I also have strong problems in saying that an American life is worth more than an Iraqui life, especially when that Iraqui life isn't a combatant.

First off, it's Iraqi... I've seen a couple others use Iraqui, but when the Grammar Cop is doing it, I need to speak up.

Second, though I did say I'd trade Iraqi civilian lives for one American soldier's life, I'm not saying that American lives are more valuable. What I'm saying is that if the American forces accomplish their objective, many more Iraqis are likely to have a good life, and not die of malnutrition, or die because a Republican Guard soldier decided they didn't like the way someone saluted Saddam's picture.

So if Americans can just focus on the mission a little more, and not be so frightened of a civilian casualty, the chances of getting this done sooner are greater, and the chances of Iraqi's needlessly dying later on are much less.

Take the situation in Basra, for instance. Right now the U.N. is saying there's a humanitarian crisis brewing there. Why? Because we can't get aid to them. Why? Because Iraqi soldiers are hiding in the city. Until we get rid of that cancer, it's difficult or impossible to save lives with much needed food, water, and medicine. Can we take out these soldiers/militia-men without civilian death? Not if they're hiding in hospitals and killing anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Plus, if we can get to Baghdad and take out the senior leadership, maybe thousands of these Iraqi militia "cannon fodder" types won't need to die.

In essence, by altering our strategy such that we're slightly less worried about civilians, I think the numbers work out better overall for less deaths, American or Iraqi, combatant or civlian. This is pure conjecture, but it seems logical to me.