"The fact remains, the Soviets suffered much higher casualties than the Nazis but ended up winning the war, which negates your assertion that inflicting higher casualties necessarily equates to military victory."

My assertion had nothing to do with WWII. You brought that up. My assertion has to do with the war on terror. And it is, I believe, quite valid.

"Are you so sure Americans aren't already losing their stomach over the mounting casualties in Iraq - especially after it was discovered that there were no WMD, and there were no ties to Al Qaeda?"

Well, I'm one American who is not losing his stomach for the war on terror. But I'll admit, it's the soldiers actually doing the fighting whose stomach matters more than yours or mine. From what I can see they are doing the job and doing it well.

And there were WMD (at least according to the UN). And, according to the 9-11 commission, there WERE Al Queda ties to Iraq--they just haven't established the connection to 9-11 (yet).

"They took a bunch of young reservists, whose only 'crime' was being patriotic and wanting to serve their country, sent them over to a land that was in total anarchy, gave them no proper training in how to run a prison, allowed them to do it without proper supervision, and then hung them out to dry when they screwed up."

Wow, you must be running out of arguments to bring up the prison abuse scandal now. Let's see: 20-30 (at most) bad apples at Abu Ghiraib and 199,970 soldiers serving their country honorably. I like those odds myself.

"If Bush's "target" is American civil rights and democratic freedoms, then I'd have to agree with you. That doesn't make him right - only right wing."

That's hilarious. I frequent several boards (mostly gun-related) and the general concensus there is that Bush is too PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER.! Anyway, I've concerned myself with American civil rights and democratic freedoms far longer than you have and you can take it from me: they are in far less jeopardy than you think.

Regards, Vince