it = the war in Iraq.
#1 Is it worth the cost to try and remove terrorists and terrorist bases from Iraq?
#2 Is it worth the cost to keep terrorists and terrorist bases out of Iraq once they are removed?
#3 Is it worth the cost to try to bring democracy to Iraq?
Item #3 is as a means to the ends stated in #1 and #2.
#4 Is not trying to remove from Iraq and not trying to keep out of Iraq, terrorists and terrorist bases, worth the cost?
What will be the cost of #1 plus #2?
What would be the cost of #4?
I bet the cost of #4 would far exceed the cost of #1 plus #2!
It has not "removed" the terroists; it has increased terrorists and terrorist activity in Iraq and elsewhere. Maybe you haven't noticed, but most of the world has.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:"Yes, and I can say I'm pure royalty too, but it doesn't make me the Queen of England."
well it might, there have been stranger claims. Caroline of Brunswick. Camilla Parker-Bowles. Her Royal Highness Queen Foxfyre I sounds ok to me.
I dunno .... royal pain in the buttocks about says it all for me
cicerone imposter wrote:It has not "removed" the terroists; it has increased terrorists and terrorist activity in Iraq and elsewhere. Maybe you haven't noticed, but most of the world has.
I have noticed that the number of terrorists in Iraq has increased dramatically.
I have noticed that the number of acts of terrorism outside of Iraq has decreased dramatically.
I notice that the terrorists are desperate to prevent the Iraqi people from establishing there own democracy.
All three of these things that I have noticed lead me to the conclusion that Americans and Iraqis better damn well succeed in Iraq or else Americans and Iraqis will end up in mass graves.
Quote, "I have noticed that the number of acts of terrorism outside of Iraq has decreased dramatically." If we're looking at the two year period since March 2003 to now, those numbers have been decreasing. However, if we look at the three year period as a whole compared to any similar previous two year period, it has increased dramatically. It also seems to me you are ignoring the current administration's warnings about the possible attack on US soil by terrorists in recent months. When we compare these warnings to previous periods in American life, it seems much more frequent today than any time in recent history.
> it = the war in Iraq.
>
> #1 Is it worth the cost to try and remove terrorists and terrorist bases
> from Iraq?
The US has committed itself to a "War on Terrorism." I'll restrict this to a
war on the al-Qaeda jihadists for the sake of this question. Yes, I believe
it is worth the cost. No matter what the situation was before the invasion,
it is clear that jihadists are operating in Iraq now. Therefore, the US must
stay and fight until the jihadists are eliminated.
> #2 Is it worth the cost to keep terrorists and terrorist bases out of Iraq
> once they are removed?
Once again, restricting this to jihadists, I'd say yes. If there is a civil war
in Iraq that involves terrorism, but that al-Qaeda does not involve itself
in, I'd say no.
> #3 Is it worth the cost to try to bring democracy to Iraq?
Only insofar as it involves suppressing the efforts of al-Qaeda to derail
the process.
> Item #3 is as a means to the ends stated in #1 and #2.
I still would not sacrifice American lives only to bring democracy to Iraq.
> #4 Is not trying to remove from Iraq and not trying to keep out of Iraq,
> terrorists and terrorist bases, worth the cost?
I have no idea what this means.
Ticomaya wrote:If a country will pay a ransom for the release of a hostage, if effectively guarantees there will be many more kidnappings of that country's citizens.
Spanish and Italian nationals should just stay out of Iraq so they would stop getting kidnapped and then financing the insurgency when they pay these ransoms.
Quote:Spanish hostage freed in Iraq: report
An Iraqi-born Spanish businessman kidnapped in Baghdad several weeks ago has been freed after a ransom was paid, Spain's leading daily reported.
El Pais reported that the kidnapped man, identified only by his initials, UAH, was freed on Tuesday, El Pais said, citing unidentified government sources.
The paper said the sources refused to give details of the ransom paid so as not to put people involved in the operation at risk.
The man was said to have Spanish nationality and passport since 2000, and for the past 30 years has lived in Spain, where he runs a translation firm and a real estate company, the daily said.
He was kidnapped during a visit to Iraq to see his family.
El Pais said the government helped the man's family negotiate his release and return to Spain late Tuesday.
Dozens of people have been kidnapped in Iraq over the past year. Some 30 are believed to have been killed.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/050317/2/tjzy.html
And then the ransom money was no doubt used to bribe a fanatical suicide bomber and rig a car with high explosives to be detonated where it would cause maximum deaths, injuries, maimings of whatever men, women, and children happen to be present.
Play their game and you are probably condemning dozens or hundreds more people to death. Don't play their game and the hostage will likely be beheaded.
Pack up and go home and we condemn probable hundreds of thousands of freedom seeking people to death or worse.
But there are those, some even on this thread, who still think the Americans are the bad guys and are especially evil because they shoot to kill terrorists.
Quote, "But there are those, some even on this thread, who still think the Americans are the bad guys..." blah blah blah blah... Your conclusions and assumptions are stupid, ill-informed, and not even close to being accurate. Why do you continue to spout these stupidity?
cicerone imposter wrote:Quote, "But there are those, some even on this thread, who still think the Americans are the bad guys..." blah blah blah blah... Your conclusions and assumptions are stupid, ill-informed, and not even close to being accurate. Why do you continue to spout these stupidity?
Why not point out what you feel that way about, and why you feel that way about it, rather than just call it stupid?
I meant earlier to say thanks to Steve. My only claim to royalty is via a French marquis who we think was hanged as a horse thief and perhaps one English pirate with interesting bloodlines, but that also is uncertain. In any case, I don't think either would qualify me to ever be the Queen Mum.
I will believe that some do not see America as the bad guys when I see the same level of anger and revulsion consistently directed at the terrorists that they consistently direct at the President and/or our military.
Well, if Fox has the individual or persons who supports what he says, he can name them - rather than using a whole brush to insult everybody else. I'd like to see one post that says anything close to "...Americans are the bad guys and are especially evil because they shoot to kill terrorists." If that isn't stupid, I don't know what stupid is.
cicerone imposter wrote:Well, if Fox has the individual or persons who supports what he says, he can name them - rather than using a whole brush to insult everybody else. I'd like to see one post that says anything close to "...Americans are the bad guys and are especially evil because they shoot to kill terrorists." If that isn't stupid, I don't know what stupid is.
I suppose since she didn't name you, she is only insulting you if the shoe fits --- IMHO.
====cough==== biting tongue. . . sooooo tempting.
I already have ten pairs of shoes; don't need more at the moment.
McG, Nothing has stopped you before....you still haven't answered my question.