Why can't we cooperate with those who agree with peace?

Question

We know what we have to do. We know how we must do it. Stop the rhetoric. Stop the name calling. We all want peace and for our children to live in a better world.

Terrorism is a problem - agreed. Now what?

Please ask a question.

Answer 1

You're Up! Besides us...Who wants peace?
And now define what peace means and to whom!
Yours is inane rhetoric with no point...Say what you mean!
Following you logic to its logical conclusion makes you a xenophobic isolationists...
With conditions I can see some merit in that line of thought.
Hey! Mocking your dribble is fun!

Answer 2

That sounds good on the surface But America is being pushed into a very real dilemma, in the name of Peace.

First separate the arguments Fight the battles you can win first.

Iraq. Americans need to shift the paradigm to Overseas Base mentality. Build a huge joint force base in Basrah. Then the troops are off the streets and settled into typical routines. (let me add we need the presence in the area more than we need to have 150,000 moms glad there boy is home.)

Battle number 2 is the Islam-O-fascist war. This is tricky. Defend America from a religious attack and keep the constitutional freedom of religion.

It only works if people set aside the buzz words like terrorist and Jihadist and change it to basic crime. Blow up a train your a criminal no matter who you are or where you go to church your a criminal. Stop trying to make laws for terror and go back to the laws already on the books. If you murder you get executed. If your a chinese baptist murderer, or a irish buddhist murderer it makes no difference kill an American and you will be executed.

Go big Red Go

Answer 3

We're arguing about how to make a "better world" for our kids. Of course, we all want peace, but not peace at any cost. We shouldn't name call and reduce ourselves to rhetoric, but honestly I don't believe anyone has a plan so that's all they've got. "Stay the course" was the Rep platform and "We'll make a plan" was the Dem platform. There's no substance there. In short, if you really do know what we have to do that won't result in a bigger problem down the road, you should say.

Answer 4

What if the people who "agree with peace" are unwittingly aiding the conflict by failing to recognize the true enemy.

We can cooperate when it is clear that we agree on the enemy--terrorism.

EDIT: and when you post a quote by another user on your home page, which you have obviously taken out of the context of the question asked, what is that called?

Answer 5

We'll never have "Total Peace". Their will always be groups/countries that will be angry at us. I agree that we have seen far to much war the past 5 years, but long term peace is impossible. However I do think we need to fight terrorist on a much smaller scale. They are a cancer. We should use surgical strikes and intelligence to defeat them.

Answer 6

I would agree to peace if there was a viable and doable solution, yet neither party has offered something that will guarantee it, so we must continue in Iraq until a better solution becomes available

Answer 7

Oh how mild you've become since last Tuesday! Peace, by the way is gained through strength. And sometimes by brave men and women dying for their country. You cannot achieve and maintain peace simply by chanting corny slogans and holding candles.
Now, as far as Yahoo Answers, everyone has the right to spout off if they like. Or would you like the government to censor us?

Answer 8

I like your zeal on the subject. But, I must point out to you that these issues are not settled here on Y!A. The users on Y!A are not part of the congress.
Just want to make sure you maintain a firm grip on reality.

Answer 9

There is no money in peace only in war. Big oil and the like make politicians extremely wealthy. So, why should they care?

Answer 10

Ego, Selfishness and Greed.