Cat Fuzz said:
You missed one major difference, we are winning this time. Isn't victory an objective? How else can it be spelled out? How is what we have done so far not considered winning? Iraq has a Constitution, they are electing a Constitutional government tomorrow. Saddam Hessein is in jail. People aren't being murdered by the thousands and thrown into mass graves. People in surrounding tyrannical nations will see the benefits of having a free society and will want the same. History shows that people want to be free. Iraq is a first step toward freedom for the middle-east and when they have freedom terrorism will end.
Soldiers dying? This is nothing new.
http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates.pdf
There is a slight dip in military deaths during Clinton's years but then during his term everything was right with the world (actually, he ignored alot of the worlds problems and his media butt buddies were happy to help out). You would think there would be a massive spike, but there really isn't. Yeah, deaths are higher than 5 years ago, but go back 10-15 years and you can see things are running about average. Soldiers die. Its sad, but they knew what they were doing when they signed up.
It depends how you define winning. I dont define winning as occupying a country for several years while insurgents pick off our soldiers one by one. Didn't Hitler prove that occupying foreign nations was a poor investment. Honestly, it's not worth it to occupy minor countries for little or no return on the investment, while our soldiers get killed for lack of a decent reason.
You see, I was watching the news the whole time when we invaded Iraq. I was eagerly awaiting the finding of the first weapons of mass destruction that everyone was chomping at the bit to find, because that is why we invaded in the first place. The mission failed, there were no weapons of mass destruction found, in the end, we invaded a small nation with a marginally effective army, and we are paying the price during the occupation. As long as we occupy Iraq, we will continue to suffer drastic financial losses and military losses as well.
We could easily invest the same amount of time, energy, money, and manpower that we are currently in Iraq, on the homefront instead. I say, we should be investing in our own country, making this country an economic powerhouse instead.
Oh and going to Mars, is like building the Pyramids Cat Fuzz, there is something called prestige, it's the stuff of great nations. You clearly DONT get it. Read the history books about all the great powers throughout mankinds history, study what made those countries great. They didn't become great by reducing taxes and doing nothing with the money they dont have. In fact many great nations had great ambition and leaders with a vision, to accomplish great things. They didn't do that by sitting on their buts.
The problem, Cat Fuzz, that I have with Liberalism, is this. While they advocate spending money to achieve things, liberals lack a clear vision of greatness for this country with that money and resources, and that is why I find liberalism lackluster and uninspiring.
A great nation, has a leader with a vision, a vision to take and organize the resources of the country (taxes, manpower, resources), and turn it into something great. Read your history, many nations have done this in the past. I dont see anything GREAT, coming out of Geroge Bush's reign as president.
In modern times, politicians are too scared to have a "vision", and they cater to special interests and public opinion polls instead.
I want more from politicians than soundbites on tax cuts.
