To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (37612 ) 11/20/2001 6:50:45 AM From: thames_sider Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486 Jorj, I disagree. Rather than trying to force analogies, why not use the accurate description of commanders in a war? They don't go to lead from the front. Nor do they willingly and knowingly expose themselves to enemy fire. (For that matter, if I knew someone was trying to bomb me, I wouldn't class ducking for cover as cowardice - regardless of whether I'd caused the bombing.) You could, I suppose, paint anything less than suicidal recklessness and the certainty of death for one's cause as cowardice (although this presumably means that the only non-cowards in recent history are the 9/11 hijackers and the Japanese kamikaze pilots). I think it's SOP for any leader in particular to seek protection from enemy bombardment. Stupidity is standing in a known and targetable location yelling 'Here I am, bomb me'.They had a plan, it was dangerous, they sent somebody else to do the dangerous stuff. That sounds like a definite reluctance to face danger to me. LOL. That's what generals and commanders do, isn't it? Even I, with no great love for the man, don't brand Bush a coward for not personally leading the forces in Afghanistan. But he's doing exactly what you describe; he's doing his job, rather than engaging in pointless acts of bravado - presuming you regard the attacks on Afghanistan as dangerous for the US forces, and the troops thus engaged brave...? As others have said, we have such a suitable range of epithets for this murderer, why bother trying to justify insults which don't apply? BTW, drawing from your argument that if you inflict harm without fear of retaliation, rather than staying in range to feel the counter-attack, then you're a coward - I hope you're not calling American B52 pilots cowards because they run bombing missions without fear or expectation of being taken out? Or are you calling American sailors cowards, because they sit out in the Gulf and shoot Cruise missiles while remaining almost completely safe from retribution?? Personally I'd call it a damn smart use of resources and a sensible (if expensive) way to do battle, if you can. On your analogy, there is a few interesting points... Would it be cowardice for the first boy *not* to taunt the second, from fear of reprisals? Would it if the second boy is substantially larger, stronger or tougher than the first? Or would this simply make the first boy a fool for the teasing? And if you taunt only when you're not afraid of reprisals (presumably because you reckon you have the advantage in any fight] isn't that simply bullying of the most obnoxious sort?