To: i-node who wrote (206133 ) 10/12/2004 12:48:30 PM From: Elroy Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576699 Fundamentally, we're talking about us killing them before they kill more of us. The "offensive" means that if necessary, we act pre-emptively, and WITH ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL DISREGARD for what Chirac and Shroeder and everyone else in the world wants us to do. This is about protecting ourselves. We neither need nor want UN or other foreign government approval before killing cockroaches. I think every President of the US (and any country) would agree with the above. Don't kid yourself, the above is NOTHING special. You haven't thought about what it means to be on the offensive. That means going into a new geography and attacking - anything else is reactionary. Bush should clarify the meaning of being on the offensive and the implications. I think any President (including Kerry) that becomes aware of a threat or "terrorist network" (as if it were like a subway!) would destroy it.Kerry is a pacifist who doesn't know a good war when he sees it. He has been anti-war from the get-go, even when there is a good reason. Reference his position on the Gulf War. Sounds true if you are discussing conventional war, as in country versus country. The effort to increase America's security is not a war. This is something you dismiss each time I say it, but the wording (terror war as opposed to security campaign) clouds a lot of your analysis. If you want a pro-war President (since Kerry's anti-war stance is anathema to you), you are in the minority of most Americans. Anyway, I'm going out for a beer (it's 9pm here), so more tomorrow, here's hoping INTC and LLTC lay a turd on tech stocks tonight. Elroy