Seems I touched a nerve with my little rant about our tendency to use the word "we" when talking about "taking out" Saddam Hussein. The talented Megan McArdle had something nice to say, as did Alleywriter, who doesn't like to have his real name used. Alleywriter disagreed with me, however, arguing:

I'm way guilty on the "We" thing, too. I do it with sports, I do it with American politics. I'll keep being guilty on this one. I'm a part of the United States, as is our military (which I've done my time in). "We" is simple and inclusive. Dropping "we" sets "us" apart from "them".

Good point, and I think you're probably right, though I have a question which I'll pose as soon as I quote a warm and endearing attorney whose threatening legalese at the bottom of his email prevents me from identifying him (I think I'm also precluded from quoting him here, but if he doesn't call me on that, I won't call him on sending personal emails from work):

By your logic, your brother-in-law the Navy Seal shouldn't say "we" should take out Saddam either -- because he couldn't do it, not unless the US government provided him with a ride over to the Middle East, infiltrated him into Iraq, hooked him up with local partisans, provided him with all kinds of intelligence and some nifty toys to boot. So until he gets a strong indicator from the Feds that he's going to be assigned to an assasination (sic) squad, I suppose he'll just have to keep his mouth shut--at least when he's around you.

As for me, I don't go around saying that we should take out Saddam, but I do think WE should take out his bioweapons, nukes, etc. No, I don't own a B-2 bomber--sue me.

Funny, I've never heard a lawyer ask to be sued before. Isn't that bad luck in your profession? Anyway, last I checked, "we" is the first-person plural, indicating that it refers to a collection of individuals, all of whom take on a role as the collective subject or object of the sentence. My brother-in-law shouldn't say "I'm going to take out Saddam," but given that he is on the "team," writ broadly, who may well do the taking out, I think he's entitled to say "We're going to take out Saddam." Actually, he can say whatever he likes, because he knows how to fillet people with a #2 pencil.

Now I have a question for Alleywriter and my new best friend the attorney. I think you're probably right about the use of "we" being okay in this context, based on the fact that we are all fellow citizens, seeking to eliminate a threat to our common security. And I'm just as guilty as anyone else of referring to my favorite teams using "we." But what I've noticed is this -- none of us look out the window when the municipal garbage crew drives up, and says, "oh, looks like we're a little late picking up the trash today." We don't pass the janitor where we work and think, "hmm, we sure need to clean those toilets."

In other words, we only tend to use the word "we" when it refers to something glamorous, which, ironically, tends to place it in the category of things that most of us in fact can't do. We can all scrub a toilet or empty a trash can, but we stick to the third person to describe those tasks. When it comes time to talk about the home team winning last night's game, however, suddenly we're all communitarians.

But now I'm getting crabby, so I'll stop. I hereby release all of you to use the first or third person as you see fit, so long as you agree not to use "dialogue" as a verb.