Yes, yes.

Why do we do a happy dance and pat ourselves on the back that there are "so few"? These are not tokens on a Parchisee board.

I understand about war and the necessity of casualties. What I don't understand -- or maybe I do, but detest what I see -- is the unseemly devaluation of what casualties there have been by implying that, because there are less than, say, World War II, this isn't worth counting yet. And I have read the omelette analogy. What next? Humpty Dumpty?

Why does the word "only" have to appear in articles about casualties? Because we're so impressed with ourselves? Because we want to convince ourselves that it only "counts" once we get past a certain number, like point totals in a video game?

We can prosecute a war and accept casualties without devaluing their loss by use of words like "only" and "merely". This ticks me off. In fact, it might be a tad more dignified to leave those words out entirely. Or would that rob the Administration's spin machine of a powerful softening agent?

casualties had been the first priority in WWII, you would have people a lot more difficult to deal with than fundamentalists running your life.

Really? Al Qaeda are fundamentalists. I have a lot better feel for what we face than you may realize. Just take what I have, give them guns, take their hope away, and multiply their zeal by a power of three.

I have known people who have been crippled or died as a result of a botched surgery. It works both ways.

We have no right to the gratitude of the Iraqis. We have inflicted wounds upon them. Whether we get any gratitude is entirely up to them. To pout over ingratitude is pointless. To demand respect is counterproductive. To believe we know what public opinion is when the citizens could call our soldiers every nasty name in the book to their faces and they wouldn't know because they don' speaka da language is silly. Better to forget the ego issues and do the damn job.

Regards--
Mary Anne