From: "Gary Britt" 

To show that the war on drugs wasn't a *military* war.  I thought the
context in the original post was pretty obvious.

It is a war, Congress declared war.  If you don't like Congress' actions
then campaign for a different point of view and Congress critters who will
pass a resolution declaring the war over and rescinding their declaration
of war/AUMF.

Simple.

Gary

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43b0b048$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> You are the one that brought up napalm and yes we've used it more than to
> just clear a battlefield.
>
> And what was your point to bring up napalm to justify Bush's mythical war?
>
> Yes we have a conflict with some nasty people but in NO way is it
justified
> to declare it a war. Bob's example of a the 'war on drugs' while not a
> military conflict gives us way more fatalities than your bogeyman and even
> it doesn't justify the abuse of liberty that you espouse..
>
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:43b0a656$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > And what's the point?
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> > news:43b03e34$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> We use/have used   napalm type weapons much more than any terrorists.
Oh
> >> I
> >> forgot it's ok as we didn't sign the 1980 UN convention banning those
> >> weapons.
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
> >> news:43b03b9e{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> > We aren't discussing criminals killing criminals and
police killing
> >> > criminals.  You're changing subjects.  We were
discussing whether its
a
> >> > war
> >> > or not, and it isn't a military war.
> >> >
> >> > Terrorists aren't using napalming because of some
heartfelt ethical
> >> > concern
> >> > over that particular method of clearing a battlefield, so to make
such
> >> > a
> >> > statement reveals more about errors in your thinking
versus us or the
> >> > terrorists.
> >> >
> >> > Gary
> >> >
> >> > "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> >> > news:43b036e6{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> > When they start napalming fields and people,
then its a war.
> >> >>
> >> >> You'd be surprised how many are killed every year in the drug
trade --
> >> >> I'd
> >> >> bet more than terrorism. Terrorists never napalmed
anyone yet btw,
> > that's
> >> >> our specialty. :|
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Bob Comer
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
> >> >> news:43b0202e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> > When they start napalming fields and people,
then its a war.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Gary
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
> >> >> > news:43af989e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> > The war on drugs isn't yet a military
conflict.  It remains a
law
> >> >> >> > enforcement issue, so not the same as
a real war.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You do know that the military has been in
on the war on drugs,
> >> >> >> don't
> >> > you
> >> >> >> Gary?  The national guard has been active
for many years looking
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> > growing
> >> >> >> pot, not to mention the fighter jet
scrambles for  drug running
> > planes
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> the coast guard doing the same on the water...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> - Bob Comer
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:43ae8245{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> > The war on drugs isn't yet a military
conflict.  It remains a
law
> >> >> >> > enforcement issue, so not the same as
a real war.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Gary
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Geo"
 wrote in message
> >> > news:43ae4f98$2{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> >> does that make it ok to use the
same reasoning for the war on
> >> >> >> >> drugs?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Geo.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> news:43ae3c2a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> >> > The war time threats we face
make things different.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Why surprised?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Gary
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "Dave Ings"
 wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> news:43ae0c3c{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> >> > > Bush may be the
President with a capital P, but at the end
> >> >> >> >> > > of
> >> > the
> >> >> > day
> >> >> >> >> he's
> >> >> >> >> > > just a career
politician, which IMHO means he is more or
> >> >> >> >> > > less
> >> >> >> >> > untrustworthy
> >> >> >> >> > > and should have parental
supervision on sensitive matters.
> > You
> >> >> >> >> > > seem
> >> >> >> >> > > to
> >> >> >> >> > have
> >> >> >> >> > > a great amount of faith
in him, which all things
considered
> >> >> > surprises
> >> >> >> > me
> >> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> >> > > bit.
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > And yes I would offer up
the same opinion of Clinton. A
> > little
> >> >> >> >> skepticism
> >> >> >> >> > > goes a long way,
sunshine is the best disinfectant, etc
etc.
> >> >> >> >> > > --
> >> >> >> >> > > Regards,
> >> >> >> >> > > Dave Ings,
> >> >> >> >> > > Toronto, Canada
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> > > news:43adffce$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> >> > > > As judge Posner
said, the President would be criminally
> >> >> >> >> > > > negligent
> >> >> >> > had
> >> >> >> >> he
> >> >> >> >> > > > NOT
> >> >> >> >> > > > instituted this surveillance.
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > Gary
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5