Time was when this country was at war with another country (or countries) it was a war in the true sense. As provided for in our Constitution, the Congress declared war, and such was done as a response to an actual threat to the country. Take Pearl Harbor: the Japanesse attacked; and as a consequence, the people of this country, through Congress, declared war.

Over the last fifty years this has changed. Now this country engages in military action to a perceived threat (such as ownership of weapons of mass destruction) -- and -- instead of Congress declaring war, the President makes a determination to attack.

Most of the time this is presented to the people of this country as a war. Though it may be a war, in a limited sense, it is not a war in the constitutional sense. Here is a case of doublespeak, where a word is used in a sense inconsistent with its original and accepted meaning.

Everyone knows (or should know) that the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land. The subject of war is covered in this document. As mentioned before, Congress is given the authority to declare war. However, in recent engagements with other countries (Vietnam, Iraq) this act on the part of Congress is misssing! Therefore, these recent engagements were not wars under our Constitution.

Having establishing this, it follows that these recents engagements are not comparable to the actual wars of this country. Wars where human beings sacrified their lives to preserve the ideas of this country. In a word -- FREEDOM!

Although these recent engagements were military in nature, they were not wars under our Constitution. Some terms have been coined: police action, conflict, aggression. My choice is an unprovoked attack; that is, a retailiation to a preceived threat.

Now for those who participated in these recent engagements, if you believe you were at war, you were mislead. But this should make some sense, especially if you were in Vietnam. Why would the people of this country hate you for serving this country. It may be that there was no actual threat. You can bet that if an attack was made on our country where people (and property) were killed (or destroyed) there would be no such hatred. But there was no attack made to provoke this military action.

Kids today may not understand why their parents fought in these recent engagements. Was it Freedom? Or was it: to overthrow a dictator, protect this country's mineral (oil) rights, or to stop the spread of some ism. This is understandable since the cause, the actual threat, is missing.

Some, if not most of us need to read our Constitution and learn how we setup our government. Otherwise, "My people (will) perish for lack of knowledge."