What does "pro-revolutionary war" mean?
822933
What does pro abortion mean?
861938
One man's fight for his/her rights is terrorism for another. That does not justify attacks like 9/11 but if you pick up any history book, the majority of wars of independence have been won by retaliating against prevailing, strong authorities by covert tactics, at least initially. This includes American independence as well. If you were to consider the British view point at that time, the founding fathers could not have been considered very favorably! Unfortunately, modern day armaments are so destructive that the innocent always suffer, more than at any time in the history of man. While this makes their actions criminal, it does not remove the validity of their demands.
305841
I believe that it refers to either the absence of power (meaning, no one is in control) or it means that there are no politics going on.\n\nMy guess is that it refers to the absence of a controlling force or entity.  Right now, there is almost a political vacuum in Iraq.  No one is completely in control, which is why there is a civil war brewing.
684435
It is one who supports war. In this case, the Vietnam War.\nIt comes from the original term, War Hawk.\n\nOrigins....\nWar Hawk is a term originally used to describe a member of the House of Representatives of the Twelfth Congress of the United States who advocated going to war against Great Britain in the War of 1812. The term has since evolved into an informal Americanism used to describe a political stance of preparedness for aggression, by diplomatic and ultimately military means, against others to improve the standing of their own government, country, or organization. The term is an allusion to the hawk (a bird of prey), and is usually contrasted with the term dovish, alluding to the more peaceful dove.
884918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_revolution\n\nshould help  has alot of info on it :)
541391
War is Peace\nFreedom is Slavery\nIgnorance is Strength\n\nLLBB
173622
Peaceniks say this because it sounds smart to people that don't think for themselves.  Anyone that does ANY research would not buy it for a minute\n\nIt the same as conservatives calling liberals unpatriotic.  Both sides use extreme terms to convert people to their misguided way of thinking.\n\nWhenever I hear someone say that we went to war for oil, I ask them to explain why gas prices have gone up, to record prices.  This usually leaves them stumped because no one has ever questioned their position.
1039236
I keep seeing that justification. "We're at war, and during war you have to make sacrifices".  The amazing thing about the justification is that it's completely wrong. We're not at war. Congress never declared a war. There is no identifiable enemy that we're fighting.\n\nThe war on terror is a marketing phrase. It means the US is going after everyone that might pose a threat to it. Every subversive influence, everyone who stands up and points out that what the administration is doing is illegal, every nut-job across the world who hates America. And anyone the government arbitrarily decides is a threat, regardless of whether there is any proof or not, and regardless of whether they have ever committed a crime or not.\n\nThe problem is, there is never going to be an end to the War on Terror, because there will always be people who want to hurt us. There will always be terrorists. Why? Because there always have been, throughout the history of the world. They just used to be called criminals and bandits. But terrorist is such a better term, because it justifies any means necessary to stop them.\n\nYes, there have been tragedies -- bombings and hostage situations and threats and mayhem. But those things are nothing new. They've been going on for thousands of years and the only difference is that technology has improved to the point where the bad guys have better weapons. \n\nFighting terrorism and fighting terrorists are two entirely unrelated goals. Of course we should stop people from blowing things up. We're not going to get everyone, because we're never going to eliminate crime or kill all the bandits. Still, we try because we oppose senseless violence. But remember, that's only fighting terrorists. It does nothing to stop terrorism.\n\nTerrorism is relying on hatred and fear to hurt people. It's doing things that are illegal, in the name of questionable goals, just because you can. It's a process of stripping people of their freedom and happiness because you don't think people deserve to be free and happy. It's about controlling and hurting those who are different from you, just because you don't like them.\n\nNow, take a look at what the new Patriot Act does. And ask yourself, how much of it is really aimed at stopping individuals, and how much of it is aimed at using hatred and fear to control people. Look at the definition of terrorism above, and ask yourself -- how many of those things are our government doing every day?\n\nThen ask yourself if the ends (even if they were somehow magically achievable) justify those means.
1026434
I agree with you. I don't think people shouldn't critize america but they should support the men and women of the military. I believe it was Voltaire that said "I don't agree with a word you say, but i will fight to the death for your right to say it."  I think that is true, but i don't think people feel that way any more
1166192
This is kinda a dumb question to ask online. Everyone here will either be preconditioned to be liberal or conservative and simply think they are cool/smart/diffrent for having their opinion. You wont get anything new. \n\nI am pro-war. Humans have no check on them, no larger predator to keep us balalnced. So we are our own largest predator. War is nessesary to keep us fit and kill people dumb enough to get themselves killed.\n\nGO WAR!!!!!!!
875258
i think it has something to do with arms the weapons definition. if you take up arms you would be up in arms -- you are ready for the fight.  can't find any verification of this so its just a hunch.
296381
For "pro v. con," "con" is actually an abbreviation of the Latin "contra" meaning "against."  In Latin, "con" means "with" or "together with," while "pro" means "forward."\n\n"-gress" comes from the Latin root "to walk."\n\nPutting these together, "progress" means something like "to walk foward"; while "Congress" means "to walk together with," meaning a group of representatives determining and moving forward with a decision collectively, for instance.  It has nothing to do with "pro v. con," which should properly be understood as "pro v. contra."
846812
It means that it's a "poll on conservative values".  Meaning that the outcome of the election will tell us whether the American public is favoring or opposing neo-conservative values.
790842
The nature of revolution is violence.  In the history of the world, there has never been a non-violent revolution.  Even Ghandi, the great pacifist did not believe that one could acheive revolution without violence.  Ghandi believed in non-violent resistance.  Ghandi expected that resistors would have to endure periods of great violence against them in order to achieve revolution.  So, I don't believe that revolution can be achieved without violence.\n\nNow, to your question.  As some have mentioned here, revolution is the means empolyed to replace a government, or institution that currently holds power.  Most of the reasons we revolt is because of governmental corruption or ineffectivity.  I believe that when the government fully abdons the tenants of US Constitution, and begin to trample on our Universal Human Rights, revolution would be necessary in order to restore a government, of, by and for the people. However, I don't believe that will be something that would ever happen in our lifetime.  To this point, the US government and our current way of life is comfortable for most.  There is no over-arching issue that all citizens are passionate enough about to go to war over.\n\nWhile I don't think there is a real possibility of another revolutionary war in our lifetime, I do believe that we are growing closer to a civil war, in which race will be the catalyst.  The continued unfettered flow of Mexicans across the borders into the US will result in a negative economic impact on US citizens.  I don't believe that you will see organized military involvement, but it will look more like gang/militia warfare on the streets of the US.
925080
It was a way of making a point, Though this certain person has brought up the subject before, it is a way to deter Republicans from going to war by making it a possibility for those who come from all sorts of backgrounds be it rich or poor have to go fight as well. . Meaning Senators and Congressman's children to have to go no matter what. Well that's what i got from this news article. Read it and make your own opinion :)
260830
Which revolutionaries are you asking about? But the simple answers are:\n\na.) It's their job.\n\nb.) They're pretty good at it because of experience.\n\nc.) "One man's revolutionary is another man's terrorist."
87792
I cant help you a lot, but french endorsed the revolution of the colonies in the us, in fact i think they even sent troops at the time consisting of the royal navy.\n\nAs of the second part, the people of both spain and france were and are totally against the occupation of iraq, i was in madrid at the time and a manifestation of 1.5 millon people crowded madrid`s center "puerta del sol" regardless of what their at the time president Mr. Aznar said. so you have a big dicotomy there, goverment endorsed the US, and people deplored it.\n\nFrance on the other side, both goverment and people were actively involved and against the iraq invasion.