> killed. All you need is a simple graph, like X Y line chart or bar graph.
> Here is a link to a line chart that graphs US fatalities in Iraq from the
> invasion to the present. While it jumps up and down, the highest peaks were
> back in the spring and fall of 2004. There is no significant upward trend
> that would indicate any more of a crisis now than there was in other
> periods over the last 4 years.

Well plot the data in Excel and apply a trend-line. There is a trend
and it is going up...but it's beside the point. It is a very different
situation now than it was when we invaded, a civil war is breaking
(has broken) out and the bulk of the casualties are civillians at this
point.

> In that case, here is a link to a site that charts Iraqi civilian and
> police casualties. Police deaths are showing a downward trend. Civilian
> deaths are increasing, and that may be due to the insurgents getting better
> at killing more people with more effective locations and times of
> explosions.

Or an expanding civil war...

> The inconsistency of American foreign policy is a world of wonder. They
> maintain an embargo on Cuba but flock to China. While they slag France and
> Germany for allegedly supplying Saddam with supplies and technology for his
> WMD programs (because France and Germany would not get onside for the
> invasion) they overlook their past support of Saddam, which included
> providing satellite intelligence on Iranian troop locations to "calibrate"
> chemical attacks.

Yep.... Whenever I hear the phrase 'spread democracy', I replace it
with 'insure access to foreign markets' and it brings things into
perspective. I don't know much about Geopolitics, but I have to think
one ultimately pays the price for continually (and often, covertly)
meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

>
> And we care about that why???? Pakistan was on the list of terrorist
> supporting states. The only reason they aren't officially an enemy in
> this conflict is because there was a deal to remove them from the list in
> exchange for the Pakistan government taking an official stand, though their
> actions speak differently.

Well, Pakistan is certainly strategically located, we used their air-
bases to launch our invasion of Afghanistan and Musharraf is an ally
of the US. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and their conflict with India
has been an ongoing source geopolitical instability. There is a
substantial fundamentalist Islamic contingent hostile toward Musharraf
and his overthrow would create another Islamic Theocracy in the middle
east, this one with nuclear weapons (which is what we trying to
prevent with Iran as we speak). I'd guess as a part of the deal we
struck with Musharraf for use of his air bases, we agreed not to chase
the Taliban into Pakistan, knowing it would jeopardize his hold on the
country. This is why, in my opinion, we have not caught Bin Laden.
Musharraf has some tough days ahead...elections pending and he just
removed the head of the supreme court for some reason, which has not
gone over well.