digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Iraq seen as more stable than Afghanistan: report

reuters.com — Iraq has emerged as a more stable country than Afghanistan, thanks to lower violence, the presence of a large U.S.-led international force and high oil prices, according to a report published on Tuesday.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • anoneng, on 03/26/2008, -18/+26its like the surge worked....

    but thats not what cnn told me....

    i love kool aid...
    • MindStalker, on 03/26/2008, -12/+35Iraq has emerged as a more stable country than Afghanistan.

      Translation: Afghanistan, now even more unstable than Iraq.
      • atact88, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2You should be a left wing journalist, sir!
        • MindStalker, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3Thanks, I guess. I'm actually more right of the line than left. I just understand that Afghanistan has been getting worse.
    • carpespasm, on 03/26/2008, -7/+11ethnic cleansing seems to be doing wonders though.
      • Dumbledorito, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3That would've happened anyway. All we did was call the play-by-play.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 03/26/2008, -6/+9If Iraq is hell. And hell is stable... Then what the hell does Afghanistan look like right now?

      More lies, methinks.
    • nobody7, on 03/26/2008, -5/+6http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2e74cEZesw (see description)

      Tony Snow admits US military paying 70,000 insurgents $10/day not to be violent
      • superkendall, on 03/26/2008, -2/+7Hint: They aren't really "insurgents" if you can pay them off, or hire them to work for you. There's another term for that... and it makes you wonder just what they were being paid before to work the other side.
    • Kizilbash, on 03/27/2008, -0/+210% of the population of Iraq has fled the country. It's the peace of the graveyard.
  • Rizmaster, on 03/26/2008, -29/+14Job well done, and only 1,000,000 civilian casualties!
    • saucedmike, on 03/26/2008, -2/+7Isn't the figure more around 140,000?
      (Don't quote me on that)
      • phybere, on 03/26/2008, -1/+782,408 – 89,928 according to iraqbodycount.org, but the estimates vary.
      • Pwelborn1, on 03/26/2008, -5/+1wow, that really sounds like a reliable site. /sarcasm
    • dualboy24, on 03/26/2008, -1/+8I have read reports from 85,000 to 1,000,000. Problem is no one can seem to agree, but no matter what the number is in the end, we can all agree that it is far too high a toll.
      • nardo510, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2one is far to many.
      • NoStoppingUs, on 03/26/2008, -6/+5i agree! so lets kindly ask that the terrorists, who are the ones killing the civilians, to please stop.

        i mean, that seems reasonable, right?

        maybe after we pull out, they'll have no reason to kill any more innocent civilians. no one would be able to stop them, but hey, we need to at least give it a shot!....
  • TobiasParker, on 03/26/2008, -7/+4What...?
  • Sagags, on 03/26/2008, -15/+2Its more stable than my state of mind is forsure
  • pugs909, on 03/26/2008, -2/+14high oil prices are so helpful :)
  • KirbyMeister, on 03/26/2008, -17/+4in b4 [Reported by diggers as possibly inaccurate]
  • LittleDas, on 03/26/2008, -3/+27I'm not sure what this article is trying to say. It sounds like it's trying to put a positive spin on things but then goes right on to say that Afghanistan is the third most-unstable country.
    It's kind of like beating a fat kid with asthma in a race, isn't it?
    • Sagags, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5perfect analogy
    • arplayer2k, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5Or beating a blind, handicapped kid at karate. I DID IT SENSI!
  • jay7890, on 03/26/2008, -9/+7In the same news... Afghanistan seen less stable than Iraq
  • Walker2323, on 03/26/2008, -8/+16"Iraq has emerged as a more stable country than Afghanistan". I'd say Iraq has emerged as a LESS UNSTABLE country than Afghanistan.
    Who the ***** describes Iraq as "stable"?
    Talk about rose colored glasses.
  • PoopSalad, on 03/26/2008, -13/+15hey that's great it only cost 4,000 lives and 5 years. congrats, george.
    • smith41, on 03/26/2008, -11/+13That's less than 1,000 casualties a year. If the public treated this war like a true war, that would be something to celebrate. Instead, 4,000 casualties is seen as horrific.
      • nblsavage, on 03/26/2008, -9/+13Well maybe it should have been legally delcared then.
        • Pillage, on 03/26/2008, -2/+7name a war since WWII that has been declared.
      • Dumbledorito, on 03/26/2008, -3/+9Would you feel better if it was expressed in dollars or oil prices, instead?

        Fewer people die in natural disasters than they used to. It still doesn't mean an F-5 tornado is desirable to have in your neighborhood.
    • Walker2323, on 03/26/2008, -6/+9Then why don't you go over there and die if it's no big deal.
      Seriously. Please die.
      • Pwelborn1, on 03/26/2008, -5/+5To be honest. If my death has to be for some cause. I'd much rather it be for someone's right to be free from terrorism than a lot of things people die for in our country these days. That actually sounds pretty honorable!
    • Pwelborn1, on 03/26/2008, -7/+7Wow, only 4000 lives for a whole country's freedom. Sounds like a bargain. What was the cost in American lives for America's freedom? We should have been so lucky. It's almost like... freedom is expensive.
      • nblsavage, on 03/26/2008, -5/+5did they ask us for this so-called "freedom"? Freedom imposed at the point of a gun isn't freedom.
        • Pwelborn1, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4YES!!! Do you not remember the day the statue was pulled down? The only one's who weren't happy were the ones with ties to terrorism.
        • Pwelborn1, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3OK i know this is a hot political issue, but in any other situation defending the innocent is not only encouraged, you are though a fool and heartless for looking the other way. When a man begins gassing and killing people to instill fear in them it's the responsibility of the world to respond. I think there are greater problems than Iraq, right now, I really do, but since we are there let's continue to defend the innocent until they can defend themselves.
          • nblsavage, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2When people are abused by their government it's THEIR responsibility to remove said government, not anyone else's.
          • Pwelborn1, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1Wow, that worked so well during WWII. I'm glad we didn't get involved then.
          • nblsavage, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry, when was WWII about freeing a country from it's own goverment?
      • thatsmyaibo, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4Hell there were over 600k casualties in a war with ourselves, 250k American casualties in WWII, every life lost in Iraq is precious but 4k deaths in a war is not a lot. The problem with Iraq though is that the cause is debatable. 1 life is too much if it's not for a good cause.
  • soundman7718, on 03/26/2008, -7/+4The terrorism industry in Afghanistan is a little slow at the moment...I think there are more terrorists in Iraq.
    • BruceDude, on 03/26/2008, -4/+4Those are mostly militia. They're trying to protect their country from the invading enemies. a.k.a. US TROOPS.
      • superkendall, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2The militias are mostly working WITH the US now, because it turns out inviting religious nut jobs in to run things actually sucks a whole lot more than having US troops around which hand out candy to kids and are willing to smuggle you a little liquor instead of cutting off your head if you are found with any.

        Once the local populace realized who really wanted to help, Iraq started to swing our way. A shame some US people don't realize just as well as Iraiqis how helpful we are there.

    • diggrnumber1, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1who the ***** even is a terrorist anymore? the word has been overused so much now that it is meaningless.
  • replaysMike, on 03/26/2008, -8/+7And nitroglicerin is more stable than water.
  • nblsavage, on 03/26/2008, -8/+17Stable? Fine then. Let the Iraqis take over and get our people home. Makes sense to me.
    • nblsavage, on 03/26/2008, -12/+7To whoever dugg me down - supporting the troops I see. You must be a John (100 years) McCain supporter
    • cheese06, on 03/26/2008, -7/+5Right, just because some British think tank decided it was more stable than Afghanistan, which has for centuries, been an unstable region, coalition troops should leave Iraq. You should run for president.
      • ironhide, on 03/26/2008, -3/+8So it isn't stable? You wingnuts want it both ways. Stable enough for public support but not stable enough to bring our troops home.
      • nycmac247, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7"some British think tank"
        You might want to look into Jane's Defense before you say that...
        (just an FYI)
    • superkendall, on 03/26/2008, -6/+4Actually they are getting closer to doing so. There are now more regions controlled by Iraqi's than the US. But we wouldn't want to stop before that's done, lest the whole thing unravel - right? I mean it seems pretty obvious that you don't go in and then leave just as you are getting somewhere.
      • nblsavage, on 03/26/2008, -4/+5by who's criteria? I don't care how "stable" the country is, we're never leaving.....just as planned.
        • superkendall, on 03/26/2008, -5/+4Of course it was planned to stay. We aren't leaving Germany anytime soon either. Or Japan. It's called having a stable government and a good national relationship, and is really the point of any war to get rid of a really bad government and give the people support to stand on their own eventually. The Iraqi people are actually very found of Americans, so why should we leave when it's so valuable to have a friendly base in the area? Especially with Turkey kind of going a bit wacky of late...
  • jwoelmer2, on 03/26/2008, -2/+5hmm 160,000 US troops (plus a few troops from other nations) vs 43,000 NATO-led troops
    I wonder which one would have more presence in any given nation...
    Do note at the end of the article they said that 10,000 troops are coming home by July (1 brigade is approximately 2000 men)
  • LupeFiasco, on 03/26/2008, -4/+22Canadian troops need more help over there and they need it now. It really pisses me off how fast the focus switched from Afghanistan to Iraq before the job was done.
    • BruceDude, on 03/26/2008, -0/+9Didn't you see the "Mission Accomplished" banner?
    • nardo510, on 03/26/2008, -1/+6Afghanistan has no oil.
    • Cam_86, on 03/26/2008, -0/+9The death rate for Canadians in Afghanistan is ~1/30(80 deaths out of 2,500 soldiers)... The death rate for Americans in Iraq is around 1/50(4000 out of 200 000)
      I wish the Canadian news emphasized this more. I mean its nice we are in a somewhat justified battle, but its hurting us a HELL of a lot more then any other nation currently involved in it, OR Iraq. It would be nice if the country who decided to start this whole thing helped secure it before they took a detour, for what-ever reason, into Iraq. I'm beyond the point of caring why Americans decided to support that war... Just get back to fighting the REAL war on terrorism, and stop harassing the people who are telling you in every possible way(English, Farsi, bullets)they no longer what you in their country.
    • kevptim, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5The US is sending 1,200 Marines to help out the Canadians at Kandahar. It was announced late last week.
  • lukemandese, on 03/26/2008, -4/+6Now we have a reason to go invade Afghanistan!
    • cheese06, on 03/26/2008, -3/+4I'm not sure if you're purposely trying to be ignorant or not, but just to make sure, we've already invaded it in 2001.
      • Dumbledorito, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5Do they sell irony supplements at your local drug store?
  • gudnbluts, on 03/26/2008, -6/+14Cancer has emerged as a more pleasant condition than leprosy.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4Nice, I was looking for an analogy like this.

      Mine was "Horse ***** seen as more appealing than cow crap."

      The eternal value of toilet humor aside, I like yours better to be honest.
      • gudnbluts, on 03/26/2008, -0/+0I was originally thinking of an STD one, but couldn't spell gonhorrea (SP?) and I'm sure as hell not googling it at work.
  • mfc5200, on 03/26/2008, -8/+9Of course there is that little fact that it appears the ceasefire declared by the Shiite Mahdi Army might come to an end.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0326/p01s13-woiq.htm ...

    Today was one of the worst days in recent times. The recent lull in violence is attributed to three things

    1) The U.S has literally been paying off previous Sunni Insurgents to fight with them
    2) The Shiite Cleric al-Sadr declared a ceasefire and has maintained that
    3) increased U.S troops.

    Most analysis claim the first two points are much more significant than the increased troop count and that the surge is just a political tool to gain support at home. But if this ceasefire ends, all things might erupt again which would be utter hell. Hopefully it won't happen while we are still there. I would like to see a strong calm, so the Republicans can be happy and declare "Victory" maintain their "pride" and "honor" (whatever the hell that means when you have millions of refugees and 100,000's dead) and we can get the hell out of there.
    • Smurph0404, on 03/26/2008, -2/+41) We won the cold war that way. It's not pretty and it's not clean but no war is.
      2) This is a good thing, and the multinational forces have capitalized on the lull in Shiite violence to all but eliminate Sunni groups like AQ that would not stop fighting.
      3) This is a war...

      Hopefully they can do to Al Sadr what they did to the Sunni groups: divide and conquer. Then we can get the long calm and get the hell out of there.
      • mfc5200, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1When you say "we won the cold war that way"

        Do you mean we supported the Muslim Fighters in Afghanistan, fueling an endless insurgency that the Soviets had to deal with until they went broke? Which helped bring about their collapse?

        If so, I don't see how following their footsteps, and putting ourselves a scenario, which helped bring down the worlds last great superpower, is a good idea...
    • thh204, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3Not trying to call you out, but what is this "analysis" you are referring to? I would really like to know because I haven't seen any of it (and I'm sure I would have because it would have been dugg 100000 times"proving" that McCain iswrong with the surge and that Obama is the best thing since sliced bread)

      The ceasefire is over but the British military is not stepping in because the Iraqi army is handling it. Can they handle it? We'll see in time.
    • Manchowder, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4This is a great illustration of wingnut think.

      Cease fire happens, YAY surge! Stay longer!
      Cease fire ends, need more surge, Stay longer!
  • Dumbledorito, on 03/26/2008, -2/+9So Iraq is enjoying the same status as being the shortest midget in the circus? Good for it!
  • BruceDude, on 03/26/2008, -4/+4MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
  • cheese06, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3Iraq is still a battle-contested region amongst the ethnic groups. Not to mention the current Shiite on Shiite violence in Basra. Suicide bombers still making a presence there. Lets just be clear that most of the insurgents in Iraq are IRAQI. They became radicalized once U.S. troops entered Iraqi soil.
  • sonicularulus, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4so lets get out of iraq...?
    and if we still want to be in a war, we should rather go to places that need fixing....
  • nastronomical, on 03/26/2008, -10/+5Libtards will start slashing their wrists in angst.
    • Danial, on 03/26/2008, -3/+4Don't bet on it.
    • nblsavage, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4Actually I love the news. When can our guys come home to their families?
      • thatsmyaibo, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2I'm a registered Republican (NOT neo con!) and I think this progress is great. Though I didn't agree with going into Iraq, we are there and have to finish the job. The quicker we see results, the sooner we can get these troops back on safe ground with their loved ones.
  • creationism, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2That makes perfect sense because Bin Laden has been hiding in Iraq. Oh, wait....
    • thatsmyaibo, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3Seriously, if Bin Laden is alive I would be very surprised. He hasn't released a tape that was either confirmed to be his voice or recent in date. He was hiding in mountains with failing kidneys years ago. He is a ghost now used as a tool to stir fear.
  • dizilbdog, on 03/26/2008, -3/+3Yeah it's about as steady after me eating Indian food right right
  • chrisbosh123, on 03/26/2008, -4/+2US marines are killed almost daily, we (canadian marines) get about 1 casualty every few months in Afghanistan...so you tell me which one is more stable
    • gak001, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2And how many US vs. Canadian marines are in the region? Exactly.
  • Smurph0404, on 03/26/2008, -6/+5I don't get why people are so offended by supposed good news coming from Iraq. The better it gets there, the sooner we can leave. If we refuse to admit that the country is anything other than a giant fireball, we aren't going to get out any time soon. It seems like most Americans would rather leave after Iraq becomes somewhat stable, while some super partisan democrats want to pull out long before that happens just so that the Republicans will have a giant mess on their hands that will cripple them in elections for years.
    • Dumbledorito, on 03/26/2008, -2/+5"Will have a giant mess?" Iraq has been a giant mess since the first looters hit the streets. It's already been shown to have been a colossal tactical error at the least, which will result in (according to the best predictions) a semi-stable theocracy with a hopefully US-friendly strong-man in charge. In the meantime, it's the perfect Al-Qaeda training ground, generating loads of future Bin Ladens and sending us a stream of physically and mentally screwed-up soldiers that we refuse to acknowledge or give decent treatment to. Every day, the war is shown to be more and more expensive due to the creative accounting on behalf of the Bush administration and the contractors its been letting loose in the government funding candy store.

      It's damn hard to make it not a mess when profiteering and dishonest views of the actual situation hold sway.
      • superkendall, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2The "loads of future Bin Ladens" are currently laying six feet under, a result of coming from all over to be mowed down by at first the Americans, and increasingly the Iraqi's who frankly tried on Sharia style law briefly, and found that no sir they did not like it and killed off the "liite Bin Ladens" trying to impose it locally.
    • mmortal03, on 03/26/2008, -3/+3The problem with that is that if the neoconservatives ever get to say "I told you so", then they will think it gives them legitimacy to go invade some other country to bring freedom to those people. Obviously, one can just look all around, at the economy, at the attitudes of the rest of the world towards us, etc, and see that the neo-cons have no legitimacy...but try telling that to them and their brainwashed followers if they start to become successful under their own watch in Iraq.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 03/26/2008, -4/+3People don't want success in Iraq because they want Bush to look bad. I don't like Bush and I don't support the invasion of Iraq but any progress is good.
  • poleag, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2In related report, cancer seen as more stable than AIDS.
  • speel, on 03/26/2008, -5/+3It only took 4,000 lives.
    • Tikisam, on 03/26/2008, -3/+6that's pretty good when you consider most wars
      • Dumbledorito, on 03/26/2008, -4/+1All the civilians just got up and dusted themselves off and went home, then?
        • superkendall, on 03/26/2008, -3/+4You have no idea how many civilians died in previous wars, do you?
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1@superkendall: Wow, I'm glad that the lives of other humans is a strictly quantitative matter for you. Even so, I find it hard to believe you consider something on the order of three quarters of a million people to be a drop in the bucket.
        • lpse2000, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2It sucks that lives are lost, but it's a cost of war. And if you want peace and freedom, prepare for war.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2"that's pretty good when you consider most wars"

        Wow, good point. Why don't you write letters to all the wounded soldiers and the families of the dead ones pointing that out. "Hey, don't worry, it's ONLY 4000 lives! WAY more people have died than that before!" I'm sure they'd see the silver lining and cheer up right away.
        • lpse2000, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2Stop being a ***** whining candy-ass! Lives are lost in wars! Get over it!
    • mmortal03, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3..and over seven times that in serious injuries, and about half the figure in civilian contractor deaths, and magnitudes more in Iraqi deaths.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2Don't forget the 30,000 wounded! And all of the victims or PTSD and similar disorders.

      Oh, and the ~655,000+ Iraqis who have died.
  • NelsonR, on 03/26/2008, -5/+2Another neo con false statement to perpetuate insanity. Iraq will never see America winning anything. For now we are only stabilizing a place none of us would look forward to living there. Iran will be the winner, Bush the loser while taking America down. Tell me jerks, what did the 4,000 Americans die for? I will use on you, when you retort another analogy, what did 55,000 Americans die for in Vietnam? NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING other than enriching the portfolios of the elitist, upper crust, Wall Street and pay offs in Washington D.C. Dying for aggression of your leaders is not something to be happy about six feet under. World War one and two were noble and righteous causes, of late we fight wars of aggression and the world observes it for what these wars, we start are all about with the stealing of resources and enforcement over nations.
  • forgiste, on 03/26/2008, -3/+7But is it more stable than it was BEFORE the invasion?
    • superkendall, on 03/26/2008, -3/+3By all measures - yes, now it is.
  • DonaldXP, on 03/26/2008, -4/+3what's with all the negativity - shouldn't we be pleased that there may be some improvement?!!!
  • HappyScrappy, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4Almost every country is more stable than Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the government has traditionally been unable to control the area outside of the capital and in fact there is a large are (the tribal zones) that they make absolutely no effort at controlling at all. The Army typically will not even enter!

    Even before we invaded, Iraq was a more stable country than Afghanistan.
  • UCFartstudntJON, on 03/26/2008, -5/+2"according" to a "report". obviously fake. Bush sucks.
  • Tikisam, on 03/26/2008, -5/+7how did all the obama followers on digg let this hit front page?
    • ingxia, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3don't forget, there's also a part in there about Afghanistan being the third least stable and america itself number 22...also they talk about pulling troops OUT of Iraq

      so it scraped through
  • MidnightRIder77, on 03/26/2008, -4/+4So either progress in Iraq has begun or Afghanistan has gotten a hell of a lot worse. I'm betting on the latter.
  • Typhoon2009, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Afghanistan hasn't been in the limelight for a long while. After we stupidly started Iraq, it seems as if we decided to ignore Afghanistan and the US and NATO and Aghani forces there. I read a story in the NY Times Magazine a few weeks ago about this platoon stationed there, and it sounds like hell. Possibly worse in some moments than Iraq, because quite frankly there are way more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan. The Taliban has seen a resurgence in Afghanistan as well.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2Well, don't worry. Now that Iraq is "seen" to be better than Afghanistan there's reason to talk about it again! (but only to make Iraq look better)
  • cathl, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2Iraq gives us oil while Afghanistan gives us cocaine. Obviously oil is the preferred commodity of Bush, but I think Regan would probably have a tough time deciding which was more important to protect.
    • Dumbledorito, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3Not cocaine; Heroin. If they supplied Cocaine, the Colombains would have invaded and...

      ...I just got a truly awful idea. I need to talk to the DEA about a grant. 'Scuze me...
  • commernie, on 03/26/2008, -4/+2Why should anybody believe this? The corporate media has an EXPLICIT interest in making things in Iraq seem better than they really are. They have consistently shown that they will defend those interests no matter how many stories they have to distort.

    Reuters and Jane's Information Group are the usual corporate shills.
  • liquidtaco, on 03/26/2008, -2/+0well, at least now i know where to travel this summer.
  • xerxes714, on 03/26/2008, -3/+14000 American deaths and counting, millions of innocent Iraqi's killed or maimed, stop-loss policy, look it up-the movie opens on Friday, families destroyed forever and Bin Laden is alive and well in Afghanistan. Don't you think we started a war for oil and corporate greed. Billions of our taxpayers dollars wasted. History will never forgive the Bush administration for this horror.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2You're right. You can learn everything about anything from an MTV movie. Let me know how it is.
  • rmccs0x, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4to everyone commenting on the amount of deaths. its a natural part of war. its a good thing you same people weren't around during d-day. we'd all be under nazi rule.
    • Ortheos, on 03/26/2008, -3/+3D-Day didn't defeat the nazis, just by saying that you show your true ignorance.
      • superkendall, on 03/26/2008, -4/+2But if we never went over there how exactly WOULD they have been defeated, genius? Would we have beat Germany into submission with resolutions and trade embargoes? D-Day was important because it finally landed on on the german mainland. It was not the end of the war, but a necessary start to the end...
        • superkendall, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1And by German mainland, I of course meant the same continent that Germany was on (and owned much of at that point) - since we actually landed in France.
          • Ortheos, on 03/27/2008, -0/+180% of the german land forces were..in the east, getting trampled by the soviets, the day the majority CANADIAN/BRITISH invasion force landed on normandy. The soviets were conducting their unstopabble offensive westwards on that day, which would eventually lead them to the capture of Berlin, in a battle involving over 2 million troops on both sides, the battle of berlin.

            The western allies liberated france, before the russians could. Stalin had called for an allied invasion of france back in 1943, it came much later, when the germans were utterly defeated in the east, and only had 300,000 troops safeguarding france.
  • Look4Truth, on 03/26/2008, -2/+6More silliness. There are NO plans to ever leave that region, don't believe the hype. Iran and Syria are on the chopping block next, you can count on it.
    • rmccs0x, on 03/26/2008, -7/+4as they should be. the sane world should have been tea bagging iraq, iran, syria, etc.. long ago..
      • nblsavage, on 03/26/2008, -1/+6yeah, the hell with national sovereignty! Of course I suppose you won't complain when China decides to do the same to us.
  • nobody7, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2e74cEZesw (see description)
    Tony Snow admits US military paying 70,000 insurgents $10/day not to be violent
  • numbnuts, on 03/26/2008, -2/+5Looks like we are succeeding there after all
  • jmenter, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1Probably helps that Afganistan has increased violence, increased instability.....keep going, Afganistan...Iraq will keep looking more stable by the day!
  • MentalHazard, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2Finally, an HONEST news article on the subject!
  • patpl22391, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3I can hardly believe my eyes, a POSITIVE story about Iraq? How dare you people challenge the extreme left hold on this website! They probably just passed out and will come along soon enough and bury this one in the sand. Read it while you can!
  • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Afghan looks LESS stable because we're wasting our strength in IRAQ, which we're losing. And the Mahdi Army ended the cease-fire today.
    You pro-Bush people are absolute ignoramuses. And don't call me "liberal" because I am NOT. I am anti-Bush, but far from liberal.
    This has been the most poorly executed American military action in our history, including Viet Nam, and you're all being led by your noses. We should have concentrated on Afghan and ignored Iraq until perhaps we had Afghan under control. Iraq is only "more stable" because we diverted our VERY limited resources there for this bogus "surge" that is about to be attacked by the Mahdis and Sadr's militia. Even Petreaus said the surge failed to accomplish its goals.
  • jforjools, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Well, it doesn't matter either way for McCain.

    If things are going good in Iraq, then we need to keep lots of troops there (indefinitely) to keep it that way.

    If things are going bad in Iraq, then we need more troops and more time!

    McCAIN--you're so WRONG on this whole thing.

    (Not to mention this country will go completely broke following this incredulous path.)
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.