If we cut and run from Iraq...

So you're saying that without our presence there, the death toll would go down. Is that accurate?

And I'm curious: Please describe how you envision the Ba'athists, Shi'a, and foreign elements actions after the US leaves?

 

since we are failing now what is your solution? double the troops? kill them all? talk nice to them? tell them jesus loves them?

 

Okay, it's noted that you feel that the "entire world" hates the US
Please don't take my word for it, here is a little example for you and the author:

A majority of Britons think American culture and the actions of the present American administration are making the world a worse place to live in, and almost no one believes America is now, if it ever was, a beacon to the world. Well over half of those interviewed regard the US as an imperial power bent on dominating the world by one means or another.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/03/nyank103.xml

I am not saying they are right, I am saying this country no longer has a reputation to uphold, it has been thoroughly trashed by this administration.



So, just so it's clear, since you feel the carnage is unavoidable, we may as well cut and run and get it over with now, is that it?
Pretty much so but unfortunately that's not it, if we cut and ran three days ago this would have been avoided:


At least 17 US soldiers have been killed around Iraq since Saturday, including eight in a single day in Baghdad, the US military announced, saying the toll had brought "a tragic day".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061003/pl_afp/iraqunrest

And every day of delay kills more and more american soldiers for absolutely no good reason. And people like the author are [partially] responsible for their deaths. Now that is it.

 

Why the sarcasm? I'm having to have a civil discussion. I'm genuinely interested in your viewpoint.

I'd be happy to answer your questions if you'd do me the courtesy, since I asked first, of answering mine.

Thanks.

 

i answered several of your questions. now its my turn. you whole op is based on the proposition that staying in iraq will eventually pay off. i can see no evidence that that is true. quite the contrary:

Intelligence paper shows far less rosy post-9/11 picture than White House claims

MARK MAZZETTI; The New York Times
Published: September 24th, 2006 01:00 AM
WASHINGTON – A stark assessment of terrorism trends by U.S. intelligence agencies has found that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington, D.C., who were involved in preparing the assessment or have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by U.S. intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began. It represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,” it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than retreating, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology. The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one U.S. intelligence official.

 

Uh, dddooo, Brittania is not "the entire world," would you at least concede that? Furthermore, as the article shows, even Britons are not all anti-US.

Okay, got it. You're comfortable with the carnage that will ensue when we leave, and in your eyes, the sooner the better.

If you don't mind, I'll ask you the same question I asked Vhehn: do you think the death toll will go down if we leave, and how do you envision the actions of the remaining principal elements when we depart?

Thanks for your responses.

 

Vhehn, calm down man. I'm trying to be civil here....

As to the NIE, yes, it does point out that our involvement in Iraq has resulted in a growth of jihadists. But, and this is never mentioned by the Left, it also points out that if we leave, things will get much worse.

So I ask you again: do you think if we left the death toll of Iraqis would go down?

 

Yes hapa, the death toll of american troops needlessly losing their lives will undoubtedly go down and this is the only death toll I truly care about. If ragheads want to kill ragheads it's their problem, they've been doing it for centuries. Saddam could stop them, we can't.

 

I don't understand why anyone gives this hapaboy any acknowledgment at all; when it's all to clear that he's quite a desperate man, who quite obviously needs to pull his head out of his ass.

I resorted to a personal attack. Shit. I guess I really felt it warranted.

 

Obviously the death toll of American troops will go down if they're no longer there, but of course I was asking about the Iraqis, which you eventually answered.

Much appreciated,
H