Posted on 08/02/2007 8:13:57 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
LOL. It’s a quagmire, I tell ya.
After Ron Paul’s glorious surrender to the terrorists, there would be of course no civilian deaths. Heck! There would be no deaths at all, ain’t it so Austin?
Don’t you think that after six years of “mistakes” those light-hearted quagmire jokes are becoming a tad ironic?
Laugh it up. 1600 civilian deaths is pretty hilarious.
Errrrr.... if we are to believe you, the AP and the MSM, then that would not be a spike, but rather a huge drop. The Lancet Report that you stuffed down the world's throat 2 months before the 2006 elections put the total number at 650,000. That would mean about 16,000 PER MONTH KILLED!
So what is it AP? Do you just lie and lie and lie to dupe the stupidest people on Earth: LIBERALS!
And how does this address the issue of evaluating the success and.or failures of the surge?
This war is going to kill the Republicans in ‘08, no matter who heads the ticket. Its a real yuckfest, isn’t it?
The terrorists are turning it up to influence the politicians. The killing spike, however, is an indication of things to come if we bolt.
You know what would be even a tad more ironic?
Surrendering and withdrawing... pardon “redeploying”... from Iraq and let several millions civilians get murdered.
Won’t happen you say?
That’s what they said about South-East Asia aswell.
Doesn’t matter you say?
Then why bother about civilians deaths now?
(I know the answer already... it’s a way to get us into surrender and vote Ron Paul, but that’s the same thing anyway.)
Gee, I thought we just completed year #4.
Oh....that changes everything. You’re really grasping at straws now....but then I wouldn’t want to be in your position on this issue right now.
No, quagmirism is pretty hilarious.
I’d really hate to be in your position, because its indistinguishable from Murtha’s and Pelosi’s
Not only a newbie. But a very ignorant one.
It’s of course a way more convenient position to live in a fantasy isolation-world where we can ignore the threats and problems around us. It also easier to poo-poo a war effort with the help of the massmedia and a majority of sheeple than actually trying to fight a vital war and built up a nation.
“...despite a five-month-old surge in US troop levels...”
______
That used to be called “editorializing” in a news story.
What a crock.
And Loyal Buckeye also wrote:
The terrorists are turning it up to influence the politicians. The killing spike, however, is an indication of things to come if we bolt.
It certainly isn't going to _help_ the Republicans. Might as well be honest and forthright about that.
If we remain there (which we probably will), the 'rats will campaign on a promise to "end the war" or to withdraw the troops outright. I [sadly] predict that a surprising number of American voters will support them either way.
If we "un-surge", I predict the trouble spots in Iraq will quickly revert back to their "pre-surge" violence. The terrorists and jihadi are simply waiting us out. Frankly, time is on their side, and they know it.
Either way, our side loses.
Please point out where I'm wrong.
- John
When is Ramadan ?
I saw some graphs some guy put together tracking deaths over time by year.
The pattern is always the same... there’s a lull in attacks leading up to Ramadan and then there’s an explosion of violence.
Each year worse than the previous year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.