Tell me why my argument exhibits cowardice or a lack of courage in my convictions.
... I'm not sure where my cowardice is supposed to enter in. But I'm fairly sure we've all seen yours.
I don't think I said you are a coward and you have yet to show me why my position represents cowardice.
Your criticism of America seems founded on the notion that we are a "bully." Using the standard definition of the word, that means that we oppress smaller, weaker nations for no particular reason except to inflate our own precarious sense of worth. I suggest that a belief in one's country compels one to objectively evaluate the application of that epithet.
With the possible exception of Bosnia, a product of Bill Clinton's sleight-of-hand, the United States has no record of "bullying" anyone. The major wars we've fought -- the Revolution, the Civil War, the World Wars -- were all in response to egregious offenses against our moral code. The so-called "lesser" wars were defenses against our ideological enemies, whose expansionist goals were as obvious as they were oppressive.
Therefore, to collaborate with America's Fifth Column critics who label any attempt at self-preservation "imperialist" or "hegemonic" defies the facts in favor of acceptance by those critics. That strikes me as cowardice, the cowardice of a man who will blame America first, then ignore the facts when he gets around to it. Why else would you try to paint our effort against terrorism as anything but justifiable? If cowardice doesn't drive you, what does? Was Neville Chamberlain a coward because he was so willing to appease Hitler? I think history has shown that he was. At the very least, he was willfully obtuse.
I don't think I said you are a coward
Let me cite: I'm pretty sure you can be a snob and a coward ...
Did I misunderstand your point?