Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace, you cannot possibly be serious in equating the debacle in iraq with world war 2.
you cannot be.
so your question is moot.
|
Yea, I was looking in the mirror this morning thinking about how moot I am. I actually like being moot, but forgive me for interfering with your fallible, oops, infallible judgment.
With all my moot regards,
Ace
---------- Post added at 07:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
You are going to eat your words, roachboy, when we get terror to sign an unconditional surrender.
|
Assume we did not use our military and even with the use of our military there have been costs due to our "war on terror" or their war on us. What are those costs? What would they be if we had not used our military in war since 2001? I bet you just want to pretend that we live in a happy, happy world.
How about we go to the ME and start a big camp fire and sing our way to peace and happiness.
I bet Twinker Bell would sprinkle us all with her magic fairy dust and we can be happier and happier.
Happy, happy happy.
{added} Sorry for the tone above. I assume people see what I see, in this case it seems obvious to me that it very important when looking at costs to look at benefits. To look at costs alone seems a bit odd to me. I think looking at the benefits and the costs is very important to the issue put on the table here, to suggest that it is not is something I assumed was dishonest, perhaps it wasn't, perhaps it was something else - and that something else is what I don't see.