You tell me, you're the one who's fascinated with tossing the term around mindlessly as a pejorative like a second-grader who just heard his first four-letter word.
LOL, could you link me to the Congressional Declaration of War for this Iraq adventure?
They granted Bush war powers under the terms of the War Powers Act, as you know. I suppose you have your problems with the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and that's your God-given right as an American. Meanwhile it's my God-given right not to give a rat's ass about your expert opinion on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.
[cost not specified in advance] Give me a break, its but one reason of many why this is not a war conservatives can support at any level.
Fair enough. The cost isn't specified in advance, and (you're saying) that's one reason conservatives shouldn't support this war.
But the cost of the Revolutionary War wasn't specified in advance either. Why isn't that one reason conservatives shouldn't support that war either?
You're still faced with the unpleasant dilemma of either denouncing the American Revolution or contradicting yourself.
You're against debt financing? Can you name any wars that weren't debt financed?
I doubt we have much solid evidence that the Pelopenesian War was debt financed.
All I'm saying is that I agree that all other things being equal debt financing is undesirable. I disagree that that's a reason in and of itself to oppose a war. That's a stupid reason in and of itself to oppose a war IMHO. (All other things being equal I'm against killing and I can't name any wars that didn't involve killing, but I don't think "it will involve killing" is a particularly compelling reason to oppose any given war either.)
You're free to sit here and claim, of course, that I can't support a war which involves debt financing, and claim to be a conservative. Meanwhile I'm free to say like hell I can't, and spit on your claim to be the self-appointed arbiter of who is conservative and who isn't.
Or do you believe in debt financing only for wars?
I don't "believe in debt financing" other than as a necessary evil.
I don't "believe in carrying a credit card balance" or "believe in borrowing money from the bank to buy a house" either but I acknowledge that there are times when it can be appropriate. That's because I'm a grown-up and I recognize that this is the real world.
Don't you think if the war is actually, you know real, the gubmint should steal enough from its citizens to pay for it in cash?
I don't see what one thing's got to do with the other. Debt financing just means they're "stealing" from future citizens a bit to spread the cost. Again, I don't "like" this, but to cite it as a reason to oppose the war is just asinine. You're really saying you'd find the Iraq war hunky-dory if the budget balanced? I'd rather evaluate a given war based on, you know, national security strategy and stuff.
one can support the defense of his nation from actual invaders, without supporting wars against [Iraq]
Yes, of course one can support wars defending against invasion without supporting the war against Iraq. You are exhibit A. In my case, I happen to support both: wars defending against invasion in general, and the current war against Iraq in particular. If you've got a problem with that, I'll be happy to tell you where you can stick it.