Replies

I didn't say you were a leftest, just that your points are common among leftists, perhaps because they are simplistic half truths that many conservatives have a hard time answering.

1. Probably won't invade Iran, but if he or the next administration decides to, our military is in the right place. Invading Iran would have been far more difficult and bloody if we had not removed Saddam first. Invading Iraq first was and still is the right thing to have done no matter how much the pansies vetch about it.

2. Even with the Rino's I don't think a declaration of war (which actually needs to be against a specific nation) was doable. Getting a declaration of war without a provoking act and proof of it is just not happening. And because of terms of the Desert Storm cessation of hostilities, a declaration of war wasn't needed. Why expend the energy and political capital on that which you do not need? Getting a war declaration was impossible at the time and still is not possible even under current conditions. I think there are a lot of chickenhawks who are hoping Bush (or Israel) will take unilateral action to destroy their nuke program, but they don't want to go on the record as saying so.

3. A war on islamofascism isn't enough, because we have other fascists that are non-islamic that also need to be taken down, namely Fat Kim and Chavez, because they are stupidly assisting the islamofascists under the enemy of my enemy is my friend rubric.

4. Destroy holy sites, carpet bomb cities, yeah and then get impeached and stand trial for war crimes. He doesn't have the political back up to do what you want him to do. He can't order total war because Congress would have him in leg irons with the press singing hosanna.

5. He should cut the Palies off, I agree. It's past time to stop the diplo-dance of dummies.

You may want scorched earth tactics, but you aren't the elected leader of the free world. Unfortunately, the majority of voters seem to be against your tactics. I think the Bush Administration's single biggest failing is losing the media war.

1. The cost to our troops has so far been about 24,000 casualties (haven't checked that, but it's in the ballpark). Are you saying that a military strike against Iran with the intent of eliminating it as a threat would cost more than this, plus the insane amount of money it's cost so far? Iranians are even more decidedly anti-democracy than Iraqis. Invading and "spreading democracy" there will not work. So the correct way to deal with Iran is quick, precise attacks without ground troops. Iraq has not been a militarily efficient way to set such up a strike.

2. You may be right that Bush couldn't get a Declaration of War. However, this was the first time in history that the United States military has invaded a sovereign nation without direct provocation. Don't you think he should have at least tried, and THEN go on without a Declaration of War if he had to? It looks extremely bad from the sidelines and only lends credence the anti-American "Texan gunslinger" charge. And why are those who want strikes against Iran's nuclear program "chickenhawks?"

3. Then declare multiple wars. The Second Korean War. The Venezuelan War. The War on Islam. This idea of declaring a constant state of war on a nebulously defined tactic of an equally nebulously defined enemy is loomingly Orwellian. The "War on Terror" has no clearly defined victory objectives, and can apply, as you say, to any battle. Thus, it can be carried on indefinitely, and without a Declaration of War.

4. Then he (or we) shouldn't be fighting this war. If we don't have the guts to do total war, as we did with Germany and Japan, we shouldn't have troops trying to stay alive in the region with ABSOLUTELY NO victory objectives. When do we win? When terrorist attacks are nonexistent worldwide? Sure, the media would crucify anyone who dared to fight a real war today. So either say F the media, or don't pretend to fight a war. Especially one against the most dangerous, long-lasting enemy history has produced.

5. w00t.