Quote Originally Posted by daihashi
You've come onto this forum with an obvious angry voice full of bias. Post fact and maybe someone will listen. You'll have to excuse the brashness of this post but it does get a bit irritating seeing people with sub 50 posts come onto the forum seemingly trolling for a fight instead of debating a topic intellectually like it should be.
Man, you just kind of jumped on that guy. What was so offensive about his post? It didn't sound like a troll to me --- just stating his opinion like everyone else. It's good you asked him to back up the million deaths claim with a fact. But what about this post is inapropriate?:

Quote Originally Posted by ralphbuick
I don't think it's unreasonable to adjust your point of view. The surge has taken nearly twice as long as expected to make any identifiable difference, but I don't hear anyone picking Bush up on this. In January, the surge was a Fail. Straight out bad move. Only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met. And now it's all a success? Please. It's all propaganda, measured by the news channels. America lost the war a long time ago, and is simply fighting to maintain order. Even now, after more than one million Iraqis have died violent deaths as a result of the conflict, you are squabbling over how Obama picks over this? Ridiculous.
dragonrider Reviewed by dragonrider on . Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem Barack Obama's aides have removed criticism of President Bush's increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat's written war plan to reflect changing conditions. Debate over the impact of President Bush's troop "surge" has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase. A Rating: 5