AntiHubris.com

Though it's only a symbolic & non-binding measure, the U.S. Congress deserves kudos for, at least in a "symbolic" and "non-binding" manner, rejecting the President's hubris to send more troops into the unpopular, expensive, and unnecessary war zone of Iraq.

It's an exercise in hubris and greed to send more U.S. troops to fight a foreign cause on foreign soil for the personal agenda of a few wealthy elite. The U.S. troops are brave super-citizens (and really deserve to call themselves 'citizen' more than most), but, if called to combat, should be fighting for a justifiable cause.

If for no other reason, we shouldn't send more troops to 'the birthplace of civilization' because of the unnecessary bloodshed that would ensue. Along this line of thought: how do you really measure the winner of a war? It cannot truly be because one side said "I give up," or the other said "I won" (consider Bush's big banner saying "Mission Accomplished" and that was how long ago?). Is it whoever lost the most amount of lives? What is it?