847 US troop deaths in 2007 so far.
4 more and we will beat 2004 as the dealiest year so far.
I hate these numbers because it shows how much some people will use pro-Bush Administration rhetoric to justify a war we never should have gone into.
Eventually you run out of things to kill. And now with a civil war between Iraq and Iran is this surgwe "working" with numbers like these?
2007-11-05 11:00:00 · 8 answers · asked by Zinger! 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The "Surge" hasn't worked at all. The numbers are true, and it is sad.
Iraq has a 400,000 man army and can run their own nation. AND...if a foreign power occupied us for 5 years, we'd be angry too.
2007-11-05 11:04:34 · answer #1 · answered by Villain 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Absolutely, and I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers. The KEY to the surge is that the average Iraqi citizen is now feeling safe because of the changes the surge has allowed to prevent Al-Queda from infiltrating their neighborhoods.
You might not have heard if all you listen to is liberal news, but the Sunnis have been signing up to help stabilize communities, actually being employed to man check points, and have been turning in Al-Queda terrorists.
In Baghdad, it's much much safer today than it was before. We're killing thousands of terrorists, most of them coming in from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Do you think it would be better to just sit and home and wait for them to come to us? Which they are doing otherwise? Do you think that a Pacifist stance will do anything to keep us safe at home? Has it ever before? In the history of the world?
2007-11-05 11:09:31 · answer #2 · answered by Trogdor 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Obviously you have never been to Iraq or know nothing of war or world history. Watching war shows on TV is not the same as one that is waged for real.
You ever hear of the battle of Antietam, which was on US soil, consider that Antietam resulted in nine times as many Americans killed or wounded (23,000 soldiers) as took place on June 6, 1944--D-day, the so-called "longest day" of World War II.* Also consider that more soldiers were killed and wounded at the Battle of Antietam than the deaths of all Americans in the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican War, and Spanish-American War combined.
Do you think that surge worked?
2007-11-05 11:10:16 · answer #3 · answered by Bubba 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, honey, I think this is a much better indication of how it's going.... Iraqis donating money to the victims of the California fires.
http://op-for.com/2007/10/what_goes_around_comes_around.html
2007-11-05 11:05:14 · answer #4 · answered by LoneStar 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Is the rest of your blather as well founded as your assertion that Iran and Iraq are in a civil war? Did somebody just tell you to say "civil war, Iraq and Iran" in a mindless rant? ....they forgot to tell you a civil war is fighting between parts of a single country.
2007-11-05 11:06:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
wow...847 deaths. while 3000 familes can go back to their homes, entire sections of iraq are being returned to the home forces and violence is lessening..YEAH THATS HOW ITS WORKING..WERE WINNING THE WAR GENIUS!!!! LMFAO....
liberals ...gotta love em(sic)
2007-11-05 11:45:54 · answer #6 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
sooooo..... you haven't been paying attention have you.
a war we should have never gone too. You really don't remember everything that happened before huh
wow - what great American eyes you have
2007-11-05 11:10:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The surge is NOT working.
That was just betray-us lying to the American people for george.
2007-11-05 11:03:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋