...is that there is no reason to believe that war will stop if the US does not become involved:
Current Conflicts
Algeria -- Insurgency -- 1992 -->
Angola -- Cabinda -- 1975 -->
Burma -- Insurgency -- 1950 -->
China -- Senkaku Islands -- 1968 -->
China -- Spratly Islands -- 1988 -->
Colombia -- Insurgencies -- 1970s-->
Congo (Zaire) -- Congo War -- 1998-->
Georgia -- Civil War -- 1991-->
India -- Assam -- 1985 -->
India -- Kashmir -- 1970s-->
India -- Naxalite Uprising -- 1967 -->
Indonesia -- Aceh -- 1986 -->
Indonesia -- Kalimantan -- 1983 -->
Indonesia -- Maluku -- 1999 -->
Indonesia -- Papua / West Irian -- 1963 -->
Israel -- Al-Aqsa Intifada -- 2000 -->
Israel -- Lebanon -- 2006 -->
Ivory Coast -- Civil War -- 2002 -->
Korea -- Korean War -- 1953 -->
Laos -- Hmong Insurgency -- 2000 -->
Moldova -- Transdniester -- 1991-->
Namibia -- Caprivi Strip -- 1966-->
Nepal -- Maoists -- 1996 -->
Nigeria -- Civil Disturbances -- 1997 -
Pakistan -- Baluchistan -- 2004 -
Palestine -- Civil War -- 2007-->
Peru -- Shining Path -- 1970s-->
Philippines -- Moro Uprising -- 1970s-->
Russia -- Chechen Uprising -- 1992 -->
Somalia -- Civil War -- 1991-->
Spain -- Basque Uprising -- 1970s-->
Sri Lanka -- Tamil Separatists -- 1983 -->
Sudan -- Darfur -- 1983 -->
Thailand -- Islamic Rebels -- 2001 -->
Turkey -- Kurdistan -- 1984 -->
Uganda -- Civil Conflict -- 1980 -->
United States -- Afghanistan -- 1980 -->
United States -- Djibouti -- 2001 -->
United States -- Iraq -- 1990 -->
United States -- Philippines -- 1898 -->
Uzbekistan -- Civil Disturbances -- 2005 -->
Yemen -- Sheik al-Houti -- 2004 -->

Major wars in bold. The United Nations defines "major wars" as military conflicts inflicting 1,000 battlefield deaths per year.
source

So you see the US is involved in 2 of 15 major wars and 4 of 42 conflicts.

__________________
"We consider this our duty - to defend humanity against the scourge of intolerance, violence, and fanaticism." -Ahmed Shah Massoud
Ahmed Shah Massoud T-Shirt

Being anti-war and an isolationist does not make someone irrationally believe that all wars will stop. What gave you that idea?

Being anti-war entails that they do not agree with war as an acceptable solution to any problem. Being isolationist entails that they do not agree with US involvement in foreign affairs. You cannot put a stop to wars by being an isolationist. Which means that their supposed anti-war stance is a farce. They are merely isolationists who try and use anti-war rhetoric to garner broader support for their isolationist beliefs.

There are quite a few anti-war isolationists on this forum.

__________________
"We consider this our duty - to defend humanity against the scourge of intolerance, violence, and fanaticism." -Ahmed Shah Massoud
Ahmed Shah Massoud T-Shirt

Incorrect. Being anti-war means that we do not agree that war is an acceptable solution to EVERY problem.

Wanna try again?

nobody thinks war is the answer to every problem not even the biggest haws think that.

*hakkaf cough BUSHCO hack snort cough*

The only time I believe war is necessary, is when one needs to defend oneself or their nation against physical harm.

Many people think that the US should stop policing the world. I think that we should distance ourselves from the UN, cut back on foreign, and focus our attention more on domestic problems. I think being an isolationist while simultaneously supporting trade and commerce will lead to greater peace and prosperity.

The opposite of anti-war (peace) is pro-war (belligerent behavior). Unfortunately, many people do harbor belligerence and start all sorts of unnecessary wars.

I guess there is one more (myself) to add to this forum. I think it is best to strive towards peaceful resolutions rather than through war. I also think that we should reduce our foreign aid and intervention in the global political arena, focus more on domestic issues, and promote trade and commerce. I fail to see why this stance should be viewed negatively.

Like who?

Also, I don't agree with your first sentence. There are more reasons to be against war than a blanket condemnation of all violence. I don't generally believe in violence, including war, as a solution to problems, that's true -- I mean, it's pretty inefficient, since it usually causes more problems than it solves, and it's the meanest thing that people do to each other except for maybe slavery (which could be described as a very one-sided, slow-motion war).

But there is a time and a place for everything, including a time and a place to fight.

That doesn't make any of the fights we've got going on now wise, though. It's not an absolute. Do you have to favor all war in order to be in favor of this war? I don't think so. There are a lot of conservative posters here who favor our current wars, but threw a fit when it was Clinton sending troops into battle. So you don't have to oppose all war in order to oppose this war, either.

What about peaceful non-isolationists? Doesn't that probably describe most people?

Most people recognize the fact that wars are sometimes an unfortunate necessity. Few people see war as an acceptable solution to every problem.

Not to stop a genocide?

So you (or these many people you claim) want the US to distance itself from a global organization with 192 member nations that works toward maintaining international peace and security and finding solutions for global economic and humanitarian problems? Which part of that goal is unattractive to you? And while I will jump at the chance to say how the UN has dropped the ball on many peacekeeping and security missions, they do good work in many other areas. Also, most of the conflicts in the world are intrastate conflicts. Of the 15 major wars, 10 are intrastate (12 if you include the intrastate aspects of Iraq and Afghanistan). And if the US were to leave those countries then they would be completely intrastate. Increased trade and commerce can do nothing to help achieve greater peace and prosperity when that peace and prosperity is threatened by intrastate conflict.

An important historical lesson that I would like to point out is one of the previous wave of globalization. This occurred in the early 1900s. However, the great amount of trade between the great nations of that time was not enough to stop them from plunging into war. This shows that trade and commerce are not enough to stop even interstate wars alone.

Someone who isn't anti-war is not necessarily pro-war. In fact the great majority of people are between these two extremes. There are some instances when wars are an unfortunate necessity (see the quote in my signature).

Because most wars now are intrastate wars. And the US (and UN) should have an active role in defending the innocent from those with guns. And, unfortunate as this may be, you need guns to defend people from people with guns.

__________________
"We consider this our duty - to defend humanity against the scourge of intolerance, violence, and fanaticism." -Ahmed Shah Massoud
Ahmed Shah Massoud T-Shirt

I don't have a dossier on them so I couldn't give you their names offhand. Other than I Like Taxes who said he was.

How would you protect innocent people from being massacred? I would conduct a war against those doing the massacring.

This is why I was just talking about those who are both pacifists and isolationists. Because the position of those who want both does not make any sense. War is an unfortunate reality and a necessary tool in some cases. War would not be my first choice but sometimes it is the necessary choice.

__________________
"We consider this our duty - to defend humanity against the scourge of intolerance, violence, and fanaticism." -Ahmed Shah Massoud
Ahmed Shah Massoud T-Shirt