>>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?


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


I like the way you think, Jim.

You say:

"Killing people and destroying their infrastructure/possessions simply is not a reasonable or sensible cost/benefits equation. Period. No ifs, and, or buts."

And then I ask you:

"If only person had died in the Iraq war, and a little infrastructure be destroyed, would that be a reasonable cost/benefit equation?"


Of course that question is not worthy of discussion. If you approached it rationally, you would likely say "Sure, killing one person for the benefit of millions may just be the right thing to do."


Since that would contradict your earlier proclamation, your only way out is to find the question itself distateful.

And thus the dogma is protected. The threat of rational thought completely neutralized.