Comparison between Iraq and the United States--For Greens

[bryant69]

In the interest of full disclosure I voted for Ralph Nadar in 2000, which in retrospect wasn't my wisest decision.

There's a story today--reported on this board--about how the Iraqi resistance is doing all it can to not only kill Americans, but to ensure that things do not improve for the Iraqi people (i.e. the power stays off, the plumbing backs up, that kind of thing). They want the Iraqi people angry, assuming that they can harness that anger against the United States.

I see a certain similar to how some Greens look at the 2000, election, and how they are probably going to look at the 2004 election. Greens don't want moderate changes in how the United States does things, they want huge changes. Drastic changes. Dramatic changes. So they mah not be as enthusiastic about getting rid of President Bush as most Democrats. From their rarefied position, the American people may need to suffer a little more--and if such suffering produces a desire for the kind of radical changes they would like to make--well than it will all be for the good in the end.

Of course, there's not guarantee things are going to go that way, is there? And in the short term, four more years of President Bush will definately make things tougher on us all. I find it a very questionable tactic to work for the misery of your country men in order, in theory, to take over at a later date. That said, I'm sure that many of you are aware of the dangers of a Bush Presidency, and are adopting the policy of voting Democratic to get Bush out.

This might also end up applying to those on the left of the democratic party who will feel hurt if your candidate does not get the nomination (and let's face it, that does suck).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com