2007-10-14 04:00:19 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Your question answers itself
because without conflict
there is peace.
2007-10-14 04:13:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Of course you can. We have elections every two and four years. Certainly there's a lot of 'conflict', followed by everyone shaking hands and getting on with the job. Do you mean there has to be armed conflict? There certainly could be a lot less of it. The US dosn't have to attempt to occupy oil rich 3rd world countries or support every 'friendly' middle east thugocracy, but that's another story! As for the 'left'....didn't the 'commies' attack S. Korea? Didn't the the 'commies' attack South Vietnam? Didn't the Russians occupy eastern Europe? Didn't Castro get conflicted with the government of Cuba? How about Che in South America and all of those 'commie' conflicts in Central America? Maybe those bums weren't 'leftists' by your definition. 'Ya know what I think? I think that your complaint is against your strawman American 'left', sometimes called the 'liberals'! Shazam...to the reactionaries that hijacked the GOP the 'left' and the 'liberals' are anyone who disagrees with them. Buy a clue, bro...there hasn't been a 'left' in American politics since the 1930's. If you guys didn't live in the past you'd know that. You do..so you don't!
2007-10-14 11:19:26 · answer #2 · answered by Noah H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Conflict is a state of discord caused by the actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests between people. There are conflict even within most families, however, most conflicts are worked out without resorting to violence.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
2007-10-17 00:16:04 · answer #3 · answered by johnfarber2000 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course we realize that there will be conflict. But the only sane thing to do, is to try and negotiate first. There won't always be a non-combative solution, but for God's sake try. In some cases peaceful solutions can be reached without sending American men and women into harms way.
Special message for answerer #2: Stop your "Clinton is responsible" nonsense and educate your self one the subject. Clinton DID search for Osama Bin Ladin. He DID try to stop him. And when Bush took office he passed all of his intelligence along, and it was IGNORED. Not only did the Clinton administration pass along information, but the CIA, NSA, and FBI also briefed Bush on the subject WEEKLY. Briefing memos like "Bin Ladin determined to attack American soil." Memos that even suggested that Bin Ladin might use air planes to fly into buildings.
We aren't saying war doesn't happen. We are saying the Iraq war needs to stop happening. I would FULLY support military action focused on finding and bringing Osama Bin Ladin to justice. Iraq has nothing to do with that.
2007-10-14 11:23:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You have it backwards. The right claims that peace can only come through war. Noone believes that there can be a world without conflict. The difference of opinion is on how to resolve the conflicts.
2007-10-14 11:11:30 · answer #5 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
You're pretending that leftists like to pretend that there can be peace without conflict.
2007-10-14 11:06:56 · answer #6 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
History is studded with exceptional men who, by sheer virtue of their foresight and commitment to freedom lead nations from the grips of utter doom---and this is what makes today's strain of lib particularly worrisome because America once counted Democrats among such people. But the days of FDR and Truman are long past.
2007-10-14 11:40:03 · answer #7 · answered by Kubla Con 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have never met anyone on the political left that believes peace can be achieved with conflict. Where did you get this information from - the plagiarizer Ann Coulter or drug addict Rush Limbaugh? See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar4bp32QE.qX4qosHhNGAf7sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071014074058AArdSMH for a real question.
2007-10-14 11:17:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The main conflict is with the US far right. They're the ones who are in impediment to peace. Should we declare war on the US far right?
2007-10-14 11:15:57 · answer #9 · answered by Iain G 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They only pretend this when our countries defense is the question. They are very willing to use conflict themselves to push their ideologies. The marches the screaming and intimidation of anyone who disagrees with them. I believe in peace through strength, liberals only exist in free societies defended by a superior military. There seems to be very little success in Sudan with the diplomacy angle, a strong NATO forces would do much more for peace.
2007-10-14 11:12:40 · answer #10 · answered by wiliemom 5 · 2⤊ 6⤋