Why are you a pacifist if you delight in the death of american troops. I am against ALL KILLING. ALL KILLING. You dont seem to be the same. Thats NOT A PACIFIST! Hate to break it to you buddy. I know lots of pacifists, and you my friend arent one. A pacifist cares about the death of all humans. You only care about Iraqis. And while I mourn the deaths of Iraqis, Americans are dying too. Both deserve recognition and both deaths are wrong.
What pacifist delights in the death of Americans? What pacifist thinks only people in foreign lands are deserving of mourning when mass death occurs?
I am against all killing as well. I have never said that I delighted in the death of anyone. I'm not sure where you got this.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
the same reason Gandhi had compassion for those who harmed him and his people and the same reason MLK didnt say to his followers to go and murder all whites and to inflict pain onto whites. He said to have compassion for your enemy. Jesus also said that. So did Gandhi. Thats a pacifist. You my friend arent one. Your something else thats for sure, but you aint a pacifist.
Pacifism is about having compassion for your enemies and loving your enemy. The idea that love conquers all.
So hating and wanting to kill american troops does nothing. Its counterproductive.
Bacis Pacifism 101 here buddy. This aint Marxist theorietics here, its basic info. Obviously you claim to be things your not
Umm...you're way off base here. I do have compassion for all and do not want anyone murdered. I've said before that I wouldn't even defend myself if attacked.
Apparently your reading comprehension is quite poor. When I ask the question: How can YOU have compassion for those who volunteered to go kill people - it does NOT mean that I delight in them being killed.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i dont think what u.s. soldiers are doing is right, but I dont applaud at their deaths like you seem to do. 25 dead in iraq is wrong on either side.
I just read the news, obviously to you I have to each article, post my feelings about Iraqis. Too much labor involved for me. I posted my reaction and obviously you disagree. American lives are worthless. Be a man or woman and admit it. I told you my truth, tell me your truth! You dont have compassion for American deaths.
Why are you a pacifist if you delight in the death of american troops. I am against ALL KILLING. ALL KILLING. You dont seem to be the same. Thats NOT A PACIFIST! Hate to break it to you buddy. I know lots of pacifists, and you my friend arent one. A pacifist cares about the death of all humans. You only care about Iraqis. And while I mourn the deaths of Iraqis, Americans are dying too. Both deserve recognition and both deaths are wrong.
What pacifist delights in the death of Americans? What pacifist thinks only people in foreign lands are deserving of mourning when mass death occurs?
Che, I'm not interested in getting in this fight, I would like to say that I'm impressed about your concern over human life. If it's legit?
Here's a fun quote from the real Che Guevara. It kind of makes your "I'm a pacifist" statement dilluted when you so passionatley support someone like that.
"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!"
i told you how I have compassion. Because thats the definition of pacifist. Obviously your history lessons were spent smoking in the bathroom. Pacifists have compassion for their enemies. Plain and simple. Thats how I have compassion
everyone always says "if we leave, then there will be chaos". from what i read in the paper everyday, it sounds like what is going on there everyday is chaos.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i dont think what u.s. soldiers are doing is right, but I dont applaud at their deaths like you seem to do. 25 dead in iraq is wrong on either side.
I just read the news, obviously to you I have to each article, post my feelings about Iraqis. Too much labor involved for me. I posted my reaction and obviously you disagree. American lives are worthless. Be a man or woman and admit it. I told you my truth, tell me your truth! You dont have compassion for American deaths.
I do not applaud anyone's death ever. You have apparently come up with that on your own.
(you seem to have too much anger to be a pacifist anyway...)
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i told you how I have compassion. Because thats the definition of pacifist. Obviously your history lessons were spent smoking in the bathroom. Pacifists have compassion for their enemies. Plain and simple. Thats how I have compassion
So why won't you answer the question that if it could be shown that bringing home American troops would increase the frequency of killing, would you still call for it?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
MLK cheated on his wife. Mother Theresa felt those who could be "saved" by her had to accept jesus, and they had to refuse anastesia (sorry bad spelling).
No person is perfect and I never claimed che was. But his willingness to give his life for his cause is admirable. And I think his vision of a socialist future is also admirable.
But I condemn his violent tendencies.
Again, today this board seems to be filled with ignorant people. Just because I have his name as a screename doesnt mean I think he is a god.
MLK cheated on his wife. Mother Theresa felt those who could be "saved" by her had to accept jesus, and they had to refuse anastesia (sorry bad spelling).
No person is perfect and I never claimed che was. But his willingness to give his life for his cause is admirable. And I think his vision of a socialist future is also admirable.
But I condemn his violent tendencies.
Again, today this board seems to be filled with ignorant people. Just because I have his name as a screename doesnt mean I think he is a god.
I got in this discussion because, even though at the core I agree with you that the war was wrong and I oppose all wars, I am not closed minded to the fact that situations change and for the set of circumstances we have today, it might be the best course of action to let the military continue to occupy and keep the amount of killing lower.
You repeated refuse to say whether you would support leaving the military there if it could be shown the frequency of killing would be lower.
That, to me, shows that your agenda isn't really about pacifism.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So why won't you answer the question that if it could be shown that bringing home American troops would increase the frequency of killing, would you still call for it?
I have answered it. Obviously you cant see what I am writing. I am a pacifist. Therefore I believe ALL WARS are wrong. ALL. And any engagemnt in them is wrong. For ANY amount of time.
So what do you think my views on your question would be. Its self evident.
The argument you made was also made by the butcherers who murdered people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Doesnt make your reasoning right though.
I have answered it. Obviously you cant see what I am writing. I am a pacifist. Therefore I believe ALL WARS are wrong. ALL. And any engagemnt in them is wrong. For ANY amount of time.
So what do you think my views on your question would be. Its self evident.
The argument you made was also made by the butcherers who murdered people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Doesnt make your reasoning right though.
Then it shows me that you do not care about the Iraqi people if you would support an action that would lead to more of them being killed.
I'm not sure what your definition of a pacifist is, but it looks as if it's someone who is only concerned with their own interests and not the fate of people different from them.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I got in this discussion because, even though at the core I agree with you that the war was wrong and I oppose all wars, I am not closed minded to the fact that situations change and for the set of circumstances we have today, it might be the best course of action to let the military continue to occupy and keep the amount of killing lower.
You repeated refuse to say whether you would support leaving the military there if it could be shown the frequency of killing would be lower.
That, to me, shows that your agenda isn't really about pacifism.
your agenda was shown in your very first post, when instead of reacting to the news of 25 american soldiers dead you said :And if we bring them home now and 100,000 Iraqis die in the next 6 months of chaos, will you sleep better at night?
and
Why do some people value the lives of Americans over the lives of people from other countries?
(and bear in mind those Americans volunteered to be there)
So again, I may be wrong but you not only didnt think the deaths of 25 americans warranted disgust, you also implied they deserved to die. After all they volunteered.
Situations havent changed. Your a poser who acts like their a pacifist. I have never EVER called for violence, never EVER! Thus why I claim I am a pacifist.
Then it shows me that you do not care about the Iraqi people if you would support an action that would lead to more of them being killed.
I'm not sure what your definition of a pacifist is, but it looks as if it's someone who is only concerned with their own interests and not the fate of people different from them.
your actions show to me, you dont care about anyone but Iraqis. So if another Hurricane was to hit New Orleans, you wouldnt care, because its not Iraqi blood.
Again, admit it like a man or woman. I admited what I was a marxist, pinko commie, hippie, pacifist. Your colors are already showing, and they aint no pacifist.
Anyone who reacts like you did to the death of 25 people, their is something wrong with you frankly
MLK cheated on his wife. Mother Theresa felt those who could be "saved" by her had to accept jesus, and they had to refuse anastesia (sorry bad spelling).
No person is perfect and I never claimed che was. But his willingness to give his life for his cause is admirable. And I think his vision of a socialist future is also admirable.
But I condemn his violent tendencies.
Again, today this board seems to be filled with ignorant people. Just because I have his name as a screename doesnt mean I think he is a god.
Something had to be said, I'm not a pacifist either, so I enjoy "inserting" myself into fights. I do believe you either worship the guy (to go as far as to use his name) or it's for shock value and you got the red T-Shirt you sport at your local mall. And if you really were a pacifist, you'd have nothing to do with that guy, so I'm not buying it.
As far as your compassion related definition of pacifist, let me help you out. Courtesy of dictionary.com
pac·i·fist /ˈpæsəfɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pas-uh-fist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.
2. a person whose personal belief in pacifism causes him or her to refuse being drafted into military service.
Definitions aren't left open to dispute or manipulate. It's what it is and nothing else.
your agenda was shown in your very first post, when instead of reacting to the news of 25 american soldiers dead you said :And if we bring them home now and 100,000 Iraqis die in the next 6 months of chaos, will you sleep better at night?
and
Why do some people value the lives of Americans over the lives of people from other countries?
(and bear in mind those Americans volunteered to be there)
So again, I may be wrong but you not only didnt think the deaths of 25 americans warranted disgust, you also implied they deserved to die. After all they volunteered.
Situations havent changed. Your a poser who acts like their a pacifist. I have never EVER called for violence, never EVER! Thus why I claim I am a pacifist.
Well in case it wasn't obvious, I'll try to be more clear (and not use any big words)
I AM DISGUSTED BY THE DEATHS OF AMERICANS, BUT THE AMOUNT I AM DISGUSTED IS EQUAL TO THE DISGUST AT THE DEATHS OF IRAQIS OR ANYONE ELSE. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE SHOULD FAVOR AMERICAN LIVES OVER THE LIVES OF IRAQIS BY CALLING SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE AMERICAN DEATHS OR CALLING FOR THEM TO COME HOME IMMEDIATELY AT THE EXPENSE OF MANY MORE IRAQI LIVES.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
your actions show to me, you dont care about anyone but Iraqis. So if another Hurricane was to hit New Orleans, you wouldnt care, because its not Iraqi blood.
Again, admit it like a man or woman. I admited what I was a marxist, pinko commie, hippie, pacifist. Your colors are already showing, and they aint no pacifist.
Anyone who reacts like you did to the death of 25 people, their is something wrong with you frankly
I hardly ever say this, but: You're wrong. I've said it over and over and over, that I care about the lives of all people.
And the care that I have extends to not showing favoritism to the American deaths or calling troops home and having many Iraqis die as a result.
I'm not going to say it again. You can keep spouting incorrect statements like the one above if you want to.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Well in case it wasn't obvious, I'll try to be more clear (and not use any big words)
I AM DISGUSTED BY THE DEATHS OF AMERICANS, BUT THE AMOUNT I AM DISGUSTED IS EQUAL TO THE DISGUST AT THE DEATHS OF IRAQIS OR ANYONE ELSE. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE SHOULD FAVOR AMERICAN LIVES OVER THE LIVES OF IRAQIS BY CALLING SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE AMERICAN DEATHS OR CALLING FOR THEM TO COME HOME IMMEDIATELY AT THE EXPENSE OF MANY MORE IRAQI LIVES.
We are still there.. How many of those Iraqis that you care so much about died yesterday? Our invasion caused this violence, or occupation instigates it and sustains it - and our continued presence consistantly shows we are not controlling it.
We are still there.. How many of those Iraqis that you care so much about died yesterday? Our invasion caused this violence, or occupation instigates it and sustains it - and our continued presence consistantly shows we are not controlling it.
I don't think anyone knows for sure whether the violence will increase or decrease if we leave. I'm speaking in hypotheticals here when I say that if the violence will increase, we should stay.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I don't think anyone knows for sure whether the violence will increase or decrease if we leave. I'm speaking in hypotheticals here when I say that if the violence will increase, we should stay.
yes, your guess is as good as mine I suppose..
However, it is probably not responsible to start or continue military attacks based upon a guess.
Is the US currently attacking? I was under the impression it was just an occupation and not an attack.
No sir, we are attacking. We attack all Iraqi citizens that opppose our occupation and invasion. We call them insurgents - and through propaganda and exploitation - we have learned to associate the word insurgent with terrorist.
When they are, by definition, opposed to the occupation.
No sir, we are attacking. We attack all Iraqi citizens that opppose our occupation and invasion. We call them insurgents - and through propaganda and exploitation - we have learned to associate the word insurgent with terrorist.
When they are, by definition, opposed to the occupation.
I think they have to give an example or have some sort of concrete proof that the insurgents are committing or planning to commit violence. I do not believe the U.S. is attacking people simply for being opposed to the occupation.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Seventy-five people have been killed and 160 others injured in a double car bombing in Baghdad, Iraqi police say.
The bombers struck a second-hand clothes market popular with the city's poorer residents in the deadliest attack so far this year.
It is also the second major bombing in less than a week. Six days ago, 70 died in an attack on a Baghdad university.
The attacks came as US troops arrived on a mission to boost security in a country racked by sectarian violence.
The 3,200 troops sent to Baghdad are the advance guard of a 21,500-strong deployment ordered by President George Bush earlier this month.
After Monday's explosions, bodies could be seen covered in blue sheeting outside a Baghdad mortuary, while doctors at al-Kindi Hospital worked frantically to save the lives of the badly injured.
The bombs exploded in the Haraj market, which sells second-hand clothing and DVDs, shortly after midday (0900 GMT). Columns of thick smoke immediately covered the area.
The BBC's Mike Wooldridge in Baghdad says the market was popular with the many Baghdad residents on low incomes, and that the area was also a busy transport interchange.
It was choked with traffic at the time, he adds, and there are fears the death toll could yet climb further.
The attacks are seen as highlighting the challenges faced by US forces as they prepare to try to rein in the Sunni and Shia fighters who have been carrying out deadly tit-for-tat attacks.
Previous attempts to stop the killings in the capital have failed, in part, analysts say, because coalition and Iraqi troops have not stayed in an area once insurgents have been cleared.
Under the new plans, once an area is taken, the extra US troops will stay behind, backing up Iraqi forces to hold the area.
Doubts, however, remain as to whether there will be enough extra troops to stabilise a city of more than six million people, while among Baghdad residents there are fears the presence of the troops will simply inspire more violence.
US troops have suffered significant losses in recent days. On Saturday, 25 soldiers were killed - one of the worst days for the American army since the invasion.
I think they have to give an example or have some sort of concrete proof that the insurgents are committing or planning to commit violence. I do not believe the U.S. is attacking people simply for being opposed to the occupation.
do you? Of the 600,000 dead.. or whichever number you prefer.. initially we killed just about anything or anyone near military facilities and equipment. Currently the country is filled with lawlessness and "insurgents" killing anyone they see that will help foil the United States efforts at changing Iraq into whatever they think the United States hopes to turn it into..
The deaths are arbitrary - and often and we are not helping - we are hurting..
and to some extent our presence creates the need for us to kill - whether we are protecting ourselves or the Iraqi's that we like.
Our invasion was deadly and our continued presence is deadly..
and no progress is being made.
The violence after we depart will be toward an end - where the victor or victors will establish the rules.
currently the death has no purpose - other than to hold on the the US political pretence that we are there to help. When we leave - the violence - which can't get much worse - will have a purpose - whether you are for that purpose or not.
Comments
I am against all killing as well. I have never said that I delighted in the death of anyone. I'm not sure where you got this.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Umm...you're way off base here. I do have compassion for all and do not want anyone murdered. I've said before that I wouldn't even defend myself if attacked.
Apparently your reading comprehension is quite poor. When I ask the question: How can YOU have compassion for those who volunteered to go kill people - it does NOT mean that I delight in them being killed.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I just read the news, obviously to you I have to each article, post my feelings about Iraqis. Too much labor involved for me. I posted my reaction and obviously you disagree. American lives are worthless. Be a man or woman and admit it. I told you my truth, tell me your truth! You dont have compassion for American deaths.
Che, I'm not interested in getting in this fight, I would like to say that I'm impressed about your concern over human life. If it's legit?
Here's a fun quote from the real Che Guevara. It kind of makes your "I'm a pacifist" statement dilluted when you so passionatley support someone like that.
"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I do not applaud anyone's death ever. You have apparently come up with that on your own.
(you seem to have too much anger to be a pacifist anyway...)
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So why won't you answer the question that if it could be shown that bringing home American troops would increase the frequency of killing, would you still call for it?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
MLK cheated on his wife. Mother Theresa felt those who could be "saved" by her had to accept jesus, and they had to refuse anastesia (sorry bad spelling).
No person is perfect and I never claimed che was. But his willingness to give his life for his cause is admirable. And I think his vision of a socialist future is also admirable.
But I condemn his violent tendencies.
Again, today this board seems to be filled with ignorant people. Just because I have his name as a screename doesnt mean I think he is a god.
I got in this discussion because, even though at the core I agree with you that the war was wrong and I oppose all wars, I am not closed minded to the fact that situations change and for the set of circumstances we have today, it might be the best course of action to let the military continue to occupy and keep the amount of killing lower.
You repeated refuse to say whether you would support leaving the military there if it could be shown the frequency of killing would be lower.
That, to me, shows that your agenda isn't really about pacifism.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I have answered it. Obviously you cant see what I am writing. I am a pacifist. Therefore I believe ALL WARS are wrong. ALL. And any engagemnt in them is wrong. For ANY amount of time.
So what do you think my views on your question would be. Its self evident.
The argument you made was also made by the butcherers who murdered people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Doesnt make your reasoning right though.
Then it shows me that you do not care about the Iraqi people if you would support an action that would lead to more of them being killed.
I'm not sure what your definition of a pacifist is, but it looks as if it's someone who is only concerned with their own interests and not the fate of people different from them.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
your agenda was shown in your very first post, when instead of reacting to the news of 25 american soldiers dead you said :And if we bring them home now and 100,000 Iraqis die in the next 6 months of chaos, will you sleep better at night?
and
Why do some people value the lives of Americans over the lives of people from other countries?
(and bear in mind those Americans volunteered to be there)
So again, I may be wrong but you not only didnt think the deaths of 25 americans warranted disgust, you also implied they deserved to die. After all they volunteered.
Situations havent changed. Your a poser who acts like their a pacifist. I have never EVER called for violence, never EVER! Thus why I claim I am a pacifist.
your actions show to me, you dont care about anyone but Iraqis. So if another Hurricane was to hit New Orleans, you wouldnt care, because its not Iraqi blood.
Again, admit it like a man or woman. I admited what I was a marxist, pinko commie, hippie, pacifist. Your colors are already showing, and they aint no pacifist.
Anyone who reacts like you did to the death of 25 people, their is something wrong with you frankly
Something had to be said, I'm not a pacifist either, so I enjoy "inserting" myself into fights. I do believe you either worship the guy (to go as far as to use his name) or it's for shock value and you got the red T-Shirt you sport at your local mall. And if you really were a pacifist, you'd have nothing to do with that guy, so I'm not buying it.
As far as your compassion related definition of pacifist, let me help you out. Courtesy of dictionary.com
pac·i·fist /ˈpæsəfɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pas-uh-fist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.
2. a person whose personal belief in pacifism causes him or her to refuse being drafted into military service.
Definitions aren't left open to dispute or manipulate. It's what it is and nothing else.
Well in case it wasn't obvious, I'll try to be more clear (and not use any big words)
I AM DISGUSTED BY THE DEATHS OF AMERICANS, BUT THE AMOUNT I AM DISGUSTED IS EQUAL TO THE DISGUST AT THE DEATHS OF IRAQIS OR ANYONE ELSE. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE SHOULD FAVOR AMERICAN LIVES OVER THE LIVES OF IRAQIS BY CALLING SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE AMERICAN DEATHS OR CALLING FOR THEM TO COME HOME IMMEDIATELY AT THE EXPENSE OF MANY MORE IRAQI LIVES.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I hardly ever say this, but: You're wrong. I've said it over and over and over, that I care about the lives of all people.
And the care that I have extends to not showing favoritism to the American deaths or calling troops home and having many Iraqis die as a result.
I'm not going to say it again. You can keep spouting incorrect statements like the one above if you want to.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
We are still there.. How many of those Iraqis that you care so much about died yesterday? Our invasion caused this violence, or occupation instigates it and sustains it - and our continued presence consistantly shows we are not controlling it.
I don't think anyone knows for sure whether the violence will increase or decrease if we leave. I'm speaking in hypotheticals here when I say that if the violence will increase, we should stay.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
yes, your guess is as good as mine I suppose..
However, it is probably not responsible to start or continue military attacks based upon a guess.
Is the US currently attacking? I was under the impression it was just an occupation and not an attack.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
No sir, we are attacking. We attack all Iraqi citizens that opppose our occupation and invasion. We call them insurgents - and through propaganda and exploitation - we have learned to associate the word insurgent with terrorist.
When they are, by definition, opposed to the occupation.
I think they have to give an example or have some sort of concrete proof that the insurgents are committing or planning to commit violence. I do not believe the U.S. is attacking people simply for being opposed to the occupation.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Scores die in Iraq market attack
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6286459.stm
Seventy-five people have been killed and 160 others injured in a double car bombing in Baghdad, Iraqi police say.
The bombers struck a second-hand clothes market popular with the city's poorer residents in the deadliest attack so far this year.
It is also the second major bombing in less than a week. Six days ago, 70 died in an attack on a Baghdad university.
The attacks came as US troops arrived on a mission to boost security in a country racked by sectarian violence.
The 3,200 troops sent to Baghdad are the advance guard of a 21,500-strong deployment ordered by President George Bush earlier this month.
After Monday's explosions, bodies could be seen covered in blue sheeting outside a Baghdad mortuary, while doctors at al-Kindi Hospital worked frantically to save the lives of the badly injured.
The bombs exploded in the Haraj market, which sells second-hand clothing and DVDs, shortly after midday (0900 GMT). Columns of thick smoke immediately covered the area.
The BBC's Mike Wooldridge in Baghdad says the market was popular with the many Baghdad residents on low incomes, and that the area was also a busy transport interchange.
It was choked with traffic at the time, he adds, and there are fears the death toll could yet climb further.
The attacks are seen as highlighting the challenges faced by US forces as they prepare to try to rein in the Sunni and Shia fighters who have been carrying out deadly tit-for-tat attacks.
Previous attempts to stop the killings in the capital have failed, in part, analysts say, because coalition and Iraqi troops have not stayed in an area once insurgents have been cleared.
Under the new plans, once an area is taken, the extra US troops will stay behind, backing up Iraqi forces to hold the area.
Doubts, however, remain as to whether there will be enough extra troops to stabilise a city of more than six million people, while among Baghdad residents there are fears the presence of the troops will simply inspire more violence.
US troops have suffered significant losses in recent days. On Saturday, 25 soldiers were killed - one of the worst days for the American army since the invasion.
Fucked up situation.
do you? Of the 600,000 dead.. or whichever number you prefer.. initially we killed just about anything or anyone near military facilities and equipment. Currently the country is filled with lawlessness and "insurgents" killing anyone they see that will help foil the United States efforts at changing Iraq into whatever they think the United States hopes to turn it into..
The deaths are arbitrary - and often and we are not helping - we are hurting..
and to some extent our presence creates the need for us to kill - whether we are protecting ourselves or the Iraqi's that we like.
Our invasion was deadly and our continued presence is deadly..
and no progress is being made.
The violence after we depart will be toward an end - where the victor or victors will establish the rules.
currently the death has no purpose - other than to hold on the the US political pretence that we are there to help. When we leave - the violence - which can't get much worse - will have a purpose - whether you are for that purpose or not.