I want a Peace candidate.

Who's with me?

Yeah I want someone who knows how to bring about peace too, instead of pitting countries against each other with us in the middle.

Of course I want a candidate that prefers peace to war.

I know how it is...there seems to be little logic about whether a thread sinks or floats sometimes.

This is a late night from the heart post. I have a lot of thought and feeling behind this idea and will take your advice.

Thank you.

As long as its a peace without torture, and with habeas corpus and so forth. I'd like a candidate to stand up and tell * that he's going to be looking at prison if he starts any more sh*t in the middle east before his term is up.

:hi:

That's about one every five minutes.

What does that mean in terms of our attitude towards diplomacy.

Neither of our candidates are Peace candidates. Do we have an opportunity to make them take a Peace position?

We will never be a kum ba ya nation.

We could strive to be a kum ba ya nation.

They will be brought up to hate us much like they are brought up to hate Jews.

There are times and places where it may be necessary to fight evil with force. I am not a complete pacifist.

Ethnocentric much?

at least not without assuring their own destruction, MAD is still in effect, and even if it weren't, we are surrounded by allies on our borders and two oceans as well. The United States hasn't been in danger of actual invasion since 1812.

Indeed, the fact of the matter is that the United States hasn't been in direct danger from conventional forces in almost 200 years, and that had little to do with the size of our military, which was paltry in comparison to other nations for most of that time. Instead we were, and still are, to a large extent, protected by geography.

A true peace candidate would severely reduce our offensive capabilities without compromising our defensive capabilities at the same time. The only reason we have a military the size of the one we have now is so we can threaten others to follow our directives.

Most of them will never be able to do anything to us.

The real answer lies NOT in trying to be a "kum bay ya nation" as you so cynically put it, but on finally getting serious about setting up an international mechanism to resolve disputes between countries without force. It is no longer sensible for us to act as if no country we disagree with or who disagrees with us is capable of being rational.

Defend our territories, yes. Make every international dispute a "test of our resolve" no. That way lies Vietnam and nothing else.

Name one country, aside from Russia, which has any realistic capability of "taking out" the US.

And Russia won't do it, because they would get it right back.

Stop threatening to obliterate them

Stop invading them

Stop arming terrorists

Stop being the worlds bully

Start obeying international law and working with the other nations, complying with the UN.

There is a huge difference between being a thug and being protective.

The first order of business is to get our own house in order, to secure soft targets so they aren't so soft (which would require corporations actually protect themselves - thus security regulations) and to have a foreign police not as the world police but one of peaceful co-existence with a conscious.

He should have threatened to nuke someone like the sane people do.

Currently, our candidate as Democrats is going to be either Clinton or Obama. I do not want a candidate who would be willing to destroy peace for oil or greed or aggression, but I do want one who is willing to stand up and stop something such as genocide in Africa. If it takes force to stop that, then force it must be. Just a claim for supporting peace regardless of the situation is simplistic.

he's the only peace candidate available

We're not getting peace, or a peace candidate.

Again. :(

We have a highly motivated Democratic Party at this time. Why aren't we asking our candidates more about how they will bring us Peace?

Its true - it was on the teevee

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/opinion/03herbert.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Overkill and Short Shrift

By BOB HERBERT
Published: May 3, 2008, NYT

Or Dean. Or Gore.

type.

But if you're talking about a candidate that wants war as a last resort then I'm with ya.

and shots of crown royal.

And don't piss me off by saying that those are the desires of a Low Information Voter! :grr:

That, alone, should produce massive peace dividends as war-pork suddenly dries up around the globe.

That's my biggest problem with HRC(though I don't think Obama is a total saint on this either).

We need to make a clear break from the "Cold War/War on Terror" mindset. But our party is scared to do so.

It ought to be enough to defend our own territory from attack. Beyond that, we shouldn't be insisting on trying to cause a war everywhere else in the world, or on having a new Democratic president "talk tough" just to prove herself/himself.

That's what doomed us to Vietnam, for God's sake. It can never lead us anywhere BUT Vietnam. There's not going to be any more victory parades down Pennsylvania Avenue, and no decent person should want one.

Iran's leaders are only scary if you take their word at face value. Anybody who knows anything about international affairs knows that you don't take their word at face value. They are talking up their supposed desire for nuclear weapons so we'll give them money and diplomatic leverage to not actually build those weapons. They're not stupid and under the impression that they can actually destroy Israel.

Right now Iran's leaders are making us look like complete idiots to the rest of the world. Putin's photo op with Ahmadinejad says everything that needs to be known about how poor Bush's diplomatic skills are.