Should scrapping the shutttles be a case of where, not if?

The space shuttle will be grounded from 2010 onwards. Or so we are told, and it sems a rather likely thing. But should they be *grounded*? Or to put it another way, if we're going to stop using the shuttles, why stop when they are on the runway?

Consider that the shuttle is actually a minature reusable space station, and quite capable in that reguard for short periods, which is (IIRC) mostly limited by life support and fuel limitations. With a (semi) completed ISS in orbit, couldn't it be permantly left up there instead? Possible as part of the ISS? Sure the smithstonian would probably hate the idea, but a (literally) cut down shuttle with wings, tail and thermal protection removed and refueling facilities added would be very useful in space operations. Or I would assume at any rate.

Why stop there either? Why not use the remaining two shuttles as shuttle-Cs to ship remaining parts to the space station, and free up four other launches for other missions, like rescue hubble? Meuseum pieces are nice, but I can't help but feel there are better uses for such work-horses than gathering dust.

ANTIcarrot.