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.



Though these are wonderful ideals [most peace activists would agree], I don't think they belong in most people's definition of the word peace. Answering a question about peace, I don't think that most folks would give an answer that addressed liberty. We've got dictionaries to keep this kind of thing straight. [apologizing in advance for this quibble]

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.

You should have this discussion with someone who thinks we should "just leave Saddam alone...". If you can find one.

"Real Peace" sometimes requires war to achieve it. That this seems paradoxical to some shows a limit on their thinking, not mine.

Completely steering clear of "real peace"... Certainly the use of force is sometimes called for in this dangerous world. And yes, my personal freedoms, my life, and my country are certainly worth fighting for. So too are my ideals and my ethics. If America under Bush becomes the biggest bully the world has ever seen, then America will lose my allegiance.