NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12108

Note that this is from a progressive's perspective, and is loaded with documentation.

The only candidates of either party who are not complete shrills for more war are Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson. Unfortunately, the chances that any of those three will be nominated is very small.

http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12108

Note that this is from a progressive's perspective, and is loaded with documentation.

The only candidates of either party who are not complete shrills for more war are Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson. Unfortunately, the chances that any of those three will be nominated is very small.

And see folks, this is why I support Ron Paul... :cool:

But seriously, John Edwards, if he cares about the poor, should stop getting those haircuts and jetting around in his private plane.

I've always said he could have taken the money from his haircut and fed an entire Ethiopian village for six months with it. :rolleyes:

Dennis Kucinich is a socialist pig. End of story.

Richardson doesn't seem too bad though.

But seriously, John Edwards, if he cares about the poor, should stop getting those haircuts and jetting around in his private plane.

I've always said he could have taken the money from his haircut and fed an entire Ethiopian village for six months with it. :rolleyes:

LOL

True.

Dennis Kucinich is a socialist pig. End of story.

Richardson doesn't seem too bad though.

I hate Kucinich with every fiber of my being, and am ambivalent regarding Richardson, but they are the only consistently antiwar candidates.

I think we are in for more war any way the presidency goes at this point. There has to be a better way.

There has to be a better way.

More diplomacy, less belligerence.

Diplomacy doesn't always work especially with certain types of governments.

No, it doesn't, but war should only be used as a last resort. And even then, it should meet extremely strict criteria so that it is waged in the least inhumane way possible.

More diplomacy, less belligerence.


Diplomacy doesn't always work especially with certain types of governments.

I personally think economic warfare is the best way but they only use it in conjuction with open warfare. I remember reading about how the dropped US Mint created Iraqi currency on a few cities to create havoc with the currency. I know that is just a minor way but I believe a full blown economic war instead of a military war may have the same effect.

I think we are in for more war any way the presidency goes at this point. There has to be a better way.

I just want out of the sand box, is all. I'd prefer diplomacy if possible, but that's with the understanding that there are simply some people you cannot negotiate with and have to use military force.

Iraq was a fuck-up, though. Shrubby was told by three intelligence agencies that Saddam had weapons, well shit, he didn't. Why didn't Shrubby just say "I fucked up", get the hell out of Iraq, and instead focus on Bin Laden? Hell, we could have found that bastard by now if we didn't have people doing four tours in Iraq.

Ahmadinejad and Chavez are different stories, but you can still negotiate with most people.

Iraq was a fuck-up, though. Shrubby was told by three intelligence agencies that Saddam had weapons, well shit, he didn't.

The neat thing of intelligence is that we have to take the Presidents word on the reports. The intelligence community is not allowed to defend itself.

It could very well be they simply reported there was a chance. I don't think they have released the Presidential Daily Briefs yet....

Shrub wanted that war bad.

Shrub wanted that war bad.


Saddam tried to kill his daddy. I told people when he was first running for office that we would be in a war with Iraq.

Shrub wanted that war bad.

Indeed.

And see folks, this is why I support Ron Paul... :cool:
It must be simple to be a favorite candidate when your supporters are such simple minded, single issue folks.

It must be simple to be a favorite candidate when your supporters are such simple minded, single issue folks.

Please take your flames elsewhere.

Please take your flames elsewhere.

Ah a supporter of Dr. Man of the people?

Ah a supporter of Dr. Man of the people?

No, but calling people "simple minded" is flaming.

Please take your flames elsewhere.
Right after you give up your internet to feed starving Ethiopians.

No, but calling people "simple minded" is flaming.

Yea for the rules of the board sure.

I have heard liberts call others far worst. I tend to find the find the asshole liberts all the time. ;)

Yea for the rules of the board sure.

I have heard liberts call others far worst. I tend to find the find the asshole liberts all the time. ;)

lol

It must be simple to be a favorite candidate when your supporters are such simple minded, single issue folks.

I agree with Ron Paul on Iraq, limiting the government's powers, no amnesty, and pro-life positions, among others. Seems like more than one issue to me.

Failed.