Can an Anti-War Movement Confined Largely to the Internet and Voting Booth Change the Course of a WAR?
921491
The Internet has been shown to be a catalyst for change in politics. That is why, as of recent, many talk show pundits have paid particular attention to bloggers. So in short the Internet, and our decisions at the voting booth, can work to expedite our withdrawal from this futile war, assuming that our efforts are not directed at electing just Republican or Democrats, who have recently become mere caricatures of each other. If we use the potent venue of the Internet and our electoral power to bring enough Independents to power, we can sway this country away from this costly and unjust war.
1013416
Oh dear, you are stooping low, particulary on the 90th annivesery of the Battle of the Somme where nearly half a million of my countrymen died in one battle.\n\nWhen are you going to get it through your head that no-one is simply a "war supporter" apart from a very few mad people. That doesnt mean however that we all think like you do and should cut and run leaving the Iraqis to their fate. A fate which we created.\n\nHow can you live in such a black and white world where you have to wear a label of War Supporter or Peace Protester?\n\nWhy not have "intelligent debater" and then you may learn, and contribute something.  \n\nStop the name calling and come up with something constructive for a change.
1021243
actually kerry did not run on an anti war platform. he actually said he would be tough on terror which assumes continuation of the war efforts. \n\nI believe only congress can declare war. War was never declared, it was just called a police action like vietnam. One of those tricks they use to step around the rules and our rights. We havn't had an actual war since WWII. Korea, Nam, various African skirmishes, Iraq I & II, Afgahnistan; not wars. Looks like a war but what do you know right.
602673
All of the above\nplus they can Vote to declare War.
591238
It has happened before.\n\nIn this day and age the military is too strong, and the reality is you would never get enough people who care enough about any given issue to have any real impact, other than a protest.
176108
The main reson to oppose WWI...\nIt's over.\n\nReally, specify which side your interested in...\n\nThe whole war or just US involvement, etc?
679894
I would say yes.\nwe were losing, and we had to win at all cost. I say the ends justify the means.\nand we had to win decisively, we had to establish ourselves as the superpower so no one would try that crap again.\nand above all, it was not just some war fought over politics. we were up against murderers and racists and people who wanted to destroy the world. people like that must be stopped, even if it means killing them to make them stop.
15005
Although the pacifist movement is traditionally associated with the American left, both Republicans and Democrats have started, opposed and supported our major wars.\n\nIn the Civil War, it was the Republicans led by Lincoln who supported the Union's war, while many Northern Democrats called for Lincoln to let the Confederacy secede.\n\nDemocrat Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt both won re-election by promising to keep us out of war, but both declared war in their next term. Both Republicans and Democrats protested their decisions. Kennedy and Johnson started Vietnam, with people from both parties opposing the war.\n\nBoth Gulf Wars, started by Republican Bushs, were opposed mostly by Democrats, although some Republicans like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul decried the wars. Democrat Clinton involved the US in Bosnia, with Republicans condemning the decision and Democrats protesting the war.\n\nParty affiliation doesn't have much to do with supporting or opposing a war. In the 20th Century, it could even be said that Democrat Presidents were more war-like, although most protesters were more likely Democrat or left-leaning than Republican.
745798
Even though I support the war I would have to say the answer to your question is no. There is strife in many locations in the world, but we appear to be very selective about where we take action. I do not think that it can be denied that if oil is concerned it plays a major factor. Because oil is vital to our national economy it becomes what is termed as a vital national interest. If our actions were purely altruistic then we would be taking action against genocide in Africa, but we are not. Anyone who believes that oil is not at least in part a factor is deluding themselves, but I for one have no problem with wars for oil. I drive a car, I like electricity and I use rubber and plastic products. At least wars for resources make sense where  as wars of ideology usually do not.
320431
A simple yes/no answer should really suffice. The answer is no. There are a number of clearly identifiable factors which render this osrt of action unachievable (whether desirable or not, which is not the question posed) in the US or anywhere else for that matter.\n\nThe biggest single factor is public disinterest. Organisers of any event that they feel passionate abotu will find it hard to understand that people, being intrinsically selfish, don't want to participate for numerous reasons inlcuding inconvenience, laziness and apathy, belief that the action is flawed or doomed to failure anyway etc.\n\nOther factors contributing to the "no" answer include information distribution (how do you communicate effectively) and dealing with counter-information from those who would not want such an event to take place.\n\nOrganisers of demonstrations and protests know these things, and therefore they ensure that there is a groundswell of support long before the event is announced. In the case of the fight by Bob Geldof and others against the G8 and their stance on African poverty, mobilising the media and getting them onside is also critical.\n\nNeither of these would apply for the given scenario.\n\nThanks for exercising my brain for 5 minutes.
980823
Winning is defined by whoever writes the history. Can't the cons just claim it, pay some journalists to say it, and publish it on the Fox website? (and quietly bring the troops home?)
679362
Don't join the war, protest it!
360207
Would it be better to have no internet in China?\n\nTHOSE ARE THE RULES.\n\nThe dissidents know it.  (We do it to pedophiles here.)\n\nSometimes, to bring about change, you have to compromise.\n\nMaybe now, it's not so funny when you shoot off your mouth and hide behind your "right to free speech".
74551
togetherweserved.com, but I must warn you...if you’re not highly decorated and war injured, you better be careful what you say over there...on  postings and threads, or they'll eat you alive. Best to be as anonymous as possible if you’re not mainstream (pro-war) you might get unwanted company. S/F
492089
You mean like typing about how much you hate their cause on an internet forum??
120961
of course not.\nhttp://www.philipdru.com\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com\nhttp://thestressblog.com\nhttp://www.un.org/\nhttp://www.antiwar.com\nhttp://www.kaos959.com
1185807
First of all I'm a soldier and I support the war on terror because I've been to Iraq, and I believe in the cause 110%.  I'm willing to guess that 99% of the rest of the people here only know what they see on the media, or read on an antiwar site.\n\nSecond however there is such thing as free speech so we can't get rid of the protesters.  \n\nJust remember without the US how we are, you wouldn't be talking so openly on Yahoo.  \n\nVICTORY !!!!!