digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

"...many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers..."

online.wsj.com — >...Iraqis came to respect American soldiers as warriors who would protect them from terror gangs. But Iraqis also discovered that these great warriors are even happier helping rebuild a clinic, school or a neighborhood. They learned that the American soldier is not only the most dangerous enemy in the world, but one of the best friends....>>

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • pershingdriver, on 04/12/2008, -35/+127Good story - please read all of it before your post your comments.
    • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -41/+44Unfortunately my contact with Iraqi's are in stark contrast with the article. I would go as far as discount it as a most deceitful fabrication.
      • 98percentcogdis, on 04/12/2008, -14/+28Could we know a little bit more about your contact with Iraqi's? Are you military? How are you in contact with Iraqi's? I was encouraged for the first time by this article, and would like to think it has some merit!!!
        • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -35/+29I live in Europe, and I am loosely associated with friends who work in getting refugee's from the Iraq war jobs, having them learn dutch etc. I have heard rather onesides stories how much *all* Iraqi viciously hate Americans and are swearing to enact bloody vengeance, even if it takes them decades to do so.

          Iraq has no infrastructure left, everyone with money has fled, only unemployed, the dirt poor and criminals iraqi are left in the big cities. Most streets are open sewers. In Bagdad it's worse than in the palestinian ghetto camps. You cant walk 10 minutes and seeing a mutilated corpse.

          Iraq is hell and most Iraqi's hold America squarely responsible. This will go on, back and forth, for decades.

          Btw I am European-born and an atheist. I am no muslim.
          • TheSabre, on 04/12/2008, -14/+21Just out of curiosity, if they are refugees that left Iraq, how can they be so sure of the situation there? Perhaps they are completely accurate based on when they left, but this article has many recent developments. And your contacts just may not be aware of the improvements being made in their country. I find it hard to believe that someone who doesn't even live in Iraq anymore can accurately say that there are mutilated corpses strewn about through Bahgdad.

            Perhaps he should go back for a visit and then provide a more recent account.
          • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -12/+17Ok interesting argument. Let's look at that closely and while we do so, let's consider the SPECACTULAR racism in the statement you make.

            Ok, assume a big US city gets knocked out, say, New Orleans. Hundred thousand people leave, ending up in refugee camps. A month later, they say, while huddled together over a can of beans, they know how bad it is in New Orleans and you ask them how you know? Possible answers:
            - I read the blog my cousin Ali runs in downtown basra
            - I phone my brother mohammed, he still has a business in sewage in Al Qut.
            - I went there for 3 days when my mother died last januari after she was beat up by cops

            Buddy it isn't the middle ages anymore, when rumors and "talk* about the countries over the hills were to be taken with a grain of salt. In fact information, hearsay from relatives or even the evening news can be pretty detailed and accurate (outside the US) !
          • Lazydriver, on 04/12/2008, -8/+10Stop digging down arguments while they're still civil.

            PLEASE.
          • TheSabre, on 04/12/2008, -1/+8My post was spectacularly racist? Please, do tell, where was it racist?

            Those three examples you point out show two things - that cousin Ali has access to the Internet, that brother Mohammed has access to a phone - both of which require some type of infrastructure that you claim is nonexistant. It's so bad, people have Internet access and can blog freely! They have cell phone towers too! The humanity!

            Look, no one said it was perfect. Sure, there may still be sewage problems, but if a person living there says it's looking better, that holds a lot more weight than someone who ran away and does not have to live there every day.
          • joshblufs, on 04/12/2008, -3/+5Your right about one thing. "Look, no one said it was perfect." but they do blog freely!!!!! yeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


            Friday 11 April: 27 dead

            Baghdad: rocket hits hotel, kills 3; roadside bomb kills policeman, Shaab; roadside bomb kills 3, Baladiyat; mortars hit bakery, kill 2, Talbiya; 3 bodies.

            Anbar
            Ramadi: suicide car bomber kills 4 Sahwa at checkpoint.

            Salahuddin
            Baiji: suicide car bomber kills 1 Sahwa at checkpoint.

            Diyala
            Muradiya: roadside bomb kills 1 child inside family car.
            Karboul: 4 die in clashes.

            Kirkuk
            Kirkuk: body found.

            Ninewa
            Mosul: gunmen kill 1; 2 bodies.

            Najaf
            Najaf: gunmen kill Head of Sadr Office.
            Thursday 10 April: 65 dead

            Baghdad: US air strikes kill 8 (inc. 2 boys), Sadr City; roadside bomb kills 2; 3 policemen are killed in clashes, Azamiya; 2 bodies; 33 bodies found in mass grave, Mahmudiya.

            Kirkuk
            Hawija: gunmen kill 2 boys.
            Kirkuk: gunmen kill policeman and his nephew; gunmen kill 1; gunmen kill 2 children; 2 bodies.

            Ninewa
            PUK member is found dead after being abducted the previous evening.
            Mosul: policeman dies in clashes; gunmen kill civilian; car bomb kills 2; 2 bodies found -one decapitated.

            Maysan
            Amara: gunmen kill 1.

            Wednesday 9 April: 39 dead

            Baghdad: up to 21 civilians (inc. 4 children) reported killed in mortar attacks and clashes, Sadr City; 4 members of security forces die during operations; 2 bodies.

            Ninewa
            Mosul: car bombs kill 4; 1 killed during clashes.

            Kirkuk
            Kirkuk: 2 bodies.
            Tal al-Hadeed: civilian killed in drive-by shooting.
            Tuz Khurmato: 2 killed by gunmen.
            Khizicha: civilian killed in drive-by shooting.

            Diyala
            Baquba: woman is killed in mortar attack.
            Tuesday 8 April: 31 dead

            Baghdad: mortars kill 2, Sadr City; 13 die in clashes, 3 of them children, Sadr City; 3 bodies.

            Diyala
            Balad Ruz: bomb blows up bus, kills 5 children and 2 women.

            Ninewa
            Rabiaa: roadside bomb kills 1.
            Mosul: bomb at bus station kills woman.

            Salahuddin
            Tikrit: mortar strikes house, kills woman.

            Kirkuk
            Tuz Khurmato: roadside bomb kills 2 in market.
            Kirkuk: body found.
            Monday 7 April: 51 dead

            Baghdad: 9 killed in US air strike, Amin; 4 killed in US air strike, Sadr City; gunman kills student at school playground; 9 killed in clashes, Sadr City; 4 bodies.

            Basra
            Basra: 8 are killed in house when bomb explodes; roadside bomb targeting General kills 2 bodyguards; 7 bodies.

            Salahuddin
            Dhuluiya: 2 -father and son (Abboud Hussein Yassin and Falah Yassin)- are killed by US forces in their house.

            Ninewa
            Hadhar: gunmen kill mayor's wife.

            Diyala
            Khalis: gunmen kill clan chief and his 3 sons.

            Sunday 6 April: 39 dead

            Baghdad: mortar kills 1, Palestine street; up to 16 civilians reported killed in clashes, including family of 5 (3 ch. and their parents), Sadr City; 5 bodies.

            Diyala
            Buhriz: roadside bomb kills 1.
            Muqdadiya: mass grave containing 15 bodies is found.

            Kirkuk
            Kirkuk-Sulaimaniya: woman's body found.

            Saturday 5 April: 36 dead

            Baghdad: 3 die in bus explosion; gunmen kill priest, Karrada; mortar kills 1, Jurf al Naddaf; gunmen kill policeman, Zayuna; 7 bodies.

            Ninewa
            Mosul: civilian is killed in drive-by shooting; 3 bodies.

            Diyala
            Khanaqin: gunmen kill 4 policemen; 4 decapitated bodies found.

            Wassit
            Kut: engineer's body found.

            Babil
            Iskandariya: 2 bodies.

            Salahuddin
            Samarra: 7 Sahwa killed in clashes.
          • jaznova, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Nice to see some fair and balanced journalism come out of this respected financial newspaper
      • theone3, on 04/13/2008, -5/+3The US took away their water, food and electricity. Killed their siblings, parents, friends and family. Took away their jobs, livelihoods, dreams, education, government, law, and blew up their homes. This is what is known as Stockholm Syndrome.
      • ohpiddle, on 04/13/2008, -1/+8You are confused...It was Sadam who took away their siblings, parents, friends and family. He kept his country poor and intimidated or killed any one who he felt stepped out of line including his own family members. What were the dreams, education or the law that was taken.....they had no dreams, education or law. Now you want us to defend Tibet or make things right in Ruwanda, what is it that is happening to these people that is different than what Sadam has done yet the anti protesters say it is their war and not ours.
        • Mangaroo, on 04/13/2008, -3/+1the exact opposite is true.
          • ohpiddle, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4So are you saying that there were no body piles or mass graves and that the women were not forced to wear hot clothing that covered their entire bodies. And you are not saying that people were not taken from their homes never to return? Better brush up on the news even the old clips of CNN said that all of this happened.
    • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -29/+21I would also go as far as discount this as a most deceitful fabrication.
      • seraph582, on 04/12/2008, -6/+15I find your rebuttal shallow and pedantic
        • radu79, on 04/12/2008, -15/+7Quote from the article: "Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers."
          From the dictionary: " An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result."
          That can equally be applied to the brave and glorious American soldier, too. If the author wanted to be unbiased, he should have called them "guerrilla"
        • exgop, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Family Guy RULES
    • OreosRgood4me, on 04/12/2008, -23/+34I too would. I read the entire article, and although I wish, at the bottom of my heart, that it spoke the truth, I see no evidence to support this article. None whatsoever. No interviews, no polls, not one study is referenced, it's all taken from what the author apparently has 'seen' in Iraq, while he doesn't provide a scrap of evidence.

      The Rolling Stone, a magazine as equally bias (in the opposite direction) as the WSJ stated that Iraqi children would merely greet American's when they were in their face, and would curse them as soon as they leave. I'm sorry, but I still don't think that there are going to be candy and flowers for our boys, as nice as it'd be to see it.
      • stupidStan, on 04/12/2008, -8/+16"it's all taken from what the author apparently has 'seen' in Iraq, while he doesn't provide a scrap of evidence."
        Since when is eye-witness account not evidence? Seen Judge Judy lately?
        But then I remember we are on liberal Digg, and anything remotely positive about the war can not be even the slightest bit true.
        I live in Kuwait, and Americans are highly respected here.
        • radu79, on 04/12/2008, -11/+8Hmm, could that be because the Americans didn't kill 1-2million civilians in Kuwait? And because they didn't destroy the country, maybe?
        • solid12345, on 04/12/2008, -5/+14We didn't kill 2 million civilians, I find it funny how the 650,000 number has already been debunked and what happens, now it continues to get higher and higher. What next, accusations we have concentration camps in the middle of Baghdad cremating people?
          • radu79, on 04/12/2008, -7/+3Yeah? Are you counting those who died from the first Gulf war? You know, the children that starved to death because of the embargo?
          • xadhominemx, on 04/13/2008, -0/+7@radu
            Oh, the ones that were supposed to supported by Oil for Food? Ya, I guess that ones really the fault of the West.
          • solid12345, on 04/13/2008, -0/+5The oil for food program that Saddam and the UN cronies like Kofi Annan stole from.
        • GeyserShitdick, on 04/12/2008, -7/+1I heard they have concentration camps in the middle of Baghdad cremating people. Spread the word.
        • robbiemuffin, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1Hey Stan I hear what you are saying. There is real merit to eye witness accounts in a court setting. While this isn't a court setting, it is still useful in this context: the principle of "no original research" that goes into textbook and encyclopedic writing doesn't apply here. However, other rules of good article writing still apply.
          Some of these are listed below. They are from wikipedia's excellent NPOV article, but these are the core values that apply to journalism in general:
          -- Contested points should be verifiable and neutral.
          -- Let the facts speak for themselves
          -- Cite biased opinions, do not just opine your personal agenda. (In courts, the same thing applies. You can testify to facts, not feelings.)

          You'll find that following these rules still lead to wonderfully biased articles like the one here, only they are debatable, verifiable and testable. Many of the political articles in wikipedia's Featured Articles are highly biased and flagged controversial, nonetheless they are amung the best sources of gathered research on their prospective topics.

          In other words, they have real content extending beyond the interior of the author's mind: something this article failed to do.
    • tomek77, on 04/12/2008, -18/+6What evidence is this based on?
      Anyone can fly to Iraq and say "I saw X". The WSJ used to be better than that!
      • novaculus, on 04/12/2008, -3/+6The author has more time on the ground in Iraq than any other journalist. Only an ignoramus would question his bona fides.
    • Pstall, on 04/12/2008, -9/+9Mmmm if Obama was president everyone would be saying "Wow LOOK at how Obama is REALLY turning this war around YAYYYYY OBAMA!!!!!!!!" Since its a republican in office its "THIS IS PROPAGANDA *****!!!! WATCH THE BBC!!! I HEARD FROM THIS ONE GUY THAT SAID HE WAS FROM IRAQ TELL ME THAT ITS BAD THERE!!!"
      • jake8689, on 04/12/2008, -1/+3is you caps lock broken or are you just being a dick
      • m0tbaillie, on 04/12/2008, -8/+2If Obama had been president we would have never entered Iraq, we would have finished the job in Afghanistan instead of diverting resources, money, and forces into the ***** that Iraq has become.
        • markvand, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2Which job? Killin' dem terrists? If that's the job you want to finish let me guarantee you, it'll never be finished. With every new terrorist you kill in Afghanistan you destroy the lives of dozens of other people who in desperation decide to become "terrorists" themselves. Is this what American politics has become? A division between the centre left neo-liberals who want to focus on first bombing the hell out of the Afghans before destroying another country and the centre right neo-conservatives who want to bomb the entire Middle East at the same time?
          • Pritchard, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Well, what happened was Al-Queda went to leave Afghanistan, and we had'em. But we went into nation building and put the responsibility of stopping Al-Queda into the hands of a nation which supported them...

            Originally, when we want into Afghanistan, we were doing our job. That quickly faded, however.
      • jaznova, on 04/12/2008, -6/+1When Obama is president there will be efforts to turn this war around.
        The current administration's plan is to halt troop reductions, have a period of consolidation and evaluation, and then an open ended period of assessment.
    • Pritchard, on 04/12/2008, -2/+3Neat article. For me, it's not simply about whether we do good or bad there Long-term politics is more about the struggle between control and freedom.

      Theoretically, if we controlled everything, we *could* have a statistically perfect society, if the right people were in charge. However, I choose freedom because I value the ability to live your own life, have your own state rights, or have your own otherwise national rights (to disambiguate US State vs National State) over statistical perfection.

      I don't think we have the right to tell other nations how to run their governments. I don't think we should be telling states here in the USA what to do, and I much prefer the talk of states as a part of a union of states, rather than a single nation under a powerful federal entity (which I feel is much larger than it should be).


      So if we can do some good in Iraq, great. If there is "success", then go right ahead. This kind of success goes all out against my political ideals, and unless we come up with money and soldiers we don't have, we're going to tie ourselves down to a LOT of responsibility in the future. This is debt that you're weighing on future generations, and even now, NO MATTER WHAT, when the troop levels decrease to a certain level in Iraq, there will be people there who feel betrayed.
    • ZenMojo, on 04/12/2008, -7/+3Wow, you'd never guess that Rupert Murdoch bought it! I guess the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who think it's okay to shoot Americans and wanted us gone yesterday don't include adolescent males.
    • BalzacOG, on 04/12/2008, -6/+1Bushlover.
    • wootup, on 04/12/2008, -3/+4This article is so obviously ***** that I can't believe anybody seriously believes a word of it. Michael Yon is former US military; would you trust ex-Spetznas to discuss the occupation of Chechnya with you, or ex-PLA to discuss the occupation of Tibet? Do you think he might be, say, biased? Iraqis ***** HATE American soldiers, every poll to come out of Iraq in the past 4 years confirms that. Here, have some ACTUAL EVIDENCE (which Yon does not provide), with sources ranging from the British Ministry of Defence to respected international polling agencies:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ...
      http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1212-08.ht ...
      http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/br ...
      http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/09/79_of_iraqi ...

      This is blatantly delusional pro-war propaganda for American imperialists to masturbate to. ***** Michael Yon, ***** this mindless propaganda, and ***** the US occupation of Iraq.
      • robbiemuffin, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1the article is also a rewrite of an earlier article by the same author a couple years ago... but let's judge it on its merit, lest we stoop to that level.
    • DesertDude, on 04/13/2008, -3/+3Story is utter *****, obviously.

      But of course, every invasion force has its propaganda units and 'embedded journalists', telling the world how the invasion is actually a service for humanity and how the invadEES loooooooove the invaders!

      Imagine a Chinese invasion of the US, then a Chinese paper reports how the young Americans want to grow up to be Chinese soldiers. You'd believe that, wouldn't you?
  • jerger23, on 04/12/2008, -24/+89Great article; his description of the initial problem and the reasons for progress made hit the nail on the head.
    • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -32/+11get the ***** out
    • OreosRgood4me, on 04/12/2008, -18/+15Please do. The descriptions describe something with no proof. If he has credible evidence, I'll believe the author. In the meanwhile, he's posting this on the WSJ, without a single shred of evidence.
      • pintomp3, on 04/12/2008, -15/+6"He has stated several times on his blog that he is not a journalist and has no formal journalism training or experience"
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Yon
        • OreosRgood4me, on 04/12/2008, -15/+5Great...then I don't see how this can be seen as an accurate article, nevertheless one used as evidence that Iraq is 'going well'.
          • jerger23, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2If you've got more experience on the ground, I'd be willing to listen to what you have to say.
      • NoStoppingUs, on 04/12/2008, -2/+19jesus. look at what you people are saying?

        "OH THERES NO WAY THIS CAN BE TRRRRUUUUEEEE!!!"

        seriously, how do you guys live your lives in a constant state of pessimism? God forbid something good happen in Iraq, right? Then you wouldn't be able to sit on your asses all day and complain about bush. OHNO!
        • fuhlavaflave, on 04/12/2008, -1/+999.9% of Diggers are on the Obama train. To most of them, reading news like this is equivalent to finding out that their XBoX 360's HD-DVD attachment is useless.

          /plans on buying Blu-Ray
          //registered Republican
    • Kythas, on 04/12/2008, -8/+30He's been to Iraq and is reporting what he's seen with his own eyes and heard with his own ears. Have YOU been to Iraq, Oreos and simplistic?

      He didn't write this piece for the WSJ, they picked it up.
      • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -25/+3Do YOU know WHY we are in Iraq?

        mean either
      • bsmang, on 04/12/2008, -19/+2Your point? First, anyone can say they went to Iraq. Second, anyone can say they experienced "X" in Iraq. Neither one is evidence of anything.
        • casuallyevil, on 04/12/2008, -1/+11Or you can spend 4 years embedded with the troops and write a comprehensive narrative about the experience there - I'm sure after 4 years in a warzone, your politics closely mirror your experiences rather than the other way around.
          • bsmang, on 04/12/2008, -7/+1Ok, I guess I lost on this one... My bad.. I started reading it, got to the part where the Iraqi asked to have his heart buried in the US and had enough. I have since learned that he has been in Iraq plenty. But even so, I still don't trust him. I went back and read the rest of his story. It's still pretty clear to me that he's a 'war supporter' and as such, his words are suspect - especially when they go against everything else I see.
        • novaculus, on 04/12/2008, -1/+8bs, you are the epitome of the "true believer" who simply forces the evidence into his preconceptiopns. The cognitive dissonance must be deafening.

          I defy any rational person to survey Yon's reporting on the war (not just this article) and draw any conclusion other than that he is an honest man who reports what he sees and hears with his own eyes and ears.

          Of course, you would rather get your war news fro Reid, Pelosi and Murtha. We all know how credible they are.
          • bsmang, on 04/12/2008, -8/+1I did a little more looking around on Yon. He's a right-wing shill. Even looks a bit like a less flabby Karl Rove. They love him over at blogsforbush.com and neoneocon.com and other tightyrighty sites. They can have him.
          • novaculus, on 04/13/2008, -1/+6I said any "rational person".
        • goforbroke, on 04/13/2008, -0/+7If you would have actually read his blog for the last few years you would have had the truest representation of any one reporter over there. He hasn't towed the administration line. He has been critical of bureaucracies and missed opportunities. Likewise, Yon has the respect of the troops he is embedded with, which includes the British. His photo journalism that accompanies many of his articles usually confirm the articles he brings to light. Hard to argue with pictures of Iraqis and Soldiers rebuilding something or sitting down for goat milk and tea.

          Read all his posts and come back and tell me Michael Yon has sugar coated anything.
      • robbiemuffin, on 04/13/2008, -3/+1I agree with people here, that being on the ground provides a great vantage point from which to report. And he isn't a lone wolf out there saying everything is roses while everyone else going there disagrees, either. He is, still, a minority voice, though.

        The main problem though is that he equates "his experience in Iraq" with "all experience in Iraq". To go against the overall grain of reporting from the area like that, personally I want more than the "ooh, everything is fine here" testimony provided by a single reporter. Maybe it's just me (and surprise and Oreo and.. oh, about 50% of the posts above this one), but I think this article would go twice as far if it had "personally I think" attached to each and every proclamation in the article. -- Because I really can believe that's his experience, and yes it is significant.

        But the way he writes it, and rewrites it (this is a rewrite or reprint0, he makes it less significant than it should be.
    • SickDrummerJ, on 04/12/2008, -11/+13And Again Another Conspiracy, By The Far-Left That, "Don't Want To Win This War!"
      Simpletons!
      • m0tbaillie, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1What the ***** is with you retards and capitalizing the first letter of Every Word In A Sentence? It's not a goddamned book title...
    • tomek77, on 04/12/2008, -20/+9This WSJ article is based on zero factual evidence, that's interesting!
      Must be the new Murduch touch (for those of you who don't know, Murdoch, who is the owner of Fox News, bought the WSJ recently)

      Actually, it's even more interesting if you remember that a couple weeks ago an actual poll of Iraqis was released; the result: 7 out of 10 Iraqis want US troops out. That's some meaningful and factual information.

      What a wonderful coincidence! Just when you get the facts about Iraqi's public opinion and how hostile it is towards US troops, the WSJ publishes a wonderful, factless, but emotionally charged article that would make you think otherwise :)
      • Pake, on 04/12/2008, -1/+15Look on the bright side, at least with the WSJ, if you can disprove them, they'll be forced to retract the entire article, unlike blogs from Dailykos, Rawstory, and Huffingtonpost where they'll just ignore you.
        • SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -7/+4Sorry, I work in PR. The Wall Street Journal doesn't retract *****.
      • SickDrummerJ, on 04/12/2008, -7/+2And You Have No [Legitimate] Proof To Back It Up!
        Go in Your Mother's Basement And Smoke More Of Your Crack! Crack-Head TOM!
        Keep Watching MSNBC, The No Ratings, Anti-American Socialists.
        Listen to Media Matters That's More Your Genre. Maybe Multi-Billionaire, George Soros, Will suffice your, LIBERAL-FAR LEFT NEEDS! These Are The People That Manipulate The Truth!
        • SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -1/+2You don't listen to Media Matters any more than you listen to Digg. At least know what you are attacking.
      • jerger23, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2@tomek77: The most recent polls I've seen from Iraq show that the majority of people want the US to maintain presence in Iraq, so I challenge you to produce the source of the poll you referenced saying that 7 of 10 Iraqis don't want the US in Iraq.
        I also challenge you to prove the claim that the WSJ article was "factless". Disprove a single point made by the author, because everything I read in the article matches with my experience.
    • BalzacOG, on 04/12/2008, -5/+0Bush-lover.
      • jerger23, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Good one. You can't discredit my statement on the article or the article itself, so you deign to interpret my political leanings from my statement of a fact and post your interpretation with the intent of insult.
        Prove your statement or keep it to yourself.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/12/2008, -32/+59Olberdouche thinks he channeling Murrow, but Michael Yon IS Enrie Pyle.
    • curme, on 04/12/2008, -23/+12I suspect Michael Yon is on the US governemnt payroll.

      Military Report: Secretly 'Recruit or Hire Bloggers'
      http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/report-recru ...
      • Fizban140, on 04/12/2008, -5/+28A pro-military article? It must be a governments conspiracy!
      • Kythas, on 04/12/2008, -4/+18Michael Yon is an independent journalist and is funded entirely through donations from his website and book sales.

        Go to http://www.michaelyon-online.com and see for yourself.
        • pintomp3, on 04/12/2008, -9/+5He has stated several times on his blog that he is not a journalist and has no formal journalism training or experience
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Yon
        • JoeVet, on 04/12/2008, -11/+6If he was independent he wouldn't be embedded with the American army and thus subject to their censorship and propaganda. Independent journalists investigate both sides of a story which would be impossible under US military control. He has lost any credibility as independent the moment he took sides.
        • SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -6/+3The fact that he is still embbeded when no other real journalists are is proof that he is a right wing tool.
        • GeyserShitdick, on 04/12/2008, -1/+4@JoelVet

          Yeah! I'll only listen to reporters who AREN'T embedded in units! Surely they'll have the most accurate first-hand reports regarding developments in Iraq!
      • novaculus, on 04/12/2008, -0/+5Yeah much better to get all your war news from drunken assholes working for Reuters and AP who never leave the Green Zone and get all their information secondhand.
      • robbiemuffin, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1I agree, just because he is biased doesn't mean that he is hired by the Army. As is obvious based on the comment trolling by all the neo-economically liberal (Ron Paul-esque) conservatives here.... who don't benefit from their championing this article as a flag bearer for their opinions. ;) *hazzah*
    • BalzacOG, on 04/12/2008, -8/+5Bush-lover.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4Guess that's the worst insult imaginable to the BDS addled brain.
    • robbiemuffin, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2was that a spam generator or a real post?
    • dshortey, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2O' Rly?
  • Kizilbash, on 04/12/2008, -79/+30Rupert Murdoch's newest rag loses its last bit of credibility.
    • JohnReb, on 04/12/2008, -13/+76True, how dare they print an editorial by an independent journalist who has repeatedly paid his own way to Iraq and Afghanistan and spent months on the ground with the troops and civilians in country. How could someone who has spent time walking patrols possibly know what they are supposed to be reporting since they aren't in the Green Zone listening to the correct Iraqi stringers.

      Why, at this rate ordinary people will start to think some of the other reporters who aren't doing that might just not be accurately reporting what is actually going on there.
      • mikelieman, on 04/12/2008, -32/+12If the US Troops let him come along, he's a tame reporter. No real, independent journalists are permitted to go on patrols.

        • JohnReb, on 04/12/2008, -3/+9Have you actually read any of his reports?
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/12/2008, -2/+9Yeah. Real, indepenant reporters don't actually go out with patrols, they sit in their Green Zone hotel rooms and write for the NYT!
          • mikelieman, on 04/13/2008, -4/+4REAL independent reporters go on patrol with the LOCAL IRAQIS.

    • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -29/+15Just because he claims to be independent doesn't mean he is. His articles are American propaganda *****.
      • rogue780, on 04/12/2008, -7/+11Your comment is communist propaganda *****
      • JohnReb, on 04/12/2008, -2/+14So why is he such an outspoken critic of US policies in Afghanistan?
  • Ell3, on 04/12/2008, -80/+199Hey! No good news from Iraq is allowed on digg. The idea that America's military might be doing something good is a concept America's liberal leftists can't comprehend.
    • mikelieman, on 04/12/2008, -44/+38How many positive Special Interest stories are needed to offset the 100,000 dead iraqi children?
      • stimpy2k, on 04/12/2008, -26/+21...wow. Dude, you're dumb.
        • mikelieman, on 04/12/2008, -18/+9It's *dumb* to consider the propaganda effect of the media owned by war profiteers?

          'm trying to quantify the reaction here. Is a *single* positive special interest story enough to make the continuing tragedy recede enough from people's attention to permit the war-profiteers to continue their looting of the US Treasury.

      • Xirxcis, on 04/12/2008, -1/+20Ahh... that's more like it.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 04/12/2008, -25/+24No you don't get it mike,

        Iraqis are happy that their entire country was destroyed, that their homes were destroyed, that their businesses were destroyed and that there's absolutely nothing in place for them to get any kind of money back from their investments.

        They like not having electricity, no running water, no groceries and hearing gun fire all day. They really like it when the military goes from house to house, destroying homes to look for weapons and killing dogs and family members.

        And they espescially appreciate the fact that their lives have been basically destroyed, that the peace between factions has disappeered and that fundamentlism is making a comeback in the only society in the Middle-east that seemed immuned to it.

        They love not being able to simply take a walk without risking to get shot and they really appreciate not having heard from their relatives who keep disappearing.

        And they love all that because they get to have a democracy now! Just like the good ol' US of A. They get to have a counter productive government divided by cultural and ethnic factions that will fight to the death to get a piece of the pie, leaving them homeless, moneyless and jobless for the next 10 to 20 years.

        • dafragsta, on 04/12/2008, -3/+12I'm not for the war, but I will say this. It's not for us to decide. I bet if you took a subjective look at the picture it might be that the Iraqis resent us, or it might also be that they were indeed filled with angst against Saddam. They did want to revolt in the early 90s, but we bailed on them. My point is this; do you think the French press demonized French soldiers for fighting in the American Revolution? Do you not think thousands of colonists lost their lives and had everything destroyed?

          I'm not trying to justify the war. The war is *****. If we truly had the Iraqi people in mind, we would've invaded in 1991. We didn't and this certainly created a bit of tension that probably drove the wedge deeper into the factions just based on the amount of discussion that must've went on when the whole world thought we were going to invade Iraq and liberate it. When that didn't happen, I'm sure certain allegiances to Saddam only grew stronger.

          There's also the blatant misappropriation of tax money going to no-compete contracts, which are intended to provide soldiers with things they aren't getting, like clean water, easily attainable food, body armor, vehicle armor, rehabilitation, healthcare, etc. Don't make this about "liberals." That's a divisive word used to justify hating someone out of blind allegiance to a ***** politician. If you do that, you've sold your soul to Cheney, satan himself.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1"If we truly had the Iraqi people in mind, we would've invaded in 1991."

            You're not getting it.
        • thirteenthcor, on 04/12/2008, -10/+6we don't need to be doing ANY INVADING, PERIOD. WE don't need to be in anyone else's country unless we are invited or asked for help
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/12/2008, -3/+5The Kurds were doing both.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 04/12/2008, -3/+1The Kurds? Wrong war.
          • 140Suffolk, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1How 'bout Afghanistan? Is it okay with you that we're there?
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/13/2008, -1/+5And the Germans loved having the trains run on time. Well, except for the Jewish ones.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/13/2008, -1/+8100,000 dead children in Iraq? Oh you must mean the ones Saddam starved to death while builing palaces for his family with oil for food money.
    • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -31/+36Great idea you so charitably postulate, but WE HERE IN EUROPE get the Iraqi refugee's and we talk with them too - and the above story sounds like it came straight from Goebbels ass. Complete and utter bull.
      • 1310nm, on 04/12/2008, -7/+7It's funny though, that anyone would think that Iraqis should feel anything but animosity towards the United States, Britain, and the others in the coalition. Is it SO hard to put yourself in those people's shoes, and imagine how you would feel having your life turned inside out by a war you don't feel is just? Contrary to popular belief, I don't think Iraqis were sitting around flaming barrels in rags talking about how much they wanted to overthrow Saddam before the war. I think many of them were leading normal, productive lives, and Saddam's antics were something they heard about in the media; not a direct impact on their otherwise normal lives.
    • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -36/+13Americas military isn't doing anything good you retard. They managed to kill a bunch of Iraqis for no reason and take their oil. Please kill yourself for being so retarded.
      • Kythas, on 04/12/2008, -3/+19America took the Iraqi oil? So THAT'S why gas is $3.50/gallon now. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
      • quaxon, on 04/12/2008, -9/+2dont forget the child rape.
      • tech42er, on 04/12/2008, -0/+7"Americas military is doing no good"

        Well, we can see where your biases are. The problem isn't that you don't support the American military; it's that you've deluded yourself into thinking the American military can do no good in Iraq. In your mind, you've replaced a complex, complicated problem with a simple and grossly inaccurate model of what is actually going on.
    • RavagesOfTime, on 04/12/2008, -25/+10So, one good story offsets all the bad ones?
    • oMeSSiaHo, on 04/12/2008, -16/+13I cant believe such a generalizing dismissive statement is being dugg up. Believe me, I want nothing more then to wake up tomorrow and see that Bush was right and that we are making a positive change in that country. I'd be more then happy with people I despise being right as long as it has a positive impact on the world.

      I guess you can say I dont care who's wrong or right, I dont really want to fight no moooooooooore!
    • OreosRgood4me, on 04/12/2008, -15/+7Liberal =/= Leftist.
    • AreTooDeTo, on 04/12/2008, -3/+37that's not a fair statement. i would consider myself to be more left than anything and i disagree with the war but when i hear a story or read an article like this i really appreciate it.
    • bsmang, on 04/12/2008, -14/+9This isn't "news"... it's merely someone's opinion, however right or wrong or misguided or well-intentioned or outright deceitful it may be.
    • Toallpointswest, on 04/12/2008, -12/+3It's not a matter of how "good" we can be, as no amount goodwill can offset the crime of the Iraq war in the first place. I would liken it to someone burning down your house with your family in it, and then saying... it was justified because I thought they were a threat, then coming back with a a cardboard box saying, "but at least there's a roof over your head". Gee, thanks buddy.
    • Profiler38, on 04/12/2008, -1/+15The fact that your comment is being dugg up makes me think that after reading the title few liberals even bothered to look at the actual story or comments.
      • serif69, on 04/12/2008, -1/+2That's a shame. I always click on stories and read comments that I'm sure I will disagree with, just to get the opposite perspective.
    • licnyc, on 04/12/2008, -7/+2That still doesn't mean it wasn't a really stupid idea to invade in the first place. Most people want good news, lots of people are still upset at incompetent asshats that are responsible for all the previous bad news. Ell3 the traitor posting yet another lie.
    • BalzacOG, on 04/12/2008, -8/+3Bush-lover.
    • BN2L, on 04/12/2008, -2/+5The liberal left likes it when people aren't getting killed.
    • lhbaker, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Big scary troll. Ohhhh!
    • DesertDude, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2Imagine the Nazi invasion of Poland bringing some good news. Someone pro-Nazi in a German paper: "hey, no good news from Iraq is allowed on this paper! It's as if our invasion of Poland is all bad and evil and our brave soldiers are evil tyrants!"

      ***** morons.
    • anonymiau, on 04/13/2008, -3/+0True. After all, the Nazis did build a whole lot of infrastructure in the countries they illegally occupied. So Bush is keeping in perfect line with his hero Adolf.

      Good job, imperialists!
  • yellowcakewalk, on 04/12/2008, -62/+28The once-august Wall Street Journal now just spouting governmental duck-speak. Rupert Murdoch has the reverse-Midas touch.
    • JohnReb, on 04/12/2008, -11/+47Michael Yon doesn't work for Rupert Murdoch, he's an free-lance journalist who has repeatedly spent months in-country.

      But don't let that force you to abandon your pre-conceptions.
      • pintomp3, on 04/12/2008, -9/+3"He has stated several times on his blog that he is not a journalist and has no formal journalism training or experience"
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Yon
        • JohnReb, on 04/12/2008, -2/+8So?

          He's still one of the few reporters ini country actually reporting from the areas outsie the so-called Green Zone. What does it matter if he wants to be called a journalist or not? He is one.
          • pintomp3, on 04/12/2008, -9/+3that's like pretending your a doctor.
          • JohnReb, on 04/12/2008, -2/+11So pintomp3, who licenses journalists? What government agencies monitor them? Who grants someone the title? Or is simply that only people who agree with you are entitled to the honorific?

            Journalists aren't anything like doctors. Anyone capable of recording actual events who makes a practice of doing so is a journalist.
          • SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -3/+3Then I am a journalist and so are you. Yay! We are all journalists.
          • JohnReb, on 04/12/2008, -1/+3Spudgeboy, now you're getting it. Being a journalist is simply a matter of going out and doing it.

            And doing it isn't sitting in the Green Zone repeating what someone has told you to say.
      • Jonno549, on 04/12/2008, -5/+2I would think that the owner of a publication has some responsibility for what appears in it regardless of who actually wrote it.
    • Kythas, on 04/12/2008, -10/+40If you'd open your eyes and actually educate yourself, yellow, you'd know he's a independent journalist and finances his trip entirely through donations and sales of his books. If you'd take a few hours to read his dispatches (http://www.michaelyon-online.com) you'd see that. He calls it like he sees it with his own two eyes and hears with his own two ears. My uncle served in Mosul and Kirkuk and said everything Yon has reported has been accurate, at least as regards to those two areas.

      But, of course, any positive news coming from Iraq doesn't fit into your box of "America Bad! Iraq Quagmire!" so you immediately attack it.
      • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -14/+3Just because he claims to be independent doesn't mean he is. His articles are American propaganda *****.
      • bradspangler, on 04/12/2008, -7/+3That's because Mosul and Kirkuk are where most of the Kurdish mercs the Pentagon hired are living.
      • pintomp3, on 04/12/2008, -10/+2stop calling him a journalist.
        "He has stated several times on his blog that he is not a journalist and has no formal journalism training or experience"
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Yon
        • FairDinkumMate, on 04/12/2008, -2/+13STOP SPAMMING! You've posted this response about 6 times on this one article.
          And furthermore, please read a definition of the term JOURNALIST - 'a person who keeps a journal, diary, or other record of daily events.' I think he meets this criteria
          • bradspangler, on 04/12/2008, -9/+2It's not spamming if you're still calling him a journalist.
          • SpudgeBoy, on 04/12/2008, -4/+2You are spamming that he is a journalist, so others are spamming he is not. Equal opportunity spamming.
  • pbd1637, on 04/12/2008, -19/+68"The huge drop in roadside bombings is also a political success – because the bombings were political events."
    "Once they (the Iraqi's) mostly stood silent; today they tend to pick up their cell phones and call the Americans."
    "I was there; I saw it."
    Mr. Yon is author of the just-published "Moment of Truth in Iraq" (Richard Vigilante Books). He has been reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan since December 2004.
    • Kythas, on 04/12/2008, -16/+33I just ordered Moment of Truth in Iraq, and have also read The Michael Yon Story. It's refreshing to see someone independent and telling it like it is.

      Oh, for all you lefties who think he's just a government shill, here's his opinion of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

      Iraq - we're winning
      Afghanistan - we're losing

      Read his blog and dispatches to see how and why he came to those conclusions. Oh, and buy his books so he can continue to report.
      • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -23/+11Nice commercial. If we order now do we also get the book on "how to invade a 3rd world country and make it look like a good thing"?
        • ShredZ, on 04/12/2008, -1/+1So the U.N. should stay out of Darfur as well?
      • bsmang, on 04/12/2008, -15/+6Not just a government shill.... a government shill with no integrity or scruples at all. He appears to me to be no more than an average neoconservative who thinks the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are strategically important for the US to gain a foothold in the middle east and control the oil and set up for attacking Iran. It appears that he will gladly write anything that might help to further that agenda.
        • DreadPirate, on 04/12/2008, -4/+11And where does he say that it is "strategically important for the US to gain a foothold in the middle east and control the oil and set up for attacking Iran"? Or is that just another strawman argument from a typical liberal?
          • bsmang, on 04/12/2008, -10/+2Ok, so I extrapolated a little. But he's trying to polish a turd. Which kind of gives him away. Beyond that, I was really just speculating as to why he might try to polish this turd.
          • minapolos, on 04/12/2008, -0/+6Wow so you just admitted to making a comment with no facts to back it up and then proceeded to justify why its true. Look I didn't agree with the Iraq war as much as the next guy but I am from that part of the world and I know that as bad as things are in Iraq for the Iraqis they will get much worst if the American troops leave. This war should have never been fought in the first place. It is not the US's responsibility to police the world. The problem is that now you broke it and you have to fix it for the sake of the Iraqi people and your own interests. Anyone who is telling you Iraq is going to get better if the US leaves and isn't going to back fire is either lying to himself or you. If you don't think we should stay I want you to watch Charley Wilson's War and watch the end. Leaving would be repeating history again and we all know what happened after we left Afghanistan once the American public was board and not when the work was actually accomplished.
          • bsmang, on 04/12/2008, -5/+1Yes, sorry, I was commenting with my opinion. Guess I should have flagged it better or something. I can understand what you're saying, and even agree with you somewhat. We can't just pull out and say see-ya. There needs to be a strategy for it. A plan. I don't think that "as long as it takes" is a viable strategic option at all. But that's not the point. The point is that after living (with TV and internet access) through these last years and managing to have all but avoided Fox News entirely, you can't convince me that the dream of Iraqi boys today is to become US soldiers. So much so that to even imply such seems just wrong. But that's my opinion. It's what I think based on what's gotten through my BS detector vs. what it's caught. Yours is likely to vary anywhere from a little to a lot.
          • novaculus, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3No BS, you need to just STFU when you don't have a f*****g clue, you ignorant, raving moron. Of course, in your case, that would result in complete and total silence.
          • minapolos, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4Actually contrary to what television portrays I actually can believe that bit. The thing is the middle east like anywhere else is a complex place. There are plenty of people there that would love there countries to become westernized and I can see them even wanting to grow and be U.S. soldiers. The problem lies with the poor and undereducated who take the religious leaders word without thinking it through mostly because they are poor and ill informed. So while this article can be B.S. or not I can see it being true. The problem I see right now and a lot of comments on Digg is that it can't possibly be true because the U.S. can't possibly be doing something right. Too much of anything is wrong including skepticism and I wish all those hell bent on immediate withdrawal consider that maybe the other side has a reason for wanting to stay as long as it takes. Specially since casualties are on the decline and thats from multiple sources.
        • Jonno549, on 04/12/2008, -3/+3Well *****, maybe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ARE strategically important for the US to gain a foothold in the middle east and control the oil and set up for attacking Iran.
          • bsmang, on 04/12/2008, -3/+1You're right, shame on me. Those wars probably ARE strategically important for those goals. I meant to imply that he would seem to believe in and work towards said goals, which AFAIC is quite stupid.
    • Cyrus042, on 04/12/2008, -1/+16For the more cynical individuals out there, check out Michael Ware's reporting as well. He's been in Iraq since 2003, and seen first hand the insurgency and the reconstruction. He's very critical of the Bush administration but like Yon, thinks that leaving Iraq would be politically, morally irresponsible given Iran's influence and the destabilization that would follow. For those who think that these reporters have been only seeing positive things and are out of harms way, you're totally wrong. I know that Ware was dragged through the street with a pistol to his head after his vehicle was stopped, he saw first hand the intra-Iraq conflict and he only survived because the Iraqi group he was with threatened to kill the aggressor.

      I often have two minds about Iraq, but I've come to the conclusion that I trust Petraeus and these reporters first. Pundits, second.
      • tech42er, on 04/12/2008, -1/+2But Michael Ware is simply a government shill! Right?
    • robbiemuffin, on 04/13/2008, -2/+1thank you, its nice to see the real business reason why this article is there.
    • robbiemuffin, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1thank you, its nice to see the real business reason why this article is there.
  • dandatrk, on 04/12/2008, -59/+21ohh isn't this great some good old fashion American propaganda to make the situation look way better than it really is.
    • aurispector, on 04/12/2008, -9/+12Have you ever actually spoken to anyone who has served in Iraq? I know a guy who is up for redeployment, scared as hell about it. Seems the last time he was there he had to shoot a 7 year old girl because she had a bomb strapped to her. Needless to say he doesn't sleep well. You might disagree with the political reasons for the war, but don't EVER confuse the policy makers for the soldiers. Go read Yon's website - you might learn something.
      • robthom, on 04/12/2008, -13/+9"Seems the last time he was there he had to shoot a 7 year old girl because she had a bomb strapped to her. "
        How romantic. And all for a good cause I suppose?
        • aurispector, on 04/12/2008, -4/+10As is usual for Diggers, you missed the point.
          • robthom, on 04/12/2008, -8/+6Whats the point? That soldiers are just doing their job when they go to war against little girls?
            For some reason I'm not impressed. If dubya ordered them to all jump off a cliff I think they would suddenly have a problem following orders. They're just bullies and punks on a power trip IMO.
          • tech42er, on 04/12/2008, -1/+1SHE HAD A BOMB STRAPPED TO HER.
          • robthom, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2She has more balls than the soldier with his sniper scopes, flac jackets and night vision goggles. She also has something worth dying for, toughguy is shooting little girls in a barrel for financial benifets.
        • MoBillyAla, on 04/12/2008, -3/+6So I guess for you, the blame isn't on the terrorist who strapped the bomb to the little girl...

          • robthom, on 04/12/2008, -5/+4Dont put the little girl between you and george bush's ass. They're a different culture, its irrelevant wether you think thats right or wrong.
            The fact is that if this tough guy wasn't over their blasting his way through other peoples neighborhoods and tearing their country apart then it wouldn't have happened at all.
          • tech42er, on 04/12/2008, -1/+3"Dont put the little girl between you and george bush's ass They're a different culture, its irrelevant ether you think thats right or wrong."

            And that's how you know when you're dealing with a troll. No sane person uses moral and cultural relativism to explain why terrorists should be allowed to strap bombs onto 7 year old girls.
          • robthom, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2The fact remains that the little girl is dead and she wouldn't be if you weren't invading her country. The troll is the one who keeps bringing up "little girls" to make people look like bad "terrorists" while skipping right over the fact that your the one who shot her.
        • MoBillyAla, on 04/12/2008, -2/+3Yeh and he's called an insurgent, suicide bomber...
          but go ahead sympathize with the terrorists..by your comments THEY are doing no wrong..
          • robthom, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Thats right. They are doing no wrong to try and blow up a force of invading assholes. If it were the other way around and they were invading north dakota, then they would be wrong and we would be right to have bombs strapped to ourselves.
      • Jonno549, on 04/12/2008, -1/+3I've never heard anyone blame the soldiers for anything, they are courageous noble people, and they don't get to choose what orders they follow once they sign up.
        • HaoTian, on 04/12/2008, -3/+2Every human has the right to choose to not kill another human. Just because your government told you to do it does not mean that it's "right" all of a sudden.
    • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -9/+5Thats exactly what it is. All the comments and stuff have been rigged.
    • wrs123, on 04/12/2008, -0/+10Yeah because you know what its really like over there, right? God forbid there be any good news...
    • captric, on 04/12/2008, -1/+7Whats the matter? Reality doesnt match your Fantasy?
    • xXAustyrXx, on 04/12/2008, -1/+4i dont see you risking your life over there. at least give them some respect
  • robthom, on 04/12/2008, -58/+42These great warriors help puppies fly. Be free little puppy, fly away and be free.
    • gryphon50, on 04/12/2008, -11/+7LOL good one
    • Rodalli, on 04/12/2008, -10/+9Dear God, make me a puppy. So I could fly far...far, far away from here.
      • robthom, on 04/12/2008, -6/+4I was thinking the same thing, except its a faustian deal.
        The puppy is indeed "free", but there's the little catch of also being dead.
    • Typhoon2009, on 04/12/2008, -4/+2The way my dachshund takes flight when leaping, you'd think she has wings.
    • MoBillyAla, on 04/12/2008, -5/+20Not to keep beating up your ignorant comments, but 1 Marine not ALL US military (in your example of the dog) did something incredibly stupid....
      I don't see anyone making these same comments about the coke/pepsi employee getting busted for killing his wife/husband,child porn/drug use/abuse for example...Guess what? When your in an organization with over several hundred thousand people yes there are some dumb asses. But hey its alright to blast the military ...Its the cool thing to do...
      • DannyBoy7783, on 04/12/2008, -7/+2They are held to a higher standard. America's protector. And tax money supports them. And they all know that when they film this ***** it will end up on youtube and yet they still do it. Being given a gun and a uniform is not a free pass to do terrible things. Too many soldiers think that it is.
        • wrs123, on 04/12/2008, -0/+6I submit that they are assholes who would have done it any way, uniform or not. You are right though, we are held to a higher standard and its a good thing everyone made such a big deal about that incident. On the other hand though, that joke is getting pretty tired...
      • robthom, on 04/13/2008, -2/+1"Not to keep beating up your ignorant comments, but 1 Marine not ALL US military.."
        I was being silly (but also serious), I know not Every soldier throws puppies and shoots little girls, at least I assume they dont. But saying that was a singular incident of cruelty is only as genuine as an instance of "the great american soldier warriors" being equally as singular.
        Honestly I dont think every person in the military is a violent *****, some of them are probably just well meaning midwest crackers. The just dont belong there. they shouldn't be killing iraqi's and iraqis shouldn't be killing them. And glorifying all this killing needs to be brought down a few ***** notches until they come home.
    • JoeJim, on 04/12/2008, -5/+3robthorn = douchebag ignorance
    • govsucks, on 04/12/2008, -8/+13Leftist: Don't characterized all blacks as bad just because more blacks are in prison.
      Later that evening....
      Leftist: Characterize all soldiers as bad cause one giant ***** killed a dog.
      Honestly, the amazing hypocrisy of the left is getting ***** old.
      • Memitim, on 04/12/2008, -4/+8LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS, LIBS, CONS....

        Go team!
      • OreosRgood4me, on 04/12/2008, -7/+5Yes, because one user on Digg is an accurate representation of the entire Leftist community...

        Nevertheless you seem to ignore the fact that leftist = communist =/= liberal.
        • govsucks, on 04/12/2008, -4/+2Anyone who promotes state force over individual freedom is a leftist that needs another hole in their head. Why split hairs?
          • bsmang, on 04/12/2008, -3/+5So you're saying that George is taking away our freedoms because he's a staunch leftist? I don't know if I buy it.
          • govsucks, on 04/12/2008, -1/+3I would CERTAINLY say that G.W. is not a freedom lover, nor is he a patriot to the ideals of this nation. He is a big government person hiding as a small government person. Really, in many ways worse than someone who openly wants the mob of society to run the lives of individuals. He is gone in a few months though and we have far worse slew of big government people about to take control. Not a single one of them would GIVE UP current government controls over individuals as it stands. I believe I should be free to go about this universe as long as I don't violate the life liberty or property of another individual moving about the universe, and I believe you should have the same rights. Insanely simple? Perhaps, the true definition of the word "freedom"? Absolutely.
          • robthom, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1deleted.
            :)
        • tech42er, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1A leftist is just someone on the political (particularly economic) left. They generally advocate more government control and regulation in the economy, in order to offset the inequality produced through laissez-faire capitalism. It's not a slur, my friend.
      • betterth, on 04/12/2008, -4/+5What 'leftist', 'liberal' or 'democrat' thinks the soliders are bad? That's an outrageous claim to make, and I think you're actually the hypocrite.

        The irony is just delicious. Look at it, you make fun of liberals for the hypocrisy of not all blacks are bad, but all soldiers are!

        But you YOURSELF are sitting there, saying that ALL LIBERALS THINK THIS WAY! You're saying ALL LIBERALS ARE HYPOCRITES!

        Jesus dude, could what you're saying apply to you more directly if you tried? This is just too hilarious.
    • passedoutghost, on 04/12/2008, -0/+8Seriously, don't generalise. I met a U.S. Marine when the USS Kittyhawk was visiting Sydney. He was a really nice guy, but ***** was he tall, at least 6 feet 2. I doubt that he or other Marines would have done that. There's always 1 ***** in a few hundred.
    • duckyinc, on 04/12/2008, -1/+2Somehow I wish it was you who dropped
  • whataboutdave, on 04/12/2008, -9/+40Fascinating read even - if you disagree with the conclusions drawn at the end.
    • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -17/+6I sure as hell disagree. We have quite a few Iraqi refugee's over here in Europe and DAMN do I hear a different story from THEM !
    • bradspangler, on 04/12/2008, -12/+4There's nothing fascinating about transparent *****.
      • whataboutdave, on 04/12/2008, -4/+3That must be the saddest thing I have read on Digg. I actually seek out ***** from time to time for the sake of perspective.

        IMO the kind of people who have never listened to Rush Limbaugh or watched an infomercial are just as naive and gullible as those who fall for it such *****.
        • bradspangler, on 04/12/2008, -3/+4If you think you have to seek it out and have not noticed that you are immersed in it, then you have no sense of perspective.
      • SickDrummerJ, on 04/13/2008, -3/+0Go in Your Mother's Basement And Smoke More Of Your Crack! Crack-Head Brad!
        Keep Watching MSNBC, The No Ratings, Anti-American Socialists.
        Listen to Media Matters That's More Your Genre. Maybe Multi-Billionaire, George Soros, Will suffice your, LIBERAL-FAR LEFT NEEDS! These Are The People That Manipulate The Truth!
        • bradspangler, on 04/13/2008, -1/+4If name-calling is the only way you know how to argue, at least get your terms straight. The one thing I am not and have never been is a "liberal", or social democrat. I'm an anarchist. It would also be accurate to call me a radical.

          Unless you're a monarchist, you're more of a liberal than I am because you and liberals both share a belief in a coercive nation-state government -- as long it's a democratic republic.

          Considering that I'm an anarchist who's free-market oriented in terms of economic theory, you're mostly wrong in calling me a socialist -- in that the sense of the word "socialist" YOU would be using (if you were literate enough to think so concretely) refers back to government control of the economy -- and since I advocate a stateless society, even you ought to see a contradiction there after a moments reflection.

          Now, there IS another, long-neglected meaning of the word "socialist" that refers not to government control of the economy but to the abolition of economic exploitation. I've argued before at length in other forums that under this definition of socialism, even so-called "anarcho-capitalism" is a variety of socialism of that sort. Given another fifty points of IQ to work with, you might have realized the irony there -- in that your own neo-con position is typically labeled right-wing socialism by the typical anarcho-capitalist.

          Son, get the hell off of Digg and go read a few books. Challenge yourself. Develop your mind. Come back when you can hurl some insults that don't bore me to tears.
  • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -61/+13Oh dear god this makes me sick. This is the day digg died. April 12th 2008 never forget.
    • Justice101, on 04/12/2008, -5/+23***** bad, but come on, out of thousands of soldiers there and millions of things, going on, you'd have to be naive to believe it's all bad, evil, and hellfire. Get over yourself.
      • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -13/+10"Over the past 15 months, we have proved that we can win this war. We stand now at the moment of truth. Victory – and a democracy in the Arab world – is within our grasp."

        I know fox news crap when I see it you seem to be the naive one. Winning a war against a 3rd world country is like hitting a baby with a shovel.
        • Indyanna, on 04/12/2008, -6/+11...and you would know this, how?
          • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -10/+4Winning a war against a 3rd world country is like hitting a baby with a shovel.
            Winning a war against a 3rd world country
            war against a 3rd world country
            3rd world country
            3rd world country
            3rd world country
            3rd world country
            3rd world country
            3rd world country

            you can kill yourself now retard
      • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -4/+3A lot of this "american dream" going on here. :)
    • robthom, on 04/12/2008, -4/+6Whats the matter?
      You cant really have a point without a counter-point. Its healthier for everyone.
      • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -12/+4"Over the past 15 months, we have proved that we can win this war. We stand now at the moment of truth. Victory – and a democracy in the Arab world – is within our grasp."

        I know fox news crap when I see it. Winning a war against a 3rd world country is like hitting a baby with a shovel.
        • robthom, on 04/12/2008, -2/+3I didnt say I agreed with him, I just meant that its better to have a discussion than everyone jacking eachother off and mindlessly agreeing. If its just you and just your opinion than how do I know that your opinion is the best. If this is an obvious war-mongering propaganda piece, which I suspect it is, then it helps to support the opposite opinion.
          I'm not for right wing OR left wing censorship.
        • OreosRgood4me, on 04/12/2008, -0/+4Exactly, the liberal Digg users are doing a great job arguing with the conservative Digg users. Just because we have seperate viewpoints on Digg doesn't mean it died -Hell, in my opinion it means we're getting better. If we're going to be biased, at least it's better to have seperate sides of bias present so we can compare and contrast.
          • bradspangler, on 04/12/2008, -5/+1Except that the pro-war faction aren't presenting any actual arguments or engaging anti-war arguments. They are following the "big lie" strategy and simply being repetitious while failing to acknowledge the points they lose in the debate.
      • bradspangler, on 04/12/2008, -5/+2Just because it's healthier to always allow dissenting points of view, it does not necessarily follow that you simplisticly need to balance all pro and con statements. Television producers, for example, don't give equal time to flat earthers every time the curvature of the earth gets mentioned. It's not healthy to attempt to "balance" anti-war views with pro-war views, considering that war itself is unhealthy.
    • tech42er, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Look, just because many Diggers refuse to believe that anything positive can happen in Digg does not mean that Digg is dead. Sure, some people are very biased due to an emotional involvement in some issues, but this does not portend the death of Digg. Don't worry.
      • bradspangler, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1Your argument refutes itself, in that the nature of the objection you are answering is that Digg might as well be dead if there are that many of the pro-war lunatic fringe, such as yourself apparently, to be found here.

        I'm not sure I completely agree with him on that point, but I sympathize overall.
  • OriginalLucid1, on 04/12/2008, -45/+36I thought American soldiers were bad and everybody hated them? What, just Libtards and Diggtards? Well that explains a lot.
    • jamdogg, on 04/12/2008, -16/+5So how many people have been killed or maimed to get to the point that Iraqi boys wannabe a coke-drinking American soldier?
      • wrs123, on 04/12/2008, -1/+7Yeah, definitely sucks that we have killed the thugs that want to rob them of education so they can spread their theocratic, west-hating propaganda. How dare we!
    • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -19/+5I dont hate american soldiers - they are just tools. But I viciously hate the fascist collaborator legions that supported the darkness on the US imperial Throne. I seek nothing less than full disclosure hearings. investigations, no closed doors, every single fact on the table and every signature kept in the bright lights. If that happens we'll see people hanged.
      • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -9/+3So a call for the truth gets me dug down? Fascinating!
        • SickDrummerJ, on 04/12/2008, -6/+2That's Because You Don't Have Credibility, Lefty Liberal Dem.
          • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -8/+5I live in Europe, I don't do your filthy two-party politics, loon, I live in a real democracy.
          • wrs123, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Dugg up for ood use of the word "loon."
        • novaculus, on 04/12/2008, -0/+5You didn't call for truth. You said you wanted investigations, but first you told us what the truth was (according to your anti-American viewpoint) and then described the punishments that would follow "investigations" which are clearly in your mind only intended to confirm your pre-existing conclusions.

          And that is why I dug you down.
    • chevyorange, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Funny comment coming from a "Diggtard".
    • stonedthot, on 04/12/2008, -0/+2You aren't fit to fly that flag.
  • ccastellanos, on 04/12/2008, -29/+82great! can we leave now?
  • nastronomical, on 04/12/2008, -44/+67Liberals wont like this.
    • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -25/+9You mean digg won't like this. Get the ***** out.
    • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -10/+4http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/bad+religion/the+lie_ ...
    • betterth, on 04/12/2008, -9/+17Note: I'm going to 'liberals' as a label to respond to you, even though its a broad ranging group composing of literally a hundred million Americas who's views and beliefs are incredibly diverse, and would never, ever, agree to a blanket statement.

      Liberals are fine with the notion that Iraq isn't all bad.

      But guess what, liberals don't give a ***** about Iraqis. They give a ***** about Americans. They give a ***** about the amount of money wasted in Iraq. About the strife and hardship of the middle and low class because of our economy. They know the Iraq war is one of the largest contributors to our economic problem, and when the mortgage issue happened, it was the biggest reason the government was too broke to do anything.

      The little children of Iraq can be happy all they want. It doesn't change the 'liberal' message of "The Iraq war was a lie. Hussein was not a terrorist threat. Staying poses a much greater threat than leaving. Staying has ruining our economy and our people. Staying has ruining our world reputation, and by proxy, the faith in the American dollar. Staying will ruin our country."

      Nothings changed.
      • moletimer, on 04/12/2008, -4/+6How can you say liberals don't give a ***** about Iraqis? Most (if not all) other liberals I've met disagree with the Iraq war largely because of the number of Iraqi civilian deaths caused by the war. Please, think before you make narrow-minded, stupid comments like that. I agreed with a lot of the other stuff you said though.
      • Observer001, on 04/12/2008, -1/+1Your comment resonates with my non-interventionist leanings. America needs protectionism now, as the cost of fielding units so continuously is killing us at home. We're not unindustrialised Rosie the Riveter transforming our nation into a world-stage behemoth, we're Apathetic Andy going to work every day and trudging through it.

        So I guess I'm saying I haet NAFTA but I liek you.
    • Misinformant, on 04/12/2008, -3/+4Doesn't bother me. It's not coming from a credible source.

      I don't believe anything printed on the Wall Street Journal since Rupert bought it.
  • ElAssoWipo, on 04/12/2008, -38/+18I guess this story is believable if you have no idea of the reality of the situation.

    This is basically a McCain commercial. It's telling you that pulling out of Iraq suddenly became a bad idea.

    Iraqis hate you to death. And I don't mean that in the metaphorical sense. They hate you enough to want to kill you.
    • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -10/+3This is a mccain commercial what the hell is it doing on digg?
    • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -8/+2Welllll... that's the million dollar question isn't it? I can literally see a spectral hand moving behind the scenes here. Can anyone do a background check on everyone posting here? Who is friend of who? Check their IP adresses maybe?
      • quarkie, on 04/12/2008, -2/+7See on digg, you submit stories and they are dugg up by others who like the story, or want others to see it. So why is this on digg? Someone submitted it.
        Why is this on the front page? Other people liked it

        Maybe not as many people agree with you as you think.
    • elfprince13, on 04/12/2008, -4/+2there is someone spreading hate and fear in this discussion and its not mccain or an iraqi. OSHT.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 04/12/2008, -2/+4Occupational Health and Safety Technologist ?
    • quarkie, on 04/12/2008, -2/+5So....how do you have this special insight that the rest of us aren't fortunate to have?
      • ElAssoWipo, on 04/12/2008, -6/+3I correspond with professors in Iraq. Have been doing so since the mid-90's. Of course you won't believe my, but that's why.

        But even then, you'd have to be stupid (willingly or otherwise) to believe such nonsense. Iraq was simply a better place before America invaded. What exactly would they appreciate from Americans being there?

        The lack of infrastructure, the loss of their homes, their family members?
        Al Qaeda presence?
        The return of islamic fundamentalism that had been blocked out for over 60 years?
        The lack of water?
        The suicide bombings?
        The destruction of pretty much everything they had?
        The death of hundreds of thousands of civilians?
        The displacement and exile of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?
        The exodus of intellectuals, leaving behind only religious rhetoric?
        The lack of healthcare services?
        The constant firefights and bombings?

        What exactly would they appreciate? Can you think of anything? Can you think of anything that was made better from this illegal and unjustified war?
    • wrs123, on 04/12/2008, -3/+11Well thank God ElAssoWipo knows the reality of the situation, because he has been there and knows plenty of Iraqis. Thankfully, he was able to diffuse any confusion caused by this article, because for a moment there I thought someone would post a legitimate article on Digg that DIDN'T ***** on the US
    • tech42er, on 04/12/2008, -1/+3You realize you just generalized all Iraqi's right? You just said they all want to kill us. So then, I guess we should nuke them? Or maybe most of them just want to live in a stable country and have a nice life; they're not al bent on killing us.
  • thebigbradwolf, on 04/12/2008, -12/+2My screen is 800px wide...the bottom half of the story is 858px wide.I wish they didn't worry so much about the cost of "paper".
  • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -35/+14I am willing to bet this REMARKABLE particular dig post is an artificial construct with more than one pentagon/intelpro finger in it. It truly has a burnt plastic laboratory smell over it.

    But that'll probably be my irrational EuroTrash, America hating, Socialist prejudice :))
    • Demaskee, on 04/12/2008, -6/+9Wow you took my rebuttal to your statement right out of my mouth.
      • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -9/+5Yah too bad your eloquent statement came with a half shot glass of murdock semen.
    • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -11/+8This is definitely a very fake digg post with fake comments on it.
      • SickDrummerJ, on 04/12/2008, -6/+4Deluded People You Libs. Are!
      • tomek77, on 04/12/2008, -8/+4Exactly my thoughts. I've seen some very well-thought, well-argumented comments getting buried in this thread, especially if they mention murdoch.
        I wonder how many "diggers" here are "communication consultants" on News corp payroll.
        Time to find an alternative to Digg
    • robthom, on 04/12/2008, -13/+2No duh, but it was so patriotic man. it brought a tear to my eye. It was like a romance novel for militant crackers.
      Its a fairly common opinion that triumph of the will was a masterpiece.
    • wrs123, on 04/12/2008, -3/+2Yup, i think that last bit nailed it...
    • tech42er, on 04/12/2008, -1/+4KhanneaNL, people would take you seriously if you didn't constantly invoke hyperbole and act like America is the Empire.
      • novaculus, on 04/12/2008, -0/+5Gotta disagree there, tech. I bet anyone who listened to Khan spew for five minutes would never take him seriously.
    • Stevanoski, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3Why do you Euro-Trash folks wear such bad suits?
  • HalfGiraffe, on 04/12/2008, -36/+23Ridiculous propaganda piece. He claims that Iraqis love the US but offers no facts to back it up. It's nice that he spent lots of time "embedded" with US troops but it would have been more compelling if he'd actually spent time walking through the markets [without being surrounded by a bunch of soldiers]. Then we'd know for sure how much Iraqis love Americans.
    • nixfu, on 04/12/2008, -5/+21Get a clue, Michael Yon has spent more time in Iraq than just about any other journalist alive, and hardly ANY(if any) of it in the 'green zone'

      • simplistics06, on 04/12/2008, -13/+3It doesn't matter how much time hes spent there his articles are American propaganda *****.
        • govsucks, on 04/12/2008, -3/+4Says the coward that hides behind the security of the U.S. and listens to other fruit bats that do the same and have never been in combat.
          • Memitim, on 04/12/2008, -4/+3Awesome. Now 90+% of Americans are cowards for never having been in combat. I have been in combat and I still think you're full of *****.
      • pintomp3, on 04/12/2008, -4/+1he's not a journalist, he says so himself.
    • Egoist, on 04/12/2008, -7/+20The idea that any good news that comes out of Iraq is automatically propoganda I think speaks more towards your disposition and prejudice than anything else. If you only cheer on the bad news and try to discredit the good, it means you care more about your own political position than anything.
      • Memitim, on 04/12/2008, -5/+7That's pretty much the status quo. You'll also note that most of the pro comments in the thread have one of those ridiculous fake compound words containing "lib" in them. Partisans don't want to find a solution, they just want to wear the jersey of their team and scream mindlessly.

        Personally, I have no doubt that American soldiers can make headway in Iraq, perhaps even to the point of returning reliable water and power supply to a nation that once thrived even under a dictatorship and incredibly strict external sanctions. I simply don't believe that any progress can justify the masses of dead and maimed soldiers and civilians, the insanely huge economic impact, and the social upheaval within Iraq that has already occurred and continues to accrue daily. Partisans be damned, that's just my opinion. But it's always nice to read a positive spin on the matter as a change of pace if nothing else so I thought it was a decent op-ed.
  • Rodalli, on 04/12/2008, -20/+65Like any situation, the moderate, balanced opinion is the most accurate one. I'm sure there are a lot of positive things we've done in Iraq, and are doing now. But there are also a lot of really terrible things. For some, it can be really hard to separate the two and make a decision as to whether or not we should still be there. When I think about it, I consider a few things:

    1. If we stay there long enough we're bound to succeed. You could say that about any human effort.
    2. We have to consider the pretenses under which we entered Iraq in the first place, where were wholly false and wrong.
    3. Even if we wanted to stay, the American people and our economy cannot really afford to stay there any longer. We've already accrued the largest deficit in our nation's history and the economy is entering a recession.

    It would be nice to be able to stay, and finish what we started, and restore some peace and civility to a country in which we helped cause so much chaos. We at least owe them that since, at least in Iraq, we are the ones that started this mess. However, I argue that we have spent far too much time treading water in Iraq, and simply do not have the domestic or international support, or even the financial means, to continue this campaign. We must withdraw.
    • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -17/+5If you are ever in Europe I'd like you to talk to a few Iraqi refugee's we have here. They think the US owes them quite some money to rebuild what is now a cesspit with corpse parts floating in it. Americans ripped apart Iraq like a pig a hamburger.

      Oil.
      • MoBillyAla, on 04/12/2008, -8/+5umm no the terrorists are blowing up everything, we are rebuilding it...and the country's infrastructure was barely there before the war thanks to Saddam, so sorry your not 100% right in your comment(but yeh it is about oil and not letting iran control the world..)
        • bsmang, on 04/12/2008, -6/+3Umm yes, we did blow up Iraq. And the infrastructure was WAY better before we blew it up. And no, Iran is not on the verge of controlling the world. Your pal Georgie just wants you to think so.
          • Memitim, on 04/12/2008, -2/+2Well, Iran may not have been on the verge of controlling the world, but we are trying to implement a democracy in a neighboring country with a 50+% Shi'ite population. Iran may or may not have grand plans but we sure as hell are making it a whole lot easier for Iran if they are.
      • quarkie, on 04/12/2008, -1/+9stop trolling: you are posting the same comment over and over again and no one is backing up your opinion. Just because you post seven times that in Europe you met (or heard through a friend about) three Iraq refugees that hate America/Americans, doesn't mean that 21 Iraq refugees do and it especially doesn't mean that everyone does.
    • robthom, on 04/12/2008, -9/+11Unfortunately "Winning" or "losing" is kind of irrelevant when we dont have any genuine reason for being there in the first place.
    • bsmang, on 04/12/2008, -9/+5I'll agree with you for the most part... except the very beginning where you state that the "moderate, balanced opinion" is always the most accurate one... But beyond that, you're fairly correct.
    • SemiSarcastic, on 04/12/2008, -2/+7Moderates are more impartial and balanced than liberals or conservatives. They ought to be the ones running the country, not these gang factions claiming to represent America.
    • serif69, on 04/12/2008, -2/+1I dugg you up though I disagree with your abrupt conclusion. All of your points are completely valid and right on the money. I think we owe it to the Iraqi people to stay in some regard, but we simply can't keep the scale of the occupation we are attempting to maintain, and neither can we maintain our expensive military presence. I think the best way to go about it is to slowly withdraw and decrease our military presence, while increasing our goodwill (Peace Corps, etc) and diplomatic presence. If the Iraqi people are truly accepting of our troops the way this article states, then they are ready to accept our diplomacy and goodwill.
    • theone3, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1I agree, but there's something wrong with your premise. If 10% of the population are ***** insane and 90% are sane, then the moderate, balanced opinion is 50% ***** insane. You're right in this case, but it would be better to have a considered opinion than a moderate one. This is actually a more important consideration than you might think.
  • neladua, on 04/12/2008, -33/+12"I want to be just like you when I grow up" spoken looking up the barrel of a gun is hard to see as entirely sincere.
    • GogDog, on 04/12/2008, -7/+15You are seriously an idiot.
      • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -12/+3Really? I thought there was some merit to his argument.
        • TheSabre, on 04/12/2008, -0/+11Wow. Aren't you the guy who knows some Iraqi refugees? This might be the first post that you didn't feel the need to mention it.
    • robthom, on 04/12/2008, -6/+2These kids love us! See watch...
      "Who's your daddy!"
    • lgfaphile, on 04/12/2008, -1/+16You have no idea what or who you are talking about. Yon is a former Ranger, turned photojournalist who has been in Iraq on his own since 2004. He has taken some of the most memorable and heartrending images from that war. Check out his website www.michaelyon-online.com
      • Kythas, on 04/12/2008, -0/+12Special Forces (Green Beret) not Ranger.

        And for anyone who thinks he's a Bushie mouthpiece, he rips the early handling of the war and says we ***** things up completely after Saddam fell. We're now on track, though, and the Iraqi people are starting to trust and believe in us again and are turning away from AQI and other terrorist groups.
      • tech42er, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3I know Iraqi refugees who hate the US, and I say that Michael Yon is just a US government shill, or should I say Empire shill, because that's what you're becoming. Yon kills Iraqi children but your corrupt US government covers it up but it doesn't need to, because all of you terrible Amercians like to kill children so you can get your precious oil!

        /sarcasm
    • wrs123, on 04/12/2008, -1/+4Dead on buddy. Soldiers shoot kids all the time, because that is fun and it makes it so much easier for leftists to make witty comments on Digg
      • neladua, on 04/13/2008, -1/+0I didn't say that soldiers shoot kids, only that a tremendous asymmetry of power makes entirely honest or sincere communication - particularly from the one who is "looking up the barrel of a gun" -difficult. I wonder, do boys who ostensibly "dream of becoming American soldiers" go home and tell their parents the same? If not, why not? Is it because they actually don't want to, or would it be because it's just not the kind of thing to say to the people who put the roof over your head?
  • blackjack75, on 04/12/2008, -33/+22FTA "As the outrages of Abu Ghraib faded in memory – and paled in comparison to al Qaeda's brutalities "
    Seriously? Abu grahib memory faded? I don't live in Iraq and it hasn't faded one bit. I doubt the iraqis forgot about it. As for implying that all atrocities happening in Iraq are lead by a nebulous group called Al-Qaeda.... I stopped reading there.

    If you think Iraqis love you. Go to your nearest airport, pick a plane, fly to iraq, rent a car and drive to anywhere. 4 hours laters when you get back on your plane (I am an optimist), please come back here and comment about your experience.
    • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -16/+25 minutes and the loving, grateful Iraqi's will be drilling electr