Shots Across The Bow

This would make perfect sense except for the inconvenient fact that MOST OF THE FREAKIN' ATTACKS ARE AGAINST IRAQI CIVILIANS!

This really doesn't invalidate the premise you claim it does. Sadly, the murderous thugs that are killing innocent civilians are not doing so because the civilians offended them somehow (they're called innocent for a reason). They are being killed for some higher (or lower, to be more accurate) purpose. That purpose is of course debatable, but the fact that many casualties are civilians does not refute anything.

That's a completely false argument Chris. (And thanks by the way for falling into it. I knew I could count on you!) Do you think that if the US pulled out tomorrow that the attacks on Iraqi civilians would stop?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

If anything, the terrorists would step up their attacks to hasten the fall of the elected government. If you think otherwise, you are living in a dream world.

Now then, let's take that a step further. If the attacks would indeed step up in the absence of US forces, (and we can argue that if you'd like, although you'll find it difficult to find a shred of evidence to support that particular fantasy) then logically, that means that the presence of US forces in Iraq is resulting in fewer civilian casualties than would result from their absence. So why then are so many voices on the left calling for an immediate withdrawal of the troops, and the inevitable blood bath that would follow? Do they really hate President Bush so much that they are willing to sacrifice thousands of innocent lives to bring him down?

So much for the party of compassion.

And your protestations to the contrary, the civilians are being targetted for their actions, not for some "purpose", whether high or low. They are being killed because of what they are doing. The civilians did offend them. They voted. They rejected Islamic fundamentalism at the polls. They rejected the Ba'athists. They support the newly elected government. They are embracing a new freedom that the terrorists wish to deny them. They are joining the military and the police forces in order to fight for and defend those freedoms. They are reporting terrorist cells and suspicious activities. In short, they are doing everything the terrorist thugs don't want them to do, and for that, the terrorists are extracting a price in blood. To deny any linkage between their actions and the bloody reprisals is to deny their courage, their dignity, and their autonomy, and treat them as mindless puppets.

Your argument is naive to the point of willfull ignorance. If you have to blind yourself to the facts in order to sustain your argument, what does that say about the validity of your argument?

if the war had never had happened you would have the same amount of ppl getting killed by the Saddam regime as the "insurgents". pick your poison. the us army is NOT a garrison Army. our soldiers are there to kill the enemy. NOT to patrol a city. your argument is a phallacy. im growing weary of the bloggers trying to portray the MSM as anti-Army/anti-Bush and throw out a couple hundred soldiers opinions that we "are doing good but no one reports it". if you are so bad ass why dont you re-enlist and join the army instead of the submariners? lets see you take a ride in a Humvee around the Green Zone knowing that you could kiss your ass gooodbye via a roadside bomb on garrision duty? you wont admit it was a mistake to invade Iraq will you? you substitute the fact that since there were no WMD's/9/11 links that is alright in the end so we can "save" people and "jumpstart" democracy. you havent a clue as to how the middle eastern people feel about America other than your own self deluded "facts". congratulate yourself as another keyboard patriot in action. (please dont throw out your prior military service; you were not on the ground dodging bullets. you were more concerned with scuba diving and not getting sunburned than facing an RPG driving around Baghdad).