Answer to De Pasquale Article

The whole idea that those who support a war policy are then obligated to go and actually fight it is absurd nonsense.

First, who would be left behind to run the country? The cowards and the pacifists.

More importantly, your sophistry is commonly rebutted, effectively, thusly:

Do you have an opinion on police matters? If so, are you a policeman?

Do you have an opinion on school issues? Are you a teacher or school administrator?

Do you have an opinion on border security? Are you a Border Patrolman?

So please, just stop. That's an absolutely intellectually bereft idea.

BTW, RVN, 1969 - 1970.

We are are war, the neo-cons contend, because the survival of our nation is at stake. Our liberty is at risk because of the Islamo-fascist threat. If we do not defeat these people, our way of life may -- no, WILL -- end.

That's the justification isn't it? You certainly wouldn't go to war for anything less. Not a preemptive war. You wouldn't actually justify invading two countries merely because you dislike those in charge.

So we're talking about national survival. We are at war because the survival of the nation is at stake. Any lesser justification would be obscene.

I have an opinion on police matters -- but police matters pale in comparison to national survival. Compared to national survival, police matters are trivial.

I have an opinion on school issues. But are we talking about an end to our way of life if my opinions are not carried out? Of course not.

I have an opinion on border security. But again, we're not talking about the end of the free world here. (Besides which, my wishes are being carried out as more and more states and localities are convincing the aliens to deport themselves by cutting off services & making it difficult to get employment -- but that's another matter.)
There is a considerable difference in proportion. On the one hand, we have national survival and on the other hand we have the question of whether Harry Potter should be in the school library. I'm sure you can see the difference in magnitude.

Here's my contention: Anyone who believes that the nation is in peril has a duty to defend it.

Do you really want to argue the contrary?

BTW, I wonder which category you'd consider me? I'm not a pacifist -- I advocate fighting for the defense of the nation. So I must be yellow. Is that it?

Anyone who disagrees with you (and that's most of the people of the United States) is either a coward or a pacifist. Do you really believe that?

I cannot agree with this war because I know that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq posed a threat to the United States. Remember, I was an intelligence officer. I'm used to evaluating the threat.

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had the capability of attacking the United States.

Yes, Bin Laden did attack. But not Afghanistan. And Afghanistan offered to turn him over to us if we'd give evidence that he was behind the 9-11 attack. Any nation (even the British) would have asked for the same before extraditing a criminal. We refused to supply any information. Instead we invaded them for their insistence that we obey international law.

Iraq is even more problematic. No one -- not the President, the Vice President, the CIA, nobody -- says that Iraq was in any way shape or form connected with 9-11. Prior to the war, the evidence was pretty clear that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD.

And even if they had had them, we knew for an absolute fact that they had no delivery capability. Simply put, even if every man, woman & child in Iraq had been going around with a WMD under each arm, they had absolutely no means to deliver these weapons on targets in the United States (or elsewhere for that matter).

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq posed a threat to the United States. Therefore, I am against the war. I will also say that even if they had posed a threat, I would be against fighting any war without a declaration of war -- I take the Constitution seriously.

If we really believe that Islamic terrorism is a threat, we're fighting the wrong people. We KNOW who sponsors the Islamic terrorists. We KNOW who supplies them with most of their money. We KNOW who trains them. And we KNOW who provides them with most of their recruits. Saudi Arabia.

I could at least see the point of such a war. Saudi terrorists attacked the US. Saudi Arabia supplies money, weapons, training, men & the philosophical underpinning for the entire movement. Whether that war would be justified is at least debatable. But no one can justify Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'd forgotten I had this page open.

I didn't read the remainder of your blatherings, as I posted my response from here onto the main column.

You want to debate further, that's the place.

You are kind of a gas bag, aren't you?