Mar 19, 2008

They're still there, we're still here.

Polishifter posts about the antiwar protests at Huntington beach recently...
There's a lot of great pictures of patriotic Americans using their freedom to speak out.

How many more? lives, souls, dollars, years..?

And to those of you who have recently been championing Nader - A vote for Nader won't stop the war. It won't stop lives from being wasted in Iraq. The ONLY way to do that is to vote for whichever Democratic candidate ends up running for President and holding them to getting us out of Iraq. THIS ELECTION is it. War or No war? It's a simple enough choice to me.

4 comments:

PoliShifter said...

Thanks for the link Fade..

The Poor Blogger said...

The problem is that I don't think a vote for Clinton is much better in terms of ending the war.

Fade said...

McCain, Clinton/Obama, Paul or Nader. Seriously, A vote for which of those four may get our troops out of Iraq in the next four years?

The Poor Blogger said...

First, I saw a picture on television of a bunch of soldiers from Iraq, one of whom was holding a sign saying, "We are here, we are here, we are heeeeere!" Funny, in a sad way.

Let's talk realism vs. idealism. Realistically, only McCain, Obama and Clinton have a chance. McCain is a definite no. Obama will, I think, try to get the soldiers out the quickest of those who have a chance to get elected. Clinton, I'm not so sure. I'm not even sure she wouldn't have invaded in the first place.

That said, it's the looking at the short run which has kept us with this horrid, two-party system and with candidates who, I think, aren't that far apart, especially when one is comparing Clinton and McCain. No one would get us out quicker than Ron Paul, and no one would be less likely to invade another country that Ron Paul. Well, maybe Nader.

So, realistically, for the long run, voting for the idealist rather than the realist will probably bring about a better chance of long-term peace than a vote for either majority candidate. At the risk of sounding like a Democrat, it's voting on the hope for the future, not the fear of the present.

Of course, if we were to elect either Nader or Paul, the parties they represent would probably be quickly gobbled up by the majority parties. Things would eventually end up exactly as they are now. Only the names would change.