Why don't the peacenics in the Democratic party get back to the job of ending the wars?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
24 Answers
Because it takes a long time to clean up the messes made in the last eight years.
@Marina There has been sufficient time for the troops to pack their gear and be home right now since Obama is in charge. If they stay there 100 years there will still be big problems when they leave. That argument is burnt toast.
Also, the focus has moved now to where it belongs. Pakistan is close to becoming a failed State, and the Taliban have made advances in getting close to the nuclear installations. If they should succeed, it would be a complete disaster for the entire world, a total Armageddon.
Iraq was an unnecessary waste of lives and treasure, but it is winding down, and we can’t change the errors of the past. It is up to us not to make new, more devastating errors.
Our Canadian troops are scheduled to leave Afghanistan in 2011, I’m so happy! And of course we were never in Iraq.
Americans though, you really have yourself in a pickle with Iraq.
@The_Compassionate_Heretic Yes people are still dieing. The peace-nicks are so quiet that I never hear them. They should be just as loud as they were when Bush was doing the same things.
@walterallenhaxton That’s your opinion. In fact, it is not a matter of packing their gear and coming home. Orderly transition, exactly as has been taking place, is required. Having destroyed the social order, it is up to us to make sure something new is in place in cooperation with the existing government.
That process is going forward right now.
Yeah? What are you doing for peace Walter?
@dynamicduo That sounds good. A year and a half gives the politicians plenty of time to craft a new reason for them to be there. Why not October?
@The_Compassionate_Heretic Trying to fire up the troops. They should not be letting Obama put them to sleep. They would be helping him out. He could use the money saved from ending those wars now for other things he values more.
@walterallenhaxton Cause you can’t really just pull out of a country you’re involved in without causing massive destabilization. And Obama’s already been requesting we stay longer but we are firm in our answer of NO, we are leaving. Canadians are peacekeepers, not warmongers.
@Marina There will be a need for fighting to reestablish a social order different from the one we leave behind. What ever it is it will be different from what the people are most comfortable with. It will be different because we will have imposed our values on another people that does not share them.
They are simply messing with people. There is no need to keep our people over there to do that. They can get on a plane and fly there on their own to do that.
@walterallenhaxton All I can say is that I am very glad that you, with your extremely simplistic viewpoint of world affairs, are not in charge.
Peaceniks, Grandpa? You mean there were people long ago who thought we shouldn’t fight to grab other people’s natural resources and force them to live by our rules? But doesn;t might make right, Gramps and isn’t it better to be dead than Red? Or better dead than out of oil?
I’m scared, Grandpa. All I want is our old America back.
If your search for peaceniks ends with the democratic party, you’re not looking far enough to either margin. (Ron Paul followers are also for ending the war but more for economic reasons.) Those who haven’t been lobotomized by factory school curriculums or siphoned off by digital entertainment are mostly protesting on the Internet when they aren’t busy protesting in a free speech zone, being infiltrated and subverted by law enforcement, being detained under terrorism prevention laws, and being premptively raided by law enforcement.
Of course, all of that is merely excuses, I suppose, and that if they wanted to, people could just take to the streets, but then we’d just likely see agents provocateur giving law enforcement the apparent excuse to deploy taser projectiles and pain rays to disperse the masses.
In a way, the argument about it taking time to clean up messes is true, but IMO closer to the truth is that Obama or any president. Would be “neutralized” for disrupting the poker game. Also, see here: http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/08/13/who-is-funding-the-afghan-taliban-you-dont-want-to-know/
War is big business, baby.
“Peaceniks” now there is a flambaiting word don’t have a chance against the entrenched pro-business conservatives and the corporate control of the news media.
As long as corporations control the media and shape what we hear about issues, the electorate is being manipulated to support the cause de jour.
@dynamicduo So in other words to avoid problems we will have to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan as long as we have staid in Germany, Japan and South Korea. Oops. We never left those places.
@PerryDolia Those particular businesses were organized to be ticks feeding off of the spoils collected by government. They are doing quite well at feeding their politician owners. Don’t get them confused with legitimate businesses like Papa Johns Pizza or even your local used car dealer. They are totally different animals.
@galileogirl It never existed. It was better though. The key to our having ownership of our country again is having ownership of our money again. In other words money has to be something valuable that people will trade for. A commodity/coin currency will work just fine with security warehouses that keep your surplus coins for you and give them to the people who you buy things from with your debit card.
Of course there would be a charge for such a service but it would be cheap compared to what we have now.
They had a coin currency in the USA during the time that it was built. The 19TH century. At the beginning of that century our currency was severly inflated. It was fixed and for about 80 years the dolar had the same value. Many things that people purchased with it came down in price. Rockefeller what ever his faults brought the price or kerosene way down. I am certain that was true of many products.
@Marina My spell checker did not like the word. peacenik It does not like the way you spell it either.
It does seem to keep it’s meaning no mater how it is spelled.
@walterallenhaxton WTF are you dithering on about? Are you one of those guys who gets a bee in his bonnet and doesn’t respond but instead just writes randomly about anything? Coins and currency?? Or maybe I was right the 1st time and in a fit of senility you are channelling Spiro T. Agnew. BTW @Marina was right, your spellchecker was wrong. In the 60’s the OG’s attached the suffix -nik as a put down because of it’s Soviet etymology. So passe.
when Bush was in charge it was easy for the peaceniks to find fault. Now that they are in charge they are learning something. Wars are over when they are ready to be over.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
