[rightwinghour]

Oh no? So allowing the Taliban to continue sheltering the rest of Al Qaeda, ignoring the bulk of the problem and going after just the figurehead IS NOT pacifism? Running like a scared girl from some cave dwellers IS NOT pacifism? Yes, it is. We needed to go into afghanistan as an army, not as a cruise missle. In fact, we didn't go in hard enough to begin with. We should have had every last troop we could muster storm through their country, crush Al Qaeda and kill every last taliban supporter in less than 30 days. We should have given the troops our full support unconditionally from the beginning so that marines like Marcus Luttrell could have killed Taliban members pretending to be snoopy goat herders on sight.

Pacifism means war and violence are never used to solve disputes. I hope you understand what pacifism is now. I agree we didn't go in hard enough, and I believe it was stupid to go into Iraq at the same time we were still in Afghanistan.

[messierhunter]

Pacifism means war and violence are never used to solve disputes.

It means giving in to every demand. Conviently, you and your stormfront buddies happen to like certain demands made by the current generation of islamofascists. I'm sure you'd love to see the joos driven into the sea. Prior to WWII it meant giving territory to Hitler. And in both cases you have advocated doing whatever the dictators of the world want us to do so that we don't have to end up fighting them. You have either failed to learn history's lesson that pacifism never works against tyrants or you simply want to see the tyrants prevail. Either way I don't care for your nutty paulogism.