Should anti-war protests continue under the Obama administration?

[billyoc]

Poll question: Should anti-war protests continue under the Obama administration?

[DrDan]

1. uh . . . . still at war, I believe . . . . in 2 countries

[billyoc]

2. 3

[H2O Man]

3. Yes.

Definitely. I think that the style, or "tactics," that should be used should change from the ones that were used during the Bush-Cheney years. But I think that anti-war protests should continue, and indeed, increase.

[billyoc]

6. With the danger involved in cross border attacks on Pakistan, I would increase the protests, too.

[Life Long Dem]

4. It's not a yes or no answer.

Considering President Obama will be doing what he said he would be doing, it's still a need for protest but not to the extent where they are not doing what we all want done.

[billyoc]

5. "still a need for protest"

OK, then.

[WeDidIt]

7. MAn, the left learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from the Clinton administration

Eat your own, that's all you do.

Sad.

[billyoc]

9. We learned not to blindly trust Democratic leaders.

The hard way.

[WeDidIt]

10. Yep, you learned NOTHING!

Go ahead, eat your own.

The next George W,. Bush might have a brain and know how the fuck to turn this into a dictatorship.

[billyoc]

11. I also learned how to read poll results.

Check back in on this one later this morning.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. I sure would take a poll on DU to be indicative of much of anything.

DU members aren't even representative of the party base, much less anything else.

[H2O Man]

17. DU polls

are, at times, representative of the beliefs of DU members. And DU members are as much citizens, with the same rights and responsibilities, as any other citizens .... including those in the "base."

As Gandhi noted, "In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place." Those who oppose the wars have both the right and responsibility to voice their opinions in the manner outlined in Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights.

[EFerrari]

31. No kidding. n/t

[H2O Man]

15. "Eat you own"

That would suggest: {a} that Obama alone is responsible for the wars; and {b} that a peaceful anti-war march would somehow be damaging to him. Neither is true.

[Jamastiene]

8. As long as the wars continue, it would be hypocritical

(and MSM would make a big todo and repeat the word, "hypocritcial" ad finitem) if the protests did NOT continue.

Yes, they should continue as long as the unnecessary corporate profiteering wars continue.

[billyoc]

12. I see your point, the lack of protests could be used to show Obama in a bad light.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Protests are perhaps the least effective way to get anything done.

But if they make you feel better, go right ahead. Just don't expect results.

[Zynx]

16. Even though I would not join them, yes.

It would make no sense to stop if the wars are continuing.

[bigwillq]

18. For as long as we're at war.

Why shouldn't they continue? :shrug:

[roody]

19. Of course.

[Clio the Leo]

20. lol, which military action in particular are you referring?

Or do you just mean war in general?

In that case, sure. If EVERYONE engaged in protesting the notion or war, there's be no one left to fight them. :)

But flat disagreement to ANY military action regardless of the situation is about as foolish as flat support regardless of the situation and who you're supporting.

[anonymous171]

21. Of course. nt

[backscatter712]

22. They'll be more effective now.

We have a president who actually seems to listen to the public, rather than smirking at them.

[pot luck]

23. As long as there's a war going on, then there should be

anti-war protests. People don't stop being against wars just because the administration changed.

[Renew Deal]

24. If there is a reason to protest, then protest.

Some like to protest for the sake of protesting.

[HughMoran]

25. Of course

Why should they stop so long as wars are happening and our citizens are dying.

[billyoc]

34. You would think that would be obvious, but apparently not.

[Uzybone]

26. sure, why not

[loyalsister]

27. Protesting war or supporting peace?

It seems that there is a difference in the two president's agendas if you pose a question of when and how and the ideas of engaging enemies. If the difference in the entire framework and methodology doesn't make a difference, then the fact that president Obama has already shifted the language in a way that is supportive of a peaceful resolution as opposed to ongoing fight would be irrelevant.
If war protesters do not recognize the differences in methods and agenda, they may just want to unconditionally protest anything and they absolutely do have that right.
But when peace is a goal the administration is actively pursueing. It makes you wonder just what they want. War protestors seem to believe that "peace" and well being is a simple absense of troops. That is not the case in that world more peaceful conditions must be actively pursued. It takes work after military action. We can't simply walk away. We have to help solve it.
I only hope people know what they are protesting.

[cwcwmack]

28. icasualties.org

Ahhh... yes! American blood and dollars still being spent.

22 US soldiers killed in Iraq in less than 2 months

41 US soldiers killed in Feb/March

60+ dead soldiers since inauguration day.

Btw... why the hell is no one talking about this freekin Afghan quagmire? They did it to the Soviets in the 80's... and we're there now gettin it.

[billyoc]

33. The anti-war movement has been mute since election day.

That's long enough.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. Absolutely.

Gotta keep the pressure on DC until the damned things are over and done with.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

30. As long as

an illegal and unwinnable war rages on and as long as Iraqis are killed and Americans die...

FUCKING A YES.

I know people who have lost their children in Iraq to a violent B.S. fucked up war.

I got up this morning and there are still people dying there.

GET THE FUCK OUT OF IRAQ NOW.

[enigmatic]

32. Yes

No question.

[MrSlayer]

35. President Obama has set a date to leave Iraq.

So it's sort of pointless to continue protesting that. Afghanistan, on the other hand, is going to escalate and that should be protested. We should be there to kill Al Qaeda, period. We aren't there to bring democracy or any of that other crap. Kill the cockroaches and come home.