The surge is "working"

You seem to be implying that the fact that a war is difficult to win automatically leads to the conclusion that it should be abandoned.

News flash: if you make war, some of your soldiers will die. Sad, but certainly not surprising.

You seem to be implying that the fact that a war is difficult to win automatically leads to the conclusion that it should be abandoned.

News flash: if you make war, some of your soldiers will die. Sad, but certainly not surprising.

Brandon9000 wrote:

You seem to be implying that the fact that a war is difficult to win automatically leads to the conclusion that it should be abandoned.

News flash: if you make war, some of your soldiers will die. Sad, but certainly not surprising.

Do you have one speck of proof what you are saying is true?

Brandon9000 wrote:

You seem to be implying that the fact that a war is difficult to win automatically leads to the conclusion that it should be abandoned.

News flash: if you make war, some of your soldiers will die. Sad, but certainly not surprising.

I seem to be implying? I quote actual numbers and you think "I seem to be implying" are you on really bad drugs or just really stupid?

I love pukes that are so cavalier about military casualties. I wish you could be there.

...The claim, predictable and inevitable, from this administration and particularly from the neoconservative contingent popping up everywhere in the present media, is that "the surge is working".

The truth of this claim is completely irrelevant to whether these people will make the claim or not make the claim...they WILL and ARE making the claim. Go find anything recent by Bill Kristol or Kagan or Krauthammer etc etc.

dyslexia is demonstrating that these people are unconcerned with the truth of things....

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I love pukes that are so cavalier about military casualties. I wish you could be there.

All I actually said was that it was sad that soldiers die in a war, but that it wasn't surprising. How, from the mere fact that I believe the war should be fought, do you conclude that I am cavalier about the casualties? Do you think that everyone who ever believes that any war should be fought is, therefore, cavalier about the casualties? How does that logic work?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I love pukes that are so cavalier about military casualties. I wish you could be there.

All I actually said was that it was sad that soldiers die in a war, but that it wasn't surprising. How, from the mere fact that I believe the war should be fought, do you conclude that I am cavalier about the casualties? Do you think that everyone who ever believes that any war should be fought is, therefore, cavalier about the casualties? How does that logic work?

you've never displayed the least bit of concern or human feelings. Everything is a statistic to you, which sets you apart from we carbon based life forms.

Since you're so big on proof I challenge you to search your posts over the last however many years and show ONE instance where you have expressed any empathy, sympathy or personal feelings towards the casualties of this war.

<img> wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

<img> wrote:

I love pukes that are so cavalier about military casualties. I wish you could be there.

All I actually said was that it was sad that soldiers die in a war, but that it wasn't surprising. How, from the mere fact that I believe the war should be fought, do you conclude that I am cavalier about the casualties? Do you think that everyone who ever believes that any war should be fought is, therefore, cavalier about the casualties? How does that logic work?

you've never displayed the least bit of concern or human feelings. Everything is a statistic to you, which sets you apart from we carbon based life forms.

Since you're so big on proof I challenge you to search your posts over the last however many years and show ONE instance where you have expressed any empathy, sympathy or personal feelings towards the casualties of this war.

First of all, you haven't demonstrated that anything I've said indicates a lack of sympathy for the casualties. This is just your standard technique of besmirching the poster because you can't debate on the level of real logical arguments. Your logic is simply the faulty logic that anyone who believes a war ought to be fought is automatically cavalier about the people who die or are wounded.

As for posts in which I've indicated sympathy for casualties, I have consistently for years used words like sad or tragic. I used the word sad in this thread, and, indeed, in the post you just replied to. What sort of expression of sympathy would you expect to find in a message board post about politics, an mp3 of me sobbing? It seems that the only thing you take to be indicative of sympathy is the statement that a war ought to be stopped.

First of all, you haven't demonstrated that anything I've said indicates a lack of sympathy for the casualties. This is just your standard technique of besmirching the poster because you can't debate on the level of real logical arguments. Your logic is simply the faulty logic that anyone who believes a war ought to be fought is automatically cavalier about the people who die or are wounded.

So last week I went home and checked out the relationship to troop levels and casualties and I could not discover any statistical pattern/relationship. While this February/March were lower than December (which is the month most often used to show the success of the surge, which also was the worst month in most of 2006), they weren't lower than most of last year when our troop levels were lower than they are with this surge.

So, at best, this surge shows that violence is worse now than it was most of last year (if the only measure you're using is troop deaths).