Killing of US soldiers down 60%

[jdobbin]

Nonsense...the UNSC never sanctioned such military action in 1998, unless you believe that 1991 surrender instruments apply...the same justifications used by Blair/Bush for invading Iraq. Clinton's Desert Fox speech reads almost identically to Bush's invasion speech (WMDs / inspections).

NATO's Allied Force against Serbia was illegal for those who worship at the UN alter.

If you have been over this territory before with "well linked" sources, you would already know this.

NATO's war in Kosovo was conducted without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. It was a violation of international law, the United Nations charter and its own article 1, which requires NATO to settle any international disputes by peaceful means and not to threaten or use force, "in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." - James Bisset, Former Canadian Amb. to Yugoslavia

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/bisset/bisset.htm

The U.N. did sanction this type of action with its resolutions.

The government of Canada disagreed with Bisset's interpretation of U.N. resolutions on the former Yugoslavia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of...g_of_Yugoslavia

1. NATO perceived the conditions in Kosovo as posing a risk to regional stability.

NATO and the international community have a legitimate interest in developments in Kosovo, inter alia because of their impact on the stability of the whole region which is of concern to the Alliance. -- Nato Council Statement, March 5th 1998.

2. NATO was justified in acting to maintain regional stability under Articles 2 and 4 of the NATO charter.

3. The use of force by NATO would not be inconsistent with UN resolutions on the matter: Resolution 1160 and Resolution 1199.

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.N. did sanction this type of action with its resolutions.

It certainly did not....not anymore than sanctioning the Iraq invasion in 2003 by prior resolution. It did, however, spawn a movie ("Wag The Dog")

Can't have it both ways.....

[jdobbin]

It certainly did not....not anymore than sanctioning the Iraq invasion in 2003 by prior resolution. It did, however, spawn a movie ("Wag The Dog")

Can't have it both ways.....

I have never argued that the U.N. resolutions were insufficient reason for going to war. I believe even Chretien said that Bush had the authority to do it and wished him well. Canada, like a few other nations, was looking for an additional resolution to spell out what Iraq had to do and what the sanction would be for not complying. In other words, Canada was looking for the same broad support that the previous Gulf war received and for what Afghanistan received.

When it became apparent that the resolution was not forthcoming, Canada wished the U.S. well and said it could not participate.

I believe the U.N. resolution though was sufficient cause for the war. I just don't believe it was enough.

My issue with the Iraq war was the speed towards it without forethought as to what would happen after the country was toppled. I questioned the intelligence even as Colin Powell gave his speech. There *were* articles in the Washington Post back then that raised some concerns about the accuracy and veracity of informants.

Bush had full authority to do what he did. I just don't believe he had the right intelligence and in his rush to war, didn't have the broad support a further resolution might have brought.

[bush_cheney2004]

I have never argued that the U.N. resolutions were insufficient reason for going to war. I believe even Chretien said that Bush had the authority to do it and wished him well. Canada, like a few other nations, was looking for an additional resolution to spell out what Iraq had to do and what the sanction would be for not complying. In other words, Canada was looking for the same broad support that the previous Gulf war received and for what Afghanistan received.

It matters not what you or I believe...the UNSC never authorized military force for Kosovo or the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Such action cannot be derived from standing resolutions without member votes. Canada's role in Iraq would have been largely irrelevant as just another member of the coalition with little military impact, since resources were already extended for Afghanistan and Haiti. Chretien knew this and managed to sit well on the fence.

As a sovereign, the US Executive and Congressional branches can do as they please regardless of the UN (and accept the consequences). Historically, the UN can't do squat without US muscle.

[jdobbin]

It matters not what you or I believe...the UNSC never authorized military force for Kosovo or the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Such action cannot be derived from standing resolutions without member votes. Canada's role in Iraq would have been largely irrelevant as just another member of the coalition with little military impact, since resources were already extended for Afghanistan and Haiti. Chretien knew this and managed to sit well on the fence.

As a sovereign, the US Executive and Congressional branches can do as they please regardless of the UN (and accept the consequences). Historically, the UN can't do squat without US muscle.

I guess that we'll have to disagree. I believe both Kosovo and Iraq had sufficient U.N. resolutions. I've never argued they didn't and certainly would not have gone after Clinton, Bush or Chretien for violating the U.N. charter.

As far as Afghanistan goes, Canada committed there in strength only when he refused to participate in Iraq. I don't know where you think that 2000 combat troops in Iraq would have been irrelevant. They certainly aren't irrelevant in Afghanistan. Some fence sitting.

[bush_cheney2004]

As far as Afghanistan goes, Canada committed there in strength only when he refused to participate in Iraq. I don't know where you think that 2000 combat troops in Iraq would have been irrelevant. They certainly aren't irrelevant in Afghanistan. Some fence sitting.

The timeline for Canada's original rotation to Afghanistan does not support your contention. Canada did not have 2,000 "combat ready" troops ready for Iraq, if only because of heavy airlift and mechanized armor (lacking). There was/is a shortfall in rotary wing aircraft as well.

Such a small force was mocked as part of the "coalition of the bribed" when sent by other nations. Even during GW1, Canada's role was a token effort IMHO.

[jdobbin]

The timeline for Canada's original rotation to Afghanistan does not support your contention. Canada did not have 2,000 "combat ready" troops ready for Iraq, if only because of heavy airlift and mechanized armor (lacking). There was/is a shortfall in rotary wing aircraft as well.

Such a small force was mocked as part of the "coalition of the bribed" when sent by other nations. Even during GW1, Canada's role was a token effort IMHO.

Canada had authorized up to 800 combat troops for the second Gulf War. Canada instead committed troops to Afghanistan with full U.S. support as it freed up U.S. troops there to join in combat in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Chr%C3%A9tien

Canada was also once of the first countries to offer financial assistance to Iraq following the war.

Canada had 4,500 service people involved in the first Gulf war but didn't take part in the ground war. They did have two squadrons of CF-18s that took part in combat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_FRICTION

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada had 4,500 service people involved in the first Gulf war but didn't take part in the ground war. They did have two squadrons of CF-18s that took part in combat.

Canada's CF-18s did not support strike packages deep into Iraq as they had outdated secure comms, weapons and avionics suites. They also could not refuel their own aircraft. Canada did not suffer casualities (wounded or KIA) during GW1.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JI..._98143822/pg_13

[jdobbin]

Canada's CF-18s did not support strike packages deep into Iraq as they had outdated weapons and avionics suites. They also could not refuel their own aircraft. Canada did not suffer casualities (wounded or KIA) during GW1.

Canada did have re-fuelers present.

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/new_page_269.htm

Any problems with the aircraft were at the hands of a Conservative government of the day which had seven long years to update equipment.

Look, if you want to criticize Canada when it does go to war alongside the U.S. by all means. The fact is we were there and have continued to be there despite American opinion to the contrary that we haven't been a ally.

It makes me think that you'd rather not have Canada present at all.

[bush_cheney2004]

Look, if you want to criticize Canada when it does go to war alongside the U.S. by all means. The fact is we were there and have continued to be there despite American opinion to the contrary that we haven't been a ally.

It makes me think that you'd rather not have Canada present at all.

Canada has been an ally...in Afghanistan...with a little help from Uncle Sam (good and bad). This precluded any serious commitment to Iraq in 2003; political posturing doesn't count. And yes, if the mission will be compromised by a lack of Canadian investment in their force structure, then best to stay home.

PM Harper is addressing these longstanding shortfalls despite sniping from the Libranos. I don't have any beef with Canada either way, but there are certain limitations with military capabilities that can't be ignored.

[jdobbin]

Since this thread is about the reduction the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq...

http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=3-2007

The casualty rate is still about 3 soldiers a day.

[bush_cheney2004]

Since this thread is about the reduction the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq...

http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=3-2007

The casualty rate is still about 3 soldiers a day.

Gee..the average is 3 per day? Well, 40 times that many die each day just on American highways. Are these soldiers lives reduced to a political football metric?

[jdobbin]

Canada has been an ally...in Afghanistan...with a little help from Uncle Sam (good and bad). This precluded any serious commitment to Iraq in 2003; political posturing doesn't count. And yes, if the mission will be compromised by a lack of Canadian investment in their force structure, then best to stay home.

PM Harper is addressing these longstanding shortfalls despite sniping from the Libranos. I don't have any beef with Canada either way, but there are certain limitations with military capabilities that can't be ignored.

Some of the shortfalls in equipment come from the Tories as well. Heavy lift helicopters were sold by them to the Dutch in the Mulroney years. CF-18 contracts for maintenance were taken away from the technically superior and cheaper bid. Minesweeper patrol boats are not great for either task.

The Liberals have a long list of negligence as well. Some of that was being dealt with by Martin in the years he was prime minister.

As far as Iraq goes, I'm glad we're not there. We would have been there by hook or by crook if Harper had been prime minister. And that isn't posturing. Just a cold fact that he has since flip flopped on.

[jdobbin]

Gee..the average is 3 per day? Well, 40 times that many die each day just on American highways. Are these soldiers lives reduced to a political football metric?

No, but it belies the fact that deaths are down by 60%, a metric tossed out by the Pentagon a week or so ago.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, but it belies the fact that deaths are down by 60%, a metric tossed out by the Pentagon a week or so ago.

No it doesn't.....see the definition of average, median, and standard deviation. The Pentagon wanted to report the impact of surge/security efforts.

[bush_cheney2004]

As far as Iraq goes, I'm glad we're not there. We would have been there by hook or by crook if Harper had been prime minister. And that isn't posturing. Just a cold fact that he has since flip flopped on.

Save it for domestic squabbling in each riding come election time.....fact is that Canada in Iraq always was a non-starter except for frigates already on station. Even more unseemly are those who declare "I told you so" rightousness on Iraq after the fact.

[jdobbin]

No it doesn't.....see the definition of average, median, and standard deviation. The Pentagon wanted to report the impact of surge/security efforts.

I look forward to their next report.

[jdobbin]

Save it for domestic squabbling in each riding come election time.....fact is that Canada in Iraq always was a non-starter except for frigates already on station. Even more unseemly are those who declare "I told you so" rightousness on Iraq after the fact.

You mean to say that Harper wouldn't have had troops there had he been prime minister in 2003 and is just a blowhard?

[bush_cheney2004]

You mean to say that Harper wouldn't have had troops there had he been prime minister in 2003 and is just a blowhard?

Pure speculation....technically Canadian troops did support CENTCOM even under Chretien & Martin. In 2004, Martin, who actually was the PM, went on to say:

Prime Minister Paul Martin says he believes Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they've fallen into terrorists' hands. Martin said the threat of terrorism is even greater now than it was following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, because terrorists have acquired nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the toppled Iraqi leader.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/11/pf-455210.html

If the fictional PM Harper in 2003 had sent troops to Iraq, so what? PM Chretien bombed Serbia without HoC protocol.

[jdobbin]

Pure speculation....technically Canadian troops did support CENTCOM even under Chretien & Martin. In 2004, Martin, who actually was the PM, went on to say:

Prime Minister Paul Martin says he believes Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they've fallen into terrorists' hands. Martin said the threat of terrorism is even greater now than it was following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, because terrorists have acquired nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the toppled Iraqi leader.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/11/pf-455210.html

If the fictional PM Harper in 2003 had sent troops to Iraq, so what? PM Cretien bombed Serbia without HoC protocol.

Just goes to show Martin had his head up his ass when he said that.

And what protocol is there when it comes to military action in the Canadian House of Commons?

[bush_cheney2004]

Just goes to show Martin had his head up his ass when he said that.

And what protocol is there when it comes to military action in the Canadian House of Commons?

C'mon...don't shine me on. You know that debate/vote on the issue was stifled. Yet PM Harper was pressured to seek a vote of confidence for the Afghan mission. The politics is very transparent.

[jdobbin]

C'mon...don't shine me on. You know that debate/vote on the issue was stifled. Yet PM Harper was pressured to seek a vote of confidence for the Afghan mission. The politics is very transparent.

Chretien was pressured as well. The fact is there is no protocol for military action votes; only one for a declaration of war.

By all rights Harper could have and would have taken action had he a majority. I have no problems with that. It is one of the luxuries of having a majority. You can avoid a debate until the opposition gets its special days in Parliament.

[ceemes]

A better metric would be the number of wounded. IE, has the number of wounded dropped by 60% as well?

The fact of the matter is, many of those who survive their wounds in Iraq today would of died twenty years ago. Advances in front line medical treatment, faster evacs and better protective equipment have all made the survivability of a front line troops greater then less the a generation ago. The down side of it is, a lot of those who would of died in past wars from their wounds are suffering greater post-trauma debilitating injuries. The shear number of troopers surviving sever head and brain injuries is staggering, and is to the point where VA can no longer support them properly.

It sounds good that more and more of the wounded survive, but how many have come back as drooling basket cases and are hidden away from view? That is a picture that no one wants to see or show isn't. Better to say a soldier was wounded in action and will survive and not mention that he basically had his brains turned to jelly.

[ceemes]

Oh, and here is some more "good" news from Iraq. Now not only do the troops have to worry about getting shredded to pieces by IED's, RPG's, Mortars, AK-47's and the odd case of friendly fire, they now have to worry about getting gassed.

Chlorine truck bombs sicken hundreds of Iraqis Toxic gas reportedly kills 2, makes 350 Iraqis and 6 U.S. troops ill

MSNBC News Services

Updated: 6:46 p.m. PT March 17, 2007

BAGHDAD - Three suicide bombers driving trucks rigged with tanks of toxic chlorine gas struck targets in heavily Sunni Anbar province including the office of a Sunni tribal leader opposed to al-Qaida. The attacks killed at least two people and sickened 350 Iraqi civilians and six U.S. troops, the U.S. military said Saturday.

There is a mounting power struggle between insurgents and the growing number of Sunnis who oppose them in Anbar, the center of the Sunni insurgency, which stretches from Baghdad to the borders with Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The Anbar assaults came three days after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, traveled there to reach out to Sunni clan chiefs in a bid to undermine tribal support for the insurgency.

The violence started about 4:11 p.m. Friday when a driver detonated explosives in a pickup truck carrying chlorine at a checkpoint northeast of the provincial capital of Ramadi, wounding one U.S. service member and one Iraqi civilian, the military said in a statement.

So, tell us again how well things are going over there.