That's why I can fathom simplist views such as the one expressed by Jason. There is absolutely no end in site. The situation is obviously getting worse by the day. And some, such as bush, cling to the hope that we are bringing freedom to the iraqis. So all this is good.

Not too mention that Iran is taking advantage of the situation also.

>>>>>Nah. Every western nation, and Russia, believed Iraq has WMDs, not just one person. But it looks like Saddam was just playing a game, a deadly game that he couldn't win.
>>>
>>>>How do you measure a mistake? I'd do that by consequences. Had Stalin trusted his own spies, he'd start preparing to defend from Drang nach Osten in advance, and Hitler surely wouldn't have advanced so close to Moscow... and then possibly wouldn't lose the Napoleon gambit (get trapped in Russian winter). Either way, the history would have looked much much different, and we're talking of body count going up or down a million or more.
>>>
>>>>So far, in Iraq, it's still limited to one country. But then you may be right in the end. We still don't see how far will the consequences of this one go.
>>>
>>>Geez Dragan you're much more of a history nut then I will ever be or care to be. But I think you're right. None of this is exact science. We won't know anything about Iraq until 10, maybe 20 years from now.
>>
>>
>>We don't know everything yet but we know plenty. We know it has already cost a pile of deaths, money, and misfocused attention, and that there is still no end in sight. The civil war that some warned would be the inevitable result of destabilizing Iraq is already under way.
>
>Undoubtedly the biggest "cost" is that the fiasco has spawned a whole new huge group of Jihadists anxious to meet their 72 virgins.