Pynchon and War

[Terrance]

pynchonoid wrote:
> 
> Mr. T:
> >An example. Robert says that currently there is no
> >actual war to stop
> >and you disagree. Why not define war first.
> 
> I did provide a rudimentary definition in my response,
> of course (fighter planes, bombs and rockets, death
> and destruction). 

OK, but if your opponent in this debate agrees that there are fighter
planes, bombs and rockets, death and destruction within Iraq's borders
but doesn't agree that all these constitute an actual war you have a
disagreement about the definition of war. It seems that your rudimentary
definition and Robert's term "actual war" are at odds. 
Rather than turning to the newspapers or a paranoid passage from GR, It
would be more constructive and more interesting, I'm sure, if you
defined your terms.