Today's Topic: Can the anti-war movement keep up the momentum?

I hope this gets movuing like a freight train. I do believe that the american people are finally beginning to see that a military solution in Iraq is fruitless and if congress does not act to stop the president (who now appears completely delusional even to many republicans) then they will pay in the next election. He needs to be stopped he is continuong to ignore the results of Nov 2006. it is time he was forced to listen.

I don't think it will be on the scale of the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era. Less citizens are affected. It is picking up some steam and I think that it should. The conflict in Iraq, especially, is a problem. It portends no good outcome. I suggest that the anti-war movement has many supporters who might not march but are silently agreeing.

First of all, I don't look to celebrities for my opinions on things; but, they do have the same right to protest as anyone else.

Second - the President is ignoring all the advice he was given by the Iraq commission that he called for and is stubbornly continuing with his failed policies. The Deomocrats need to follow up Nov 2006 with a way to stop the Presdient from continuing his crusade.

And last - I do think there will be continued anti-war activity.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Frankly, I do not want the anti war movement to catch the blame for the Iraq disaster if we do have to leave. In our Constitution there is no provision for a "vote of confidence" like you have in a parliamentary system. Sure Bush is a lame duck with a 30% popularity rating. But unfortunately he is still commander in chief.

I would like to see him twist in the wind a bit, frankly. He got us in, let's see him figure out how to get us out. That's why we re-elected him in 2004, right, so he could "finish the job"? Or maybe let's see if the Republicans in Congress can help him see things more clearly. They thought he was so wonderful two years ago let's see if they can convince him of anything now. Maybe if things get bad enough the Dems can ride the tidal wave of resentment into the White House and both houses of Congress in 2008. That's not too far fetched, Clinton's shenanigans with Lewinsky had something to do with Gore losing in 2000.

I don't think it is possible or advisable to shove alot of Dem policies down Bush's throat. He still has veto power. Sure, test his willingness to veto policies that are overwhelmingly supported by the public and see if he is willing to demolish himself further by doing the veto, that's smart politics. But there are limits to the possible and the advisable. We are stuck with this clown. We do not have to make it easy for him, but we may need to give him enough rope to hang himself.

I do think that the momentum will continue and pick up as we get closer to something bigger happening. Either we are all in for further disaster and Congress sits back and lets the "decider" play war games or more action will be taken to prevent this.

The universe assists us in increasing what we focus on. That's why I don't focus on "anti" anything. Instead I find the most productive thing I can be FOR - which in this case is "dynamic peace" and then I back it with all of my might, focusing and focusing in the positive, and watching the results.

Anti-war protests beget more wars to be anti-.

Pro Peace, especially pro-Dynamic Peace, movements - Peace SURGES, if you will, open doors and more doors to things that will really benefit us.

In between anti-war and pro-Dynamic Peace is this one very important bit:
only when we have enough women in public office and other power positions to balance out the men (about 50-50%) will the "rogue male" behavior of planetary wasting/warmongering be stopped.

It's up to the women.

I'm with my comrade, Carolion. Pro-peace is the better movement. And yet, I answer, "yes". I believe the momentum can be kept up. The 'future with women' perspective is also directly alligned with my view and that of the world peace organization of which I have been a member for over 33 years (Soka Gakkai International/SGI). See http://www.sgi.org for more on this peace movement. - jrg

I tried SGI and found that it was just as limiting as the other religions. But, I have to give them credit for their efforts. They accepted nothing less than peace.

I think that the Iraq conflict should not be ignored. We can't trust GWB to manage this war effectively. We need a better strategy for getting out of there and leaving the country of Iraq to the Iraqis.

I hope the movement can pick up and encourage the dissolution of this war. I often get into arguements with one of my best friend over this. She is stauch republican and I just take everything in and try to figure out what I think is the best approach or take on political issues. I do not limit my opinions based on the fact that I am a democrat. She says we have to"finish" this war no matter what the cost. I comp. disagree with that because I believe there is a good chance that this situation cannot be "finished" in the sense that Bush and other Republicans would like it to be finished. We have done alot and yet not so much in that area, the question now is at what point are we going to feel like we accomplished something in Iraq?

Maybe it is best to cut our losses and back out. Democracy is not the answer in all situations and honeslty if you look at history Democracy does not just appear over night and historically speaking 4 years is like overnight. We have done what we can and we need to step out of the boxing ring and see what the people of Iraq can do for theit country. It might not be our solution but chances are a descision that comes from within instead of imposed is usually the longer laster answer.

I believe that the momentum for ending this mis-guided, mis-managed, and deceitfullly premised adventure MUST continue and grow exponentially. Every man and woman of good will and good sense needs to add his or her voice to the clarion call to stop this insanity NOW. A hundred, or more, of our finest young men and women are perishing every month in an utterly futile effort. Bush's apparent management philosophy of "fail, fail again" is taking this country down the path to ruin.

Do you think the anti-war movement will gain momentum now that two in three Americans disagree with the direction of the war?

The answer to this question lies in another question.

" Does the average American understand why we are in Iraq ?"

Some answers that have not explained why we are in Iraq are :

* weapons of mass destruction
* because they hate freedom
* he was a brutal dictator
* to establish democracy in that part of the world
* we either fight them over there , or we will fight them here

No further answers as to why we are in Iraq seem to be forthcoming, so more than likely civilian support for our presence in Iraq will continue to disintegrate. The easiest why to express this disapproval is in the form of war protests, so look for them to continue.
Do remember this lesson from history. The second the war in Vietnam ended , so did all the protests and calls for non-war solutions to conflicts.

During the Vietnam war, the largest American generation ever was on the street in full force. We were young, and we didn't have a lot to lose. We didn't shy away from asking tough questions of the establishment, nor did we withhold our impatience when we didn't get satisfactory answers. We saw the potential we had to affect change in this country, and we fervently worked on that potential.

Today, the boomers are non-existent in any force of numbers. Our social consciousness has taken a back seat to our uppity lifestyle. Our portfolios are bulging, so are our midriffs, and our outspokenness has gone the way of that of our parents, subsumed by expectations of those in our circles, and unwillingness to be singled out for ad hominem ridicule. Now that we have achieved material status, we would rather remain in our comfort, than put it all on the line as we once did. Now we feel we have a lot to lose. But are we valuing the wrong things? And what about our early idealism? And what about the many of us who have retreated from the political battlefield and fallen back on age-old truisms, the very ones we once challenged but now embrace?

I am fearful that any "peace movement" will not gain momentum until many more people die, and then it may be too late. I don't expect many to die in the US, and our level of comfort will continue to insulate us from the need for change.

I think the most progressive among us have graduated to a new level, Steven Covey would call it "independence". But in Covey's works, he talks of "interdependence" as being the ultimate state to be in. Until we can turn back towards each other and truly commit to concerted action on the basis of what's good for the whole country, regardless of the personal beliefs that cause arguments between friends, then no, nothing will be acomplished.