Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (713936)	11/18/2005 10:19:04 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Bill, you are not summarizing Murtha's position correctly. He said we have achieved our military objective. Saddam Hussein is out of power.

To: Bill who wrote (713936)	11/18/2005 10:29:42 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

"we are losing" Depends upon how you define "losing". If the definition were to include such things as 'steadily rising casuality counts', 'rising drain on the national treasure', and 'no clear strategic benefit to the continuation of current policy', then I'd say that could be a fair word to use. Much like in the Vietnam War, where the US military was never defeated in any major set-piece battle. Rather, it was a steady drip, drip, drip in casualties and national expense --- coupled with an opponent that was prepared to fight own against the 'foreign invader' for GENERATIONS if necessary (as they had already been fighting for over 50 years against a steady stream of other foreigners, the French colonialists, the Japanese... not to mention many wars against Chinese invaders over the course of a thousand years....) that caused the US to pull out, and the adventure to be labeled as a 'loss'. From the time of the Crusades, the Islamic world has had much the same reaction to foreign incursions... and the STEADILY INCREASING NUMBERS OF INSURGENTS (coming from all over the Islamic world), not to mention the apparently 'bottomless' amount of funding for the fighters (according to US military sources) that streams in from S.A. and the Gulf States to re-supply the fighters, should be giving us some kind of clue that there are BETTER WAYS TO SKIN THIS PARTICULAR CAT!

To: Bill who wrote (713936)	11/18/2005 10:39:15 AM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

Kenneth made an ignorant remark yesterday. He said and I am ROFLMAO something he copied from Chinu's thread header: "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". Chinu has it quoted from Jefferson. I argued he remark is moronic to begin with as it has no set value by which to measure. It "dissent" can only be measured independently and in context. Misattributed: 'Dissent Is the Highest Form of Patriotism' Urban Legends and Folklore Blog « God Save the Queen! \| Main \| Save Toby? » From David Emery, Your Guide to Urban Legends and Folklore. FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now! February 15, 2005 Misattributed: 'Dissent Is the Highest Form of Patriotism' Google the phrase "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" along with the name "Thomas Jefferson" and you will find thousands of Web pages attributing the sentiment to the third president of the United States. The trouble is, says reader Dave Forsmark, who has been waging a one-man campaign to correct what he believes to be a blatant misattribution, "the quote is about two years old, not 200. It was made by [historian] Howard Zinn in an interview with TomPaine.com to justify his opposition to the War on Terror." Someone erroneously attributed the quote to Jefferson soon thereafter, and now seemingly everyone is doing it. Based on some rudimentary checking, it appears Mr. Forsmark is correct. Can anyone out there cite an original document or speech in which Thomas Jefferson actually wrote or uttered these words? Discuss. urbanlegends.about.com