2007-05-13 18:10:04 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Aren't they two differant things?
2007-05-13 18:10:24 · update #1
Yes they are two separate issues. Dr. Ron Paul was against the war from day one, unlike most of the liberal candidates for president (in 2004 & 2008) and he is the most conservative candidate in the race.
Most wars are based on lies be it Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, LBJ or Bush. War is not the answer to most problems. War encourages the death of millions, the wasting of valuable resources and the expansion of government. All are terrible for the nation and for the citizens.
2007-05-14 09:34:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Almost all of us are "anti-war" in some sense or another. I compare it to chemotherapy. It is very tough, ugly and destructive, so you don't use it unless it is absolutely essential. But we disagree on when it is essential.
Very few "anti-war" people would take the pacifist approach if enemy forces came to take over our country. Very few say it was wrong to go to war against Germany & Japan in WWII.
And, in spite of the stereotypes, even few "pro-war" people are happy about there being wars.
"War is Hell."
2007-05-15 15:04:42 · answer #2 · answered by Smart Kat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋