Byron,

The human cost may have been high -- and the loss of a single life is always a tragedy, but this war has definitely saved far more lives than it has taken. Or does ending a regime that has left a minimum of 300,000 of its subjects in mass graves, and "dissapeared" countless others not count as a massive decrease in the human cost around the world ... unless you are stating that American lives are intrinsically more valuable than Arab lives. As you would put it: "Racist."

Sherk

6,861 troops were medically evacuated for non-combat conditions

Using non-combat casualties to inflate the "casualty" rate. Winner for the most specious Bush-bashing statistic of the week.

Don't blame me. Blame that darn liberal Drudge Report. Heh. Hardly.

Whatever the specific number, each American casualty represents a service member who has an immediate family, an extended family, friends, old classmates, neighbors, and co-workers.
So every time an American is shipped back from Iraq in a body bag, around 500 people feel the effect, to some degree, in a personal way.
Though less profound, there is a similar impact when one of our troops is maimed or seriously wounded.

Perhaps some will console themselves by saying, "Our Bobby died while helping President George W. Bush fight Saddam Hussein."
But as the war drags on, and as the litany of administration excuses for starting the war wears thin, more Americans will hold the Flightsuit-in-Chief personally responsible for the lost and broken lives that didn't have to be that way.
Here is some of the ill will generated by the death of one of my fellow Illinoians:
http://www.lincolncourier.com/news/03/11/14/d.asp

Oh yeah, in addition to the Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, there are the tens of thousands whose reserve and national guard units were unexpectedly called up for extended service there. They and their families probably aren't too thrilled about having their lives turned upside down.

Even frantic attempts to engineer a lukewarm economic recovery will be overshadowed by the war.
The 1960s was one of the great golden ages of American prosperity. Most families survived well on just one income. And jobs were well paying and secure.
Yet in spite of the booming economy, Lyndon Johnson found himself becoming unpopular for his handling of what was seen as an increasingly pointless war. Rather than risk defeat, he chose not to seek re-election.

It's true that the scale of the Vietnam War was much greater than Iraq. But remember that LBJ got 60%+ of the vote in 1964 while Dubya didn't even make it into first place in 2000.
If the scale of conflict is less now, so also is the margin which the incumbent has to work with.

Byron, what was the casualty rate per month or per year among Iraqi citizens under Saddam?

That would include the children dropped out of helicopters, the ears and tongues sliced off, the people fed headfirst (if lucky) or feetfirst (if not) into tree shredders, the poison gas casualties, and of course the merely beaten-to-within-an-inch-of-their lives casualties.

Or do only American casualties count for anything in your worldview?

Lets stop this bloody wars and live our lifes happily without seeing what others are doing.