Iraq: not looking good

[bush_cheney2004]

The US needs another 100 000 to 150 000 aditional troops RIGHT NOW to absolutely kill the violence and the reconstruction can begin. With all the surging going on, it does not seem to make a difference. And according to my last post, the Generals on the ground are taking a wait and see approach.

I think you are missing the big picture. Saddam is dead. Iraq is occupied. Iraqis are killing each other in sectarian violence. It's not a counterattack into Kuwait.

1 in 10 damaging property unnecessarily? Who gives a damn...see "WAR".

[bush_cheney2004]

Short on troops and equipment. Both Guard and equipment are in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Yes, I'm sure you could institute a draft. Good luck on that for a fight say in: Pakistan.

Using such logic, may we expect more Canadian Forces in Afghanistan or Pakistan anytime soon? Isn't Canada stretched too thin? What if Denmark invades?

[jdobbin]

Using such logic, may we expect more Canadian Forces in Afghanistan or Pakistan anytime soon? Isn't Canada stretched too thin? What if Denmark invades?

Canada is stretched is thin as it is barring further recruitment. We are incapable of even the smallest of world brushfires.

Take the case of Darfur. There is nothing left in the kitty for either the U.S or Canada to commit there.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada is stretched is thin as it is barring further recruitment. We are incapable of even the smallest of world brushfires.

Take the case of Darfur. There is nothing left in the kitty for either the U.S or Canada to commit there.

With all due respect, the US and Canada have already indicated abject indifference for Darfur when it comes to ground troops. We're just playing footsie with Sudan's government.

Iraq is keen on the US interest list....it is one stop shopping with a lot more to offer than Darfur and human rights.

[GostHacked]

The US needs another 100 000 to 150 000 aditional troops RIGHT NOW to absolutely kill the violence and the reconstruction can begin. With all the surging going on, it does not seem to make a difference. And according to my last post, the Generals on the ground are taking a wait and see approach.

I think you are missing the big picture. Saddam is dead. Iraq is occupied. Iraqis are killing each other in sectarian violence. It's not a counterattack into Kuwait.

1 in 10 damaging property unnecessarily? Who gives a damn...see "WAR".

The bigger picture being that a stable and free Iraq will benifit the US in many ways and to win the war on terror. Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here type thing. Leaving Iraq will create a void where terrorism has already increased dramaticly and allow it more room to grow. The US says Al-queda is in Iraq fighting the Iraqi army and US troops. Sectarian violence is the new politicly correct way of saying CIVIL WAR. Call it what it is. Denial is the first step, remember? I am glad you can call it an occupation, which it certainly is.

Regardless of the lies that got the US and the coalition into this mess, yeah it is all going pretty well. The Long War. The war that might not end in your lifetime (I got a good 60 years in me left).

[GostHacked]

Canada is stretched is thin as it is barring further recruitment. We are incapable of even the smallest of world brushfires.

Take the case of Darfur. There is nothing left in the kitty for either the U.S or Canada to commit there.

With all due respect, the US and Canada have already indicated abject indifference for Darfur when it comes to ground troops. We're just playing footsie with Sudan's government.

Iraq is keen on the US interest list....it is one stop shopping with a lot more to offer than Darfur and human rights.

That would not have anything to do with Cheney's little surprise visit telling the Iraqi Parliment to keep working. We know certain oil deals were to be signed this week. How much oil is in Darfur? Any?

[bush_cheney2004]

That would not have anything to do with Cheney's little surprise visit telling the Iraqi Parliment to keep working. We know certain oil deals were to be signed this week. How much oil is in Darfur? Any?

Yes...lots of oil in southern Darfur...that is what drives the "genocide". China is all over that oil patch.

[jdobbin]

Iraq is keen on the US interest list....it is one stop shopping with a lot more to offer than Darfur and human rights.

It is certainly one stop shopping for people wanting to kill U.S. troops.

I suppose Bush can keep up with what he is doing for the next two years. I've seen little to indicate that things are going to change and that in a nutshell is what hurts Republican chances in the next election.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is certainly one stop shopping for people wanting to kill U.S. troops.

I suppose Bush can keep up with what he is doing for the next two years. I've seen little to indicate that things are going to change and that in a nutshell is what hurts Republican chances in the next election.

Why should they change? To win an election? The Democrats won in 2006 yet have failed to deliver on the promise of change in Iraq or "impeaching" President Bush.

Add Iraq to the list: Germany, Japan, and South Korea...50+ years and counting.

[jdobbin]

Why should they change? To win an election? The Democrats won in 2006 yet have failed to deliver on the promise of change in Iraq or "impeaching" President Bush.

Add Iraq to the list: Germany, Japan, and South Korea...50+ years and counting.

Winning the Reps and the Senate has not been enough to change Bush's policy. I suspect that even Republicans will be pushing for him to change the policy as Presidential elections draw close.

I don't think anyone in the Republican party is campaigning on the 50 year plan for Iraq. The countries you mention have not been actively killing each other and American year in and year out.

[bush_cheney2004]

Winning the Reps and the Senate has not been enough to change Bush's policy. I suspect that even Republicans will be pushing for him to change the policy as Presidential elections draw close.

I don't think anyone in the Republican party is campaigning on the 50 year plan for Iraq. The countries you mention have not been actively killing each other and American year in and year out.

It is not going to change Bush's policy of continued American power projection in the Middle East. Bush was re-elected in 2004 when Americans were being killed at a brisk pace in Iraq and Afghanistan. Go figure?

I mean c'mon...in 1968, Nixon promised to end the war too!

[jdobbin]

It is not going to change Bush's policy of continued American power projection in the Middle East. Bush was re-elected in 2004 when Americans were being killed at a brisk pace in Iraq and Afghanistan. Go figure?

I mean c'mon...in 1968, Nixon promised to end the war too!

By all means. Keep it up as policy. I'm sure it will be very successful.

[bush_cheney2004]

By all means. Keep it up as policy. I'm sure it will be very successful.

Yes, a Superpower's work is never done. Win some...lose some. Doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. That kind of thing is more important in Canada.

[kuzadd]

Civil war?

With security experts reporting that no major road in the country was safe to travel, some Iraq specialists speculated that the Sunni insurgency was effectively encircling the capital and trying to cut it off from the north, south and west, where there are entrenched Sunni communities. East of Baghdad is a mostly unpopulated desert bordering on Iran.

"It's just political rhetoric to say we are not in a civil war. We've been in a civil war for a long time," said Pat Lang, the former top Middle East intelligence official at the Pentagon.

goody, civil war serves the occupiers that much more!!!

[jdobbin]

Yes, a Superpower's work is never done. Win some...lose some. Doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. That kind of thing is more important in Canada.

I guess you'll have no real discontent with a Democrat in the White House then. Good for you on looking beyond partisanship.

[GostHacked]

It is not going to change Bush's policy of continued American power projection in the Middle East. Bush was re-elected in 2004 when Americans were being killed at a brisk pace in Iraq and Afghanistan. Go figure?

I mean c'mon...in 1968, Nixon promised to end the war too!

Bush never promised to end to the war. Democrats wont be able to change it I agree. So if the government cannot change or influence the Bush Policy, then you have a dictatorship like government.

But anyways, You keep refering to Germany, Japan like they were in the same league as Iraq (in terms of conflict and the reasons for conflict) Germany and Japan were taken out in that thing they call WWII. Many countries were involved. The US did not join WWI until much later, and got into WWII after Pearl Harbour. Is that right?

So the US attacked countries that attacked it ? Japan did, but not Germany. Iraq has not even attacked the US. But we know the outcome. Different situations and circumstances.

[Black Dog]

Add Iraq to the list: Germany, Japan, and South Korea...50+ years and counting.

Yep. Lots of U.S troops being blown up by the locals in Frankfurt, Tokyo, Seoul...

Great comparison.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess you'll have no real discontent with a Democrat in the White House then. Good for you on looking beyond partisanship.

Nope, not in the least. May the best candidate win.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bush never promised to end to the war. Democrats wont be able to change it I agree. So if the government cannot change or influence the Bush Policy, then you have a dictatorship like government.

No, it's not a dictatorship. It's a constitutional republic. See "Executive and Legislative Branches of the US Government".

But anyways, You keep refering to Germany, Japan like they were in the same league as Iraq (in terms of conflict and the reasons for conflict) Germany and Japan were taken out in that thing they call WWII. Many countries were involved. The US did not join WWI until much later, and got into WWII after Pearl Harbour. Is that right?

So the US attacked countries that attacked it ? Japan did, but not Germany. Iraq has not even attacked the US. But we know the outcome. Different situations and circumstances.

You lost me here...the collective US experience has been war and occupation. Japan bounced back nicely as did Europe (Marshall Plan). The "not attacked" logic fails miserably when one considers Canada's many adventures slaying enemies across the sea, unless you want to count those balloon bombs.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep. Lots of U.S troops being blown up by the locals in Frankfurt, Tokyo, Seoul...

Great comparison.

Thank you..."U.S troops" even get killed in Halifax.

[BubberMiley]

No, it's not a dictatorship. It's a constitutional republic. See "Executive and Legislative Branches of the US Government".

But if the administration has no respect for the constitution or the other two levels of government, and acts illegally and like a dictator, then it's a dictatorship.

[bush_cheney2004]

But if the administration has no respect for the constitution or the other two levels of government, and acts illegally and like a dictator, then it's a dictatorship.

But such is not the case with the Bush Administration. The US government does not have "levels" save for the federal courts. Congress simply lacks the override votes to change policy constitutionally....all is well. Remember, this is the same Congress that made regime change in Iraq a matter of Public Law in 1998 and also authorized WAR in 2002.

The PM of Canada has far more unchecked power than a US president.

Omigod...Canada would be an even BIGGER dictatorship!

[BubberMiley]

Remember, this is the same Congress that made regime change in Iraq a matter of Public Law in 1998 and also authorized WAR in 2002.

Do you think 2002 authorization of war (pardon me, WAR) really counts when they made the decision based on lies the administration told them? Cheney and Powell et al. were adamant they had intelligence, privy only to the White House, that justified the invasion. Now you hold it against Congress that they, at one time, had faith in their leader.

[Black Dog]

Thank you..."U.S troops" even get killed in Halifax.

But only a total idiot would suggest the victim of a Halifax barfight constitutes a casualty of war. You're not a total idiot, are you?

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you think 2002 authorization of war (pardon me, WAR) really counts when they made the decision based on lies the administration told them? Cheney and Powell et al. were adamant they had intelligence, privy only to the White House, that justified the invasion. Now you hold it against Congress that they, at one time, had faith in their leader.

Of course it counts.....Bush and Cheney were not even in office for the 1998 declarations and bombings (Desert Fox) for "WMD" inspections, or lack thereof. The US Congress had the responsibility to evalute the same intel as the President, and act in the best interest of the United States. I don't hold it against anyone, but rather demonstrate the history of American foreign policy for the region....long before Bush ever came along.

Simply put, Congress could have voted no....they didn't. So much for your dictatorship.