Neal Boortz did an excellent segment on the definition of the word 'peace.' I wish I could link you to the audio that aired on his program. I think that was much better than text version below.
In the audio version, Neal asks the poignant question that if the liberal definition of 'peace' is the absence of hostility, how much freedom are you willing to sacrifice for peace? How many rights are you willing to surrender to Islamofascists in order to avoid war?
Muslims are hoping quite a bit.
During the cold war the Soviet Communists were fond of the "peace" word also. To Soviets "peace" was defined as an absence of opposition to the communist movement. The Soviets and their fellow travelers loudly proclaimed that the USA was a threat to world peace. By their definition they were exactly right. We were, thank god.
So, what do these 60% of Brits who think that Bush is a threat to world peace mean by the word? Dictionary.com defines peace as "the absence of war or other hostilities." Well, we are most certainly at war, a war against Islamic terrorism; and it is George Bush who declared that war and it is George Bush who is pursuing it. George Bush has made it clear that as long as he is in the White House he will pursue and attempt to destroy anyone who threatens the safety and security of Americans either in their homeland or abroad. Islamic terrorists have made their pledge to attack, destroy and kill Americans wherever they find them. They have already attacked us on our soil. Bush has responded with war.
I guess the bottom line here is that there are times when peace is not the goal, when peace is not the preferred state of affairs. When you have a group of well armed and financed religious fanatics, in many cases state sponsored, threatening to kill as many Americans as they can, you have a need to respond ... with force. It's no time for peace. Peace can return when the threat is ended.