<p>I’m sorry–more violence means the surge is working? What would it look like if it wasn’t working?</p>
<p>Somewhere George Orwell is screaming: 1984 was a warning not an instruction manual!</p>
<p>Talk to the troops, the guys on the ground, they will say it is better.</p>
<p>There will always be violence, think of VA Tech, Oklahoma, Columbine.</p>
<p>What do you suggest we do…leave…attack Iran (the ballistics shot into the green zone had Iranian markers)</p>
<p>These guys put a proud face on, kissed their family goodby, this kind of rhetoric gives no condolesences to their family…saying the surge is wrong gives them no reprieve. </p>
<p>This is the first time in months that violence has occurred.</p>
<p>Why do you even want to start this thread? Somewhere tonight a spouse, mother, child has been informed that their love one died. Please don’t let this thread continue, nobody should have to live with the fact that a loved one is in harms way, and their fellow Americans think that is wrong.</p>
<p>Let’s respect them…do not ask questions…instead make a thread saying thank you to the families</p>
<p>Eh… I’m honestly not a particularly big fan of this thread, in terms of the timing. Yet, at the same time, I see no obligation on anyone’s part not to express their opinion of the surge because some people have died. I get this line all the time from people who support the war, that we should respect the troops and not disagree with it - but what about the troops that don’t want to be there; who think it’s a horrible fight, and who would love for it to be over? Or do they not get a voice in this discussion? Aren’t they just as deserving of our respect?</p>
<p>Sorry, I’m not drinking the “if you don’t support the war you’re not patriotic/don’t say bad things about it” Kool-aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>good idea! let’s throw four thousand more lives away on an unwinnable war instead of hurting peoples’ feelings</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look at the facts. There is LESS violence than before the surge. Too bad democrats can’t admit the surge is working…it’s almost as if they want this war to get worse.</p>
<p>Actually, even if we assume that you’re right and Democrats are ignoring the surge’s good effects, I would think the pretty obvious and clear motive (that has been said numerous times, if you weren’t paying attention) is to get the war to end, not get worse for the troops.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I love this “the war wasn’t simple, clean, and over in 2 months, let’s END it” thought process. I shudder when I think of where this country (if it even existed) would be if people like you were in control.</p>
<p>Back off. I never said their ideas would work, I never said I agreed with their stance. You read far too much into what I post.</p>
<p>My only point was that it is willfully dishonest to imply that the motive behind the Democrats’ positioning is to let more troops die. Either willfully dishonest - or incredibly stupid.</p>
<p>Sorry, I misread your comment.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Sounds like the same stuff people said during the Viet Nam War. 55,000 died in that war.</p>
<p>delete - double post</p>
<p>“Sounds like the same stuff people said during the Viet Nam War. 55,000 died in that war.”</p>
<p>And hundreds of thousands more were slaughtered in the resulting “peace” after the North Vietnamese were allowed to violate the peace treaty. But, that’s OK since these weren’t Americans; they were just people foolish enough to believe that America would keep its word to them. It’s also OK since Walter Cronkite packed up his TV cameras and left along with our troops so we didn’t have to actually witness the slaughter. What we didn’t see didn’t really happen I guess. We “gave peace a chance” and it failed miserably.</p>
<p>Sorry bethievt, but overwhelming consensus is that the surge did reduce violence significantly since it was implemented last summer. Almost everyone will tell you that. Yes, things have been tough this past week but they should fall into line once al-Sadr gets what he wants. No one ever said war was easy…</p>
<p>Ethnic cleansing usually reduces violence afterwards - those warring with each other no longer have contact with each other, and 600,000 fleeing makes for a lot of room. </p>
<p>1.7 million dead. 4.2 million refugees and displaced, 600,000 between July and October alone. The most pro-Western and most secular forces in the country – doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers - hate us.</p>
<p>Sadr just waits. The Sunnis, now armed with U.S. weapons as Al-Qaeda in Iraq was armed with U.S. weapons, wait. One of the two oil pipelines already cut. It will all play itself out.</p>
<p>There is not enough money and young people in America to deploy them everywhere two groups in a country are fighting. $12 Billion a MONTH can be better used here in the US.</p>
<p>“There is not enough money and young people in America to deploy them everywhere two groups in a country are fighting. $12 Billion a MONTH can be better used here in the US.”</p>
<p>I suspect that if things spiral out of control in the region and with the resulting chaos in the oil market and therefore the global economy, that you will long for the days that we were “only” spending $12B per month. A long-term view is required in dealing with the situation there; a short-term fix will not be a fix at all.</p>
<p>“do not ask questions”</p>
<p>WOW.</p>
<p>1.7 million now??–the numbers just keep coming out of your ----. I’m sure you are praying for more violent conflict to satisfy your perverse enjoyment. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and things will settle down again and progress can continue. That would be just awful, no?</p>