O.K. I can "give peace a chance". Why don't all the anti-wartards and pacifists get together, and go ahead over to the Middle East and show us how their "non-violence" can solve things?
I am willing to have our military cease combat operations and "give peace a chance". Let the pacifists stand in front of the enemy guns like Gandhi. If it works, and the morons don't get themselves gleefully slaughtered by the Islamists, I will make a huge apology on national T.V.
O.K. let's see what you pacifists can do...I'm waiting!
2007-02-10 08:41:59 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
My my......there have been quite a number of excuses as to why they now cannot go. Again...libs are all talk and no action. Perhaps they can try there methods in Darfur. We aren't in there yet.
2007-02-10 08:48:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Ronald Reagan said it best:
""Accommodation is based on wishing not thinking, and if the wish doesn't come true the enemy is far stronger than he was before you started down that road.
The other way is based on the belief (supported so far by all evidence) that in an all out race our system is stronger, and eventually the enemy gives up the race as a hopeless cause. Then a noble nation believing in peace extends the hand of friendship and says there is room in the world for both of us.
We can make those rockets into bridge lamps by being so strong the enemy has no choice, or we can bet our lives and freedom on the ******** theory that if we make him strong enough he'll learn to love us."
One of the funniest instances of dumb-head Liberals being told to "put up or shut up" was when they were complaining about the treatment of (dangerous) prisoners at Gitmo. The army explained to the group (who represented the Red Cross, I think) that the prisoners had the maximum amount of freedom that could be extended to them, given their penchant for violence. He explained that they were trained killers, and extremely devious. The prisoners were unbelievably defiant; they would throw feces and urine at guards.
The Red Cross people balked at this. They claimed these were just innocent goat herders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. So, the army chief said, ok...... if that's what you think, just sign a waiver that we warned you of the risks, and you can go amongst the prisoners and chat with them to your heart's delight.
None of these hyprocritical cowards would step one foot inside.
2007-02-10 08:58:58 · answer #2 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I trust Daft. the international will in no way have peace using consistent conflict, the economic features delivered by using conflict, and the idiocy of all animals (meaning human beings) who merely could combat. even if it incredibly is unhappy, the belief of peace will probable purely get further and extra unreal while a greater physically powerful volume of the international's supplies start to dwindle.
2016-10-01 22:30:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It sounds like you are pretty free with other peoples lives. Sure, you are willing to have our military stand down. How do you feel about the thousands of lives that will be lost if that happens? Are you willing to shoulder that responsibility?
Why aren't YOU willing to stand in place of your words and big mouth. I would be willing to buy you a plane ticket to any confrontation in the world. By the way, that means war, and the ticket would be one-way. I don't think you would be coming back.
2007-02-10 08:49:57 · answer #4 · answered by ttpawpaw 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Peace don't stand a chance against radical Islamist terrorists attacking countries world wide, the Chinese building and updating their Armies, Iran, Pakistan, China, No. Korea, and who knows what having nuclear tipped rockets, genocide in Africa and So. America (Amazon Indians vs. gold miners and timber barons), Mexillegals flooding our country, sleeper cells of terrorists right here among us~~ and on. And we have the Anti-Christ wanting to be president/dictator/Queen of America!
2007-02-10 08:58:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
The spirits that I called ..... ;-)
You know , if you had asked those "anti-wartards and pacifists" before you started that war , I'd agree with you. But now it is just a poor statement, used in a childish manner.
2007-02-10 09:07:27 · answer #6 · answered by willow, the yodakitty from hell 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
i think what us pacifists are saying is that this war in iraq had nothing to do with us. 1st it was the war on terrorism, then weopens of mass destruction, and then it was well, their leader was a very bad person. what does any of this have to do with the u.s.? oh and by the way, where in the f**k is osama? wasn't he the one that was responsible for 9/11? we need to worry about our selves.
2007-02-10 08:51:48 · answer #7 · answered by lidakamo 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I agree 100%... and when the terrorists quit, and take up the uniform of a nation and not hide like cowards, I too will say that peace has prevailed. Until then, let them check out their virgin theory....
2007-02-10 08:46:34 · answer #8 · answered by jh 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I agree with you! I am anti-pacifist! I wish these people would go over there and show us the right way to "handle" islamo-facists. LOL!
2007-02-10 08:57:39 · answer #9 · answered by Jenny A_331 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
That's like asking someone to raise the Titanic after Bush hit the iceberg.
2007-02-10 08:45:22 · answer #10 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋