How Do We Know That the War is Going Well?

I suppose in an "ideal world" nothing we value would carry a cost... but, um... what's wrong with putting a dollar value on anything the govt. does? This isn't another lame attempt to say, "Deficit spending doesn't matter because of why we have it" is it?

 

Simple.

Liberty is priceless.

Kennedy knew it and said as much.

 

You must be kidding. This is the most laughable attempt at 'bait and switch' I've read to date.

If it's priceless IN THE MONETARY SENSE OF THE TERM you should be insulted everytime Bush puts a price on it by asking for money! Otherwise: when Bush initiates a budget request, discussion should follow.

Geez... so much semantics... so little objectivity.

 

And yet, we have given up so much of it since this President has been in office..


Jamie

 

Not at all.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Looks like a good definition of "priceless".

Do you disagree that that was his meaning?

 

That's your choice.

Speaking for myself, I haven't given up any liberties at all.

 

Yes, I disagree. Kennedy's remarks were/are not pertinent to deficit spending. The comment was given in the context of a finite mortal speaking to finite mortals which by default is understood to rule out the option of doing everthing (anything) that is impossible such as relegating the numerical continuum and all contained conceptual absolutes to political nonexistence by spending imaginary money. But even assuming that Kennedy was off his rocker and claiming, "I don't care if I have to turn invisible and breathe fire, I will bring down the USSR," your second 'bait and switch' still doesn't cover your first 'bait and switch' because we're talking about:

So... are you upset when Bush does so by requesting money? A 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice.

 

No.

But they were pertinent to the price of liberty. "pay any price...to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

 

Thank you.

Btw, it's telling that:

<caveman>

1) Bush talk money good

2) Dems talk money bad

</caveman>

But then again, we all have our biases. Even me.

Btw (again), I'm reading "priceless" in the philosophical sense.

 

You're welcome.:thumbs:

 

We didn't go there to "assure the survival and the success of liberty." We went there because Iraq posed an "immediate threat."

 

"In the outskirts of Ramadi, the local populace was so tired of terrorism that when a stranger approached a local to ask where was the best place to put an improvised explosive device, the locals detained the stranger and beat him with a metal bar. The would-be IED planter only survived thanks to police officers and the soldiers of the 1-9 "Abel" company who noticed the ruckus as more neighbors wanted to join in on the beating."

LINK

 

Uh huh.

The inevitable result of carrying out the policy of "regime change", established by President Clinton, was liberty for over 25 million people.

Now we must carry out the Kennedy mandate and "assure the survival and the success of (that) liberty".

 

Boy you're streching now...

You want us to believe we went into Iraq for the liberty of the Iraqi people..

You want us to believe that Bush was just following up on what Clinton wanted..

You want us to believe that JFK was talking about the 'new found liberty' of the Iraqi people...



Let's see.. We went into Iraq because they posed a "danager" to the USA and they were a breeding ground for weapons of mass destruction (never found) and also because they were the training ground or spring board to the people of 911 (found to not have helped those guys)

Yet you want us to believe we went in to "liberate" them from the Sadman Hussein.

JFK was speaking about the nuclear age and how we as a people could be destructive or could work through it with peace and you want us to believe that he was telling the people of the USA that we should bear any cost, pay any price for anyone's liberty.

You had better rethink your thoughts in that post. You are way off base...


Jamie

 

Honestly, anyone that has attacked his neighbors and killed his own people is a threat to regional stability should be taken out. If this wasn't done we would have been dealing with a Hitler like mad man in control of the worlds oil supply.

 

We didn't go into Iraq for that reason though. It has been said MANY times by this President that it had nothing to do with the oil in the region.

We didn't go into Iraq because of the way he was treating his people, if that was the case, then we should have done it years ago, and we shouldn't stop with Iraq.

So what about all the other countries? There are many countried that aren't treating their people well. They are straved, beaten controlled beyond belief. Under your premise we should have invaded them also..

Which country do you want to invade next? If you need a list of "opportunities" please let me know.

Jamie

 

I may or may not be stretching but you're not reading very well either.

Try again.

 

There is no doubt you're stretching ... It's all you have in this thread.

No need... You would just continue to stretch the truth and bend quote to match your outcome..

You try answering the question I first asked you in this thread...

Jamie

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
I may or may not be stretching but you're not reading very well either.

Try again.

Uh huh. That's what I figured.

Putting words in my mouth is part of your game.


But, back on topic...

"The left's initial reaction to the surge's success in reducing violence in Iraq was to declare Gen. David Petraeus a liar. Now, a new tack has become necessary -- finding creative ways to deny credit to the surge. Democrat Rep. David Obey from Wisconsin says insurgents are simply "running out of people to kill."

Meanwhile, democrats drive to surrender goes unabated.

 

Low oil supplies can and will undermine national security. Iraq threatened the world's supply. You can not have a mad man in control of it.

Unless they are possessors of or are a threat to a region that possesses, vast oil reserves they are only a threat to themselves.