I'm at the age that I was in college when Vietnam was ending and troops were coming home. In both college and my after college work life I had the opportunity to view many who had recently returned from Vietnam. Some of the most psychologically damaged people I have ever met.

There were several stories about mental disorders that soldiers are suffering many months ago. But these public discussions have ended.

I think the number suffering long-term mental problems, as well as the count of those suffering long-term permanent physical disabilities is maybe 10 times any number sited in your paper.

>Not only was he determined to invade Iraq, but battle plans were being drawn up
>on 9/11!
>
>On 9/11, without any substantial facts, Rummy decided that Al Quaida and Iraq were
>responsible, and he ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans to invade.
>
>I did a paper on the cost of the Iraq war, which required extensive research:
>https://home.comcast.net/~kmarois/IraqCost.doc
>
>The points speak for themselves.
>
>
>
>
>>There is a veritable wealth of information that points to the administration determined to invade Iraq at any cost. There is no shortage of public information available that shows this.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thats an interesting article that summarizes a couple of UK memos that were marked SECRET, DO NOT COPY, NOFORN labels. There was some serious arm twisting of the UK's head legal council (Attorney General?) by Blair and others to label the UK involvement as legal. I forget that person's name but it was reported that he wasnt on board until the very last moment just prior to the war starting.
>>>
>>>A couple of quotes pulled from the DSMs
>>>_____________
>>>
>>>David Manning (Prime Minister's Foreign Policy advisor) memo to Blair:
>>>
>>>http://www.edwardsdavid.com/media/iraq/reports/manning020314.pdf
>>>
>>>"C" reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.
>>>
>>>Peter Ricketts, the British Foreign Office's political director memo to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who is to provide Blair with a note before he sets off for a planned meeting with Bush in Texas.
>>>
>>>http://www.edwardsdavid.com/media/iraq/reports/ricketts020322.pdf
>>>
>>>US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida is so far frankly unconvincing. Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives. For Iraq "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't recall this:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html
>>>>
>>>>>SNIP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mike, if you think the Iraqi invasion was in any way, ever, about Iraqi freedom, you are even younger than I thought. Now that the grand jury has heard all the testimony and indictments are coming out, lips are loosening. And the clear picture that emerges is that a small cabal behind the amiable dunce -- people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, and Rove -- were bound and determined to invade Iraq. They weren't interested in facts and actively tried to suppress facts that were inconvenient to them. These bozos have led us into a disaster of the first magnitude. What I don't understand is how they managed to do so with the blind support of so many who supported the war (and continue to support it despite all evidence) simply because they see themselves as conservative Republicans. What dupes.