The point is that you're not fit to talk about people who died in this war if you think losing hundreds of people to invade a decent sized country is supposed to be a reason for failure. I guess only the Euro/American world can be so arrogant that even losing hundreds of people in a 'war' can be considered a failure. When I saw the war on Iraq I could've sworn it's like a national televised version of Warcraft 3 because it sure didn't look like the Iraqi had any chance of fighting back.

Of course I'm not saying more people should die when you have a choice to avoid it, but to call this war which is more or less a slaughter on the Iraqi army and then cry about your hundreds of lost shows a lot of arrogance. You don't think Iraqis are people too? I'm sure a lot more of them died than the Allies ever did.

Crying about the hundreds that died in this war when almost anything that kills people kills a hell lot more people shows that you obviously only think Americans/British people are people and that all the people we killed in this war didn't count. Why don't you lament the significantly more Iraqis that died just serving their regime and probably didn't have a choice. Oh yeah, they're not Americans, so it's not important they die. You never cared about people dying. You only cared because it is YOUR people that died and then you conveniently bring up the humanitarian card. By your logic if today we have a nuke that doesn't leave radiation behind, dropping one of those would make the war a success because none of our people died.