Well, I like to think of myself as liberal and to put it simply I do honestly think that if you reduce the number of guns then the number of gun crimes will go down, call me stupid if you want. Of course it doesn't necessarily follow that I think gun control will reduce the number of guns out there, indeed when you think about guns obtained illegaly it makes very little sense. I do think it is a good place to start when you have a level of gun crime higher than the rest of the free worlds combined. It's not the solution, there must be other actions, like increasing funding for the ATF and local police, that sounds pretty important too.
And again yes, I do think that war is bad, always. Call me crazy if you want, but I can never get too excited about the prospect of a bunch of young, healthy guys armed to the teeth and ready to blow the ***** out of each other, unless I'm going to the cinema. But then it doesn't necessarily follow that I don't think war is ever necessary. There are times, when all hope of peace and diplomacy are lost, that war is inevitable. A good example I always think is the German invasion of Poland in 1939. Being a jaunty Brit, I do (with most of Europe) owe thanks to America for its rather (un)timely or as we say in Britain "late" intervention into that little brouhaha, although it did leave my country full of words like brouhaha. Nevertheless I cannot help but feel a little twinge of moral pride that we stood up to Hitler when we did, defending an ally incapable of defending itself from perhaps one of the vilest tyrants known to man. Oh yeah, I hate Nazis, but then according to your definition of liberal I must be tolerant of others and broad-minded, so should I allow the Nazis dictate terms to my government, or should I fight tooth and claw to prevent regressive and oppressive articles of faith and ideology from entering into the structure of my supposedly progressive and secular goverment? Guess so, darn. And I really really hate those f**king Nazis.
So that brings us onto your 3rd, well, mass generalisation of a broad spectrum of liberal ideologies, or policies of the Democratic Party. Do I think George Bush is anything like Adolf Hitler. Well the two things that always come into my mind about Hitler are that he was a powerful public speaker and he murdered 4 million Jews, so far no viable comparison to Gee Dubya. Then there was the fact that the guy (Hitler) was (at the time) the most popular leader Germany had ever had. Still nothing. He got the country into a huge and incredibly popular (domestically for a long while at least, not so much around the time they started losing, about the time you guys joined) war which subsequently destroyed most of Europe and engulfed the entire world into a mechanized war that changed the face of war, science, international diplomacy and ended with the creation of a weapon so powerful that if it were to be ever used again the world would most likely end and he was elected democratically. You're right, they are two completely different guys. Anyone who could compare Hitler to George Bush is a Grade A moron in my opinion... although, if I think about it some of their tactics are similar, that is slightly unfair as they ar not Bush's tactics, but then the remark was directed at Bush and not the likes of PNAC or Cheney and especially not the corporate media. Nor was it directed as the corporate oligarchy all too capable of dictating terms to whomever it wants, on a global scale and which has been effectively propagandising the American people since before Hitler rose to power. Indeed it would be useless to point out that Hitler used American and British propaganda, so successful in Woodrow Wilson's 'Red scare', general anti-union propaganda campaigns, and most successfully employed during World War I to turn two otherwise pacifistic nations into war-mongering rabble rousers, as a model for his own propaganda campaign. It was actually the effectiveness of WWI propaganda that made Hitler realise he would need such an effective propaganda system. But, as Bush can hardly be blamed for this I agree, it would be incredibly stupid to compare George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler.
As too comparing Iraq to Vietnam, once again you are correct, perhaps if the insurgency picks up, lasts for 10 years and results in the total decimation of the nation and over 2 million American deaths. An unlikely scenario to be sure as American 'counter' terrorist operations are far more effective and deadly now than they were back then. And I suppose they try to compare the peace movements as well, these moronic liberals you know. When in fact the invasion of South Vietnam passed with very little comment and the war was going on for years, longer than Iraq has so far lasted, before any effective peace movement emerged, whereas with Iraq the objection was not only Global but pre-emptive, and remains so(global that is, can't really be called pre-emptive anymore, useless is a better word). They still chant repetitive and simple-mided slogans, but then "The CIA had their intelligence wrong, and many casualties have ensued as a result", or "Bush and Blair overblew the intelligence, made assertions that were in fact rumours, used un-credible sources and known liars to provide justification for going to war. Intelligence officials warned Powell that information he was presenting to U.N. General Assembly was incorrect, and officials in the SIS and CIA say intelligence was "wispy" while Bush, Blair and company asserted it was accurate and faultless" just aren't very catchy.