Replies

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think I agree with ZB. First off there are wars and 'wars'. We've had a 'war on drugs' and a 'war on poverty' and many others. These are not wars, they are 'wars'. So the question is: is the WOT a 'war' or a war.

When you are really at war, it seems to me, you can't really have this discussion. It is blatently obvious who the enemey is, and in large part they are viewing you as the enemy and organized to fight you. For the last 500 years mostly these have been nations vs. nation conflicts, or perhaps militia vs. militia in the case of civil wars.

We are asked to consdier the WOT / Iraq such a war, but it doesn't really fit. Mostly what we hear good about what the US Army is doing in Iraq is 'nation building'. The USA and USA Army were involved in rebuilding Europe and Japan after WW2, and there were people opposed who caused problems. But, significantly, we didn't say we were still at war. The war was over VE and VJ days were passed.

So, to some extent I think Bush's "Mission Accomplished" marked the end of the normal, formal war.

If we are accept that we are at war with internation jihadi terrorism, I think that's a stretch. Surely we hate and want to defeat it, but are they really a threat that we can justify a war foooting for? Mostly the answer is no, I am afraid.

Many here on FR could point out chapter and verse what they say. So? The SLA/Weather Underground said all sorts of things about overthrowning the USA, so did the Red Brigades in Europe. Few would say we were at war with the SLA.

So I think ZB is correct, the WOT is really just a fancy name for something that is less than a real war, like say Vietnam or WW2. Until it is percieved as a real war the USA won't fight it appropriately.

So I think ZB is correct, the WOT is really just a fancy name for something that is less than a real war, like say Vietnam or WW2. Until it is percieved as a real war the USA won't fight it appropriately.

"ZB" is correct in the same way that a judge is correct when he let's a murderer walk because his Miranda rights weren't read properly. The President declined to ask for a formal declaration of war because he didn't want to be perceived as "making war on a Muslim nation", and because he wanted a near-unanimous vote in Congress on a "Use of Force" resolution to show that "the American people were united behind him". As unsatisfactory as a "Use of Force Resolution" is to those of us who would like to see those who have committed treason and sedition behind bars right now (as they might well have been in a declared war), it is none the less "war by any other name", just as Korea was a war (even if Harrya$$ Truman called it a "police action").

"First off there are wars and 'wars'. We've had a 'war on drugs' and a 'war on poverty' and many others. These are not wars, they are 'wars'. So the question is: is the WOT a 'war' or a war."

I followed that particular linguistic activism by feminists over the decades and see that it has had some success. Every effort is a "war." That contributes to propaganda against defense, to amazonian feminism, and it diverts funds and time to domestic social programs against families.

The War on Terror is light in intensity because of our newer military abilities, equipment, better attitudes and more open terrain in areas of operations than what we saw in the late '60s and early '70s. That's no excuse for so much couch-potato, television fantasy opposition against defense. Several countries are propagating nuclear weapons capabilities to Islamist regimes.

During the first Gulf War and since then, I've seen media people calling Army soldiers "Marines," mistaking other branches and specialties, and repeating many untrue catch phrases about tactics. During one operation, the media chicks and their effeminate male friends went on about how our Air Force was the only needed branch. And in another, they yakked incessantly about needing "Special Forces" "boots on the ground." The worst that they do is to fabricate an impression that the War is a kind of entertainment and should last little longer than a television "mini-series."

The civilian "news" "experts" know very little about our military, and most of the retired military officers presented on television have been sexually confused extremists of the radical, anti-American left. The few who are yet masculine and faithful to our country (for example, Major General Paul E. Vallely) have been objects of disrespect and efforts to push them out of public venues (for example, when the ignorant news chick publicly and repeatedly whined at him something like, "Uh! Was that supposed to be funny?"). I stopped my satellite feed and stopped watching television soon after the effort started in Afghanistan.

So I think ZB is correct, the WOT is really just a fancy name for something that is less than a real war

What in Blazes do you think is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Tanks. AC-130s. Cobras and Apaches. MOUT.

Shots fired from and at both sides.

This isn't a 'peace keeping' mission. It was a military invasion.

It is war.