It would probably irk the heck out of those painting "Peace Now!" signs, but I define "real peace" as more than just lack of military conflict. So do most people, I would think.
It must also at the very least include an environment with a respect for individual rights, and the political and economic freedom that are the corrollaries of such respect.
Otherwise, why use the term "real" peace at all? What would "unreal" peace be?
If we just leave Saddam alone and go away, the only gunfire will be Saddam's goons blowing the brains out of Kurds and other Iraqis for decades to come. If that's your definition of peace, you can keep it.
"Real Peace" sometimes requires war to achieve it. That this seems paradoxical to some shows a limit on their thinking, not mine.
Current Events » in reply to Good question.
Definitions
The whole thread (23 posts)
- Over 70% of Americans support taking action against Iraq.