Fear an easier sell than sacrifice (This columnist nails it)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06249/719313-154.stm

I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard people like me (i.e., supposedly unpatriotic ingrates) reminded that "we are at war." I would buy my critics a set of medals from the wars they never went to or a set of history books about wars they don't remember.

What do these guys mean when they say "we are at war"? What they really mean is that they want anyone who expresses doubt about the war in Iraq, in particular, to shut up.

"We are at war" translates into "you can't argue with the commander in chief when we are at war," which, conveniently for him, won't ever end.

<snip>

And how come no draft? The draft was used in both World War I and World War II, but somehow it's not needed in World War III, because out troops signed up, so it is morally right that they be send back time after time no matter at what terrible personal cost because we support the troops and -- did we mention? -- they signed up for it. This is the cowards' rationale for sending heroes to their fate.

When did the terrorists become Islamofascists anyway? Islamo they may be, evil, bizarro and nutto they are, but fascism is a philosophy from a distinct time and place, and besides the Islamofascists don't have well-tailored uniforms.

The answer to these questions ought to be obvious to the smallest readers of "My Pet Goat." Fear is easier to sell to voters than sacrifice, especially when most of what you have done has proved incompetent. The spin is the thing, not the reality.

[Erika]

1. W and Rove are at it again. Fascism has nothing to do with this.

I see little difference, if any, between the WFascists and the Islamfascists. They both claim the other to be evil. They both think the only answer is for the other to be converted to their religion.

[Matilda]

2. There are protocols for the declaring of war,

and as far as I know, these were not observed. Because the truth is, the official reason for the
invasion of Iraq was the finding and destruction of WMD, and very specifically, NOT an act of war
against Iraq and its people. As for the "war on terrorism" - you can't declare war against an idea,
or even on a shadowy enemy waging guerilla tactics over unspecified and continually shifting areas
of the world.

That may sound pedantic, but if our leaders are going to continually cry that we are at war, they
should be specific about a declaration and make it official. Otherwise, they are doing no more
than engaging in random acts of destruction when and where they feel like it. Just like the
terrorists they are forever banging on about.

[serryjw]

4. Did ANY Commander in Chief

ever tell Americans to "go shopping" when we were in a war? What has the average American sacrificed?

{b]War on Drugs
War on Poverty
War on Crime....It's getting very old
Drug use, poverty and crime has stayed the same or gone up since the 'war' started.

[bhikkhu]

5. quite right.

and if you look at the agenda and goals for the "Global War on Terror", it is little less than a war against human nature. Likely to last awhile.

[pansypoo53219]

3. but but but

the new teevee season is about to start....