For example: "It's a racist war." Well, I guess that goes for the "other side" not ours; the hate-rhetoric seems to spew from them much more readily than from us.
Or how about "decimating a country whose people had nothing to do with this." On what proof do they base this charge? It seems to me that these attacks are VERY scaled back and concentrated solely on the bad guys. True, there are likely civilian casualties as there always are in war, but this country's BEEN at war for decades now. The case is easily made that the end of war in that country is now in sight because of us.
And so it goes. There just doesn't seem to be ANYTHING they can pin their hopes and dreams on. The "jihadists" aren't overt socialists; even to the extent that they are, they're closer to fascist than communist.
I think this "peace movement" is going to die of anemia and sheer boredom, of it's own volition.
You wanna talk about incoherent. Did you see Phil Donahue on ABC with O'Reilly and Diane Sawyer?
Donahue was giving the usual "Make love not war" crap and O'Reilly was b****slapping him around. Donahue hair tossled and about to cry, so Sawyer asks him, "Okay after we've stepped back and caught our breath, then what do we do?" After a pregnant pause Donahue breaks into this mansonesque soliliquoy. "We reach out to all countries and announce that WE are ready to become a part of the human svkjdfwueghoew (uncomprehendable)!"
At that point O'Reilly said, "This is pointless."
I really think we should put all these peaceniks someplace where they couldn't hurt themselves and at the same time keeps them out of our way. Maybe we could fence in South Dakota or Minnesota?