Now, there is a great deal of dispute about the War on Terror, both in society at large, amongst the political classes, and here on .
I'd like to examine the topical question.

First, a few Axioms. You are invited to dispute the Axioms if you wish, but understand that doing may derail the conversation.

• The United States possesses the military capacity to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan at will.
• The United States possesses the economic resources to continue the current level of operations in Iraq indefinitely.
• The United States has the ability to destroy any and all of the "Axis of Evil" nations at will.
• Virtually none of the elite opponents of the current Administration's foreign policies have family in the military, now OR during the 8 years of the Clinton Administration.

So, on to our questions:

1) Do Democrats and their elite allies generally give the impression that the United States of America, aka "America", as she is right now, warts and all, is worth fighting for?

2) Do Republicans?

3) How can we tell if an individual or group believes America is worth fighting for?

4) If it isn't worth fighting for, what should be done?

5) If it is worth fighting for, how should we deal with the notion that it isn't?

6) Cover essentially the same questions as it applies either to your own country, Eurpoe, or Western Civilization as a whole, substituting the "Left/Right" actors where appropriate.

BONUS QUESTION:

Do you believe that America is worth fighting for? Why or why not?

The first few points you made were particularly interesting given the common misconception we lack the military ability to win this war. I hear it from many, but it really couldn't be further from the truth. We might however lack the will power, but I hope I'm wrong there, but we will see.

1) Do Democrats and their elite allies generally give the impression that the United States of America, aka "America", as she is right now, warts and all, is worth fighting for?

I hear many things that suggest this is a country worth fighting for from democrats, however its seems recently that their ideas on forign policy take on the route that is least likely to address our biggest issues directly.

2) Do Republicans?
3) How can we tell if an individual or group believes America is worth fighting for?

I believe Republicans do, in general. However, we have taken a hit recently with those on the left that will forever view our current president as a highly incompetent individual who made us less secure. I however don't take this viewpoint, George Bush might not be the brightest of presidents but war is hell, its unpredictable, and there are never any guarantees, but despite the hits he has taken with the American public he always stood his ground and never swayed from doing what he thought was right to gain popularity. That is the difference between the Republican and Democratic party today. Right now there isn't a single Democratic candidate "That I know of" who is willing to take the same hit. In general they all want a troop withdrawal, and they all attack our president for his stance with this war. Their may be a candidate somewhere down the list that thinks otherwise but not anyone in the top 3. So the question really does become do you believe the county is more worth fighting for, or do you believe your campaign is more worth fighting for? The republican party has one candidate who takes the Democratic standpoint on this war. Words of Ron Paul just after the second presidential debate in reference to the War......... ""The Republican party itself has to have a position that is attractive to the entire country""

5) If it is worth fighting for, how should we deal with the notion that it isn't?

I'm afraid the best anyone can do is try and educate people, well to those who are willing to put their bias aside that is. Much of the blame for this type of mindset can be placed on propaganda that can come in many forms, even movies, when I was about 12 I saw Full Metal Jacket for the first time. Don't get me wrong the movie was decent but it had a false portrayal of American soldiers. It portrayed them as loving to kill, one scene even had a man shooting down dozens of helpless villagers from a helicopter with a machine gun, on purpose. This sort of thing is actually rare in our military but at the time due to my age I thought thats how things were. Today I know this is far from the case but many adults hold this viewpoint surprisingly. Could it be such viewpoints that push some to even go as far as saying this county is never worth fighting for??

Do you believe that America is worth fighting for? Why or why not?

Absolutely, I really wish we lived in the garden of eden and it wasn't necessary, but we don't live in that world. Terrorist and evil dictators will take any cookie you give them and want that glass of milk. I often here from anti-war advocates when describing men like Saddam or Bin Laden that they are not that bad, they can be reasoned with. Many men can be reasoned with but in a case where words have proven to be useless you have to take some action. The freedom we have in this country today is often taken for granted, I wish I didn't have to say that we had to fight to make this country what it is today, but we did. Freedom didn't fall on our laps, if we had done nothing in WW2 for example there is no telling what the world would be like today.

Generally they do but opposition against the level of military involvement is making the occupation of Iraq highly questionable. Democrates are going to support the troops at least through the summer months, that's not a guess it's already a demonstrated fact.



Sure they do but do they have the diplomatic finace to bring a stable and equitable peace.



1) Is there an immenint threat to the United States?
2) Would military action result in more or less enemies of the United States?
3) Does the military offer a course for victory with a definable goal for claiming victory?
4) Does the support, public and political, exist to achive an exit stradegy with honor?

This all being true I would ask, do you have to resolve to lay your life on the line.



You had better have some brilliant diplomats and powerful allies.



Put the cost and benefits on the table and persuade with sound logic and determined confidence.

This is incorrect. A war on terror can NEVER be won ... ever. It can be fought, but if you quash one terrorist organization, another can pop up in its place. The only way to win a war on terror is to completely wipe out all humanity. We can't win a war on drugs because it's impossible. You can not win a war of ideas by military force. At what point can we stand there and say, "The war on terror has been won!" The next day, if a terrorist attack occurs, how has the war been won?

I can not answer this question because it's ridiculous and revolves around the assumption that America is a physical place. I do not think fighting for the land is necessarily worth it. I do think fighting for America's concepts, ideals and beliefs to be worth fighting for. America could have occurred anywhere, and even if our land was destroyed by nuclear holocaust, survivors would still be able to set up a new America elsewhere, so long as the basic system of rights and liberties are maintained.

This is an absurd debate, sparked by someone with an agenda to trick people into debating a question so they can pretend to have moral or ethical superiority. So I'm done here.

Imagine for a moment if I started a thread about gun-control with the axioms: "Guns are solely responsible for the extremely high comparative murder rate in the US", and "If gund were registered and gun ownership legislated, gun crimes would drop dramatically. Of course, I add the caveat: "You are invited to dispute the Axioms if you wish, but understand that doing may derail the conversation."

I wonder how the far-right representation on this board, and people like Bikerdad in particular, would react?


When the 'axoims' you present are so far from reality, the NEED to be challenged. I mean we could accept counter-factual 'basies' for debate, but if we are going to do that, why not accept that Bush Jr has mind control powers and can 'will' the insurgents to lay down arms?




No, it most certainly does not, not without a massive shift in the structure of American society, involving the draft, VAST troop commitments, and an indefinate stay as an occupying force. And even then the state would not be 'pacified', the violence would be limited. Let me put this another way: insurgencies against foreign occpiers are commonplace this century, from German and japanese conquests, Afghanistan (twice), Malasia, Ireland, and so on. can anyone here list me a SINGLE case, I mean just one, where an occupying state was able to quell a strong insurgency by adding more troops? Anyone? Has that EVER worked?



'Technically' yes, I suppose it does, but again not with the status quo: not with the costs rising, the instability in the region worsening, the relations with middle eastern states deteriorating and an unwillingness on the part of the current administration to take any necessary steps to go onto war footing: no liberalisation of war contracts, no rationing or even conservation propaganda, no willingness to raise taxes or increase income...



Again, technically true, using Atomics these nations would cease to exist in half an hour plus or minus missile flight time. But ONLY if the US is willing to deal with the consequences, consequences which are too horrific to imagine, and hardly need to be listed here.

In one of these cases the Axiom is clearly wrong, in the other two they are only possible if one is willing to accept the enormous and potentially catastrophic side effects (odly unmentioned by the original poster): side effects which MUST be part of the discussion if the discussion is to have any relevance to reality.




This is true, but equally true (though oddly unmentioned) is that neither does the current administration itself. So what was the point of this apart from a half-hearted attempt to take a jab at the 'opponents', a jab which doesn't even pass the laugh test?


But thats not all, [u]EVEN IF[/i] these axoims were realistic, which they are not, the posted then makes the vast and supported logical leap in presuming that the current war-of-choice in Iraq is somehow 'Fighting for America'. Of course, it is not. Again, that doesn't even make sense: America is Americans, thats what is the totality of America, and a LARGE majority of Americans want this war ended, want a withdrawal either now or on a strict timetable, and that includes a LOT of republicans. So if 'Americans' don't want to be in this war of choice any more, and America was neither attacked nor under imminent threat of attack by Iraq, how on EARTH could this quagmire possibly be called a 'war for America'?

If there were a timetable, and US troops pulled out, no matter WHAT happens in Iraq and the Middle East, 'America' would be at NO more threat than it is now, in fact according to the CIA it would probably be safer, seeing as how the NIE concluded that this war of choice directly made the US less safe.



SO, if you WISH to ask the question 'is the US worth fighting for', feel free, as an academic excersise, don't pretend it has anything to do with Bush jr's disasterous blunder in Iraq. If you DO ask the question as an academic excersise, then its pretty much rhetorical, as every human being here will say yes, in principle, IF 'America' is actually at stake, not the desperate legacy of a single administration overcome by its mistakes and desperate to shift the blame.

Time to answer my own questions:

1) Do Democrats and their elite allies generally give the impression that the United States of America, aka "America", as she is right now, warts and all, is worth fighting for?
The sense I generally get from many Democrat leaders is one of great ambivalence. That is not how I would characterize most of their elite allies on the Left, who give the impression of anywhere from a "soft No" to a frothing at the mouth "f*&# NO!"

2) Do Republicans?
Yes.

3) How can we tell if an individual or group believes America is worth fighting for?
Well, one simple way is to look at whether or not they have volunteered to fight. If so, especially recently, then the answer is likely yes. If not, then the question remains open, since it requires further information, i.e. "why not", to come to a conclusion.

Is their paradigm one of everything that's wrong with America, or what's right? In a discussion of American history, do the flaws dominate, or the strengths? Is America the cause of what's wrong in the world, or the greatest force for good? Are they willing to expend their own resources in support of fighting for America?

How many qualifiers do they put on their support?

4) If it isn't worth fighting for, what should be done?
Move someplace that is worth fighting for.

5) If it is worth fighting for, how should we deal with the notion that it isn't?
Civilizational Confidence. Mock the hypocrisy of those Americans who don't think its worth fighting for, yet are perfectly willing to enjoy the bounty.

6) Cover essentially the same questions as it applies either to your own country, Eurpoe, or Western Civilization as a whole, substituting the "Left/Right" actors where appropriate.
As America is the current lynchpin of Western Civilization, everything said above about America applies to Western Civilization on the whole. As for Europe in general, the European Left appears to be firmly convinced that Europe isn't worth fighting for, and what passes for the European Right appears to be ambivalent.


BONUS QUESTION:

Do you believe that America is worth fighting for? Why or why not?
Yes. America has been berry berry goot to me.
America is the greatest force for properity and freedom in the world.


"at least through the summer months", that's a qualifier.

More qualifiers. Whether or not there is an imminent threat, more or less enemies, "a plan", and "honorable exit" certainly matter when assessing the question of "WHEN TO FIGHT." Think about it as if the question were asked about your children. Perhaps I erred in placing the topic here, rather than Personal Philosophy and Principles.



Your assumption, not mine.

See, you can answer the question. Of course, if you ignore the necessity of having a physical place to implement those concepts, ideals and beliefs, then you become nothing more than an ideologue of the worst sort.


Vermillion,

I'd like to "thank" you for the incredible amount of knee jerk energy you put into responding, especially since you utterly failed to answer even one of the questions, either regarding America, or just as importantly, your own country. Instead, you opted for another bout of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Nonetheless, you have provided a good example of the way that many will obfuscate a question such as this.

The sole purpose of the Axioms was to eliminate smokescreens such as "well, I'd fight for America if victory were 110% guaranteed" or "I'd fight for America if given the choice between being drafted into the infantry or volunteering to serve in the Air Force" or "I'd fight if we spent more on defense". That you choose to argue about those, rather than engage the questions, says volumes. As my intention is to focus on the questions of what people are willing, real and percieved, to do, I'll pass on disputing the facts of what we can do.

Nice try, but no cigar.
Please don't try to manufacture the moral high ground here, its WAY too much of a stretch. If you were interested in knowing if people are worth fighting for America, perhaps you can explain to us all what on EARTH those pointlessly counterfactual 'axioms' had to do with anything? If you really wanted to nask a question of academic interest, rather than make-up an impossible and unrealistic set of circumstances that allow you to insult democrats and the left, you would have just asked the question, and not fabricated 'axoims' as absurd as the ones you laid out.

Proof is in your own words: Just read your 'answers to your own questions' there you go trying to pretend that an unwillingness to continue this fiasco war-of-Choice with 'not fighting for America', when the two have NOTHING to do with one another, and you know it. This is just a weak extension of Lordhelmet's famous 'All democrats are Traitors' thread, where he tried to prove that by NOT being for continuing the bloody quagmire that is Iraq, the left was supposedly anti-American.

Please don't set up such a fascile and transparent attempt to fabricate an utterly unrealistic situation to insult the left, and then pretend 'moral outrage' that your rediculous fabrications are not swallowed hook-line-and-sinker.


Its what you have done here and even you cannot demonstrate otherwise. For example, you state above your belief that the left won't fight for the US, and that the left in Europe won't fight for Europe (as bafflingly inaccurate a statement as I have ever heard you make). So explain it to us all there Bikerdad, WHY do you draw the conclusions that the 'left' would not fight for America? The only argument you could possibly make (I'm guessing, as actually you never MADE an argument, just listed assertions) is because the 'left' wants to withdraw from Iraq.

So we go back to the inanity of your assertions, and why your 'axoims' NEEDED to be challenged: Bush Jr's war of choice is NOT 'fighting for America'.

Perfect example:

But you didn't frame it that way, not even CLOSE to that way, you framed it in a debate about Iraq, and that was YOUR Choice to do so, YOUR initial post that laid out the framework. Please don't make the gross error of presuming the war-of-choice in Iraq is ANYTHING like asking about fighting for your children. You have just 'presumed' that it is, and that is one of the silly assertions that HAS to be challenged.


Every single thing about your thread is a fabrication, from the initial 'axioms' to your assertions in answering it. Bad news Bikerdad, the RIGHT wants the US out of Iraq too, please stop this absurd pretense that its ';just the far left. In a poll two days ago, 61% of Americans polled stated the US should NEVER have gotten involved in Iraq, 76% say US efforts to bring stability are going extremely badly or somewhat badly, and another 76% of Americans felt that the 'troop surge' in Iraq was either not making any change, or actually making things WORSE. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

And the most devastating? a full 82% of polled Americans felt that Congress should either block ALL money to Iraq (13%) or only allow funding with specific timetables and benchmarks (69%).


But does any of that matter to you I wonder? Can you debate the actual facts, or is it easier for you to make up fasle facts (or 'axoims' as you call them) and then try and frame the debate inside this 'Bikerdad-fantasy world'?



If you want honest answers to your questions, then here: Of COURSE Both denocrats and Republicans would fight for their country. To presume otherwise is madness, and would require at the very least SOME evidence, evidence I can't help but notice you failed to provide. I guess it's easier to call people you disagree with traitors or cowards or unpatriotic if you are never actually going to back it up, just throw the name out and hope the ugliness of it sticks somehow.


If you want to start threads and ask questions, have the decency to ask honest questions, not make up a wildly unrealistic fantasy scenario built up within obviously impossible assertions (or 'axoims') to give you a pretext to label as cowards or unpatriotic those people you disagree with.

Well, that's a relief. Can't stand the things. Now, perhaps if there were a pipe in it for me...

huh? No moral civil engineering here, I'm simply attempting to put your debate train back on track.

I already explained that. Simply read it again.

Perhaps you should re-read my answers to my own question. Not once do I mention this "fiasco war-of-Choice", as you so objectively term it.

Ahh, once again let down by my occasionally less than stellar ability to translate my thoughts and such to the written word. I was not pretending 'moral outrage' at your reply, I was expressing mocking derision.

In the interests of not being misrepresented, a tactic which you seem to revel in utilizing, let's be clear that both Question #1 and my answer to it deal with Impressions.

Again, with the "debating the debate". Perhaps, if you had bothered to answer the questions I've posed, you might have some standing to demand answers from me. OF course, you could simply start your own thread thread on the subject.

Here's a possible question for you:

1) Why do the knuckle dragging bloodthirsty inbred ignorant neander-bubba imperialists on the far right keep ranting about how the "Left" is anti-American and unwilling to fight for America? You can tone it down, although I've no doubt that anybody familiar with your body of work here on will find that the above formulation accurately reflects your perspective.

Once again, you revel in misrepresentation. I invite our gentle readers to review the original question. You'll see that I framed it in a debate about Iraq and Afghanistan and the War On Terror, with the unwritten (and apparently unrecognized, which is my bad) implication that its about, well, gee, defending America. The War on Terror aka the War Against Islamofascism, with theaters of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan currently, are simply the most obvious and immediate cases. You are the one insisting on reducing it to Iraq.

It should be noted that you have yet to answer the questions, even the one's regarding Canada and/or Western Civilization, where clearly the Axioms that you find so objectionable, are not operative.

You sure said a mouthful there. Addressing your so-called "axioms" could probably derail a dozen threads and, as there is not a single one of them that would be relevant to the questions that follow, I'll instead ignore the alleged premise to your questions altogether.

Of course, even addressing your questions involves considerable wading through further obfuscation, so I'm going to answer your third question first:

How can we tell if an individual or group believes America is worth fighting for?

Now that one is pretty easy. We can tell if an individual or group believes America is worth fighting for by looking at the battles they choose to fight and determining whether or not they are remotely related to the security of the United States of America or defending its founding ideals. Of course, this can vary depending on what "America" happens to mean to any given individual. Which America are we talking about fighting for? Representative government by the people, egalitarianism, the rule of law, meritocracy, the balance of powers, equal opportunity - the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Or simply white Christian dominance of the world for the greater good of Exxon Mobil?

1) Do Democrats and their elite allies generally give the impression that the United States of America, aka "America", as she is right now, warts and all, is worth fighting for?

I have no idea who these "elite allies" are meant to be. Perhaps you can direct me to some right-wing tin-foil hat blog to illuminate me, Bikerdad - I've kinda lost track of all the current conspiracy theories out there. But based on what I know of Democratic politicians and the recent platforms of the DNC, I'd say that they are, overall, very concerned about "fighting for America" - especially on the domestic front. Then again, their platforms and campaigns tend to be little more than rhetoric and their performances lately tend to have been tacitly endorsing the Executive's policies. And those policies suggest that America not worth fighting for - indeed, that it is worth endangering.

2) Do Republicans?

Nope. They have been even more complicit in making us a bigger and more vulnerable target than the Democrats have been. And when it comes to our founding ideals, the GOP seems to think that they are more fit for trashing than defending. I'm surprised you didn't ask about the elite allies of the Republican Party, though - at least we know who they are.

I'll throw your bonus question in here next in an effort to render this thread a bit more coherent:

Do you believe that America is worth fighting for? Why or why not? (This kinda answers the semi-redundant If it isn't worth fighting for, what should be done?)

To the patriot, one's country should always be worth defending. As an American, I would argue that the founding ideals of the United States are certainly worth fighting for - and should serve as a model for governments throughout the world (including our own).

If it is worth fighting for, how should we deal with the notion that it isn't?

We should educate those who confuse blind aggression and wars of greed with "fighting for America". It seems to be only a few under-illuminated supporters of the neoconservative movement that seem to project the notion of "America not being worth fighting for" onto their opponents - usually for very misguided, ill-informed, counter-productive, and irrelevant reasons.

An Axiom is a noun that according to Dictionary.com means: 1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

I distrust "self-evident truth" and particularly when it is applied to a purely political debate. I find the axioms perhaps more interesting than the actual debate questions, but I'll leave them alone for the time being.

1) Do Democrats and their elite allies generally give the impression that the United States of America, aka "America", as she is right now, warts and all, is worth fighting for?

I'm not sure why the qualifier "America, the way she is right now, warts and all" is needed. And who are these unknown and unnamed "elite allies" of the Democrats you speak of so cryptically, Bikerdad. Sounds like more of that "secular progressive" crap the scurvy likes of Bill "Loofah" O'Reilly is always bumping his gums about.

But to answer the question as best I can, absolutely the Democrats give me the impression America is worth fighting for. It just so happens both I and most Democrats don't think you have to shred the Bill of Rights, torture, spy on and wiretap citizens or take the country to war to enrich a few, kill many and turn the nation into a pariah to other countries.

2) Do Republicans?

Do Republicans what? Who are their "elite allies?"

3) How can we tell if an individual or group believes America is worth fighting for?

First, you raise your right hand and say, "I pledge allegiance to the United States..." and it all pretty much flows from that point. If you're not willing to fight and defend the country and its principles then you probably should find another country you like better.

But fighting and defending your country isn't the same thing as going off on misconceived exercises in nation-building based on false premises, faulty information and of dubious benefit to the best interests of the American people.

4) If it isn't worth fighting for, what should be done?

5) If it is worth fighting for, how should we deal with the notion that it isn't?

Thank the Founding Fathers that they were wise enough not to confuse honest dissent with outright sedition, treason or betrayal. Just as it's acceptable to cheer for a war you won't fight in, there's nothing wrong with being opposed to a war that is being waged for all the wrong reasons.

BONUS QUESTION:

Do you believe that America is worth fighting for? Why or why not?

Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. ~ Mark Twain

America is worth fighting for. This particular Administration is not.

That is disingenuous and you know it: no you did not use my exact words, but you placed Iraq front and center with obviously counterfactual 'Axoims' intended to create a situation where you could slander the left. You tried to remove from the debate the very assertions which allow you to equate Iraq with 'fighting for America' (which it is not) to make your attacks easier. As I said, when you present as basies for a post such obviously false 'Axioms', then of COURSE they are going to be challenged, and don't for a second pretend you would not do exactly the same thing if someone else created a series of false-facts to enable them to more easily attack the far-right.




Yes, your 'impressions'. So please Bikerdad let us all know how you formed the impression that the left would not fight for America, or even more baffling that the left in Europe would not fight for their countries. Please, tell us the basis for your 'impressions'.

Of course, I predict you ignore that question, as the true answer if your personal opinion of the 'left' on Iraq, thus bringing me full circle, your fabricated assertion that somehow 'Iraq' is 'Fighting for America', and brings us back to your wild 'axoims' that the US could pacify Iraq at will.


OK Bikerdad, lets USE your wild assertions. IF (as you pretend) the US could pacify Iraq and Afghanistan at will, then the most obvious conclusion is that the Right will not fight, has no interest in winning and is guilty of all the things you blithly accuse the left. After all, if it WERE true that the US could pacify Iraq and Afghanistan at will, then why in God's name has the Republican party not done so in the last four years? They had complete control of the presidency and both houses, if they COULD have won, and didn't, then by YOUR definitions, they carry the entire blame for the current situation.

So according to YOUR definitions, IF The war in Iraq is 'fighting for America', and IF the US could pacify Iraq at will, but has not done so in four years of war under republican leadership and control, is that not absolute proof that the Republicans will not 'fight for America?' You set up the 'axioms' regardless of their connection to reality, pity you didn't think about their implications while you were inventing them.




Actually I did answer several of your questions, seems you missed that. (shock, surprise) However thats beside the point, it seems your method of avoiding actually supporting your opinions here is to state that I 'have no position to ask questions'. Well, whatever gets you out of providing substantiation I suppose.



Actually, if you remove your rediculous hyperbole and schoolyard name-calling I have never used (can you say the same, I wonder?) then actually yes, with sane adjustments that IS the kind of question I would ask. And in fact it would be a good deal more honest than your 'axioms' because it would be based in reality (Exhibit A: you).

"Why do elements of the far-right keep asserting that the 'left' is anti-American and unwilling to fight for America?" Frankly, I think that's a damn good question: there are a couple examples of people on this very board who typify this assertion, Lordhelmet and yourself being first and foremost. Note by the way, my comment regarding 'elements of the far-right', because it is only small groups on the far-righ that do this. The majority of the mainstream right-wing does not engage in such tactics, having the sense to know that attacking the patriotism of people who disagree with you is a completely self-destructive tactic. That is a lesson some on the extreme have yet to learn it seems. They also don't use that shabby tactic because according to recent polls (cited previous) most Republicans also want out of Iraq.



Oh, so it's my fault is it? I guess I'm the one who also put counter-factual 'axoims' at the front of his post in an attempt to artificially link Iraq to 'fighting for America'. besides, in the question I posed above which you so clumsily avoided, I asked what your basis for assuming the left is unwilling to 'fight for America', and it really can only be Iraq, as after all the left has been the one pressing the current administration to REprioritise the war on terror and actually fight it, the left (and several republicans) were the ones who compelled Bush to abandon his proposal to DISBAND Alec Station, the CIA unit dedicated to hunting Bin Laden. If you can find evience that the left does not wish to pursue the war on terror, or is any less zealous about it than most of the right, then please post it, I would LOVE to see it.

Of course you cannot, all you can do is point to Iraq and pretend that this equates to some unwillingness to 'fight for America', and only after fabricating with your 'axioms' an intellectually dishonest and counter-facyual framework to allow you to more easily slander the left. Its unfortunate, and its not an honest question by far but it certainly isn't surprising...

1) Interesting that you group Democrats with "elite" allies. I tried to find an antonym for elite, and the best I could find was "unselected," which doesn't really help, unless you are referring to island nations without a navy or military to aid in conflicts, such as those that were counted as part of the "coalition of the willing."

I do not think that it is fair for people to conclude that Democrats and their "elite" allies do not feel that America is worth fighting for when judged by our unwillingness to prosecute an unjust war and occupation based on lies and so-called faulty intelligence.

What if America is worthy but the effort that our current leader has gotten us into is not?

2) Apparently Republicans have not been as selective about who they are "fighting for America," considering they do not seem to devote as much critical thinking to the whys and wherefores of invading another sovereign nation. But I will resist the temptation of referring to the allies of Republicans as the "unwashed masses" to contrast them with the "elite" allies of the Democrats.

3) "We" can tell where any group of people stand by what they say and do in relation to whatever the cause is. If a group is gung ho about rushing into a situation where little is known but much hoopla has been raised about evil this and that, imminent threats and evidence "in the form of a mushroom cloud," it doesn't necessarily mean that they are more intelligently patriotic than those who prefer to know more about international situations and plan accordingly before jumping in with both feet.

4) Perhaps America is worth "working for" as well as "fighting for" when the need arises. Do you not think that diplomats are also working in the interests of America? Why is it only the "fighting" that matters? Perhaps we should have bumper stickers that say "Support our Diplomats." America the concept and America the People and America the Land are all worth defending, but fighting isn't necessarily the best, nor the only, way to do it.

5) The notion of America being or not being worth fighting for is the subject of this thread, but I believe it is a false choice. Sure, there may be folks who don't give a rip about whether this country continues to be or not, at least in the short term. But I doubt that you could count on one hand the people on this forum who really don't care about the implications of a world without the United States of America, and I would not be among them. The upshot of it is that "we" can't really deal with that notion when it comes to hardcore haters of our country, our culture, and our system of government. But "we" do not have to resort to name calling when it comes to those who are critical of policies of the current leadership and who otherwise do not hold animosity toward us. In short, don't alienate the friends we do have.

6) In view of my aforementioned responses, N/A.

BONUS ANSWER: When we aren't acting like BONEHEADS on the international scene, we enjoy a measure of friendliness and camaraderie. You didn't see too many foreign leaders kicking up sand when the "Global War on Terror" focused its efforts on weeding out Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. It was when Bush & Company tried to tie the events of 9/11 to Iraq and invaded that country that the hue and cry were raised internationally.

Yes, I believe that America is worth defending and, in the most extreme of circumstances, fighting for. I just don't buy the idea that the current administration is right in what it is doing, and I refuse to accept the idea that anyone who doesn't march in lock-step with what Bush & Company are doing are traitors or "for the terrorists."

Doesn't one of the verses of the Star-Spangled Banner say: "Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just"?

Some Democrats believe we should have never even invaded Afghanistan much lesss Iraq. The question is not “is America worth fight for” but “what” is worth fighting for. Was it worth it to go after AQ – some Dems say no – it’s a “police” action and we should not use the military.

Same for Iraq – even more Dems contend that even the first Iraq war was “wrong” and that the second war is misguided. Certainly the way the second war has been executed leaves much to be desired.

So if you disagree that invading Iraq had anything to do with “saving America” the question is moot.

Most Dems wanted to leave Iraq to the UN after Gulf I – even though they were doing squat to resolve the un fulfilled Resolutions. Many of us thought this was a formula for future serious problems in the ME.

So yes we can deal with any country in the world, although we would have to increase the size of the military – the question is where and when we use our forces.

I'm sorry Ted, but this is made-up strawman after made-up strawman.

What major players, politicians or movers in the Democratic party never wanted to invade Afghanistan? Could you find me a poll from 2001-2003 showing that ANY significant portion of Democrats at ALL didn't want to go into Afghanistan? In 2001 according to a CNN poll, 88% of Americans were strongly in favour of attacking Afghanistan. The resolution to attack Afghanistan was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Democrats in the Seanate, and with a SINGLE opposition vote in the House.

I'm sure there were people who opposed the war, I can remember a few minor protests in the media, but are you just assuming they were democrats? And even if they were, they were a TINY fraction of the total. Pretending they are somehow representative is like me saying 'Some Republicans are open racists' because the tiny population of the KKK tends to be entirely republican. The comment is technically true, but completely misleading and the numbers are insignificant.

Same for your next comment. Find me ANY evidence that 'some Dems say it was not worth it to go after AQ'. Find me a poll, or comments from ANY senior democrat or leader who thinks it is 'not worth it to go after AQ'. This one is particularily disingenuous, as it has been the DEMOCRATS attacking Bush for deprioritising the hunt for AQ and going into Iraq: the democrats seem to think this is far more important than the current administration.

Exact same for your next comment: Find me a Democratic leader of mover and shaker who contends the first Iraq war was 'wrong'. Find me a poll which shows ANY significant numnber of democrats who believe the first Gulf war was wrong.

You are completely making all these things up, statements which are so obviously wrong it is baffling why you would try to utter them.


It IS true that many Democrats (and many republicans)(and the large Majority of Americans) think the current war was misguided, but that is the only element of truth in the entire post. So please don't make-up things like that in an efort to portray the Democrats as any less patriotic or fervent in their desire to secure America.

Precisely.

However, one thing to add to this debate is how that "security" comes about. Historically, Democrats in the US believe that security comes from more of a "police" action if you will, while Republicans have generally preferred to chase it via military action.

Sure, nowadays, Republican leadership (insert oxymoron) has had little record of practicing what it preaches, while Democratic leadership went running from its part in this war.

Who thinks this country is worth fighting for? Well... the majority of the of Americans in the armed services.

How does this apply to Democrats versus Republicans (in the true sense... not who's in office now, as those are pretty 'blurry' lines right now)?

Democrats historically have believed that our national security generally should come via police action, meaning FBI/CIA type intervention. Generally that the criminal side of the involvement should be pursued. For instance, Democrats might believe that radical Muslim cells in the US should be pursued if involved in terrorist activity.

Conversely, Conservatives (I dunno if we should confuse current conservatives w/ republicans!ha!) might believe that we should send a Marine division to Afghanistan or Pakistan to attack Al Qaeda at the source.

This was 100% evident during the Clinton administration for instance. The bombing of the USS Cole/Barracks, etc was all pursued via legal matters as opposed to deployment of troops.

In my opinion, this is why many Conservatives believe that Liberals don't want to fight for the US, mostly because our idea of why we should fight is different. Views of military service and it's impact and importance in relation to patriotism are often different as well. Not necessarily wrong, but different. This often is coupled with geographic differences. In the South, for instance, veterans and military service are revered and often seen as a part of paying your dues, while maybe in the Northwest it's not as culturally important.

I personally believe that the more I think about it, that a US President should have SOME military experience. Considering that the person will be the commander and chief of the world's most powerful fighting force, how can one make decisions with young Americans' lives without having a dose of persepective? I think this might've been partly to blame for the blunders of the past two administrations (Clinton and GW)...

I'm not entirely sure I accept that generalisation, though I can't disprove it... let me say this, if that WAS the case, I suspect it changed after 9/11. There was no question about the support of the Democrats/ the left for military action in Afghanistan, and in pursuit of AQ. In some cases democratic desire to pursue AQ has arguably exceeded that of the republican administration.

It is true that Clinton was very reluctant to deploy troops, though that may have something more to do with the Somalia debacle than with any particular leftist tendency. But Post 9/11, had Clinton been in office, nobody can question the fact that he too (as would anyone) would have deployed troops to Afghanistan.

Aevens- history lesson- the USS cole happened very close to the 2000 elections- wasn't even sure WHO did it- with any REAL evidence- until GW was sworn in-


makes you ask- where was GW for nine months?

IT is very interesting to me that folks here tend to blame Clinton for not "punishing" someone for the Cole- when it was entirely up to the current administration to deal with them.

For the sake of this particular debate, I will accept these axioms - though, personally, I don't believe that they are all true. In the end, they are irrelevant when it comes to answering the questions, so I see no point in challenging them in this thread.

1) Do Democrats and their elite allies generally give the impression that the United States of America, aka "America", as she is right now, warts and all, is worth fighting for?

2) Do Republicans?

That depends on what the fight is. If the fight is to improve America - which, I would think, should always be the goal - I think both parties firmly believe that they are attempting to do that. I'd argue that both parties tend to fail. My impression is that the Democrats in control have a weak spine and that the Republicans have one pumped up on steroids.

3) How can we tell if an individual or group believes America is worth fighting for?

Well... I'd say anyone who is passionate about their view of America feels that it is worth fighting for.

4) If it isn't worth fighting for, what should be done?

Bikerdad, who authored this question seems to approach it - not as written - but as "What should you do if you don't believe it's worth fighting for?" Not the same question, but I will approach it from his point of view.

I think that you should do what you can to make it worth fighting for or leave.

5) If it is worth fighting for, how should we deal with the notion that it isn't?

Educate the best we can.

BONUS QUESTION:

Do you believe that America is worth fighting for? Why or why not?

Of course.

It is a country of great resource and great potential.

There is no war on terrorism, only on radical Islam.

As an American, of course the USA is worth fighting for.

Next question?

{Ed.: now it is a three liner; somtimes pithy is appropriate, don't you think?}

How about the man they ran for President – Kerry – “important” enough for you?

Kerry speech on floor of Senate prior to voting against 1991 Gulf War. He had a lot of support--the vote was 52-47.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/2/4/171330/6192


What if America is worthy but the effort that our current leader has gotten us into is not?

This is the real issue isn’t it. Is fighting in Iraq “fighting for America” or not. Is elimination of a dangerous regime in the oil rich ME important to national security or not? It is not clear yet that we are better off now then in 2000 with the UN doing squat and the Iraq Resolutions festering.

Hope it's not too presumptuous of a mere Brit to reply...

Firstly, it seems to me that you left one axiom upon which the thread is predicated unspoken, that being "The War On Terror, as currently manifested right now in Afghanistan and Iraq, is indistinguishable from a war of national survival for the United States".

It also seems to me that all of the disagreement that there is with this unspoken axiom stems from disagreement with it, not only here in this thread, but throughout American politics and debate on these matters. I don't believe for one second that 99.99% of American liberals (and about 90% of European ones) would not fight, or would not support a fight, in defence of the very existence of America or the American people. What I think is going on is that those 99.9% and 90% simply do not believe that Iraq, especially, was a war that was remotely necessary, particularly in the light of subsequent evidence that has showed just how shaky the evidence in favour of war was. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

1) Do Democrats and their elite allies generally give the impression that the United States of America, aka "America", as she is right now, warts and all, is worth fighting for?

They do. What they do not give the impression of is "my country, right or wrong".

2) Do Republicans?

Yes, but rather more of them seem to think that even when America is doing the wrong thing, it must be supported. Some even think that it must be supported especially when it is doing the wrong thing.

3) How can we tell if an individual or group believes America is worth fighting for?

Barring a genuine war of national survival - something America has not really faced since 1812, though 1941-45 came close - you can't tell. And so what? Are the only people who have a right to an opinion on what their country does those that are or have fought for it? (Starship Troopers, anyone? "Service guarantees citizenship" - Memo to self; Bikerdad should be played by Ronny Cox in the movie )

4) If it isn't worth fighting for, what should be done?

If it genuinely isn't, then it should be left to wither. (I don't happen to think that it is not worth fighting for, but I don't think that anyone should be expected to fight for anyhting not worth fighting for. Which is why I'm not a fan of the Iraq war. Afghanistan yes, Iraq no.)

5) If it is worth fighting for, how should we deal with the notion that it isn't?

Magnanimity.

6) Cover essentially the same questions as it applies either to your own country, Eurpoe, or Western Civilization as a whole, substituting the "Left/Right" actors where appropriate.

There is not the perception these days, even among pro-Iraq-War people, that Britain's very survival is under any great threat from anything other than Global Warming. So the first two questions are moot when applied to the UK - there is no sense that anti-war voices here are less patriotic than pro-war ones, since the war itself is not seen as a matter of patriotism.

How can we tell if someone thinks Britain is worth fighting for? Well, we did have a war of national survival in living memory (but not mine), and have had several other through history. We survived them all, even if we didn't win them all. Overall, martial prowess is less central to Britain's idea of itself, even on the political right. Possibly because, as an ex-Imperial power, our militaries past glories were matched (almost? probably?) by past atrocities, most of which have been glossed over, at best.

If Britain isn't worth fighting for, nobody will fight for it. Simple as. And if it is, we should deal with the notion that it isn't with magnanimity, as before. That doesn't mean sitting quietly. Churchill was dogged throughout the pre-war years when he said we should be re-arming, but he didn't waste much time gloating about it once he was proven right - something most politicians in all parts of the spectrum couldn't lay claim to.

BONUS QUESTION:

Do you believe that America is worth fighting for? Why or why not?

Yes. If there was some as-yet unimagined force that threatened to obliterate the USA, as she is now, while leaving the rest of the world more or less untouched (if it threatened me as well, my taking up arms would be as much self-defence than anything noble), I would do what little I can to fight for America, if not in force of arms, then in rhetoric and fundraising.

Such a thing hasn't happened yet, so you don't really need my help. And, chicken littles notwithstanding, I don't expect I will have to in my lifetime because I don't expect there to be any such threat.

Islamic fanaticism might dearly like to obliterate the whole world in a storm of their own making, but frankly a couple of bombs and crashes are about all they are up to causing as things stand. The greatest risk of a clash of cultures with the Islamic world is not what might happen to the West, but of what it might unleash in us, on them. Almost all the most effective genocides (i.e. the greatest number of deaths) in history have been directly or indirectly caused by people of white European descent. My stomach churns just thinking about the wicked and brutal things we are all capable of, when we are working ourselves up over how wicked and evil the other guy is.

Firstly, my kudos to you for using evidence to support this last point, unlike you and hopedfully a trand you will stick to.

However, sadly the point you made does not really stand to any examination. You linked to Kerry's speech: had you read it, or done any looking into the 1991 votes, you would clearly see that Kerry (as he actually says in YOUR link) was not opposing the war, but opposing it before all other diplomatic options had been exhasted. Furthermore, in the years since since then Kerry (nor any other Democrat of note) has never spoken about the first war being wrong.

That was your point as you will recall, and this speech doesn't help rebuild that assertion at all. I also note you didn't bother to try and support your other assertions: Democrats not wanting to invade Iraq, and Democrats not wanting to go after AQ. I assume you did not try and support or defend them as you have aknowledged those were wrong and made-up?



Well seeing as that same oil rich regime had existed for about 30 years prior and had not significantly endangered the US; AND considering that oil going to the US from Iraq has NEVER been lower than it has since 2003, that doesn't seem to be a very worthwhile assertion.


And please stop asserting the 'UN was doing squat', you yourself have openly admitted that you wish the US had allowed the UN to proceed with its motion to act in Iraq: the UN was most certainly doing something but was torpedoed by the US: YOU have agreed to this in the past, don't deny it now...

That is so self defeating and preposterous its not even funny. I suppose the war on the Nazi's in WW2 couldn't be won either. In short can we ever eliminate all terrorism or Nazi's? Absolutely not, but thats not our objective either, just as in WW2 the objective was never to eliminate all Nazi's, our objective here is not to eliminate all terrorism, only to eliminate current well established terrorists organizations or render them less effective at launching large scale attacks on this country. They do not have laser guns, 10 million manned armies, and magnetic shields. By the way the only ones who are "tricked" as you put it, are those who project a constant image of defeat in support of there own political agendas, there was nothing wrong with this question and it allowed for varied answers, but you have a nice day now.

Whoa net2007! Maybe you and "Dale" need to have a conference call. "Communist Nazi's"? Do you have a political theory text or even a right-wing link that backs use of that hybrid phrase up?



What do you mean? Are the terrorists an commuinists the same?



I haven't heard of fighting Communists in WWII. The Germans were Nazis, we fought various forms of fascism among the Axis powers, but "Communists"?

Somebody e-mail factcheck.org...quickly!

Your repeated (and very amusing) historical errors have already been pointed out by BoF so I don't feel the need to repeat them, rather I will deal with the substance of what I assume you were TRYING to say if you knew anything at all about WWII.

According to you, the 'objective' is to eliminate well established terrorist organisations, or render them less effective at launching large scale attacks on the US.

So, how's that going? Well, as the ISS, the CIA, the NIA and jane's have all independently confirmed, AQ is currently stronger now than they have ever been, better funded, better organised and with more manpower than at any time in their existence, and a VERY LARGE reason for that is Bush Jr deprioritising the war on terror, taking the pressure off AQ and going after Iraq, a nation in which there was NO significant AQ presence prior to the US invasion. Both the CIA assessment and a Senate investigation both independently confirmed that fact, and it is not in dispute.

Secondly, the National Intelligence Estimate released a report in April 2006 confirming that due to Bush Jr's war in Iraq, the United States was LESS safe faced with international terrorism, and was at GREATER danger of new attacks as a direct result of the war.

So your 'objectives' have been utterly failed in regards to Iraq, both situations are WORSE due to the war than they were before the war. Add to that a few more facts: The insurgency has been growing stronger consistently since 2003, with attacks per day going up monthly every month between 2003 and 2007. Remember US reconstruction efforts? Those were an abominable failure, with 86% of contracts not completed, and many of those completed done shoddily or incomplete, largely due to the complete inability of the US to provide the security they promised, but also partly due to corruption from a few key companies involved in reconstruction (though only one is under investigation).


Truth isn't defeatism, net2007, reality is not defeatism. The truth and the reality is that the US is losing, and has been losing for years. Every single measurable and quantifiable standard you care to name points to this continued process of losing, period. You amusingly tried to link this to WWII, well I would like to point out that in WWII the US went from one of the militarily weakest nations on earth (fewer men in arms than Porugal in 1940) to playing a role in defeating Germany, and almost singlehandedly defeating Japan in LESS TIME than this quagmire has taken.

I am sick to death of people taking about 'defeatism' as if the left was ignoring the situation on the ground or ignoring real victory, and to claim 'defeatism for their own political motives' is absolutely nausiating: the small and diminishing section of the right still proponents of the war are the ones who are utterly ignorin the reality on the grown in Iraq, the four year progress of the war in Iraq and still want to throw away more US lives and pour more hundreds of billions down a black hole just to avoid admitting they were in error.

The real worls osn't 'defeatism', and the reality of the progressive loss of the war is not a fantasy, the only fantasy here are those chest beating pundits who blame the left and pretend that the US can somehow still defeat the insurgency, and insurgency which has been GROWING and strengthening progressively for years despite their best efforts.


America is worth fighting for, of course. Democrats and Republicans agree on this, and any attempt to paint EITHER side as cowards or unpatriotic is nausiating hate-rhetoric at its worst. But the soldiers dying in Iraq right now are not fighting for America: Iraq unlike Afghanistan was a war of choice and eveery thing about it has made the world situation worse for the US. If Bin Laden is still alive, it is more than likely he thanks his God every day for Bush jr and Iraq, for it has made him stronger than he could have ever hoped to be without it.

30 years and never “endangered” US. Are you joking? The little incursion into Kuwait ring a bell. Money to pay for Saddam’s WMD ring a bell? Where have you been. Should we have just let Iraq have Kuwait?


Let me say it again so its clear – the UN was doing SQUAQT form 1998 until George Bush put US troops on the border. He gets no credit for it and liberals love to overlook the sad fact that Iraq was thumbing their nose at the UN and the world until GWB did something about it.

Yes I wish he had waited and no I think it would not have made a difference – except to show the world what a totally worthless organization the UN is.

I Must have stated that wrong then, I know Nazi's and Russian Communist are not directly affiliated, I shouldn't have put it that way, I'll fix it, but the point I was trying to make is that any evil organization such as the Nazi's can not be eliminated but, that doesn't mean they cant be defeated and history is proof for this. My WW2 knowladge is kind of hit and miss Im learning more now than I did in school and making up for lost time, I knew that Nazi's were hoped to prevent some Russian communism, but I didn't know what the political system of the Nazi's in Germany was considered persay, but thanks for pointing that out

I am assuming at this point that, seeing as you have abandoned your prior assertions and not attempted to answer my points or comments, you have admitted that you made them up and they remain factually completely wrong. Pity you could not just admit it instead of the cut-and-run routine, but hey...




Ted, now you are just ranting disjointedly. Those two statements have nothing to do with each other. No the US should not have allowed Iraq to invade Kuwait, and they did the right thing. But the US was not at threat by Iraq, which is the point I had asked you defend. lord knows why you came up with this response.



Again, when your argument is defeated, you either cut-and-run, or (as in this case) argue something else. Yes, you are correct that Iraq had kicked out inspectoors, and that one of the factors that convinced them to reallow inspectors was pressure from the United States. The UN had not, as you assert, done nothing, in fact they had been doing a hell of a lot, however their diplomatic efforts had been unsucessful.

However, again, YOU have already previously admitted that the UN was moving towards a resolution of force in 2003, and the United States deliberately sabotaged it bu attacking preemptively for NO valid reason, there was no reason whatsoever why the UN should not be allowed to vote on the issue, in fact HAD Bush allowed the vote to occur, it would have been immeasurably better for the US, regardless of the result. This is not up for debate, you have admitted this yourself on several occasions.


-------------------------------------------------------------

Net2007



Though there may have been some practical similarities, particularily in terms of leader worship, ideologically Nazism and Communist are pretty much diometric opposites.

However, regardless of your lack of knowledge regarding the war, your point is still not apt, as mentioned above. nazism was a state movement, and as such could be (and was) totally defeated. There is no comparative value to the current situation in Iraq. Add to the the reality of the situation in Iraq, as I detailed in my previous post (above) and you get a comparaison to WWII that is simply not valid.

Ive never been under the assumption we are winning this war, but its because we haven't fought it with an iron fist. My Mediocure WW2 knowledge is one thing but I've researched a lot on both gulf wars, as it more directly relates to me. The reason we haven't been winning this war is, I believe, a combination of bad war tactics and more recently the lack of support that followed. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld had us go in too light using non American troops to get the job done with a limited amount of American ground forces in our initial push in Ahfganistan. While initially successful in many ways, we have been without the proper amount of ground troops ever since, and this includes after operation Iraqi freedom began.

This was done to keep casualties low in fear of public backlash for a high casualtie rate in American troops and they succeeded in keeping the death toll very low, in fact 3rd lowest of any war fought by the U.S. However when we went into Iraq we spread our recouces too thin, and the low troop count ultimately lead to a retaliation from Al Qaeda, resulting in what will now be a longer war, so the go in lite with suppressing air support plan favored by Rumsfeild did not fit this situation like it did Desert Storm yet they stuck with it for far to long as it continued to fail. My point is instead of talking about things we all already know, and pointing fingers looking for someone to blame, shouldn't this be nothing but initiative to go in their and get the job done right or has America become this weak.

It may no longer be bad decision making that will continue to make us lose, it was a good idea to send in the support we needed, if we do lose it will be us who finished the job in making this war a loss. How??? By putting in charge anyone who is most likely to end this war by quitting this war. Everyone here is talking about how terrible it is we are losing, yet here many are willing to pull the plug being the only thing that will make a war loss official. We have the forces and the money to win this war, if you don't believe that then perhaps this is where you should do some research but just ask and I'll give you a couple links that support that.

Im not afraid of losing this war as a whole simply because of our pride as Americans will take a hit, this will do more than have the world view America as a county of has been hypocrite's that don't stand by their convictions, a lot more. This decision will give Al Qaeda the chance to regroup and recombine there forces when we had our best chance of taking them out. So what are the repercussions of this? Another well calculated attack on our soil likely worse than the last time doing nothing but bringing us right back to the situation we will choose to either ignore or face today. I say face the problem today instead of handing it to our children for them to deal with because thats all we will be doing.



So because Al Qaeda represents a religion instead of a country the point ceases to hold any value?? I don't buy it, The only difference is that we as well as our allies sent Germany a message that, hey if you behave this way there will be consequences, that I know, and the difference is we never sent Al Qaeda that same message, we are increasingly becoming a joke to them because they see the separation in this county and that our roots are not what they were once upon a time. Instead of bitting the bullet and taking real leadership we have been sitting on top the fence wondering what way to go. That point I made would have been relevant even if I had referred to Nazi's as being a party that was known as the Morons. While I obviously misused a term, that was a technicality. Whats important is that we are not fighting this war as if it were a war, we are fighting it as if it were a slugfest of politics.

Define threat. Certainly WMD by a nation willing to use them and invade neighbors in the midst of over ½ the worlds oil is a “threat” to our interests and economy – not to mention ally Israel. Are you trying to be cute here?




I partially agree and wish Bush had waited out the UN. As we know today after the UN scandal the money was flyin