rich k

Historically, warfare has been considered to be conflict between Nations, Tribes, or Peoples. Terrorism is none of those, it's a tactic, and it's one that has been used by all sides in conflicts throughout the ages. That being the case, would it not be more effective to combat it through international cooperation in the enforcement of established laws than by unilateral and often counter-productive military action?

Historically "warfare" has referred to conflicts between Nations, Tribes, or Peoples, Terrorism is none of those but a tactic, and one that has been used by all sides in conflicts through the ages. That being the case, could it not be more effectively fought by expanded international cooperation in the enforcement of existing laws than by unilateral and often counter productive military actions?

Historically, "warfare" has been seen as conflict between Nations, Tribes, or Peoples. "Terrorism" is none of those, it is, instead, simply a tactic that can, and has, been used throughout the centuries by people of all ideologies. Would it not, then, be more effective to treat it like any other crime, and work to end it through cooperative international enforcement of existing laws rather than by unilateral and often counterproductive military actions?

In the dictionary the word "liberal" is defined as "open minded, not adhering to established doctrine or orthodoxy, while "conservative" means "one who conforms to traditional positions or views". This would make anyone, either side, who voted the straight party ticket a conservative, someone conforming to established doctrine. The only people who can, legitimately, be called "liberals" would be the independents and swing voters, since they are the only ones making open minded individual choices. This is not about who's better, left or right, or to suggest that anyone is wrong to vote their beliefs, as an American I'd hope you'd do that, my question is about the choice of term.

Just as you can't win a race if there is no finish line you can't win a war without a defined objective. I'm a Nam era vet who retired after Desert Storm, during Nam no one seemed to know what we were trying to achieve, our people were just there. In Desert Storm we had a clear goal, the Liberation of Kuwait, we did that and came home. Obviously none of us who haven't been there can really understand it as you do, so I ask your opinion, is there an actual achievable goal that we can accomplish and put things to an end as we did with the Liberation of Kuwait? Is there a Finish Line? I would also like to thank you all for your service, Vet to Vet.

People are throwing it around as a fact, but I've been unable to find any form of coroboration. If somebody made it up as peice of anti-war propaganda it's doing one heck of a job. Can anyone provide a verifiable source, preferably more than one?