Originally Posted by cat's meow

Yes, you can't be more right.

I see (from before) many have tried to chime in here and 'crunch' my numbers. I got the numbers from the National Archives...I said that. Go look them up at that point.

Next, depending on what level you think our government is supposed to be commited to a war or the casualites (afterwards) of said war is really up to you. I personally think wars should (directly) be fought with this in mind and as per what the REAL goal is and what you get out of it in the end. Except for endless platitudes and shifting goal posts there has never been a clear objective for Iraq. Right now Al Qaida is doing pretty damn well in Pakistan, why don't we invade that country? Are not the casualties worth the cost of 'protecting America'? Ask the right questions and it might surprise you how f*cked up we really are right now.

I again refer all to reading the study by Ginsberg and Associates that was done after WWII, commissioned by Eisenhower. It goes through all these numbers and what war really costs us and what is the proper way to prepare for war in the future.

BTW Sam, your countrymen (the French) did a study about all this stuff after they pulled out of Africa and Indochina. They realized some grave mistakes and we did not listen to any of that or any of our own assessments before invading Iraq...truly pathetic.