Don't liberals know usually the first step to peace is war?

Question

Sometimes war has to happen to protect us. Don't they know this?

Whats that smell? Smells like BT coming with another lie on here.

Answer 1

They think it's SURRENDER, then pay off the enemy .

Answer 2

Liberals are usually pretty simplistic and start with a conclusion and then work backwards from there, rather than the usual methods for discovering the truth.

Fighting back against agressors is apparently a morally reprehensible thing to do in liberal's minds, and mostly because they are scared, dont understand, and have a political axe to grind at any cost.

If their leader sanctions a war, then we are fighting for a noble cause, if they didnt vote for the guy hes a war monger. Nevermind the details or the real-life implications of not fighting when there's a chance to grind your axe or seem righteous.

I dont like war or violence, but when it comes to some enemies of humanity there is no other way to respond to them. They deal in terror and bullets and respect nothing but. Telling them to cut it out is not going to get us anything but blown up.

Answer 3

No, they have absolutely no understanding of cause and effect, just look at their record. The cloo fone has been ringing off the hook for decades and they still refuse to answer it.

In the current global war on terror, the religion of peace islamofascists are counting on the weaknesses of liberals to make their subjugation of all free peoples easier.

Who would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prefer to be running our country, George Bush or John Kerry? Who would Osama Bin Laden want in power, Dick Cheney or Algore? John Edwards or Rudy Guiliani? Joe Leiberman or Ned Lamont? Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter? John McCain or Howard Dean?

The American people as a group know that liberals are weak. The American people know that "redeployment" means "cut and run," "affirmative action" means "racist preference," "revenues" means "tax increases," "pro-choice" means "pro-abortion" and "social responsibility" means "socialism." The American people understand that illegal aliens are here because they broke the law. The American people understand that drilling for oil in a teeny tiny corner of ANWR makes sense. The American people understand that a political party based on abortion, tree hugging and "peace love dove" is not fit to run the show.

Even with the conservative disillusionment over the current crop of republican porkers spending like drunken sailors on a three day pass, the liberals don't stand a chance.

Answer 4

Absolutely. That's why I think Israel should keep waxing Hezbollah butt until they are completely gone.

I don't think the same thing in Iraq. And really, if Americans believed that, then we would all be in favor of a draft to get the troops over there to finish the job properly. But they don't.

And there a great many ways to protect this country that don't rely on war. Reagan won the Cold War without ever having to invade the Soviet Union. And let's face it they posed a greater threat to this nation than any Iraqi.

Answer 5

You are partially correct about that... It sometimes takes feeling the full brunt of an opposite to realize the virtue of what must be done. Though I am personally opposed to our occupation of Iraq, I do know that we will probably delve into a much deeper and dirtier state of affairs before we realize what we did wrong and what we need to do.
Andy G I realize now why your avatar is one of the three stooges, c'mon say something intelligent!

Answer 6

Why is the war being fought in Iraq? Can you ever stop terrorism with War? the terrorists use the war to launch more effective attacks..You are not going to scare a group of people who are inclined to blow themselves up into doing anything. Our soldiers are tasked with the impossible..There is no way any of them should be brought up on charges for flipping out over there..They don't know who the enemy is...this is NOT conventional warfare..When do you decide it's done? The more killing, the more terrorists we create...The Americans have since the beginning of this country always attempted to justify the killing/slaughter/exploitation of others by claiming it was done in the pursuit of liberty and freedom...for who? at the expense of who? and at times of war , the disenfranchised, poor, and left behind members of American society is supposed to rally around the government? All we have done in Iraq is kill a bunch of poor people, who have been killing each other based on religious differences for centuries...when has there been a threat out of Iraq? Invading Iraq after 911 makes as much sense as Invading Canada after 911....

Answer 7

They don't know much of anything except how to Make up $hit, lie, hate Bush, & do all this while chatting over tea & cookies.
Guess if someone came smashing down their door, armed & out to kill them & their family.... they would want to negotiate over tea & cookies?!?!
Maybe Libs should get their own planet! Hey maybe that is why NASA spends sooo much money trying to see if life can live on Mars!?! Wouldn't that be SweeeeeeT!

GOD BLESS!!!

Answer 8

War is the next step to war. A total and utter defeat is the first step to peace.

Answer 9

Tell that to the dead victims of 9/11, the victims of Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and all the other dead woman, men and children from around the world as a result of this war on terror.

How dare you justify war, by sugar coating it with peace?

This is not War, this is empire building and don't we sure as hell know it.

Blind Real-Public-****.

=)

Answer 10

yes, war with Afghanistan did indeed help break down the terrorist network, and cooperation with our allies in Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. have brought down other parts of the network

but if you're talking about Iraq... I'm confused... because there were no WMDs since the late 1990s, radical Islam was discouraged under Saddam's regime, and no link exists between Hussein and Bin Laden. The only terorrists in Iraq are the terrorists who joined the network to undermine its rebuilding and occupation...

Answer 11

Sometimes I think the simplistic statement you make is true. But it is a ridiculous generalisation to assume that two parties would always need to go to war to settle their diffferences...Canada and the US argue about things all the time, but haven't had a shooting war since 1800.