[Alberta's Child]

You are playing games with statistics.

I know that. That's exactly my point -- ANY attempt to make comparisons like this amounts to "playing games with statistics" in one sense or another.

Use either number, and the current Iraq War still is the LEAST bloody war.

This is a good case in point. This statement is only true because of the parameters you've laid out here. You're comparing it to a very specific group of major military campaigns from U.S. history, while ignoring a number of military campaigns that would render your point invalid if they were included in your comparison (Panama, Kosovo, first Gulf War, etc.).

[Congressman Billybob]

Wow! If you really think that the kinds of military losses we suffered in Panama, and in the first Gulf War were unacceptably high (dozens, or a little over a hundred), then your viewpoint is exposed. You believe that as a nation we cannot tolerate death rates that are less than the auto accident death rates the same group of young people would suffer on an ordinary weekend.

Therefore, the consequence of your beliefs is that we should disband the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, because if we ever use them to carry out military policies of the US, an intolerable number of Americans will be killed. Since we should never fight any war, we should not bother with having a military -- even a voluntary one, where everyone serving has personally chosen to do that.

Your position is geopolitical nonsense. As 9/11 demonstrated, retiring to fortress America and allowing the rest of the world to go to Hell in a handcart is no longer a viable option.

As I said before, the result of your position (shared by much of the MSM), is that the US cannot tolerate the conduct of even the smallest war and for any reason.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "The Washington Post Doesn't Have a Clue about Government Under a Written Constitution"