Didn't you study journalism? I'm pretty sure I know what you're trying to say, but I think you wrote it bass-ackwards. I'm hoping you're not suggesting that they should have paid a higher price...

Also, another way to look at it is this: we now know that all the reasons given for invading Iraq were false. That has been well documented and is matter of fact, even to the current administration. Therefore, if cooler heads would have prevailed and outside experts actually listened to, then we wouldn't have invaded. Ergo, we wouldn't have nearly 600 American families grieving the loss of loved ones, countless thousands of young veterans maimed and crippled for life, nor would we have wasted $100 billion for something that was not pertinent to the safety and security of the United States.

And that's not counting the thousand upon thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, or the perfect breeding ground for terrorists we've created.

You are absolutely correct that a soldier signs his or her life away to uphold the constitution, obey the orders of those appointed over them, and defend the nation against all enemies, foriegn and domestic. So when the Commander in Chief sacrifices a soldier's life for questionable motives through deceit and dishonesty, it shows despicable contempt for that soldier's life.

The smart soldier asks, "Why are we being sent to die in Iraq when the real enemy is in Afganistan?"

People need to get off this notion that a soldier is nothing but a number who's life is irrelevant and he doesn't mind dieing. He's still a damn human.