Foreign firms investing in Iraq

[WIP]

Gee...why didn't Canada win the war in Afghanistan?

Oh! It's up to us to win a war for you now? The Bush Admin, that you proudly wear as badge of honour, were warned by several generals and military experts that a major operation in Iraq would make it impossible to finish the job in Afghanistan; but you guys thought you knew it all, didn't you?

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh! It's up to us to win a war for you now? The Bush Admin, that you proudly wear as badge of honour, were warned by several generals and military experts that a major operation in Iraq would make it impossible to finish the job in Afghanistan; but you guys thought you knew it all, didn't you?

Yes....just about as much as Canada, which showed up in 2002 to join the fray. Bemoaning an American diversion to Iraq does little to explain a lack of total invesment in Afghanistan by Canadian Forces for the "just war" piously championed by Ottawa. NATO is NATO.....the Americans have other responsibilities as well. Ding, dong....Saddam is dead.

[Topaz]

Foreign firms eh? Probably if we took a closer look some of those firms may appear foreign but groups like the Carlyle buy up firms around the world, so they could be US-owned. I'm just waiting for Iraq to be the 52? state? OR will it be Afghanistan?

[bush_cheney2004]

Foreign firms eh? Probably if we took a closer look some of those firms may appear foreign but groups like the Carlyle buy up firms around the world, so they could be US-owned. I'm just waiting for Iraq to be the 52? state? OR will it be Afghanistan?

Err...what about #51? Would that be Alberta?

[GostHacked]

Yes....just about as much as Canada, which showed up in 2002 to join the fray. Bemoaning an American diversion to Iraq does little to explain a lack of total invesment in Afghanistan by Canadian Forces for the "just war" piously championed by Ottawa. NATO is NATO.....the Americans have other responsibilities as well. Ding, dong....Saddam is dead.

Both wars are not just. I never supported Canada going into Afghanistan. The same reasons I never supported the invasion of Iraq.

Afghanistan is a NATO let mission.

Iraq is a US led coallition.

Canada does not have the troop numbers or the financial capitol to invest in Afghanistan.

The US has spent trillions of dollars in Iraq.

Both countries are still quite messed up.

Proves that the more military and money you pump into a country does not mean you will reach your goal.

Iraq and Afghanistan are still in the same condition they were 10 years ago.

But people like BC obviously ignore that fact. And who cares, it is not about bringing freedoms or killing terrorists in these countries .. it is about oil gas and other resources.

[bush_cheney2004]

Both wars are not just. I never supported Canada going into Afghanistan. The same reasons I never supported the invasion of Iraq.

Your lack of support is noted for the record.....irrelevant....but noted.

Canada does not have the troop numbers or the financial capitol to invest in Afghanistan.

The US has spent trillions of dollars in Iraq.

You mean if Canada had more it would be OK? What would Canadians who presently serve think about your sour analysis? The US has not spent "trillions" in Iraq...we're still working on our first (devalued) trillion.

Maybe next time the PMO won't hold up causes like Afghanistan to avoid stickier wickets like Iraq? I guess Kosovo and Haiti were pieces of cake, eh? Let me guess....you didn't "support" those (illegal) Canadian interventions either?

Both countries are still quite messed up.

Proves that the more military and money you pump into a country does not mean you will reach your goal.

It's only been 5 to 7 years.....now what would post WW2 Europe or Japan think about your negative prognosis after such a short time? You know, a frown is just a smile turned upside down!

Iraq and Afghanistan are still in the same condition they were 10 years ago.

Nope...conditions are markedly different in both countries.

But people like BC obviously ignore that fact. And who cares, it is not about bringing freedoms or killing terrorists in these countries .. it is about oil gas and other resources.

And more than that....but it's not about me or "people like me". I propose that the only folks ignoring the facts are "people like you".

[Shady]

Foreign firms eh? Probably if we took a closer look some of those firms may appear foreign but groups like the Carlyle

Nope. Not Carlyle, read the article. Not Haliburton, read the article. Not even the ghost of Prescott Bush, read the article.

Both wars are not just.

How was the Afghanistan war not just? Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. They conducted major terrorist operations out of Afghanistan. They were given a safe haven under the former government of Afghanistan.

Both countries are still quite messed up.

They were messed up before any military action took place.

Proves that the more military and money you pump into a country does not mean you will reach your goal.

No, but you'll reach your goal sooner.

Iraq and Afghanistan are still in the same condition they were 10 years ago.

No they're not. Any objective person could see that. Here's a couple of examples for you.

Thousands plan Shiite pilgrimage

NAJAF, Iraq — Hundreds of thousands of Shiite Muslims are descending on this city south of Baghdad this weekend for the sect's first free pilgrimage in more than 25 years.

"Saddam killed everyone who did this procedure previously. But now this procedure is being done freely, and the Iraqi people are very happy to do this," said Haider Nomman, 22

Link

Girls’ attendance doubles in Afghan schools

AFGHANISTAN, May 2006 - Girls’ school attendance has doubled in Afghan schools supported by World Vision and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), according to statistics collected by World Vision school monitors.

Using baseline numbers from 2004 when World Vision began its school enhancement programming, 8,522 girls were attending schools under the USDA-supported Food-for-Education programme. Two years later, in March 2006, records show attendance at 16,909.

Tim Pylate, World Vision’s USDA Food-for-Education programme manager, was ecstatic when he saw the figures, “A 98 per cent increase: it’s incredible. Attendance has doubled!”

Link

But people like BC obviously ignore that fact.

It's not a fact to ignore. FU and your lies. Edited July 7, 2008 by Shady

[Shady]

Once again, more good news from Iraq.

Sunni bloc rejoins Iraqi cabinet

The main Sunni Muslim bloc in Iraq has rejoined the Shia-led government, in what correspondents called an important step for national reconciliation

BBC

[GostHacked]

I said

QUOTE

Canada does not have the troop numbers or the financial capitol to invest in Afghanistan.

The US has spent trillions of dollars in Iraq.

BC Replied.

You mean if Canada had more it would be OK? What would Canadians who presently serve think about your sour analysis? The US has not spent "trillions" in Iraq...we're still working on our first (devalued) trillion.

Reading comprehension is essential here BC. I never said it would be ok, I just stated that we simply do not have the resources like the US has when it comes to money and military. So even if I was ok with it, Canada simply does not have the resources to accomplish the goal of winning this war on terror. Canada can never make the contribution that the US has wether I am ok with it or not.

Shady

How was the Afghanistan war not just? Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. They conducted major terrorist operations out of Afghanistan. They were given a safe haven under the former government of Afghanistan.

Al Queda is still based in Aghanistan. And now operating in Pakistan. You know, those guys who are helping the US in the war on terror, but will not allow US troops to go into Pakistan to kill the rest of Al Queda. You figure with Pakistan as an ally, they would allow the US to go in and 'get er dunn'. But that has not been the case.

The Taliban are making a come back because the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse since the initial invasion. Which tells me the focus on the war on terror made a huge shift away from Afghanistan ... but what could that possibly be??

Afghanistan was invaded in 2001.

Iraq in 2003.

Afghanistan had Al Queda and Bin Laden (the guys who did 9/11 apparently) and the Taliban.

Iraq had none.

Iraq had been made a focal point in the War on Terror

Afghanistan used to be a focal point for the War on Terror.

Saddam is dead.

Bin Laden still at large.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Taliban are making a come back because the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse since the initial invasion. Which tells me the focus on the war on terror made a huge shift away from Afghanistan ... but what could that possibly be??

Afghanistan was invaded in 2001.

Iraq in 2003.

So again..I ask the question of when/how much Canada devoted to the effort in Afghanistan since late 2001? You have already admitted that Canada cannot match US resources committed to date in Afghanistan, yet take exception to US adventures elsewhere? If you expected America to throw everything that way, why didn't Canada. CENTCOM and NATO have recognized Canada's contributions in Afghanistan, but not at the expense of others' efforts as well.

[GostHacked]

So again..I ask the question of when/how much Canada devoted to the effort in Afghanistan since late 2001? You have already admitted that Canada cannot match US resources committed to date in Afghanistan, yet take exception to US adventures elsewhere? If you expected America to throw everything that way, why didn't Canada. CENTCOM and NATO have recognized Canada's contributions in Afghanistan, but not at the expense of others' efforts as well.

Let me make this clearer. It does not matter the amount that is conrtibuted. And since what I say does not matter( to the powers that be) I am curious as to why you think I need to clarify anything.

The reason I take exeption to it is this : Biting off more than you can chew. Clean up one area first before messing up another area. The war on terror has been multitasked to a point where the focus was lost and the job will be longer and harder because of it.

If Afghanistan was a focal point, then it should have remained THE focal point untill the job is done. This is why I have a problem with it. The resources should have all been thrown at Afghanistan at the start. Regardless of the amount of troops Canada could contribute, it would come nowhere near the number that then US can contribute.

Also, the amount of troops the US commited to Afghanistan is far lower than what was commited to Iraq 2 years later. If the US has no intentions of going into Iraq when they did, you can sure bet that Afghanistan would be fixed by now.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/1...oops/index.html

The new troops will keep the level of U.S. forces in Afghanistan at about 27,000, the highest number of U.S. troops there since the October 2001 invasion.

Compare that with over 150,000 troops the US took into Iraq. It is clear that Afghanistan was not their main focus.

About 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops are currently inside Afghanistan.

[bush_cheney2004]

Let me make this clearer. It does not matter the amount that is conrtibuted. And since what I say does not matter( to the powers that be) I am curious as to why you think I need to clarify anything.

It doesn't matter in the least, but it will reveal the root of your dissatisfaction.

The reason I take exeption to it is this : Biting off more than you can chew. Clean up one area first before messing up another area. The war on terror has been multitasked to a point where the focus was lost and the job will be longer and harder because of it.

America defined the WoT on her terms, not yours. "Any nation...must make a decision...with us...or with the terrorists". We even had a serious bomb threat from Canada. BTW, your military strategy would have kept the Americans in only one theatre during WW2, despite attacks in the Pacific.

If Afghanistan was a focal point, then it should have remained THE focal point untill the job is done. This is why I have a problem with it. The resources should have all been thrown at Afghanistan at the start. Regardless of the amount of troops Canada could contribute, it would come nowhere near the number that then US can contribute.

Again, you are making judgements about another nations resources and objectives.....Canada didn't even bring its own tactical air and lacked heavy lift transport capability. Fact is, the 2001 strategy revolved around an air campaign coupled with selective engagements and alliances with disaffected Afghan factions, who were mostly interested in just making some money.

Also, the amount of troops the US commited to Afghanistan is far lower than what was commited to Iraq 2 years later. If the US has no intentions of going into Iraq when they did, you can sure bet that Afghanistan would be fixed by now.

See above...there was never any intention of sending 150,000 troops to A-stan. The Russians tried to "fix" Afghanistan using your ideas, and they did far worse than the Americans/NATO in the long run. America and the UK already had years of experience with Iraq and the requirements for another confrontation with Saddam..and it worked.

[GostHacked]

BC

Again, you are making judgements about another nations resources and objectives.....Canada didn't even bring its own tactical air and lacked heavy lift transport capability. Fact is, the 2001 strategy revolved around an air campaign coupled with selective engagements and alliances with disaffected Afghan factions, who were mostly interested in just making some money.

Hell, you make judgements about Canada all the time... And Canada could have never made the commitment to the air campaign. Again, not enough resources to meet the demands. I know you hate this response. This is not only a judgement, but a cut and clear fact that Canada simply does not have the military might that is needed for these missions.

The other countries that contributed to Afghanistan had less resources than Canada to throw into the mix. Since the US is part of NATO, why not be part of it? The US led the war in Afghanistan, but got sidetracked and went to Iraq. To me this shows that the US is not really not acting in honesty when approaching this war on terror. But according to you BC, that was part of the plan. Leave your pals high and dry in a battle you started, just so you can go start another bigger battle somewhere else.

Also, all this don't mean shit because the war on terror is an absolute fantasy and fallacy. But yes, DING DONG Saddams dead. And 'knock knock' ... Bin Laden who????

America defined the WoT on her terms, not yours. "Any nation...must make a decision...with us...or with the terrorists". We even had a serious bomb threat from Canada. BTW, your military strategy would have kept the Americans in only one theatre during WW2, despite attacks in the Pacific.

Guess that sucks for countries like Sweden and Switzerland who declair themselves as neutral. By your logic they are with the terrorists, because they are not with the US.

See above...there was never any intention of sending 150,000 troops to A-stan. The Russians tried to "fix" Afghanistan using your ideas, and they did far worse than the Americans/NATO in the long run. America and the UK already had years of experience with Iraq and the requirements for another confrontation with Saddam..and it worked.

So the main focus was never Afghanistan. Or that problem would have been solved by now.

Saddam is dead. (nothing to do with 9/11)

Bin Laden still at large.

[White Doors]

Saddam is dead. (nothing to do with 9/11)

correct, but he did have lots to do with terrorism and the world is a better place with him dead.

[bush_cheney2004]

BC

Hell, you make judgements about Canada all the time... And Canada could have never made the commitment to the air campaign. Again, not enough resources to meet the demands. I know you hate this response. This is not only a judgement, but a cut and clear fact that Canada simply does not have the military might that is needed for these missions.

Judgements made by you or I are irrelevant. Canada limited its military response for domestic reasons and actual capabilities, yet you will not afford the Americans the same preogative. Interestingly, Canada also abstained from Iraq while pretending that it had anything substantial to contribute besides a smug blessing.

The other countries that contributed to Afghanistan had less resources than Canada to throw into the mix. Since the US is part of NATO, why not be part of it? The US led the war in Afghanistan, but got sidetracked and went to Iraq.

This is false....the UK, Germany, and France all had more resources in this regard, but made different decisions about how do deploy them. The US is not NATO.

To me this shows that the US is not really not acting in honesty when approaching this war on terror. But according to you BC, that was part of the plan. Leave your pals high and dry in a battle you started, just so you can go start another bigger battle somewhere else.

The US has military forces in over 100 nations and is forward deployed around the world. It is difficult enough to prosecute the bad guys without having to worry about and compensate for the missing capabilities of "pals". To think that all US resources would be brought to bear on just the meat grinder that Canada was supporting is a bit unrealistic.

Also, all this don't mean shit because the war on terror is an absolute fantasy and fallacy. But yes, DING DONG Saddams dead. And 'knock knock' ... Bin Laden who????

Then you mean that the US forces shouldn't have gone to A-stan at all? I wonder why Canada went?

Guess that sucks for countries like Sweden and Switzerland who declair themselves as neutral. By your logic they are with the terrorists, because they are not with the US.

There is no such thing as neutral.

So the main focus was never Afghanistan. Or that problem would have been solved by now.

Saddam is dead. (nothing to do with 9/11)

Bin Laden still at large.

What does a "solved" Afghanistan look like.....hockey night in Kabul?

[GostHacked]

BC

Judgements made by you or I are irrelevant. Canada limited its military response for domestic reasons and actual capabilities,

Basicly what I have been saying all along, but my smugness must have blinded you on that. Simply Canada does not have the military resources to poject themselves like that.

This is false....the UK, Germany, and France all had more resources in this regard, but made different decisions about how do deploy them. The US is not NATO.

But the US is part of NATO. With us or against us. What?

The US has military forces in over 100 nations and is forward deployed around the world. It is difficult enough to prosecute the bad guys without having to worry about and compensate for the missing capabilities of "pals". To think that all US resources would be brought to bear on just the meat grinder that Canada was supporting is a bit unrealistic.

Yeah because Afghanistan was not the focus for the war on terror. Maybe there was no focus considering what the US has reserved for the Iraq invasion. So the US left their NATO pals high and dry when they were the drummer boy for the war. The US went to Iraq to find their own meat grinder. I guess you should not drum up support for a cause in which you cannot make a valuable contribution.

Your total forces for Aghanistan was around 50,000 troops from many countries. The US makes up for half of this number.

Your total forces for Iraq was close to 250,000 troops. The US contributed over 150,000 troops for the 'cause'. Slightly messed up ratios no??

What does a "solved" Afghanistan look like.....hockey night in Kabul?

Since there is a Timmy's there already, why the hell not? I bet those Afghans could follow that little black puck on the white ice better than the US counterparts who need that blue or red streak highlighting it.

But to seriously answer your question is... I do not know. I have never seen a fixed Afghanistan.

Then you mean that the US forces shouldn't have gone to A-stan at all? I wonder why Canada went?

Let's go with the notion of national interests. Canada is there because of national interests. The US is not there because the US's national interests lie in Iraq, and Iran.

We are always taught to finish something before we start something else. Before you know it, you are in over 100 countries trying to do the job all at once and wondering why the job is not done, or wonder why the job is taking so long.

[bush_cheney2004]

BC

Basicly what I have been saying all along, but my smugness must have blinded you on that. Simply Canada does not have the military resources to poject themselves like that.

Except that you always leave out the part of A-stan being the moral fight for Canada that Iraq wasn't. Somehow this moral imperative was suppose to be mimicked by the Americans (in your eyes).

But the US is part of NATO. With us or against us. What?

A common mistake...the US supports NATO, as do other members, but is never subordinate to same. The US doesn't need NATO to prosecute a war (obviously), but the reverse is not true.

Yeah because Afghanistan was not the focus for the war on terror. Maybe there was no focus considering what the US has reserved for the Iraq invasion. So the US left their NATO pals high and dry when they were the drummer boy for the war. The US went to Iraq to find their own meat grinder. I guess you should not drum up support for a cause in which you cannot make a valuable contribution.

That is very disingenuous....it is one thing to say that the US diverted resources to Iraq and quite another to claim that a valuable contribution was not made in Afghanistan. By your own admission, without US capabilities, NATO couldn't do much in Afghanistan. More Americans have died in Afghanistan than from all other NATO members combined.

Your total forces for Aghanistan was around 50,000 troops from many countries. The US makes up for half of this number.

US support involved far more than just troops. Just asked the Canadians who hitched a ride there.

Your total forces for Iraq was close to 250,000 troops. The US contributed over 150,000 troops for the 'cause'. Slightly messed up ratios no??

Not at all...the objective was invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Since there is a Timmy's there already, why the hell not? I bet those Afghans could follow that little black puck on the white ice better than the US counterparts who need that blue or red streak highlighting it.

Well, the Americans have seen more of the Stanley Cup than most keen eyed Canadians going back to 1993.

But to seriously answer your question is... I do not know. I have never seen a fixed Afghanistan.

Let's go with the notion of national interests. Canada is there because of national interests. The US is not there because the US's national interests lie in Iraq, and Iran.

US interests lie in all of the above. That's the difference between a pretend "middle power" and a "real superpower".

We are always taught to finish something before we start something else. Before you know it, you are in over 100 countries trying to do the job all at once and wondering why the job is not done, or wonder why the job is taking so long.

This sort of job is never done. Been in Germany, Japan, and Korea for over 50 years...Canada always went home early because it ran out of lunch money.

[GostHacked]

BC

Except that you always leave out the part of A-stan being the moral fight for Canada that Iraq wasn't. Somehow this moral imperative was suppose to be mimicked by the Americans (in your eyes).

Well, I never claimed it to be a moral fight for Canada. Rhetoric is so drastically different from the actions that you will have a hard time finding any morality in this war on terror from both sides.

A common mistake...the US supports NATO, as do other members, but is never subordinate to same. The US doesn't need NATO to prosecute a war (obviously), but the reverse is not true.

So, NATO along with the UN and the ICC are just bodies of convenience for the US then??

Not at all...the objective was invasion and occupation of Iraq.

So there was no objective of invading and occupying Afghanistan?

Well, the Americans have seen more of the Stanley Cup than most keen eyed Canadians going back to 1993.

Wow 1993?? Must have been when Gretzky went south to work for L.A. He is not the Great One for nothing you know.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I never claimed it to be a moral fight for Canada. Rhetoric is so drastically different from the actions that you will have a hard time finding any morality in this war on terror from both sides.

So what? This isn't some football game where each "side" has to play fair for our adjudication. The point was that Canada leaped at the mission in Afghanistan as a moral fight that was above the "barbaric" invasion of Iraq, and in fact precluded any involvement with the US/UK/AUS invasion.

So, NATO along with the UN and the ICC are just bodies of convenience for the US then??

Yes....in practice you will find that those institutions haven't done squat without US muscle....just ask General Dallaire.

So there was no objective of invading and occupying Afghanistan?

Occupation was not the objective.....finding and killing all perps was.

Edited July 21, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

BC

Occupation was not the objective.....finding and killing all perps was.

Psst. Those perps were not in Iraq.

Edited July 22, 2008 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

BC

Psst. Those perps were not in Iraq.

Psst.....UN sanctions, no-fly zones, and military strike packages are also for "perps".

[GostHacked]

Psst.....UN sanctions, no-fly zones, and military strike packages are also for "perps".

Another thing to note here is that Saddam was a person of convenience as well. The US gave weapons to Iraq in order to fight of Iran. The chemicals came from several countries, but just like the war on drugs, you punish the buyer and not the dealer. Which solves nothing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Another thing to note here is that Saddam was a person of convenience as well. The US gave weapons to Iraq in order to fight of Iran. The chemicals came from several countries, but just like the war on drugs, you punish the buyer and not the dealer. Which solves nothing.

Really? You mean Saddam is not dead...like Elvis? The US "gives" weapons to Canada too....so what? Saddam was in material breach of GW 1 surrender instruments and he was a very bad poker player.

[GostHacked]

Really? You mean Saddam is not dead...like Elvis? The US "gives" weapons to Canada too....so what? Saddam was in material breach of GW 1 surrender instruments and he was a very bad poker player.

Hmm, maybe you do have some reading comprehension issues. I did not state Saddam was still alive. And yes you may have given Canada weapons, but I don't really see anywhere in the news where Canada will use them on their own people. Pretty big difference there, no??

The poker game was rigged from the start. Hard to play fair when the opponents are just as crooked. But then again, it is not about playing fair. It is about playing for the crowd.

Like Elvis .... really??? OH wait, I am the one with the tinfoil hat .... so yeah... sure.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmm, maybe you do have some reading comprehension issues. I did not state Saddam was still alive. And yes you may have given Canada weapons, but I don't really see anywhere in the news where Canada will use them on their own people. Pretty big difference there, no??

Better go easy on the reading comprehension insults after you wrote "The US gave weapons to Iraq in order to fight of Iran." See, I am paying attention. Get your story straight.

The poker game was rigged from the start. Hard to play fair when the opponents are just as crooked. But then again, it is not about playing fair. It is about playing for the crowd.

Correct..no such thing as playing fair in such matters. To expect otherwise is quite foolish.

Like Elvis .... really??? OH wait, I am the one with the tinfoil hat .... so yeah... sure.

Cute, but the longstanding American objective in Iraq was regime change. Any questions?