Its hard to define but 'winning' the war (to me) would be putting the elected Iraqi government in a place that they can stand when we leave. It took more than a decade for that to happen in Japan.
People think the US lost Vietnam but US involvement ended with the Paris accords:
"Under Paris Peace Accord, between North Vietnamese Foreign Minister Lê Ðc Th and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and reluctantly signed by South Vietnamese President Thiu, U.S. military forces withdrew from South Vietnam and prisoners were exchanged. North Vietnam was allowed to continue supplying communist troops in the South, but only to the extent of replacing materials that were consumed."
"The communist leaders had expected that the ceasefire terms would favor their side. But Saigon, bolstered by a surge of U.S. aid received just before the ceasefire went into effect, began to roll back the Vietcong.[123] The communists responded with a new strategy hammered out in a series of meetings in Hanoi in March 1973, according to the memoirs of Trn Vn Trà.[123] As the Vietcong's top commander, Trà participated in several of these meetings.[123] With U.S. bombings suspended, work on the Ho Chi Minh Trail and other logistical structures could proceed unimpeded.[123] Logistics would be upgraded until the North was in a position to launch a massive invasion of the South, projected for the 1975-76 dry season"
Basically the North Vietnamese (aggressors) broke the agreement they had with the US and President Ford could not sway congress to back the south.
Ill be the first to admit, I should have been more against the war in 2003 but if we were to leave now Iraq would become Iran (or worse) within 5 years. We are basically stuck.
The only difference in the Fascist realize that in large numbers man needs government and the Communist believe in a utopia without government but they needed to kill restrain and eliminate 'enemies of the state' to get to this fairy tale land..
Many is less than most. But many, many people I know who are liberal attribute only greed to the motives of conservatives.. Look at the difference in the demonstrations between Denver and the Twin Cities? How many bags of cement were thrown off of overpasses onto delegate buses in Denver? how many home made explosives were created/set off? The people protesting don't think Bush is wrong (which, come on how could a sane person not think Bush is wrong) the think he is evil.
Personally I'm either Voting McCain or Third party. I don't think Obama is evil I just think socialism as a whole\makes the protection of liberty too difficult and socialism is pretty clearly where Obama wants to lead. He is a smart, intelligent, good man.. He is just wrong. When Colin Powell backed Bush in 2004 he was called an uncle tom by KOS, DU, and others it cant be that he thought bush was better its that he sold out to Satan. Now hes behind Obama because he thinks Obama is better (so now he is no uncle tom).
Read/. a bit and ask yourself for every 'Bush is evil/greedy/moron' post how many level headed ones are there that state 'Bush is wrong' without the evil angle..
lol.... what a terrible time for a typo... don't./ while having a conversion people... I typed haye (missed the T) and corrected it to have not hate....
Most liberals would include Malkin along with Randy Ayres that's just evidence of how out of touch many really are. I have Bush as much as the next (rational) person but the wide net many liberals cast to demonize people with ideological differences is so wide it's literally scary..
Way to *completely ignore my question* how do you calculate the value of the goodwill associated with a name brand on a balance sheet. Its damn sloppy accounting like that which gets companies into trouble.
Better to only put things on a balance sheet which are not a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess), only use those items if you are attempting to sell something to someone else. e.g. If fedora (the institution) was for sale it would be reasonable to point at its name brand or if fedora was selling their software there is value in the name. But the name value does nothing in keeping the company running beyond that.
True it should not be used on an accounting sheet but Goodwill is defiantly something to be considered when setting the buying or selling price of a company. Why do you think it was Lenovo wanted so badly to keep the thinkpad brand name when the took it over from IBM?
Absentee ballots via the US mail work just fine... This is just smoke an mirrors to make people think there has been progress in fixing the American balloting system..
"By your reasoning the only right we have simply by existing would be the right to freedom of thought because you can't control the thoughts of anyone."
Nope, try again. My reasoning had *nothing* to do with what an outside force could prevent it had everything to do with what a person can do without an outside force screwing with them! That's why the bill of rights was groundbreaking it was worded specifically to communicate that a Government does not *give rights*!
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:"
To see the mindset about the origin of Human rights the founding fathers had one need look no further than the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
--
Clearly when our Government was formed it was with the idea that all people had some intrinsic (From God, or Allah, or Just by merit of our level of evolved consciousness) rights and the government should be tightly controlled so as not to step on those rights
--
" Another treaty that discusses this which the United Statse also has signed but not ratified is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which if ratified would be binding. "
Thank goodness for separation of powers! Carter had democratic majorities in the house and Senate and yet could not ratify that toilet paper of a 'treaty'. Same thing with LOST another joke that an appointed ambassador or commission signed and the will of the people has kept from ratification.
Dont blow off the facts its non binding thats kind of an important point. And just because the Socialists from Europe and the liberals from the US got together and tried to rewrite the definition of right (none of whom were elected) and tried to start calling entitlement 'rights' does not mean their position deserves two seconds of consideration.
"By this way of thinking, it would be even better if all these things were done at a municipal (county/city) level -- more local than state equals better, right?"
Were it realistically possible sure but many cities and counties dont have a large enough critical mass of people for such services to be provided. A city like NY, Chi, LA, SF sure they can do it but not painted post NY.
"everyone's on his own. And finally we reach the end of the divide-and-conquer chain of thought which seeks to eliminate pesky collective action by people."
Thats a beautifual slippery slope argument. Its invalid but its beautifual none the less..
"Freedom of expression is no more a right than health care. Hell, there is no inherent right to live. Humans define what is classified as a right. As such, rights change over time."
From birth a human being has the ability to express themselves we get more eloquent as the years pass but at no point do we need help in using what tools we are born with to communicate our mind. All we need for this right to exist is to be left alone hence the Bill of rights reads as a list of provisions on the Government and not gifts to people. Universal health care is completely different.
"Realistically, the only rights you have are the ones you can defend."
I disagree I have these rights by way of my existence, now I can be prevented from exercising them unless we create some sort of contract restricting what others can do..
"Health care is not hand holding, it's a basic human right."
No, its not. A human right is not something given to you its something all people have by right of their existence. The freedom to voice your own mind (freedom of speech) is not something that is provided to you as all people have that ability (in one form or another).
Socialized health care is an entitlement just like public education and social security. Entitlements are not a bad thing but they are not to be treated as rights. The bill of rights does not 'give rights' it restricts the government from taking away rights people are naturally endowed with.
"Maybe where you (and Sarah Palin) are from treatment for a broken bone or chronic illness is "hand holding" but here in Montana its considered a basic necessity."
And maybe you (and Joe Biden) decides the desirable ends of an entielment merit destroying the purity and uniqueness of human rights by calling every good thing to be given a 'right' but here in reality rights and entitlements are different things.
Personally I am all for socialized Medicine *at the state level* I am also for free college education *at the state level* and Living wage enforcement *at the state level*. The more local the government the more they should be the ones who I have to interact with on a day to day level.
"Education is much the same way, though everyone around here does think that's a government function (though no one wants to pay the teachers...)"
Are there no private schools in Montana? What? there are... Seems to me people think its an entitlement the state can provide but its not solely the states job.
"And having social programs doesn't inherently increase the power of the state. It's poor implementation that does that."
It does over those benefiting from the programs (and those paying for them). Federal health care is a way for folks from California or South Carolina to have a voice in what conditions I have to meet to get care at a hospital. My Grandfather had little say over what treatment he was allowed to get for cancer in a socialized system.
"Socialized health care should be handed off to a team of highly skilled and respected health care providers."
Right because that's what our experience with the ever growing role of the federal government in K12 has demonstrated... The government will hand off that roll to a team of skilled and respected providers... Its not like they have a history of growing bureaucracies that are outperformed by private institutions (Private Schools / Charter schools) and self service people (home schoolers) spending far less money to do the same job.
"The government just foots the bill. Maybe you take issue with that last part."
Nobody, not you, not me, and most certainly not the government foots a bill without having a major say in how the money is used. I don't mind paying my taxes one bit, and if there is a real need I don't mind them going up. Personally I would rather send 7% of my check to DC and 28% to St. Paul (not counting SS, Medicare,...,...) but its not the money coming out I mind.
"A weak government lacks the power to take your stuff or your liberty." Really?? Patriot Act, Property confiscation laws...."
He did say 'the original intent' most true conservatives (not neo-conservatives) think thinks like the Patriot act are sham.
Neo-conservatives want to project US power and that cant be done with a weak central government.
American Liberals want the federal government to provide health care, education, cradle to grave hand holding and you cant do that with a weak central government
Either way We the People are getting the short end of the stick..
With 308 seat available that would mean each guaranteed seat is about.3% of the population (108,000 people). About 1 Million people in Canada are Native American so how do you propose we divvy up this racially quota driven 9 to ten seats?
If they cant get along with other folks on the left they have no place governing in a world where they will have to deal with the right, middle, far right, and far left..
Did I miss something? Did bush get an amendment through to ban speech or just get laws through to make the amendment less powerful? You think if Bush is smart enough not to take on one of the items in the Bill of Rights Obama could not manage an end around?
"The republicans are enthusiastic about law and order at the expense of liberty, and the democrats have yet to become vertebrates."
No its more like this
"The republicans are enthusiastic about law, order, and low taxes at the expense of liberty, and the democrats are enthusiastic about social justice programs, wealth redistribution, and social engineering at the expense of liberty...
And a large chunk of those who can verbalize what we fought for don't care so long as (1) They get sweet tax breaks or (2) The have nanny government take care of them every step along the way. Both sides are equally dangerous to freedom!
Both will restrict our rights across huge swaths of areas just in a proportionally different manner. The lesser of two evils increasingly looks like a third party vote or vote one party into the white house and the other into congress in the hopes that they spend more time bickering than doing anything..
Slashdot Mirror
FYI much of the 'money spent on the war' would be spent anyways... Soldiers get paid weather or not they are fighting..
Its hard to define but 'winning' the war (to me) would be putting the elected Iraqi government in a place that they can stand when we leave. It took more than a decade for that to happen in Japan.
People think the US lost Vietnam but US involvement ended with the Paris accords:
"Under Paris Peace Accord, between North Vietnamese Foreign Minister Lê Ðc Th and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and reluctantly signed by South Vietnamese President Thiu, U.S. military forces withdrew from South Vietnam and prisoners were exchanged. North Vietnam was allowed to continue supplying communist troops in the South, but only to the extent of replacing materials that were consumed."
"The communist leaders had expected that the ceasefire terms would favor their side. But Saigon, bolstered by a surge of U.S. aid received just before the ceasefire went into effect, began to roll back the Vietcong.[123] The communists responded with a new strategy hammered out in a series of meetings in Hanoi in March 1973, according to the memoirs of Trn Vn Trà.[123] As the Vietcong's top commander, Trà participated in several of these meetings.[123] With U.S. bombings suspended, work on the Ho Chi Minh Trail and other logistical structures could proceed unimpeded.[123] Logistics would be upgraded until the North was in a position to launch a massive invasion of the South, projected for the 1975-76 dry season"
Basically the North Vietnamese (aggressors) broke the agreement they had with the US and President Ford could not sway congress to back the south.
Ill be the first to admit, I should have been more against the war in 2003 but if we were to leave now Iraq would become Iran (or worse) within 5 years. We are basically stuck.
The only difference in the Fascist realize that in large numbers man needs government and the Communist believe in a utopia without government but they needed to kill restrain and eliminate 'enemies of the state' to get to this fairy tale land..
Many is less than most. But many, many people I know who are liberal attribute only greed to the motives of conservatives.. Look at the difference in the demonstrations between Denver and the Twin Cities? How many bags of cement were thrown off of overpasses onto delegate buses in Denver? how many home made explosives were created/set off? The people protesting don't think Bush is wrong (which, come on how could a sane person not think Bush is wrong) the think he is evil.
Personally I'm either Voting McCain or Third party. I don't think Obama is evil I just think socialism as a whole\makes the protection of liberty too difficult and socialism is pretty clearly where Obama wants to lead. He is a smart, intelligent, good man.. He is just wrong. When Colin Powell backed Bush in 2004 he was called an uncle tom by KOS, DU, and others it cant be that he thought bush was better its that he sold out to Satan. Now hes behind Obama because he thinks Obama is better (so now he is no uncle tom).
Read /. a bit and ask yourself for every 'Bush is evil/greedy/moron' post how many level headed ones are there that state 'Bush is wrong' without the evil angle..
I'm Sure you wont be the only one to miss the qualifier *many* and just assume I said all..
lol.... what a terrible time for a typo... don't ./ while having a conversion people... I typed haye (missed the T) and corrected it to have not hate....
Promises, Promises... So many people yelled in 2004 'if bush wins I will ....' that its really not an impressive bluff anymore.
Most liberals would include Malkin along with Randy Ayres that's just evidence of how out of touch many really are. I have Bush as much as the next (rational) person but the wide net many liberals cast to demonize people with ideological differences is so wide it's literally scary..
Way to *completely ignore my question* how do you calculate the value of the goodwill associated with a name brand on a balance sheet. Its damn sloppy accounting like that which gets companies into trouble.
Better to only put things on a balance sheet which are not a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess), only use those items if you are attempting to sell something to someone else. e.g. If fedora (the institution) was for sale it would be reasonable to point at its name brand or if fedora was selling their software there is value in the name. But the name value does nothing in keeping the company running beyond that.
Because there is no proper way to value it, show me the formula for figuring out the value of a name brand..
True it should not be used on an accounting sheet but Goodwill is defiantly something to be considered when setting the buying or selling price of a company. Why do you think it was Lenovo wanted so badly to keep the thinkpad brand name when the took it over from IBM?
Absentee ballots via the US mail work just fine... This is just smoke an mirrors to make people think there has been progress in fixing the American balloting system..
"By your reasoning the only right we have simply by existing would be the right to freedom of thought because you can't control the thoughts of anyone."
Nope, try again. My reasoning had *nothing* to do with what an outside force could prevent it had everything to do with what a person can do without an outside force screwing with them! That's why the bill of rights was groundbreaking it was worded specifically to communicate that a Government does not *give rights*!
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:"
To see the mindset about the origin of Human rights the founding fathers had one need look no further than the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
--
Clearly when our Government was formed it was with the idea that all people had some intrinsic (From God, or Allah, or Just by merit of our level of evolved consciousness) rights and the government should be tightly controlled so as not to step on those rights
--
"
Another treaty that discusses this which the United Statse also has signed but not ratified is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which if ratified would be binding. "
Thank goodness for separation of powers! Carter had democratic majorities in the house and Senate and yet could not ratify that toilet paper of a 'treaty'. Same thing with LOST another joke that an appointed ambassador or commission signed and the will of the people has kept from ratification.
Dont blow off the facts its non binding thats kind of an important point. And just because the Socialists from Europe and the liberals from the US got together and tried to rewrite the definition of right (none of whom were elected) and tried to start calling entitlement 'rights' does not mean their position deserves two seconds of consideration.
"By this way of thinking, it would be even better if all these things were done at a municipal (county/city) level -- more local than state equals better, right?"
Were it realistically possible sure but many cities and counties dont have a large enough critical mass of people for such services to be provided. A city like NY, Chi, LA, SF sure they can do it but not painted post NY.
"everyone's on his own. And finally we reach the end of the divide-and-conquer chain of thought which seeks to eliminate pesky collective action by people."
Thats a beautifual slippery slope argument. Its invalid but its beautifual none the less..
"Freedom of expression is no more a right than health care. Hell, there is no inherent right to live. Humans define what is classified as a right. As such, rights change over time."
From birth a human being has the ability to express themselves we get more eloquent as the years pass but at no point do we need help in using what tools we are born with to communicate our mind. All we need for this right to exist is to be left alone hence the Bill of rights reads as a list of provisions on the Government and not gifts to people. Universal health care is completely different.
"Realistically, the only rights you have are the ones you can defend."
I disagree I have these rights by way of my existence, now I can be prevented from exercising them unless we create some sort of contract restricting what others can do..
"Health care is not hand holding, it's a basic human right."
No, its not. A human right is not something given to you its something all people have by right of their existence. The freedom to voice your own mind (freedom of speech) is not something that is provided to you as all people have that ability (in one form or another).
Socialized health care is an entitlement just like public education and social security. Entitlements are not a bad thing but they are not to be treated as rights. The bill of rights does not 'give rights' it restricts the government from taking away rights people are naturally endowed with.
"Maybe where you (and Sarah Palin) are from treatment for a broken bone or chronic illness is "hand holding" but here in Montana its considered a basic necessity."
And maybe you (and Joe Biden) decides the desirable ends of an entielment merit destroying the purity and uniqueness of human rights by calling every good thing to be given a 'right' but here in reality rights and entitlements are different things.
Personally I am all for socialized Medicine *at the state level* I am also for free college education *at the state level* and Living wage enforcement *at the state level*. The more local the government the more they should be the ones who I have to interact with on a day to day level.
"Education is much the same way, though everyone around here does think that's a government function (though no one wants to pay the teachers...)"
Are there no private schools in Montana? What? there are... Seems to me people think its an entitlement the state can provide but its not solely the states job.
"And having social programs doesn't inherently increase the power of the state. It's poor implementation that does that."
It does over those benefiting from the programs (and those paying for them). Federal health care is a way for folks from California or South Carolina to have a voice in what conditions I have to meet to get care at a hospital. My Grandfather had little say over what treatment he was allowed to get for cancer in a socialized system.
"Socialized health care should be handed off to a team of highly skilled and respected health care providers."
Right because that's what our experience with the ever growing role of the federal government in K12 has demonstrated... The government will hand off that roll to a team of skilled and respected providers... Its not like they have a history of growing bureaucracies that are outperformed by private institutions (Private Schools / Charter schools) and self service people (home schoolers) spending far less money to do the same job.
"The government just foots the bill. Maybe you take issue with that last part."
Nobody, not you, not me, and most certainly not the government foots a bill without having a major say in how the money is used. I don't mind paying my taxes one bit, and if there is a real need I don't mind them going up. Personally I would rather send 7% of my check to DC and 28% to St. Paul (not counting SS, Medicare, ..., ...) but its not the money coming out I mind.
"A weak government lacks the power to take your stuff or your liberty." Really?? Patriot Act, Property confiscation laws...."
He did say 'the original intent' most true conservatives (not neo-conservatives) think thinks like the Patriot act are sham.
Neo-conservatives want to project US power and that cant be done with a weak central government.
American Liberals want the federal government to provide health care, education, cradle to grave hand holding and you cant do that with a weak central government
Either way We the People are getting the short end of the stick..
With 308 seat available that would mean each guaranteed seat is about .3% of the population (108,000 people). About 1 Million people in Canada are Native American so how do you propose we divvy up this racially quota driven 9 to ten seats?
If they cant get along with other folks on the left they have no place governing in a world where they will have to deal with the right, middle, far right, and far left..
Did I miss something? Did bush get an amendment through to ban speech or just get laws through to make the amendment less powerful? You think if Bush is smart enough not to take on one of the items in the Bill of Rights Obama could not manage an end around?
"The republicans are enthusiastic about law and order at the expense of liberty, and the democrats have yet to become vertebrates."
No its more like this
"The republicans are enthusiastic about law, order, and low taxes at the expense of liberty, and the democrats are enthusiastic about social justice programs, wealth redistribution, and social engineering at the expense of liberty...
Fixed it for you..
And a large chunk of those who can verbalize what we fought for don't care so long as (1) They get sweet tax breaks or (2) The have nanny government take care of them every step along the way. Both sides are equally dangerous to freedom!
Hillary and the congressional dems who voted for the war and continuing funding can go with him...
Gross oversimplification:
Both will restrict our rights across huge swaths of areas just in a proportionally different manner. The lesser of two evils increasingly looks like a third party vote or vote one party into the white house and the other into congress in the hopes that they spend more time bickering than doing anything..