Is the war on terrorism worth the financial cost, loss of lives, liberty and freedom?

No. And these Neocons here make me sick. They prattle about following our forefathers advise who distinctly told us. Both Franklin and Jefferson that to give up personal liberty for safety is the end of Freedom. It is so obvious and they are so smug. Sickening. I hate Fascism in my Country and it is here. The WMD thing is outrageous. Eisenhower warned us against the Military Industrial Complex and now we have some sick Definition of American Exceptionalism which now means the Whole World has to Be Just Like Us or they are Terrorists to our way of life.

For the life of me I cannot understand why we feel we must go to war because of Iran purportedly making Nuclear Weapons. It's perfectly okay for us to have them and threaten them but not for them to defend themselves. I just don't get it.

How much would it cost us to liberate the dozens of other countries living under dictatorships in the world? Iraq had nothing to do with the so-called war against terrorism. The excuse of fighting terrorism was used as the lie to garner support for the invasion.

no. Not even close. Saudis attack us, so we attack iran? Cmon. God. Canada had better hope that mexico never attacks us!! We'll be carpet bombing Quebec the next day. But the worst part is the patsy act and "homeland" security. HOMELAND security, which has Always sounded a bit too third reichish to me, as in fatherland... No, no on any front has this been a good deal for Americans. OOH a terrorist hijacked a plane! TSA, take quadruplegic granny in a back room and molest her!! Hurry!! 17 saudis and a couple others fly planes into buildings, killing 3,000+ Give us the patsy act, so we can spy on and violate Americans!! HURRY!! DONT THINK, JUST VOTE!! HURRY!!

The term I use-and try to get others to learn is "Pyrrhic victory". The definition is fitting and for some reason few seem to know this descriptive word. It is not too uncommon of a word but describes the GOP for the last 50 years perfectly:

A Pyrrhic victory (/ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with such a devastating cost to the victor that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately cause defeat.

The phrase is named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War. After the latter battle, Plutarch relates in a report by Dionysius:

The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.

—Plutarch,

In both of Pyrrhus's victories, the Romans suffered greater casualties than Pyrrhus did. However, the Romans had a much larger supply of men from which to draw soldiers, so their casualties did less damage to their war effort than Pyrrhus's casualties did to his.

The report is often quoted as "Another such victory and I come back to Epirus alone," or "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."

Although it is most closely associated with a military battle, the term is used by analogy in fields such as business, politics, law, literature, and sports to describe any similar struggle which is ruinous for the victor. For example, the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, writing of the need for coercion in the course of justice, warned, "Moral reason must learn how to make coercion its ally without running the risk of a Pyrrhic victory in which the ally exploits and negates the triumph."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

NO.

" untold billions to finance both sides of the war,"

West Bank/ Gaza

69

150

74

74

75

72

70

Token response, to "balance" Israel aid

All figures in millions of US dollars (rounded off)

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreig...

Its a drag, but your logic is faulty, its the actions of terrorists who brought these security procedures, not the fight against them. Holes in security have to be plugged, it could amount to not having anti virus because it slows the computer, your computer will work faster with less programs running on it at the same time, but you will be exposed to viruses that can ruin it completely, is it worth it?

No.

The only Homeland Security I need is my Colt AR-15.

You've hit the nail on the head. You can't fight an "ism". We didn't defeat Nazism or Fascism in WWII. Nor did we defeat Communism in the cold war. "Ism's" are ideals and you cannot defeat an ideal.

We can defeat terrorist, but not terrorism.

Good news, torture is illegal. Other than that, no, it is not worth it. We are not any safer today then we were before 9/11.

The Brits fought the IRA for 29 years and won. Most of them would say it was worth it.