Muscatine

I don't think so Bobsdad


First, it isn't like other events in history. We invade a country that did not attack us or declare war on us. This is quite different. And each conflict has a threshold as to what people will pay, and each are different. Many try to skip the question by making inaccurate comparisons. But like anything, something is only worth what people are willing to pay, which is separate from what was paid by others.

And I always support my criticism. Above I give the numbers. And I have noted often that one death for no good reason is one too many. Lives have value and as such should not be spent willynilly. Instead, there must be a good and valid reason for the spending.

I see no such value. Perhaps you can shed light on exactly what the gain was?

This Bobsdad is what I meant


You make a false comparison. Nothing about Iraq fits the definition of Germany or Japan or anything in WWII.

Oh, I think there are..

some obvious similarities, especially with Hitler's Germany.
But, the point is not that I was trying to ''equate'' Germany and Japan to Iraq, but rather I was pointing out the fallicy of Lilsmom's argument about ''at what cost''?
That same ''at what cost'' argument was tried during WW2.
There is no supportable logical argument substantiated, yet, that the costs of Iraq will not in the long run proof ''worth it''.

Like all great efforts...

...the real ''gain'' will be realized in the future. And you have not supported your argument that the ''costs'' are too great. All you've offered is the same old liberal opinions.
I have an opposite opinion and suggest that the cost/benefit comparison cannot yet be quantified. You want to claim it can now be quantified now. You are wrong.