Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Your posts were read by me, if that means anything.  |
Me too.
---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
Ace,
Generally, the point is "moot" in both directions. To suggest that a government which willingly overspends...
|
My point was not clear. How do you know we overspent? You don't, I don't, all we can do is speculate. But to only focus on the costs and base an argument on that is dishonest in my opinion. To use a personal example, if I spend $600 on a motorcycle helmet and that helmet saves my life it is clear the money spent was worth it. If I never have an accident, did I overspend? Or, how about this, if a person threatens to kill me and I spend $10,000 to prevent an attack that could cost my life, did I overspend? We may never know the answer with certainty, all we can do is base our judgment on speculation and assumption. Regarding the war on terror our views most likely differ, but as a nation more people agreed with taking proactive military action than disagreed.
---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
the end of world war 2 marked the beginning of the american empire.
the war on "terror" marks the end of the american empire.
|
How do you define "empire"?
Quote:
|
the damage the gwot et al did to the position of the united states in the name of defending the position of the united states is pretty astonishing. it bespeaks a fundamental ideological problem, the kind of ideological problem that seems almost characteristic of fading empires, as if there was some kind of over-arching plotline that empires repeat.
|
How do you respond to my charge of being dishonest regarding presenting "costs" without the value of comment on the value or the benefits of the "costs"? Do you actually believe the dollars spent on the war on terror, both domestic and military, were all wasted dollars?