Ah. I see you both now want a clear definition on ending the WOD.
And because I can’t give you one, you attack any efforts to fight in the WOD.
You two use the same liberal talking points that ended the term War on Terror. Excuse me, I mean our Overseas Contingency Operations.
And when I repeatedly compare the WOD to the WOT or even the WOM (murder) you ignore that argument, and as a result your logic stands that since the WOD is a failure then so is the WOT or the WOM. We should just quit.
And so we follow your advice and dumb down our definitions and legalize murder. Or terror. Or drugs. What a nightmare you libertarians want for our Country.
“Define Victory”.
OK, so I can’t. Not to your satisfaction anyway. But I sure as hell can define losing the WOD. Or surrendering in the WOD. My many replies on this thread detail many horrific realities if you two ever got your way.
So it’s not acceptable to object to meaningless blather about “ending the war by winning the war”?
I refuted that argument in post #138:
"According to the FBI, in 2011 64.8% of murder cases were solved (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/10Clearance.gif). How many drug sales do you think are even detected by the authorities: 0.000648% maybe?"
Well yes, heaven forbid. When one embarks on an endeavor of any sort, especially where endeavor = war, does it not make sense to define, up front, what constitutes success? How else would you define success or failure unless you had a baseline against which you can measure your efforts?
In the software world, for example, one does not waste time, money, and resources designing, building, and releasing into the marketplace an application without first defining a success metric, and measuring all efforts against that metric, whatever it may be. To do otherwise would be foolish, no?
It boggles the mind that you cannot - or will not - grasp this basic principle.
Essentially, what you're vigorously "arguing" for, here, is equivalent to spending unlimited time, money, and resources in developing and building an application that you can't even conceive of in your own mind, let alone "sell" to others. You're passionately arguing for a blank check to conduct an open-ended crusade, and you, one of your cause's most ardent proponents, don't even know what success looks like.
How in the world can you convince others to get on board if you can't even define what you want to accomplish?
And we're not talking about mere things like money here, because this is the political realm. We're dealing, also, with abstracts like freedom, liberty, federalism, and the principles of limited government . . . in an era in which the federal government is asking citizens to pay more to achieve even less.
You style yourself as the one of the only "true" conservatives worthy of commenting on Free Republic, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, ma'am, but what you really are is a progressive who has latched on to a progressive cause because it "feels" to you to be a conservative issue. And that's because you've gone beyond the theoretical and personalized it, making your enemies somehow subhuman in comparison to you. Anyone who has followed your posting history on Free Republic knows you loathe anyone who, by your standards, falls into the "liberal" or "libertarian" categories; you're merely advocating to give the federal government the power to crush anyone you deem unworthy to share in our great American experiment.
That's how progressives handle things. You don't like someone or something? Invent a government power to crush the opposition, and by all means, demand that the US military step in to do your dirty work for you.