Yeah, they all say "war what is it good for?", or "give peace a chance", obviously we gave peace a chance, it failed. or "war hasnt accomplished anything!"
Except for freeing the slaves, freeing the Jews, freeing france (X2), making corpses out of terrorists.....
The libs dont realize, that no matter how much pom-pom waving they do for the terrorists, if the terrorists do come to power here, the libs will be the first ones they kill, just look at all the videos from the middle east of them throwing homosexuals off of the roofs of buildings, or feet first into industrial shredders, or shooting women in the kabul soccer stadium, for showing too much ankle or wanting to go to school. the libs here, for all their talk about human rights, are speechless for all the atrocities done by the terrorists. is this why they are silent? they know they will be the first ones to die if they came to power? CNN went silent about saddam, Eason jordan said so himself, they went silent on saddams atrocities, so saddam wouldnt hurt them. what a bunch of weak kneed dhimmis.
tofu- pacifism only works against open, free societies. it is worthless against totalitarians and dictatorships. ask the pacifists missing kidneys in the chinese jails, used as slave labor. ask the millions in the soviet gulags. ask the millions in pol pots killing fields. ask the Jews that went to the concentration and extermination camps.
2006-10-26 14:50:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
This has to be the worst "Question" Ever...A democrat was the President at the beginning of WW I WWII and Vietnam...Comparing the War In Iraq to WWI and WWII is the funniest thing i have ever heard...also if Bush really wanted to fight a semi just war..wouldnt it have been with Iran
Oh yeah..and our founding fathers were Liberal...thats why its called a liberal democracy
2006-10-26 22:39:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by tiipotter 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The American Civil War was not necessary. It wasn't about slavery - it was Lincoln's desire to keep the union intact. They should have let those bastard freaks secede. They are still the problem with this country. I don't believe that either ww was necessary. I would support the American Revolution because the British were the intruders and the American Patriots were pretty much insurgents, just like the Iraqis who attack the US troops who aggressively and terroristically invaded their country.
2006-10-26 21:53:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by zia269 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Are you comparing those necessary wars to the war in Iraq?
Are you truly THAT delusional? You are clueless!
The war in Iraq should be related to Vietnam, actually.
2006-10-26 21:52:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
According to Conservative logic, it is EVIL and BAD to disagree with their point of view, and no one has the right to have a thought of their own. . .
Blah, blah, blah. . .
Yeah. Everyone can try and point the fingers at the other side, but what does that do for anything? Does it get anything done? Does it solve the problems of this country, or even the world? Everyone spends so much time fighting about their side of opinion, they conveniently forget the real issues at hand, and what we need to do to solve them - WORK TOGETHER!!
2006-10-26 21:53:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
All war is necessary and fun.
All this anti war talk is from people that never experienced the fun and excitement of killing people.
Go big Red Go
2006-10-26 21:53:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Please avoid oxymorons.
All wars prior to Viet Nam were good wars. All wars since are bad. I'm still trying to figure out what happened to cause such an abrupt change.
2006-10-26 21:50:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
Was war the only option?
I think Gandhi has shown us otherwise.
2006-10-26 21:52:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Tofu Jesus 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
We should of cut and run
Better yet appeasement
2006-10-26 21:50:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by John 3
·
1⤊
4⤋