>>>>Killing people and destroying their infrastructure/possessions simply is not a reasonable or sensible cost/benefits equation. Period. No ifs, and, or buts.
>>>
>>>
>>>Killing a hundred thousand people so billions can live lives whose potential isn't squelched by mad despots seems like a sensible cost/benefit equation to me.
>>
>>The radical Jihadists feel exactly the same way.
>
>
>What's your point?
>
>If I am a bad person come out and say. Don't waste my time with pointless and vague proverbs comparing me to religious militants.
>
>You should know better. This is a poor start to your response.
>
>
>
>>100,000 people have been killed in Iraq. Where are thos billions affected positively by that???
>
>I would say that over the next hundred years billions of Iraqis will live lives that their predecessors died to give them.
>
>
>But now you're arguing the statistics of the Iraq war to appear to be the moral champion of this discussion.
>
>Previouslly, you were arguing a general point:
>
>"Killing people and destroying their infrastructure/possessions simply is not a reasonable or sensible cost/benefits equation. Period. No ifs, and, or buts."
>
>How about this if:
>
>If only person had died in the Iraq war, and a little infrastructure be destroyed, would that be a reasonable cost/benefit equation?
>
>
>
>>Sorry, Mike, but people "given" freedom by destroying what they own and the facilities that serve them is resented, not appreciated.
>
>Do you think the current feelings amongst the public about a currently ongoing military operations are likely the best indication of the long term results of said operation?

I only replied to make you go to the trouble of reading the reply.
Your reply is not worthy of discussion.