A conversation, part 1

I had a conversation with a friend. As you will see, we disagree. Actually, we disagree on many things, but we enjoy the debate. This is not the first and I hope this will not be the last. I think there's no better way to find out what you really think than to debate with someone about it. Not to mention, some times, you find that your ideas are not what you thought them to be. Heck, they might even change. *gasp*

This conversation started with the following article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html

His text will be in blue and mine will be in green and mine will start with a (m).

My answer to that article is we better hurry up and defeat Iran to stop the murder of Iraqis by Iranians and their proxies. I think this could authorize another 200000 troops.
(m) Bleh
I'm serious. When you hear - almost daily – that another 100 Iraqis were killed, what was the cause? Us missile strike? An attack of American tanks? No, 99% of the time it's an insurgentblowing something up to kill Iraqis.
(m) And how does our being there stop any of that? It provokes more. Listen, we cannot win this war. It cannot be done. The people hate us. Just leave and put our resources toward helping feed and house people.
I think this is a misconstruction. The people performing the vast majority of the attacks aren't Joe Bob and Mary Jane average Iraqis. Its Iranian supported insurgents, trying to kill Sunnis in order to begin and fuel a civil war so that American forces will withdraw.
(m) Its neighborhood vs. neighborhood.
Started and fueled by Iran.
(m) So what? Let’s just bomb everyone.
I didn't say bomb Iran.
(m) Someone somewhere won’t agree with our version of democracy.
Though I wouldn't be displeased by bombing Iran :) You know I feel that we can defeat Iran through other means.