Replies

"Anti-war" has nothing to do with reducing violence. Two distinctly different things in their minds, as "anti-war" is a code word for "anti-Bush" or "anti-Republican". This establishes the corollary that to be a Republican or Bush supporter means you are a war-monger, going off to war for capricious reasons, or none at all, for the sheer joy of flexing military muscle.

Like the lurking belief that mere possession of a firearm would send an otherwise sensible and sober person off on a spree of wild shooting and mayhem. So, ban (and confiscate) all sidearms, and violence will disappear. Sadly, this postulate is not proved in practice. Undefended homes and neighborhoods become pillaged homes and neighborhoods.

The Kellogg-Briand Treaty did not work, for very good and valid reasons. It attempted to change nations' behavior, without first changing their minds and souls.

"Anti-war" has nothing to do with reducing violence. Two distinctly different things in their minds, as "anti-war" is a code word for "anti-Bush" or "anti-Republican". This establishes the corollary that to be a Republican or Bush supporter means you are a war-monger, going off to war for capricious reasons, or none at all, for the sheer joy of flexing military muscle.

Pretty much the talking points of the day for the libs. They seem especially shrill in the 'letters to the editor' these days, using the anti-war lead to go on an anti-Bush tirade. The letters are almost cookie-cutter images of each other, indicating that their authors are being told what to say by a "higher" (I should say lower) authority. The "my right to free speech" angle is one of the latest. None are logical, nor do they have any factual backing - just silly tirades that make the left look plain dumb.

Most of these useful (useless?) idiots couldn't put a sentence together if they weren't being played like a marionette.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact and Associated Documents
In case anyone else slept through this history lesson . . .