<<Where did you pull this definition out of? Is this a quote from Kid Bush or President Chaney?>>
From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate dictionary:
Main Entry: ar·my
Pronunciation: 'är-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural armies
Etymology: Middle English armee, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin armata -- more at ARMADA
Date: 14th century
1 a : a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land b : a unit capable of independent action and consisting usually of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary troops c often capitalized : the complete military organization of a nation for land warfare
From same source, definition of war:
Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Old North French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3
- war·less /-l&s/ adjective
What is YOUR definition of army, Barry? Well armed police? The purpose of the military is to fight wars, that is to put themselves deliberately in harms way, to a achieve a predetermined end defined as victory. I don't think the military should be used for glorified police efforts, whether it be in Bosnia or Somalia. Which gets to our next point of contention:
<<I guess all you conservatives are in favor of sending our troops to dangerous areas of the world, where our national interests are not at stake. The military had better get ready, there are a lot of hot spots all over the world>>
Yes, conservatives are in favor of sending troops to dangerous areas all over the world. Like Korea or the Middle East. Or stationed in Europe or Japan where they defend our allies and allow quick deployment worldwide. That is, for ends which are strictly in the US national security interest and the interests of our allies. Bosnia IS NOT a US national interest. Neither is Somalia. You are once again caught as a hypocrite, because this Democratic administration has presided over the greatest number of peacetime deployments in our nation's history - 45 total, arguably the vast majority NOT in our national interest, even remotely. In the roughly 50 years of the Cold War, there were only 19 deployments, to give you an idea of the scale of Clinton's adventurism. So, WHO is in favor of sending our troops to dangerous areas of the world, where our national interests are not at stake?
<<<< What about the escalation of US involvement in Columbia, Barry? >>
I think that our war on drugs has been a total disaster. But, that guilt is shared equally by Democrats and Republicans. Poppa Bush will suffer the guilt for the unforgivable mistake of sending our kids into Somalia, that is, unless he washed his hands of the mission when he left office.>>
It was under Clintons administration that US military materiel has been sold to the Columbian government, that US forces are providing aerial intelligence for Columbian army and anti-drug units, where US forces are stationed in Columbia to help provide command and control of Columbian army units against FARC rebels. This is a CLINTON escalation in Columbia.
As to Somalia, you can keep beating that drum Barry. No US servicemen died under the mission Bush authorized.
Derek |
