What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.169 Comments
- inactive, on 10/05/2008, -10/+66Can we say misleading and inaccurate title? Buried.
- Crimsoneer, on 10/05/2008, -10/+48Okay, one US raid and we say the surge isn't working? Violence is still at the lowest its been for more than a year.
- Midtowner, on 10/05/2008, -7/+40You idiots.
Taking a single episode where 11 people were tragically killed does not, in any universe, lead to the conclusion that the surge didn't work. If you want to know how the surge is working, ask the Iraqi government which believes that it should be able to operate and control its own people within three years.
This has nothing to do with whether we should be there to begin with. - Diggnabbit, on 10/05/2008, -2/+29I'm not a fan of McCain or the Iraq War.
But, this article really doesn't say anything either way about the surge. It describes an incident of violence in Iraq. No-one claimed that the surge had stopped all the violence in Iraq. - poidh, on 10/05/2008, -10/+34The article doesn't say the surge hasn't worked. Buried for the submitter being a hand-wringing, defeatist fool.
- MercyPolitics, on 10/05/2008, -36/+57I decided to put a photo of Sarah Palin next to this post. After all, one of the fairy tales that the McCain/Palin ticket is running on is that " The Surge is Working".
- chickenloco, on 10/05/2008, -6/+25If this was a story with information on troop levels and related violence, I'd digg it. But to say "The surge is not working" and then have the article not mention the surge at all?
Buried. - benkrembs, on 10/05/2008, -6/+25Violence in Iraq is the lowest it's been yet this year. Yet some Digger finds an article about how 11 people were killed in a bombing, and suddenly the whole surge is in fact a failure.
Here's a question: Why do so many people on here WANT the surge to fail? Is it really so when Iraq plunges into anarchy and sectarian killing, you can have one more thing to blame on Bush? - briansearles, on 10/05/2008, -6/+20Misleading title... buried.
- Meadow113, on 10/05/2008, -15/+28It makes me ill when she talks of victory in Iraq. How can there be victory in a situation where you put your troops into an unnecessary war for profit and thousands of people died and were badly injured? To the victor go the spoils, what exactly are the spoils here? 10 billion a month of our money, trillions of dollars before it is done, thousands of lives ended and altered, and the region less stable than when we found it.
- kazz67, on 10/05/2008, -20/+33I'm at the stage now where headlines like this literally make me laugh!
Of course the surge isn't working! - It failed MONTHS ago when judged along the lines of its purported intentions!
But then, it's also like saying the occupation isn't working. For as long as Iraq is occupied the occupation can be said to be 'working' and if the surge is part of the occupation, which it is, then by that "standard" it's doing exactly what it was actually intended to do.
If, on the other hand, the expectation is that by sending more troops into an already occupied country you will somehow REDUCE the desire of the people of that country to get you the *~#**# out of there, then yeah, the surge is not working! - Boing, on 10/05/2008, -4/+16This has nothing to do with the surge of 2007.
- JoeMondo, on 10/05/2008, -2/+13Iraq isn't free. Afghanistan isn't free.
Women are living under Sharia law. It would be shocking if there's a single family in Iraq that didn't lose someone to this occupation.
The people live under a foreign government's eternal occupation.
They are not FREE. - Hanny26, on 10/05/2008, -2/+13I agree completely, I felt myself flare up with anger whenever I heard either McCain or Palin throw out the terms 'Victory in Iraq" or "Winning in Iraq" during the debates.
We aren't winning anything, there is nothing for us to win in Iraq, get it through your thick, "soccer mom", "Maverick", skulls and get our troops state side. - inactive, on 10/05/2008, -1/+11Why am I not suprised you are celebrating these deaths?
Why am I not suprised you don't know American casualities are drastically smaller?
Casualities are low all around.
Get a reality check emos. - FritoP, on 10/05/2008, -8/+18Shhh! Don't interrupt the liberal circle-jerk by stating facts!
- paulmer2003, on 10/05/2008, -2/+11Wait, the surge has failed because there was one attack today? Give me a break. Some of you guys are a bit extreme. Look at the numbers, before surge and after surge. It has gone way down. Know when to concede that the other side was right (oh wait, only the republicans have to concede to the democrats when they're wrong..oh, ok)..
And protip: I did not support GWB invading Iraq, etc. Ron Paul supporter here. - AboveandBeyond, on 10/05/2008, -4/+131. take an article from reuters
2. change the title when submitting into your own agenda
3. ???
4. profit - bender240, on 10/05/2008, -1/+10Since the article linked to doesn't mention the surge at all, and the people claiming the surge is working have never said it has eliminated all violence in Iraq, I'm a little confused... either I've missed some information documenting temporal trends of violence in Iraq, after reading the Reuters article twice, or the person who submitted this is ignorant or attempting to deceive others. Having said all that, I don't think the United States of America should have invaded Iraq in the first place, but then, hindsight is usually 20/20.
- Wosat, on 10/05/2008, -4/+12I'm amazed that the left can claim a monopoly on intelligence while making such stupid arguments.
"The enemy killed some people... the surge isn't working!!!" Did Rosie O'Donnell write this headline? - Wosat, on 10/05/2008, -6/+14Obama thinks the surge has succeeded beyond his greatest expectations.
- razorsedge555, on 10/05/2008, -5/+13"Historian Larry Schweikart argued in his book America's Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars, that the surge's success, in part, came from the incredible casualties the U.S. military inflicted on al-Qaeda in Iraq and on the "insurgents" from 2003 to 2006---some 40,000 killed, about 200,000 wounded, 20,000 captured, and nearly 10,000 deserted. He has stated that those levels of attrition on an enemy the estimated size of al-Qaeda were substantial and deeply damaging, not only to the terrorists' efforts in Iraq, but had the effect of depleting them worldwide. Moreover, Schweikart argued, virtually all estimates of enemy casualties were severely undercounted (as are all numbers of guerilla casualties) given the inability to know identify bodies which were completely annihilated by explosives or to count carcasses dragged away, as well as how many would die later after attempted medical treatment by other Al Queda sympathizers." Thanks for your comments, robot. Back to the factory.
- Berkana, on 10/05/2008, -16/+23The surge certainly hasn't transformed Iraq for the better. Violence is down only because the city has been carved up by walls separating Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. None of the basic infrastructure is in functional order:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTMp-YNaDdg
http://digg.com/world_news/Baghdad_5_years_Later_S ... - blankoboy, on 10/05/2008, -11/+18No *****. Invasion and occupation doesn't make you right. Should not have gone to begin with. Stupid all around.
/a complete waste of human life on both the American and Iraq sides. A tragedy and utter disgrace to humanity. Those responsible MUST be brought to justice. - TSK05, on 10/05/2008, -3/+10TSK05: The submitter is an idiot. Article doesn't even mention the surge, all the generals say it's working and even Obama has said it's working. Violence in Iraq has been going down for ages. US troop casualties in September of 2008 (statistics for everyone are harder to find but are out there and say the same thing): 20. US troop casualties in September of 2007: 63. Oh it's an anomaly? Ok, August of 2008: 22. August of 2007: 77.
Buried as inaccurate. - poidh, on 10/05/2008, -2/+8It's sick isn't it? They hate their governement so much that they would rather have Iraqis being blown to smitherines than safe, just so that they can say "I told you so" and be "proved right".
I'm no fan of traditional "conservatives", but when it comes down to it, people on the left are far worse people; totally motivated by hatred. - GovernmentSp00k, on 10/06/2008, -0/+6"Thanks for your comments, robot. Back to the factory"
Only a robot would so obediently buy government propaganda, as you. You lose, dummy. They have assimilated your conscience. "The surge is working"
"Al Qaeda" is nothing more than code for anyone who opposes the Neocon PNAC agenda. It is a fabrication of the US government. Those countless 10-thousands of deaths from the US killing surge are Iraq civilians defending their property from the corporation of the US war profiteer MIC looters invading their country. They are of course labeled "terrorists!" "Al ciada" and other dumb propaganda the American dummies eat up like candy. They must be part of an organized front because my TV "news" says so!
How would you react if a foreign army, tanks, bombs, military rolled into your town to "liberate" your ass? And your family was mutilated, your daughter slaughtered in a "precision strikes" aerial bombing campaign, your animals senselessly killed in a pool of running blood and your husbands life a victim of "the surge." Would you just sit there, after losing everything, your village, your livelihood, your precious loved ones, knowing these invaders are taking over your country to exploit it's resources and control its oil supply and you are doomed either way or fight back relentlessly with all your life.
The "War On Terror" is a crock of *****.
There hasn't been a war in history that wasn't based on lies, deceit.
Watch the Secret Government - The Constitution in Crisis
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655 ...
"This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer's 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government to carry out operations which are clearly contrary to the Constitution and wishes and values of the American people. The ability to exercise this power with impunity is facilitated by the National Security Act of 1947. The thrust of the exposé is the Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operations which flooded the streets of our nation with crack cocaine. The significance of the documentary is probably greater today in 2008 than it was when it was made. We now have a situation in which these same forces have committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror". The ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran. We have the 'Patriot Act' which has stripped us of many of our basic civil rights justified by the terror of 9/11 which is their own doing. "
Watch 'The Power of Nightmares' Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-535008336 ...
Politicians have been using this transparent "fear agenda" to control, manipulate and deceive populations for decades. Where have you been?
You have been expertly hoodwinked by professional deceivers. Enjoy your willful ignorance. - spyd3rweb, on 10/05/2008, -16/+22Shouldn't have went there in the first place.
- Zarchon, on 10/06/2008, -3/+8You amaze me. Were you in Iraq? Do you know first hand? Doesn't it piss you off that the only press you listen to is lying to you? I have many friends who have been and are in Iraq. Se, I associate with the evil military. And unfortunately the story I hear from them doesn't jibe with what you or the press tells me.
- inactive, on 10/05/2008, -1/+6The surge has been a spectacular success. Thanks President Bush and General Petraeus. Victory in Iraq is at hand. On to Tehran!
- ad33lshahid, on 10/06/2008, -5/+10if you want to go by levels of violence then saddam hussein in power worked much better than any "surge"
- oldhick, on 10/06/2008, -4/+8So some stories you here from soldiers are more accurate? They have a personal interest in believing the world looks a certain way. I respect their commitment and support their efforts. but I also feel comfortable recognizing that they are from capable of being the source of objective information. If you don't see that then you are absolutely crazy.
Just an FYI, I have some friends over there as well that paint a horrifying picture that would most likely contradict your friends. What does that mean? It means not everyone sees everything the same way and you need to open and you need to listen to as many sources as you can. People are dying every single day in Iraq. People live in atrocious conditions. They are afraid to go out. They are afraid of noises at night. They are afraid of each other and they are afraid of us.
You can argue the semantics of things getting better or worse, but the bottom line is they are not GOOD. - TBombadil, on 10/05/2008, -2/+6it never worked, any bettering of conditions can be attributed to the ethnic cleansing and walling
- johndavidjack, on 10/05/2008, -0/+4The people who dig the story do though...
My guess, most didn't even read it... - inactive, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4FISA?
Voting for 700B "bailout"? - oldhick, on 10/06/2008, -2/+6People are dying every day, even with the surge. I think the problem is defining the word "worked". Is "worked" defined by temporarily reducing violence against coalition troops? Is "worked" temporarily reducing the violence against coalition troops, Iraqi troops, and civilians? Is "worked" permanently reducing violence?
I would love to have a calm discussion with you guys but I need to know how you define your terms before it's really possible. What is your definition for victory in Iraq, what would that look like to you? What happens after this surge? How long does this surge last? How many tours of duty should our soldiers be forced to repeat to achieve this victory? Get all the details out and then I think we can have a fairly productive discussion.
I promise you I would love nothing more than "victory" in Iraq. I just don't know what that would look like... - Technoviking, on 10/05/2008, -2/+6The surge is not mentioned once in this article. Buried for inaccuracy, widespread throughout Digg.
- damonic, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4The problem is that the people that support McCain/Palin (the six-pack crowd) believe the lies.
- jonroach13, on 10/06/2008, -1/+4It's amazing how smart the average Digg user thinks he/she is....
1 dies in Iraq..."Surge isn't working"
Obama is a socialist... "Vote Ron Paul!"
"I made a funny comment, Digg this as an article!"
Effing tools. Go clean up your mom's basement. - addrake, on 10/05/2008, -1/+4stupid ***** dick. Hey mercypolitics..go ***** yourself you miserable pile of excrement
- Meadow113, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3I am having to reply to this one to get to the one under it lol
The enemy is in Pakistan, where they have been all along. Pakistan is threatened by them now, Pakistan teeters on the edge. Pakistan has nukes too. - thensley, on 10/05/2008, -1/+4Needs to be under "idiot" category
- gravedigga911, on 10/05/2008, -2/+5nice. you neocons and "libs" keep blaming each other for what both of you have done while unbiased independant moderates shake their head in disgust.
- inactive, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3"We are rounding a corner!!"
- DyceFreak, on 10/05/2008, -7/+10you do know that al-Qaeda is a fabricated company used to start unjustified wars?
- Nore, on 10/05/2008, -5/+8Buried for inaccurate and misleading title.
- KSUdesigner, on 10/05/2008, -0/+3I'm sure they were well aware of the religious conflicts that have been going on for 1,000+ years. What they failed to take into consideration is that it was none of our business.
- gluecode, on 10/05/2008, -0/+3What happened to the US secret weapon in Iraq that Bob Woodward claimed? Or was it just to sell a few more copies of his book?
- KSUdesigner, on 10/05/2008, -1/+4Wrong, none of this stems from September 11th. When will you idiots realize that Iraq had no relation to September 11th at all when we went in?
- Zarchon, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3@poidh, while I am a fan of "traditional" conservatives, I am not a fan of the ones in office now. Hardly traditional. But what you say about the liberals is spot on. Thank you. To hear a voice on Digg that sees the hate the same way I do is refreshing. Thank you.
@oldhick, I would accept your answer if the left didn't hinder us in our efforts to win this war. If you truly stood back and let the right do what they think needs to be done, I would have no problem accepting their failure as stated by you and the left. The problem stems from the fact that the left sets all these guidelines that must be followed. Your side half asses everything and sabotages our country. I seriously believe this. I truly believe the left hates America. You hate the fact we are the last super power. You will do anything to tear us down. I can't stand by and let you do that. Before the election in 2000 the left was screaming about Social Security and national medical. GW was elected and he tried to address both problems. The left said Social Security was suddenly good for 125 years. As for the nationalized medical, the Republicans were a no go and the left refused to have anything to do with it because a Republican was proposing it. Since neither party would back Bush, no nationalized medical. As for the timetable, again that is a twist the left puts on the story. We shouldn't tell the enemy when we are pulling out. Stupid. And we are working on that timetable as we speak. But we are doing so because it is getting close to being a successful operation. If, as you and the left say, we are not winning. that the surge did not work, then I think we will stay a little longer. -
Show 51 - 100 of 172 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is