just teasing---
if you say 1.5 million people have died for the freedoms that we enjoy (# of US war dead, not including civilians etc) which is a gross generalization, but I think "Fighting for freedom" is one euphamism that has always been used--then before you restrict that freedom (USPA)there should be a real risk of 1.5M people dying....
but.. conversley, when considering to take military action, a prudent planner would project the casualties (We use to do this in operational planning % casualties expected--we don't anymore) and if it was projected that casualties might be taken, you have to be able to look each person participating in the eye and say--"Accomplishing this effort is worth your life" (succeeding in this as a nation is more important than you seeing your children again, you achieving your goals etc etc) because that is what you are really saying by committing troops to combat--taking that hill is more important than the rest of your life---so, once you have looked each of the 150,000 people in the eye and said that, you have stated an absolute and can not go back on that word