Larry K -

Those numbers do provide good perspective, thanks (no sarcasm). There is one further issue though, and that is the degree of necessity of each death, or the amount that each death contributes to the furtherance of "good" in the world (however one defines good). Please don't misunderstand, all deaths in war are equally tragic, but I think it is legitimate (even necessary) to question how many deaths any given cause is worth. Many would argue that 750 in a foolish cause is worse than 450,000 in a noble cause.

"The Left" also got more than one thing right:

predicted that there would be protracted urban warfare - correct

predicted that winning the peace would be a heck of a lot harder than winning the war - correct

predicted that there would be factional fighting if not outright civil war after "The Liberation" - correct for now, but really too soon to tell

predicted that we would be resented as occupiers not welcomed as liberators - without polling all Iraqis, hard to declare 100% correct, but certainly not flat-out wrong.

predicted that the war would be terribly expensive (not easily funded by Iraqi oil receipts) - correct


And BB - I believe you've just shouted (CAPS) and sworn at me. I suspect you wouldn't try to bully me face-to-face, so please don't try to cyberbully me. We do have at least chem weapons. I regularly see a heavily-secured stockpile awaiting destruction, but absolutely still extant. You know the drill, can't tell you where or I'd have to kill you :). Sorry, not shutting up.

TIA