The first thing and most important thing is to reject the premise

[Toots]

that we are a nation at war. We are not at war. We are doing some police work in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan but we are not at war. We can not be at war with an idea. Especially an idea that has been with humanity since it's beginning and will be with us til the end. There has always been terror, there will always be terror. We can try and create better police and investigators but no way can we ever fight a military battle with an idea. As long as we second the notion we are at war we will always lose because we further their goals that way. This has to stop and sanity must return or there will be no Democratic Party. Nothing but a laughing stock. Korea was called a "Police Action" and Vietnam a "Conflict". They were never even officially called wars and we fought against large numbers of convential troops with convential weaponry. We may be engaged in a major struggle with a bunch of bad people scattered throughout the world but we certainly are not at war. I just received a letter from Ted Kennedy asking for money and one of the first things he said was Democrats could fight the "War on Terror" better than Bush*. That one statement stopped me from making any donation. It showed the Democrats don't have a clue. Giving them money to try and out war monger the GOP...I think not...Tell the truth and you get my vote and my money but carry on with the ridiculous and you can forget about me.....

[fasttense]

1. I agree but because terrorism does not scare me.

You are right. How can we be at war with a group of criminals with no state, no borders? We can't and we as Americans are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that terrorists will be with us for a long time to come. Now lets get out of our hidey-holes and start planning for a truly free Nation.

[raccoon]

2. I don't blame you for not donating. I hope you told them why. nt

[400Years]

3. Even your assumptions are wrong

"We may be engaged in a major struggle with a bunch of bad people scattered throughout the world but we certainly are not at war."

Look, Bush and the rest of the war monger corporate elite need these "enemies" and they do not want them to go away. Without a scary, shadowy, outside enemy you cannot get people to give up all thier freedom and justify instituting a corporate police state and that is the real goal here, not fighting "terrorism".

[drm604]

4. I understand what you're saying

but it sounds like you're proposing we drop out of the political process all together. We need to change the Democratic party but we won't do that by abandoning it. We need to support them but we need to let them know loudly and clearly that there are things we don't like and things that need to change. We were able to make ourselves heard on the Alito filibuster, not as well as we would have liked, but we did change behaviour.

Support them, let them know that you're supporting them, and tell them what you expect from them. Tell them that we don't want the Democratic party to be Republican-lite. Tell them that they need to demonstrate that there are clear and important differences between them and the Republicans.

[Greyhound]

9. And when they continue to cash the checks while ignoring our directives

what is our opinion worth? They take our $ and do as they please, that is not representation. We need a clean start.
:kick:

[Brotherjohn]

5. I've said all along, 9/11 was a criminal act, as is any act of terror.

And it seems to me like other nations are having much more success at capturing and prosecuting terrorists using their criminal justice systems than we are invading and occupying whole countries (resulting in the deaths of thousands of their citizens, as well as our own).

Oh yeah, I forgot. That method doesn't create more terrorists. (see post above)

[ProfessorGAC]

8. First WTC Bombing, For Example

8 Conspirators. 7 Arrested, Indicted, Convicted and in jail. The 8th was already out of the country when the truck bomb went off.

9/11: Nobody arrested. Nobody convicted.

Clinton 7:
Silverspoon: 0
The Professor

[Stephanie]

6. Congress needs to rescind all war resolutions right now

And they need to tell George, "Mission Accomplished, Dumbass."

http://mrktlab.com/charts/bush_mission accomplished.jpg

[Brotherjohn]

7. The earliest that can POSSIBLY happen is Jan 2006 (IF we win). n/t

[BushOut06]

10. I respectfully have to disagree with that

We are at war - ask any servicemen who's been to Iraq or Afghanistan. Ask anyone who served in Panama or Grenada if that wasn't a war. I know many Vietnam vets who would get very irate when someone would say that Vietnam wasn't a real war, that it was a "conflict" instead. If you're getting shot at, watching your friends die around you on a daily basis, it's war. By not labelling correctly, we run the risk of marginalizing or trivializing it. War is hell, it sucks, and should only be undertaken as an absolute last resort. People like Rumsfeld would love if everyone didn't think of what we're doing in Iraq as war.

What we need to do is keep harping on the fact that this is an illegal war, that our soldiers - our brothers, fathers, sons, uncles, friends, neighbors - are dying needlessly.

[Toots]

11. But haven't you been paying attention to their propaganda

More people die in Detroit or Washington DC in a month than American soldiers in Iraq in a year. Just because people die does not mean we are at war. Vietnam certainly felt like a war to me. All I ever encountered were very well trained conventional soldiers (with modern equipment) called the NVA. The Media and the government at that time called it a Conflict. It was always referred to as the "Vietnam Conflict" Protesters called it a war but not the government..

[BushOut06]

13. Important distinction - we are not AT war, but we are IN a war

Congress never declared war, so we are not technically at war with anyone. But if you're in the middle of it, it sure as hell is war.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Cops Get Shot At

Are they at war, too? Ducks get shot at! Are ducks at war with humans? I think you're taking a rigid position to take a rigid position. And, the "illegal" part of it, while i agree with you about that, is useless. It makes the position too abstract for the supporters (albeit a dwindling crowd).

The fact is that we are fighting an idea in a battle we can't win. Someone is ALWAYS going to be pissed off at someone. When they don't have high altitude bombers and cruise missiles, the weaponry will be terror. So, it's not a war. It's an imperalist adventure.
The Professor

[BushOut06]

14. It is a war

Just because we strongly disagree with the premise, doesn't mean it's not a war. I really don't know what else you would call it when we have servicemen in a foreign country engaging in hostilities. Those men and women are NOT fighting against ideas, they are fighting against real flesh & blood people.

As far as ducks go, that's just a ridiculous comparison - the ducks aren't fighting back, are they?

[ProfessorGAC]

15. First, They Would If They Could

Secondly, it's not ridiculous because you say so. When you start with a ridiculous premise like "it's a war because i say so, and because people are being shot at", you will get ridiculous metaphors in return. Quid pro quo.
The Professor

[BushOut06]

16. WTF? how would you define a war then?

First of all, I never said it was a war "because I said so". I could turn that right back around and ask you what makes it NOT a war, the fact that you say so? Please, how would you define a war? I've already laid out several concrete examples as to why it IS a war, and the only thing you can come back with is nonsense about ducks?

Please, I don't intend this to become a flame war, but it's obvious that you don't want to respect my opinion whatsoever with your dismissive analogies. Like I said, the powers in charge would love nothing more than for us to fight over the semantics, and further trivialize what's going on. Our servicemen are DYING in Iraq, I don't know what the hell you would like to characterize that as.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. A War Is As Much A Legal Term As A Practical One

A war is defined as a armed conflict between two sovereign entities. That's the legal definition. Therefore, your statement that it's an illegal war reinforces the concept. The UN and USCJ definitions require congressional, parliamentary or head of state (where democracy is yet to exist) declaration between any two sovereign states.

That's my definition, because it's the accepted definition by our own gov't and by the UN. Good enough for me.

I agree that the powers that be would like us to argue over semantics. Yet, you started the disagreement with the OP. So, if arguing over semantics is a bad thing, why did you precipitate it? If you, i and the OP all agree that this conflict is a bad thing, a stupid idea, and likely against the law, why was the semantic disagreement worth raising?

And, i don't disrepect your opinions. But, your opinion hardly seemed illuminated respect for the OP, since you made a point of arguing the semantics. Minimal expression of agreement on the premise. However, in the post to which i first responded, you made it clear that since people are being shot at, it's a war. I don't agree. Should i tell you i agree when i don't, just to make you feel better? Seems your skin is a little thin.

The Professor

[BushOut06]

20. One can disagree without disrespecting

Nowhere in my initial response did I disrespect the OP - unless you consider disagreement itself to be disrespect.

BTW, Webster's Online dictionary defines war as the following:

1. The waging of armed conflict against an enemy; "thousands of people were killed in the war".
2. A legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply; "war was declared in November but actual fighting did not begin until the following spring".
3. An active struggle between competing entities; "a price war"; "a war of wits"; "diplomatic warfare".
4. A concerted campaign to end something that is injurious; "the war on poverty"; "the war against crime".

So I would submit that the actions in Iraq do meet that definition.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. Acknowledged

We will disagree, agreeably.
The Professor

[BushOut06]

22. Cheers!

This is why I love DU - we can have our disagreements without resorting to namecalling or nastiness. Which is more than what you can say for our buddies across the aisle :toast:

[ProfessorGAC]

23. In Return

Sentiment is likewise.
The Professor

[teriyaki jones]

17. People: You have to understand the real "war" is a war on YOU

waged by this administration to keep you too frightened to fight back.

[newyawker99]

24. Hi teriyaki jones!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[KittyWampus]

18. But Democrats AND DU'ers Accepted The Term "Iraq WAR Resolution"

so yes, we are at war.

And Thanks to all the DU'ers who took the GOP & Mediawhores' lead.

:sarcasm: