Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

we've officially lost war in Afghanistan

lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:20:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?

it's not a matter of win or lose, the real question you should be asking, which you have already answered is should we have gone to war with them in the first place?

but I bet this is just another "blame Obama" rant right?
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:24:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?

Why did you assume that we intended to 'win?'
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:27:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:20:09 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?

it's not a matter of win or lose, the real question you should be asking, which you have already answered is should we have gone to war with them in the first place?

but I bet this is just another "blame Obama" rant right?

you never have anything but partisan politics on your mind do you? As long as you're a die hard partisan you'll always be a part of the problem.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:28:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:24:00 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?

Why did you assume that we intended to 'win?'
^This

and also define "win", what was supposed to happen, they all just give up and we take over the country? we went to war fo.... wait sorry there is no real justification as to why we went to war except the fact that we were lied too.

we got the man responsible for the attack on our nation, granted we had to wait till we had a liberal PotUS who had the balls to do it, but just the same we got him, so why should we continue to dictate what other country's do? We have won, just a matter of how you define winning.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:29:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:24:00 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?

Why did you assume that we intended to 'win?'

I didn't did I? I asked if anyone could make a case, like history genius tried to do for the Vietnam war.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:30:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:27:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:20:09 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?

it's not a matter of win or lose, the real question you should be asking, which you have already answered is should we have gone to war with them in the first place?

but I bet this is just another "blame Obama" rant right?

you never have anything but partisan politics on your mind do you? As long as you're a die hard partisan you'll always be a part of the problem.

No Lewis, I have yet to find a level headed libertarian or conservative, maybe save for a few here. and i base my first comment on your definition of winning, which is why i made my last post, so i could get clarification.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:31:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:29:04 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:24:00 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?

Why did you assume that we intended to 'win?'

I didn't did I? I asked if anyone could make a case, like history genius tried to do for the Vietnam war.

ok, then it's a simple answer, the war is over..... win *smiles*
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:31:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"...thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. '

I don't disagree, but these don't help make the case at all.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:34:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:31:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"...thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. '

I don't disagree, but these don't help make the case at all.

The costs are irrelevant? I don't follow.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:38:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:34:32 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:31:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"...thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. '

I don't disagree, but these don't help make the case at all.

The costs are irrelevant? I don't follow.

WW2 cost a lot (like 33% of GDP or something), and 400k were dead by the war's end....and it's pretty undisputed that we won that. Even if what you gave up to win a war was more than the benefits from the victory, you've still won it.
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:42:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:34:32 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:31:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"...thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. '

I don't disagree, but these don't help make the case at all.

The costs are irrelevant? I don't follow.

WW2 cost a lot (like 33% of GDP or something), and 400k were dead by the war's end....and it's pretty undisputed that we won that. Even if what you gave up to win a war was more than the benefits from the victory, you've still won it.

Ok even i find this logic to be really messed up. So even if the costs are greater then the gain from war, it's worth it as long as we take the title of winner? again not to sound "partisan" but this is libertarian logic at it's best, which is still messed up ..lmao
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:45:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:34:32 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:31:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"...thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. '

I don't disagree, but these don't help make the case at all.

The costs are irrelevant? I don't follow.

WW2 cost a lot (like 33% of GDP or something), and 400k were dead by the war's end....and it's pretty undisputed that we won that. Even if what you gave up to win a war was more than the benefits from the victory, you've still won it.

In the context of the Afghan war, which really had no clear goal or victory standard I think the terms of victory are pretty ambiguous.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:46:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:42:57 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:34:32 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:31:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"...thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. '

I don't disagree, but these don't help make the case at all.

The costs are irrelevant? I don't follow.

WW2 cost a lot (like 33% of GDP or something), and 400k were dead by the war's end....and it's pretty undisputed that we won that. Even if what you gave up to win a war was more than the benefits from the victory, you've still won it.

Ok even i find this logic to be really messed up. So even if the costs are greater then the gain from war, it's worth it as long as we take the title of winner? again not to sound "partisan" but this is libertarian logic at it's best, which is still messed up ..lmao

He never said it's worth it, just said it can be technically construed as 'winning'.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:47:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:42:57 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:38:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:34:32 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:31:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"...thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. '

I don't disagree, but these don't help make the case at all.

The costs are irrelevant? I don't follow.

WW2 cost a lot (like 33% of GDP or something), and 400k were dead by the war's end....and it's pretty undisputed that we won that. Even if what you gave up to win a war was more than the benefits from the victory, you've still won it.

Ok even i find this logic to be really messed up. So even if the costs are greater then the gain from war, it's worth it as long as we take the title of winner? again not to sound "partisan" but this is libertarian logic at it's best, which is still messed up ..lmao

Uhhh... I'm guessing you're thinking I would support a war of this nature or something? Because I wouldn't.
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:57:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
ok, at first glance it would seem as if you were saying that winning is winning no matter the cost, so I take back my previous comment.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:05:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:57:20 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
ok, at first glance it would seem as if you were saying that winning is winning no matter the cost, so I take back my previous comment.

That's what I was saying crazy.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:08:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 7:06:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
But to be fair, winning with huge costs is functionally losing.

*cough* Russia.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:37:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:27:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:20:09 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?

it's not a matter of win or lose, the real question you should be asking, which you have already answered is should we have gone to war with them in the first place?

but I bet this is just another "blame Obama" rant right?

you never have anything but partisan politics on your mind do you? As long as you're a die hard partisan you'll always be a part of the problem.

I love how support for Obama is automatically "die hard partisanship" but unqualified opposition to him isn't.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:46:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 7:37:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:27:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:20:09 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?

it's not a matter of win or lose, the real question you should be asking, which you have already answered is should we have gone to war with them in the first place?

but I bet this is just another "blame Obama" rant right?

you never have anything but partisan politics on your mind do you? As long as you're a die hard partisan you'll always be a part of the problem.

I love how support for Obama is automatically "die hard partisanship" but unqualified opposition to him isn't.

Libertarians were opposed to the various wars and military interventions before Obama came to office. The guy Lewis responded to, however, is obviously partisan. Just look at his other posts. It shouldn't be hard for even though he agrees with to see this.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:55:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 7:46:24 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/22/2013 7:37:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:27:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:20:09 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?

it's not a matter of win or lose, the real question you should be asking, which you have already answered is should we have gone to war with them in the first place?

but I bet this is just another "blame Obama" rant right?

you never have anything but partisan politics on your mind do you? As long as you're a die hard partisan you'll always be a part of the problem.

I love how support for Obama is automatically "die hard partisanship" but unqualified opposition to him isn't.

Libertarians were opposed to the various wars and military interventions before Obama came to office. The guy Lewis responded to, however, is obviously partisan. Just look at his other posts. It shouldn't be hard for even though he agrees with to see this.

Liberals were in favor of various financial assistance programs and marriage equality before Obama came to office. The guy Izayah003 responded to, however, is obviously partisan. Just look at his other posts. It shouldn't be hard for you to see this, even if he agrees with you.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:59:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He who goes into war without political aims cannot win. War is an extension of politics. So the question is: what were the aims for the Afghanistan war?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 8:06:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 7:55:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2013 7:46:24 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/22/2013 7:37:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:27:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:20:09 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?

it's not a matter of win or lose, the real question you should be asking, which you have already answered is should we have gone to war with them in the first place?

but I bet this is just another "blame Obama" rant right?

you never have anything but partisan politics on your mind do you? As long as you're a die hard partisan you'll always be a part of the problem.

I love how support for Obama is automatically "die hard partisanship" but unqualified opposition to him isn't.

Libertarians were opposed to the various wars and military interventions before Obama came to office. The guy Lewis responded to, however, is obviously partisan. Just look at his other posts. It shouldn't be hard for even though he agrees with to see this.

Liberals were in favor of various financial assistance programs and marriage equality before Obama came to office. The guy Izayah003 responded to, however, is obviously partisan. Just look at his other posts. It shouldn't be hard for you to see this, even if he agrees with you.

Ugh.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 8:08:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 8:06:20 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/22/2013 7:55:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2013 7:46:24 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/22/2013 7:37:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:27:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:20:09 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?

it's not a matter of win or lose, the real question you should be asking, which you have already answered is should we have gone to war with them in the first place?

but I bet this is just another "blame Obama" rant right?

you never have anything but partisan politics on your mind do you? As long as you're a die hard partisan you'll always be a part of the problem.

I love how support for Obama is automatically "die hard partisanship" but unqualified opposition to him isn't.

Libertarians were opposed to the various wars and military interventions before Obama came to office. The guy Lewis responded to, however, is obviously partisan. Just look at his other posts. It shouldn't be hard for even though he agrees with to see this.

Liberals were in favor of various financial assistance programs and marriage equality before Obama came to office. The guy Izayah003 responded to, however, is obviously partisan. Just look at his other posts. It shouldn't be hard for you to see this, even if he agrees with you.

Ugh.

problem?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 8:12:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 8:08:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2013 8:06:20 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/22/2013 7:55:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2013 7:46:24 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/22/2013 7:37:26 PM, 000ike wrote:

I love how support for Obama is automatically "die hard partisanship" but unqualified opposition to him isn't.

Libertarians were opposed to the various wars and military interventions before Obama came to office. The guy Lewis responded to, however, is obviously partisan. Just look at his other posts. It shouldn't be hard for even though he agrees with to see this.

Liberals were in favor of various financial assistance programs and marriage equality before Obama came to office. The guy Izayah003 responded to, however, is obviously partisan. Just look at his other posts. It shouldn't be hard for you to see this, even if he agrees with you.

Ugh.

problem?

Well yeah. Izayah argued that Lewis' point was obviously just some partisan rant against Obama which is prima facie wrong (TUF) considering libertarians didn't all of a sudden become anti-war when Obama came into office. It's been a major tenet for decades. So to say that unqualified opposition to him is in any way indicative of such reflects lack of understanding of where libertarians are coming from. Just repeating what I said didn't really change any of that. I tried actually explaining to you what was going on and yer response indicates some sort of hostility that wasn't there on my part. The guy really is quite partisan.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 8:13:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll actually retract the partisanship charge in light of a convo with him in another thread.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 8:16:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 7:46:24 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/22/2013 7:37:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:27:46 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:20:09 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 6:12:37 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right?
As peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing, can anyone make the case that we've 'won' the war?
The Taliban will still be there, al Qaeda still there, karzai is as corrupt as any, thousands of lives lost in combat, more to suicide and billions of dollars. With what to show for it?

it's not a matter of win or lose, the real question you should be asking, which you have already answered is should we have gone to war with them in the first place?

but I bet this is just another "blame Obama" rant right?

you never have anything but partisan politics on your mind do you? As long as you're a die hard partisan you'll always be a part of the problem.

I love how support for Obama is automatically "die hard partisanship" but unqualified opposition to him isn't.

Libertarians were opposed to the various wars and military interventions before Obama came to office. The guy Lewis responded to, however, is obviously partisan. Just look at his other posts. It shouldn't be hard for even though he agrees with to see this.

I do not claim to be 100% non-partisan, never have, i do have very strong views, which has led me to call myself a liberal, but while my views may be very strong, they are subject to change, but only when actual facts are given, not just rhetoric and theory's. I do not agree with any conservative logic over the past 30 years or so, but I did agree with the republicans of Lincolns time (granted they were also liberal so that's not saying much)

It seems to me that over the past 20-30 years this country has become more and more divided, Conservatives had gone so far right over the past 5 years that it's pushing liberals further left. I would love to see the days of moderates, but i fear those days are long gone....
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln