Not at all. You're creating a false dichotomy in which there is either only peace or unjustifiable disruption of peace. Most of the people who mock anti-war people believe that war can be justifiable and can be legitimate projection of power. That belief does not mean that peace is not a preferred state. While I know you're trying to make a point it's a bad one because there's no logical connection with reality and your statement. Ed O.
You must have missed the memo. The federal deficit under Obama is at astronomical levels, far outstripping anything in past years. Obama has taken borrowing and spending to levels never reached in our country's history. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html
It's not an election year, so it's not very effective to stage large protests. There are no campaign rallys to protest at, and very little media coverage to be had. They'll be gearing up later in the year.
I completely disagree, and I find your rebuttal silly. Anyone who supports war while claiming to desire peace is a liar. They may be too full of themselves or too stupid to realize it, but they're liars. They may be lying to themselves, but they're liars.
I desire freedom but I'm willing for citizens to be imprisoned if they deserve it. Am I a liar for saying that, too? Ed O.
I understand our confusion now. You refer to a personal peace, while I have always taken the word to mean worldwide peace.
