThatDoesNotWantToBeNamed 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Just because you want a war to end does not make you Anti-War.
What we need are two candidates, the first wants us to end the war before we win (the Dems can take that one), the second is the candidate that will end the war after we win. (The Republicans will take that one).
2007-12-11 02:19:30 · answer #4 · answered by ROIHUNTER 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes just like we all should live in peace and love our fellow men.
We should but most of us won't so I choose pragmatism over idealism and settle for Hillary in 08.
What absolutely needs to be avoided is having the perfect candidate like Kucinich and ending up with President Giuliani. These elections are taking place in the real world in this environment with the power of the corporate media out in full force.
I'm aware it's not the biggest change but I do believe a Hillary Presidency CAN be a place to start pushing for real reform
2007-12-11 02:14:26 · answer #5 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Vast majority? Not where I live! I swear, the whiners and criers of this country are pathetic. Completely out of touch with reality and the cost of war. The battle for Iwo Jima cost us 6,821 men in just 36 days. A far cry from a little less than 4,000 in OVER 4 years.
2007-12-11 02:12:02 · answer #6 · answered by Doc 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
We don't live in a Democracy, so mob rule is out. We live in a Republic, so entities and persons with more influence have to be weighted into the whole political equation.
2007-12-11 02:11:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
the war is over, the issue now is do we leave Iraq undefended and unstable, or do we stay until it is able to defend itself and is stable
if we leave, we are committing a war crime
if we stay, we only prolong the time that the Iraqis will have to take over for themselves, which could take decades
2007-12-11 02:12:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
that is too true... you mean hillary and guliani are both pro-war...
my input from the prior question
if we use police to protect people from themselves like seatbelts and helmets for the collective good (socialized healthcare costs) it is a stepping stone towards the govt telling them how to eat and maybe force us to exercise.... and other control...
2007-12-11 02:09:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Interesting group think. As you can only cast one vote, why should it matter what the 2nd candidate believes?
Oh, that's right - liberals only allow liberal beliefs. Everything else is bad. Hmm, and who are the fascists?
2007-12-11 02:13:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋