Here is where we disagree (and likewise, where I break from anarcho-capitalists). There are bad people in the world, intent on conquering others and oppressing them. I assume we're in agreement there, right? Those people are born of force, and only respect force.

How do you deter them from acting on the desire to oppress others by force? With a credible threat of greater force. There can be "peace through superior firepower". It doesn't mean war, it means a threat of consequences.

It is the same thing within a society. Some people are willing to terrorize others, steal from them, hurt them, etc. For some of those people, the threat of being caught and going to jail is a deterrence from their behavior. For some, the threat of their victims being armed is enough to reduce crime, as has been seen with the success of concealed carry laws.

The point of that bumper sticker (and for full disclosure, I *DO NOT* have one, or any like it) is not to impose our will on others through force. It is the statement that if you screw with us, we'll screw back, and hard.

That's an important comment, Brad, and I do not disagree about there being people who only respect force or the threat thereof. Such threat of force (As well as a willingness to act when necessary) is absolutely important for freedom.

However, the notion that peace is best accomplished through superior firepower doesn't hold water to me. War is expensive. Fighting is expensive. It's in the best interest of most individuals to engage each other in peaceful, voluntary transactions. This type of peace-creation is the main source of peace ... the preferred source of peace.

I'm sure that the point of the bumper sticker isn't intended to support despotism. I'm simply taking the idea of peace through force to it's logical conclusion, which is that peace by force is a belief that subduing others is necessary for the best society. This is something I strongly disagree with, of course.

i once heard that fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. pretty damn funny.

what peace is there if it is a peace brought about through fear, intimidation, and brute force? real peace requires the willingness of both parties to respect the peace of each other as well as the peace they create. as Neal put it--freedom.

I have seen a t-shirt like that, except with a B-52 instead of a B-1 (found at www.cafepress.com/laundrybasket). I think that it sends a mixed message. On one hand, it can be seen as promoting peace by going to war, and through the forceful destruction of others. On the other hand, it can also be seen as sarcasm, especially with a B-52. The B-52 is nearly 50 yrs old, and is still being used. I think this shows that our "modern war" is no different from the old wars, and peace will not come from it, just as peace did not come from older wars.

When those rag head fanatical clowns actually start to be "peaceful" in their so called Islamic traditons, we'll park the B-52's, B1B's and everything else. Until then, they will feel the wrath and might of our forces upon their sorry asses. F*ck them and all of you peace loving clowns....being nice and peaceful to Islamic Fanatics is NOT going to make them go away...

I've been wondering when some crazy-ass was going to decide to challenge this post with various expletives, slurs and other assorted idiocies. Nascar, thanks for stepping up to the plate.

Did you even read what I wrote? If you did, you would know that I'm not against the use of force to protect me and mine from would-be coercers, those who try and take from me my freedom.

I see a few problems with your viewpoint:

1. You're projecting the fanaticism of the few onto the many to justify the war on the many. Perhaps you see a few dead innocent civilians and U.S. soldiers as worth it. I doubt you've even thought about it.
2. You don't love peace? You would rather be at war all of the time? Fuck you, you dumb fucking, not-better-than-a-terrorist thug, sorry sack of humanity. Try and take my peace from me and see what happens. I know you. I know your sick twisted view of the world and I will not allow you to dominate me. So go ahead and try. I bet you don't have the fucking balls to do it. But realize that you're no better than these people you hate. One day the free will have to protect themselves from you.
3. I'm not talking about being nice and peaceful. Again, re-read the post. I'm advocating voluntary exchange as the only reality of peace. What you are failing to understand despite all of your name-calling is what the words "peace" and "freedom" even mean.

Your paradigm of the world is fucked.

hahahahaha; t/ether is going to get onto you for cursing, even though he decided the F Bomb was a good idea.

if i agree with you i'm wise, if i don't, i'm a *@#*! i don't like your 'peace' Bobbie, age 8

You're wrong, toserve. You're not a fuck for disagreeing with me. And you're not wise for agreeing with me. Wisdom is using reason to determine that which is right or wrong on your own. Dogmatism is outsourcing that responsibility to others. Be wise and argue. Know why it is you disagree. I certainly don't know if you're a fool or if you're wise, but your comment implies only that you disagree. Isn't your unwillingness to argue your case self-indicative? I haven't damned you: perhaps you've damned yourself.

I see your point and I agree with you to an extent. Yin and Yang....my thoughts are without war and enforcing certain standards we will never have peace. Kinda like spanking your kids. Some people see it as abuse, but I see it a getting them in line. Kids acts up...spank em and he'll stop real quick. Try to be nice and say "now don't do that" will it work? Maybe, but I would count on it. I believe in what this says I DO NOT CONDONE WAR, but what I believe in is screw with the US and we will give it to you 10 fold. Take Japan for instance. They struck when our backs were turned, we struck back HARD and never again did they mess with us, and now we are allies. Now these are just my beliefs so don't turn me into a bad guy LOL.

KDawg - Don't worry. You posted an intelligent comment. I think force is absolutely necessary given certain events (Punishment for crimes committed or protection from would-be thugs). In the case of Japan, I'm not sure bombing innocent people was the solution; however, force was required under the circumstances.

I would like to point out that it is my contention that the peace we have with Japan today is because of our mutually beneficial transactions - not because the U.S. bombed them. In fact, I think the peace we have is in spite of that history.

Ok Neal. First of all I am the creator of the "Peace the Old Fashioned Way" Decal the one above is being made in violation of my copyright, but that is beside the point. The original can be seen at my website. I am a former B-52 pilot. I read your comments above and your were doing really good till Nash Carr (not Nascar) made his comment. Granted the F-Bombs were unnecessary. You talk a good talk about peaceful relations but when you’re shoved you pushed back with a vengeance.

You don't love peace? You would rather be at war all of the time? Fuck you, you dumb fucking, not-better-than-a-terrorist thug, sorry sack of humanity. Try and take my peace from me and see what happens. I know you. I know your sick twisted view of the world and I will not allow you to dominate me. So go ahead and try. I bet you don't have the fucking balls to do it. But realize that you're no better than these people you hate. One day the free will have to protect themselves from you.

I find this commentary funny because you became violent with Nash Car and you claim to be peaceful. My point is that sometimes diplomacy does not work and we must use our weapons to secure the freedoms, you and I enjoy. You talk of WW2 and peace that came out of our bombing of Japan. But in that war we did not ask to be involved, but our hand was forced when Japan attacked we and our allies asked for our help. I guess we should have bi-lateral talks with Hitler. Today we are faced with faced with different issues. When diplomacy fails to achieve the results we would like. What do we do? Continue talking, we see what that got us with Iraq. You will say we went there on a lie that WMD's did not exist in Iraq. You are naive if you think Sadam was not developing WMD's, he had already used them against his own people. So to be real with you, I love this country even went to war for this country and would give my life for this country, so that you may spout the nonsense that you do. War is not pretty, it is very ugly, but sometimes there are no other choices. And you proved that by your statements above to Nash Carr (not Nascar). Thank your for your time and consideration.
David

David,

I appreciate the thoughtful comment as well as the permission to use your graphic. Should you change your mind, let me know.

Per your comments about Nash Carr ("Nascar" was a joke. Yeah, not a great one, I know), my reaction to him is of righteous anger. I won't roll over and let someone threaten me. Therefore, I responded in a manner consistent with Mr. Carr. There is no irony or hypocritical behavior in my reproach to Nash Carr. However, it would seem that some (like yourself), think there is. Thus, I believe there is a fundamental point both he and you (and others) are missing.

I am not arguing for pacifism. I noted above:

Force is only necessary to protect that which is yours from would-be gangs and thugs.

Pacifists allow others to walk all over them: they see no righteous violence. I disagree with that idea. Violence to protect can be the only solution under certain circumstances: you obviously realize that.

Don't lump me into all the leftists. Nowhere in this post have I argued against Iraq, WWII or WWI or G.W. Bush. I want to focus on the issue of this post, the very nature of peace.

Understand the argument I'm making: the proposal that peace and violence are compatible is absolutely false. Touting the juxtaposition as true - as virtuous even - means that you either don't understand what peace means or you accept the domination of others as acceptable behavior.

Peace is the default nature of voluntary human interaction. For example, engaging strangers in discussion, making business transactions, or any other human interaction that is void of unwarranted coercion is peaceful. Comparatively, using force on others to coerce them into acting amicably is not peaceful: it is merely a fear-induced facade of calm by the oppressed.

Does that make sense? Do you see how peace and war are incompatible? I understand how the slogan and graphic are catchy, but they send a sinister message that you should be aware of, namely, that peace is the result of war, and that such peace is the American way. This message is frightening. It is, as I've tried to explain, patently false.

Thanks for your comments, David.

Your civility is refreshing.

I'm also a little suprised at Neal's invective above. That's a whole lot of F bomb. I think he was being farcical / ironical. I don't know.

By the way: permission or no permission, it's not a copyright violation to picture the bumper sticker because it's posted for purposes of criticism and comment. 17 U.S.C.A. 107.

You fail to realize how peace is achieved. The sticker is true in so many ways. Talking with terrorists goes no where. They only thing they understand is death. I have seen this first hand. The vast majority of people living in Iraq want the terrorists gone. This can only achieved through fighting and death. It is clear middle east terrorists will never stop, nor should the U.S.A. You are only mad and upset because the symbols of the past which represent cowards is now being replaced with truth. Serve three tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan and then come back to your soap box site. Until that time God bless America and the 75th Infantry Regiment.

Tony, I'm only "mad" because respectable people like you don't understand what peace is and is not. What you're primarily describing is justice and protection - things I do not disagree with. And what you misunderstand is my point: that peace is incompatible with coercion. Let's say you wrongly wage war on someone else: you are coercing them. If they then decide to comply with your wants, is that peace? I do not think so: their actions are simply subservient. This is not peace.

I'm beginning to wonder if I should close comments on this post. There's a point where things start getting repetitive. I think we might have reached this point.

What's so stupid about "Peace the Old Fashioned Way" is that we have to deal with a new batch of war mongers every generation who think it's possible to win this kind of war with violence. Do you think there would be so many insurgents attacking American soldiers in Iraq now if we hadn't bombed the hell out of Iraq in the early 1990's What do you think someone is going to do when you kill their family? I don't care how many rice cakes you lob at someone from a flying B-52, if you've killed their loved ones they're going to be your enemy for life. We're creating more enemies than we're killing in the Middle East, and President Bush has made it perfectly clear that he cares more about appealing to our most xenophobic and violent instincts than he does about creating peace between our civilizations.

Giggling about how cool war is is usually a sure sign that a) you don't know shit about world history and b) you have never been in combat. Colin Powell was the only senior member of the Bush Administration who'd served in the military, and he was the only one who wasn't hysterically fixated on the idea of invading Iraq. That can't be a coincidence. At least we peaceniks have the common courtesy not to argue for sending others into hell on earth just to get our rocks off.

What drives me particularly batshit are these idiots who hold rallies to support the soldiers who raped an Iraqi girl and killed her family. What kind of message are we sending to the Middle East and the world at large? That we can rape and kill with impunity, because we support Peace the Old Fashioned Way?

I'm sorry if I sound uncivil, but I'm tired of treating this kind of hysteria as some kind of cute-and-quirky difference of opinion.

I don't even know how to begin to respond to this post but I'll give it a shot.

First, The first Gulf war: I believe Sadaam brought that one on if I recall accurately by blowing over little Kuwait. If we didn't stop that one we'd be paying 10 bucks a gallon. I am pretty sure our attempts at coming to a peaceful conclusion didn't work and yes we did try on numerous fronts.

"President Bush has made it perfectly clear that he cares more about appealing to our most xenophobic and violent instincts than he does about creating peace between our civilizations."

How can you say that? First of all why don't you acknowledge that congress approved it as well. Second, if I recall pretty much the entire U.S. supported the war at the time. Granted, that was based on what we were being told about WMD's etc. but I seriously doubt Bush made up intel and told congress a bunch of crap just so he could go to war. Not much to gain there, before you just totally defame his character at least try to do it without complete bias against him. Keep in mind our past president committed adultery, perjury and decided not to take out bin laden. Yet, he's the keynote speaker at the democratic convention. I didn't mind clinton actually but I lost respect for him for the above actions. (looking forward to your comeback on this one, I'm sure it'll be a doozie)

Unfortunately, sometimes people like the North Korea leader don't respond to peace talks as you saw on our independence day. as crappy as it is that's just the way it is. Maybe YOU peaceniks need to look at history a little bit; war always has been and always will be a part of earth. it sucks but that's the world we live in. There are too many people out there who are psychos who will stop only if they are dead or incapacitated.

"What drives me particularly batshit are these idiots who hold rallies to support the soldiers who raped an Iraqi girl and killed her family"

so are these people only supporting those particular troops? if so, that's pathetic but if it is a general support the troops rally then you're being ridiculous.

I really wish we didn't have to have wars, I really do but it is the world we live in and it's not realistic to think otherwise. Nor is it realistic to think you can have one big middle class, etc. etc.

Hey Halve, been a long time. Now that I'm finally done with the internship I have time to look at this and try make a serious reply.

What's taken me so long is that I don't know how to respond particularly to the bit about Clinton - the Democratic President got a blow job, so who cares whether Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? The only way you can justify that is if you believe that all lies are equal. They're not, but if you think they are then we're at loggerheads.

You seriously doubt if Bush made up a bunch of lies to tell Congress, but that's exactly what he did. It's common knowledge now that the Administration was putting pressure on intelligence agencies to come up only with bad news about Iraq - reports that Iraq wasn't succeeding in its attempts to build WMDs were quashed. But rumors, for instance, that Iraq was buying yellow cake from Africa were taken as hard evidence despite warnings that the intelligence was unreliable. Information about Saddam was fed to us from people who had other interests in overthrowing Saddam, but who needed American help in doing it. Leaders like Colin Powell who publicly doubted Saddam's WMD capacity were marginalized. And we liberals who opposed the President had to endure months of being called un-American because we had the audacity to doubt his credibility when it came to a war he'd been wanting well before we even invaded Afghanistan.

It's no good saying we didn't know better at the time because we did. Those of us who get our news from other than the Conservative Media knew that the UN, the IAEA, and American intelligence all lacked any legitimate basis to declare that Saddam had WMD. And I don't mind taking a moment to gloat that we were right.

I don't blame the people who were duped, because we're supposed to be able to trust our President not to paint a Tonkin Gulf kind of picture whenever he gets a whim to invade a country. Too bad for us that Bush's credibility gap is wider than the gap in Alfred E. Neuman's front teeth.

I mean, at least have the common courtesy to admit that Bush told us that he knew with a certainty, or at least a "slam dunk," that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that that justified our invasion?

Tabling for a moment the fact that the invasion was poorly planned by people who had no experience in such matters, why can't you concede that either a) Bush was lying through his teeth or b) Bush failed in his responsibility not to lead this country into war unless it was absolutely necessary. If you can grant that point then we can go on having a civil conversation. Otherwise I just can't take you seriously.

ha, you forgot about the perjury by the way, kind of a big deal.

FWIW, I think Bush is mediocre, I just play a little more devil's advocate on here b/c everybody just bashes away b/c they see negative stuff out of the media every day.

Of course i am pissed we haven't found massive amounts of WMD's and Bush said it would be right there and it hasn't been found. Granted, we have found some but not enough to appease anyone including myself. Was he lying? dunno. It is possible that Sadaam could have hidden it or gone to syria, Iran, Egypt b/c it took the UN so damn long to move. I'm sure there are billions of places to hide that stuff but nonetheless since he's the man in charge he of course gets (and deservedly so) the criticism but I don't think you can say he lied as there is no proof at all.

Your two a and b's on Bush are a bit over the top. If you remember the state of the U.S at the time we were a fear stricken nation so some type of action had to be done. You could certainly argue that just going into Afghanistan would be the way to go but here's my only disagreement: Sadaam did say on numerous occasions around that time that we were to be destroyed and we know he at least had WMD's b/c of the Gulf war. They do have the technology/weaponry to reak havoc like never before with those type of weapons and put the U.S in ridiculous danger with oil correct? Would Sadaam have followed through with his threats? dunno, but they were out there and don't forget that.

We of course will never know but the Iraqi campaign which at this point appears to be a failure may have saved our butts. Clearly the costs of this war have been absurd and it will definitely hurt our economy immensely unless we can somehow find an alternative fuel but unfortunately the oil companies have bought out ALL of the politicians so that's not happenin' any time soon.

Anwyway, here's something I don't get: Why would Bush lie? If you come back with anything relating to oil I ain't buying it b/c everybody knows that turmoil in the mideast doesn't lower the price of oil and obviously we aren't just going to take over Iraq's oil supply but playing savior.

And don't give me this Bush is a cowboy bullcrap either b/c that's a load.

I would say our initial invasion was done quite successfully actually, however since then it is been less than impressive. What are the factors?
1) crappy job by us on some fronts (I'm no war strategist so i don't know details but obviously we haven't done a good job recently)
2)Iran decided to go ahead and Bribe the Shiite's with being able to take over all of Iraq so they couldn't come to a peaceful conclusion and get their constitution all squared away. Thus, the violence picked up big time.
3)underprepared the military from the get-go b/c of the kerry's of the world.

Well, I was all over the map on that one. oh well, gotta work.

It's just a really cool bumper sticker. They're only $5. I think I'll get one today!

I serve our beloved country, I've seen what the media only exploits to create a mind set of the populus. If you beleive that we are there only to defeat a relm that we haven't a clue of the extent of their abilites, you're all wrong. I never thought the there would be a day thet I would watch in awe and disbeleif that someone(foreign nation) would have the brass to attack the US. Don't get me wrong, I am not a nieve person to think that we are invincable. The United States has always had to show force in some nature to protect the freedoms that we take for granted. There are many good things that come from the situation at hand(Irag, Afganistan). I am not a promoter of war, but I will contue to serve your families and my own. I have seen schools built, medical facilites established and rebuilt, but I have also seen children maimed or killed due to the destructive nature of the countries disregard for human life. I am not a beleiver of the kill them all mentality, but show of force has been used before all of us were even a twinkle in our parents eyes. I have sent many of our brothers and sisters home to their parents, wives and children(in boxes draped in American Flags), something that I hope no one has to do. I can only hope and pray that what we are doing is just; but beleive me it will not be you nor anyone else to tell me so. All that said, my point being, why are we spending so much time expressing our opinions about a bumper sticker. We have individuals getting better educations than ourselves and our children, the media is exploiting us thru every avenue to destroy the values that our great nation was built upon. Lets spend more time building this great nation that so many people take for granted, educating our populus to create great leaders of peace and humanity. And if that means making a resourt out of a sandbox, God help us all.

Dude you are whacked. Lighten up a little. That sticker is absolutely true and ironically hilarious, by the simple fact that military supremacy or the "threat" of it (carpet bombing and nuclear holocaust) actually made the world more peaceful. Like it or not it is actually true. I saw it for the first time just recently and was laughing my ass off. Why??? Because it was so sarcastic which as fate would have it resonates with my personal taste in humor. I pulled up next to the guy who had it on his back window. He was ready for me to read him the riot act. He said he gets a lot of middle fingers. Well I'm going to get one and put in on my vehicle and when you flip me off I'm going to laugh at you because you just don't get it. For many, many years, even before I was born the US spent fortunes keeping the peace. Well unfortunately a couple of things happened, the world got a whole lot smaller through the poliferation of technology and our US government kind of dropped the ball, mostly due again to the poliferation of technology through the media and the press because now everyone doesn't agree with something and makes it their personal goal to make everyone else aware of it. Good luck keeping everyone happy without global frontal labotomies. I personnally hate political correctness. Damn I though that had finally died a slow death. Again lighten up People! Compounding this is the fact that we as a specicies are one of the few that actually wage war. I don't like, never did, and I have never served on the front lines, but I am proud of the people who have been called on to do so in my behalf and have given up everything for everyone else. I applaud you all.

The fact of the matter is if you get 2 people together and they aren't sociopaths or psycotic then most likely they will agree on what is right and wrong. However when you get lunatics in power training others to be lunatics, well now you got yourself a real problem.

This is humor people not a political statement or belief in war. It was just a bumper sticker.

Don't bother repling to this email. I won't be back to read more of your pathetic tripe. The only reason I started reading information on this site was because I thought you were selling the damn things. Have a nice life being angry.

BOOM!

Actually the idea is that when Tyrants and other
Oppressive leaders impose their madness unto the
"People of the world" it is nice to know that
SOMEONE (that would be the great U.S. of A.) has
the gall to stand up and say "No". War is a just
as much a necessary evil as Government is. How
can you justify the Government raising my taxes
and taking MY earned money, without my consent...
but not justify the same government defending my
life and livelihood? (Peace at any cost!!! Even war!)

You talk about necessary evils, but I don't see mass murder as a necessary evil.

You note:

How can you justify the Government raising my taxes and taking MY earned money, without my consent... but not justify the same government defending my life and livelihood? (Peace at any cost!!! Even war!)

I can't justify the government stealing your or my money. I don't justify it. In fact, I'm completely against it.

...taking MY earned money, without my consent...
but not justify the same government defending my
life and livelihood?

If it's that important to you, why don't you risk your life and limbs and defend it?

[ serve our beloved country, I've seen what the media only exploits to create a mind set of the populus.]

Being an ex soldier myself, and having been on active duty , I have to agree with this comment. The media are only out for TV ratings, and to further their own careers. They don't give a rats you know what about what really goes on. Sometimes I wish it would be mandatory for people to take a ride with our troops overseas and get the WHOLE truth instead of partial truths. As far as I am concerned, the media can kiss my arse. I havn't watched the news on TV in over 10 yrs. But that's because I know what they are really like.

Albert Einstein once said 'You Cannot Simultaneously Prevent And Prepare For War'. Although his genius was undeniable, I must disagree. In a perfect world (not the one we live in) Is it not the job, no the duty of civilized Governments to seek diplomacy, thus preventing war? Conversely it is the function and obligation of a nation's military to always be prepared for war? I personally had both banners in my room when I was in Iraq, a Peace sign (the word as it should be) and a Peace the old fashioned way (the world as it is). War sucks, I have been in a few, it is ugly, dirty, and bloody, and it will be our undoing. As a professional Soldier (all my life) I hope to one day see a true peace; sadly the duality in my heart knows this to be a fools dream, but still I "Imagine"...

RDC

Basically, that slogan is just another way to say "PEACE IS OUR PROFESSSION".

The slogan has been around and associated with B-52s for decades. I remember using it in the mid-70s. I guess I'll claim to be the creator of SACSUX! (if you can tell me how that was used by the select B-52 crewmembers, you win the prize!)

Personally, I find the symbol funny. And I just have this to say.

To the pacifists: We sometimes need force. There are people that won't understand something any other way. People that won't go to the negotiating table unless you "flex you muscles" a little bit.

To the warmongers: Chill out a little. The US may have the largest and most powerful military the world has yet to see and may ever see, but notice this: Great Britian once was like us, but we don't have a huge empire.

Personally, I support peace, but support war when neccessary.

Peace means there's nobody left to suicide bomb and drag the fuckin world down the tubes. You guys are right. War isn't the answer. Fucking carpet bombing the whole fucking middle east with nuclear warheads IS the answer!

Hey, fascist pig, how about you go back to reading mein kampf ...

Peace means there's nobody left to suicide bomb and drag the fuckin world down the tubes. You guys are right. War isn't the answer. Fucking carpet bombing the whole fucking middle east with nuclear warheads IS the answer!

LOL... nothing like a little terrorism, USA-style... only country to detonate not one, but two, nukes... on civilians...

"You can have peace, or you can have Freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once." (Heinlein)

Freedom is defined as 'without limits'. Having said that, there is a certain amendment in this country that allows us to speak freely without censorship… So, what I’m getting at is that everyone wins. We are all entitled to our own views, and thanks to our founding fathers (and to those us who put boot to ass for a living) we can all enjoy having this fascinating discussion. I have read through all of these posts and I can honestly say that 98% of them are well researched, educated comments. Despite the difference of opinions, we all have a common ground – that is we love this county, the freedoms we all share, and the drama that Americans have come to love! Having said that, I’ll leave you all with some more drama inducing comments… “Oh my God, it’s a fucking bumper sticker… I bet tomorrow will still come!” Hooray for me and my love of the American culture!!

I can only conclude (I can’t control what you conclude) that you beleive (sic) that human beings are rightfully dominated by others through force. (wrong. Straw man stuff. Some human beings ATTEMP to dominate others through force. Always have. Always will. That’s what this sticker is about. Stopping others from trying to dominate US. How? With the promise of massive resistance. NOT a promise of “double-secret probation.”) You do it through the auspices of the "common good", as you and your ilk define it (straw man argument) , and you relish in the enforcement of your beliefs via the government you control (crazy assumption. An individual doesn’t control the government – unless he’s the Emperor or a dictator. People with this sticker are neither…or ARE they? :-0). As such a lover of power (straw man technique. I personally believe like Jefferson did: the best government is the least government), I liken you to all the facists, communists and other tyrants who have come before you. (Name-calling and label slinging sure is fun, ain’t it?)
You do not know or understand peace (towering Assumption.) . Peace does not require force (Very true. Peace does not REQUIRE force, but, there are always exceptions.). Force is only necessary to protect that which is yours from would-be gangs and thugs (Ideally. Righteous people only use force to protect. Right?). Peace is not the product of war (Better check up on history. War can sometimes clear the air and allow peace to exist for a long time over vast distances. See the results AFTER Jenghiz Khan’s war of conquest. Europe after WWII. Rome after the Civil Wars. Europe after the Napoleonic wars. To see when diplomats drop the ball after a war check out the results after WWI, after the Franco-Prussian War, after the first Anglo-Dutch war, after the first Roman-Carthaginian war, etc. War can remove villains and clear the air OR it can lead to festering hate and the spirit of revenge. It turns out to be what humans choose to make of it… just like everything else.) : peace is the result of voluntary beneficial interaction between two or more parties. (Ideal situation rarely achieved. This is what Talleyrand always preached and worked for. That’s what made him such a great diplomat. Even Talleyrand would have a problem with the Islamic fascists nowadays. Dig this: Osama: “Death to America.” Talleyrand: “Let’s establish a common ground of beneficial interaction. What is it you would like?” Osama: “Death to America.” Talleyrand: “Okay, what smaller gain would make you happy?” Osama: “Death to America.” ) Such interaction can never be the result of domination (yep, not on THAT .path anyway) peace can only be the product of freedom. (the Mongols and Romans disagree. Their peace came from obedience to the law. It was said that a virgin could walk from Peking to Damascus with a brick of gold on her head and she would arrive safe and sound with the gold – after the Mongols established peace through wars of conquest. Peace can be built through many means. Freedom isn’t the only path. It just turns out to be the best path).
Freedom. Do you even understand what that means? (Cool. Here’s a counter question: do you know what the sheep-sheepdog-wolf triangle is? To find out, read the article Bill Whittle posted at www.ejectejecteject.com called “Tribes.” It sheds light on the “Peace the old fashioned way” mentality AND it explains why my father, my brother, and myself all worked proudly under the sign in front of the SAC bases that said: “Peace is our Profession.” I wonder? What’s your profession? Teacher? Lawyer? Software Engineer? Something safe, I’m sure.

I refueled B-52/s during the Vietnam war. Remember the one that war,the one the freaks and politicans
lost for us???
The 52's were a beautiful sight taking off, they
were so damn good we're flying them 50 years later...
I don't want any tree hugging bullshit from you,
I only want to have the guy or gal,
(probably a veteran) who has them, Please send me
about twenty for a start!
If you want Peace, be prepared for War.

A Proud Veteran

"I can only conclude that you beleive that human beings are rightfully dominated by others through force."

Your conclusion is wrong. Domination through force is wrong. Fear of reprisal creates balance. Peace through strength.

Ever wonder why some kids get bullied and other don't? It's so simple a concept that "intellectuals" like you over look it.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

How's things going in Tibet? Sometimes force has a place. Also, didn't see any backlash when Clinton bombed Somalia (an aspirin factory), Iraq(Yes, Iraq-1998), Bosnia, and the list goes on. Where were you people? At least be consistent

To quote your own words, "Peace does not require force. Force is only necessary to protect that which is yours from would-be gangs and thugs." And you are exactly right!

The problem seems to be whomever you do and do not consider to be thugs. Thugs abound in the old world of ours, they always have, and they probably always will.

A working definition of thugs would include anyone who wants to take something from us by force, especially our freedoms (you know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of . . . ).

Force is truly necessary to protect us from thugs because force is the only thing they understand. They not only don't understand negotiation or "peace talks," they're not at all inclined to learn. The only thing left for thugs is force; stop them in their tracks before they strike us at all.

The naval officer commanding that ship in the Gulf of Hormuz last week made a horrible tactical error by not immediately firing on those Iranian thugs in the five speedboats the moment they (1) made credible threatening gestures toward our ships and, (2) verbally said they would blow the ships up. That is an act of war, according to the apparently now-useless Geneva Convention and the captain's hesitation to use force will, I fear, give those thugs and their lunatic bosses the license and excuse to do more (and worse) in the future. You want to be bullied? Then don't stand up for yourself when credibly threatened.

"......Peace on Earth, through superior firepower"!

Thank God that our Armed Forces personnel are fighting for your freedom to have such ridiculous ideas and create such asinine graphics. The concept behind the original peace the old fashioned way is not about peace through oppression, but rather the ensurance of peace through force as a deterrent. This concept kept the US safe from the USSR during the cold war era, but judging from your opinion, I'd guess you weren't alive to remember that. It is woreth noting that this is the same idea behind organized police forces in cities. If you do not live peacefully then there are consequences.

The concept behind the original peace the old fashioned way is not about peace through oppression, rather the ensurance of peace through force as a deterrent

The problem with this mentality is that it misses the broader point, which is that peace is achieved most of the time not by wielding a bigger stick but by mutually beneficial cooperation. Thus, though it is important to be able to protect oneself and one's property from external threats of force, it is a last resort and not a basis for policy regarding peace.

To clarify the absurdity of peace through superior firepower, such a policy leads to escalation and concentration of firepower. Thus, you have "peace" where a government yields all the power, ruling over citizens who have no real means to fight for their own freedoms. I'd venture a guess that such a peace isn't something you would actually want. Or would you enjoy living in a world where your life was ruled by a dictator with a bigger gun? You'd have peace but no freedom.

Judging by your response, you miss this point entirely -- another sad testament to failure to understand what "peace" means or requires.

You're Absolutely right when you say that you have the right to your own opinion, Your Welcome!

Isnt America GREAT!
One of my wonderful Sons taught this to me as he
was graduating at MCRD (if you have to ask, you
wont understand) He commented that he was proud
to become a Marine and defend the liberty and
freedom of all Americans, the ones the got it, and
the ones who dont! (like you)
He is gone now, I visit his grave often and wonder
just how far we have to go with this "Respect
Everyone" and their rights crap, the "Use no force"
shit that folks like you promote, the reason isnt
because my son died in battle, he died in a car
crash caused by a drunk driver right here in the
good old USA. The driver was a forth time repeat
offender DUI that walked due to goofballs like
you making sure everyone gets their "Freedom"
and "Rights"
Thank God folks like you were not in any kind of
power position when hitler was making his moves
to BETTER the world.
Now I'm sure that you and your grand education
will cut this criptic message to shreds, after
its yours to do with what you want. But your
wonderfull vocabulary and highly orginized text
does not make you right, and never will!
The world is full of educated idiots who set them
selves up as the know-all be-all to help us all.
I have several of the decals on my vehicles, and
a flag in my yard of the same design!

I believe in peace.

Like many here, I do not believe that fighting for peace makes sense.

Can someone call Vladimir Putin and let him know that force is wrong and that we wish to have a discussion?

If he refuses, please ask him again and again until he changes his mind.

In the mean time, does anyone have any spare body bags?

Hey Proud Father, sorry about your son, but it is absolutely ridiculous to blame liberals for your son's death. That's absurd. It almost sounds like you're endorsing a litmus test for who gets their rights and who does not. And for your knowledge, it was a liberal who led us through the times of Hitler. Oh how easily the conservatives conveniently forget that. That same liberal, during war, also created a lot of social structure and infrustructure that we all take for granted today. And isn't it ironic when the ignorant shoot up churches in Tennesse because their social benefits were cut that that person blames the "liberal movement". The very people responsible for his social benefits in the first place, are now blamed for cutting the "big government" which was his welfare. Maybe lives would be saved if he took the time to pay attention to what is really going on and who is really to blame. I suppose the same could be said for a good share of America as well. The conservatives who cut his social benefits are also the same criminals who continue to cut military benefits while patting themselves on the back as being the ultimate patriots. The same people who sell wedge issues, religion, and fear to maintain power. These logos are not funny, they are the calling card of american ignorance. Maybe during WWII these logos would have been more appropriate, at a time when force was required. But during these days of illegal war and criminal war profiteering, these logos only make fools of people, while giving themselves false senses of self patriotism. That false sense is also the mask of their own denial about what is really happening around them. And it's too damn bad the empire has proven itself as the best marketing machine mankind has ever known.

There is no peace when fear is used to maintain it. Do you keep your friends by using fear and intimidation? No... because that's not a very peaceful way to maintain a relationship. Peace is a relationship which exists in neutrality and equality. Fear is not peace. Fear is terrorism.

Bomb the hell out of them. All day and all night.