[BugsBunny07]

Quote by: Sonart . Here's what the fck, Mate. Our troops in Iraq are fighting a foreign enemy in a foreign land. If Americans decide they don't like the way things are going, we can simply pull out and go home.

And a theoretical foreign army invading the United States would be different how?

In Vietnam we fought for almost 10 years, losing 58,000 troops. The Vietnamese, fighting for their homeland, lost a million combatants and 4 million civilians dead. Americans eventually tired of the war, so we pulled out and went home.

Yes, and the not very sophisticated insurgency defeated the most advanced military in the world, next...

In Afghanistan, the Soviets fought for another 10 years, losing 15,000. The Afghanis, fighting for their homeland, lost over a million dead and two million displaced.

Once again you point to a case where a low tech insurgency defeats a sophisticated army.

Troops fighting here will be fighting for their own country on their own turf. They can't simply pull out and go home. They are home. During the American Civil War as a base, 600,000 died out of a U.S. population of 30 million. So out of our current 300 million Americans, that would be about 6 million casualties... not including civilian non-combatants.

Gee, no shit sherlock. Now how does a pre-modern, conventionaly fought successionary war fit into the post-modern insurgency as counter-foreign invasion discussion? This is square peg-round hole logic.

The Lebanese fought their civil war for 15 years, and out of a population of 2 million, 100,000 died and a million displaced. Almost 5% of the Lebanese population dead.

Again, the relevance to insurgency as counter-foriegn invasion escapes me.

5% of Americans 300 million is 15 million dead. Take your pick. .

I suppose you think all the sacrifice that led to our independence in the first place was a bad call too? I guess some people would rather live in slavery than die in combat.

Beat your guns into plows, your wheat will feed those who don't.