Replies

How many Americans must die in defense of freedom before we use the weapons we have? Do we have a right to use the weapons we have in our defense? How many Americans would you have die to save the lives of our enemy's? Is an Iraqi Arab's life worth as much to you as an American soldier's?

I don't think it's a matter of "weapons". Though I'm not qualified to make the assessment, I suspect "boots on the ground", American now, Iraqi later, coupled with diplomatic (air power is diplomatic) pressure is the real issue. There are potential political costs. IMO, a more aggressive posture would be a political plus, but either way our troops deserve all the support we can give them, and if the dems magnificent 9 think they can play it to their political advantage, let them.

I do not disagree. As I wrote, my definition of weapons is that a weapon is more than the physical thing. It is more than a bullet or a bomb. It is strategy, willpower, tactics, political commitment used to sucess to defeat an enemy by the application of power. We have the power and now we must use it.

I'll digress and consider a problem we have with respect to a sucessful srategy. The elite media and bleeding heart types will forever equate the sucessful strategy of President Truman and that of unsuccessful Hitler with that of opression, barbarism, Hitler-like, etc., that is, if war is not pretty, surgical, sterile, fast, cheap, not bloody and immediately victorious then it must be wrong, criminal, Hitler-like, you name it, it will be in the op-ed page. War is dirty and the first consideration in war is to win. Pick up the pieces later.

BTW, a former communicant in this thread was posed these precise questions which were not answered. I commend you for considering them. Consider them, point by point, question for question, then offer a final understanding. It would please me and I suspect it would offer insight into the Socratic method, the basis for civilized thinking and understanding.