The Cost of the War

[headsplice]

Response:
DNK:
The Hitler analogy doesn't make a good comparison geo-politically because the only time that Saddam has invaded another country he's gotten spanked and spanked hard (Iran-Iraq and Gulf War I). If you want to make the argument that they are at least roughly equivalent on internal politics (evil dictators), I'll grant you that.
As for the Coalition of the Willing, I would like to hear your arguments as to how that is multi-lateral, even though it's kind of moot since hostilities have officially ended (but I still like arguing ) . My take on it is: the only people that were effective combatants in Iraq Dos were the US and UK, how does that make the conflict multi-lateral? And don't say that it's multi-lateral because there was more than one coutry involved, that's a bogus argument because there were a lot MORE countries that didn't want to go to war that are also our allies.
Warch:
Who would dare question? Dean from Vermont (I think), one of the Democratic Primary candidates. The rhetoric he's throwing down is heartening if you don't quite trust the current administration.

Question time:
What will be the ultimate cost for the Iraqi people? Ostensibly, we have brought them freedom. But at this point, freedom == barely contained anarchy. Is this a result of a)stronger than expected resistance to the American military action? Or b)extraordinarily poor planning on the part of the Pentagon/State Department/Bush Administration? Or, for the conspiracy minded, c)extremely subtle and duplicitous planning on the part of Pentagon/State Department/Bush Adminstration?

Finally, I may have missed this elsewhere, but, does anyone know when planning to go to war in Iraq started? I have my own theory based purely on anecdotal information, but I'd like to have some more facts.