Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Übergeek 바둑이: I will go tell all the families who have no dead people, I am sure they will agree with me too!
You can never win this debate, since there is no way for you to prove that the losses would not have been greater had we left the status quo
I know you are smarter than that argument, really? You can always ask the family of a dead person, and they will not agree they like their son dead..... and I can agree on one point, that it is a lot easier to say a cost was worth it, when it isnt your familys life that was part of the cost.
But my point is still valid, we could have spent untold money and time keeping Saddam fenced in, and who knows, still end up having to take him out, and maybe it would cost a lot more if done down the road... maybe saying we got off cheap is wrong, but saying that we got off "cheaper" this way than any other way, how can you say I am wrong?