It's progress.

This leaving but not really leaving thing.... why does it sound familiar?

Sure. They just left 50,000 cooks and typists.

These are combat troops, nicely renamed security troops. As well, I believe there are quite a number of mercenaries, too. But American new media don't like talking about them. And mercenary casualties are never, to my knowledge, reported.

They can't end the occupation. Iraq would collapse in a civil war.

There's another truth lying behind this. The US lost the war in Iraq. However many it killed, however much it destroyed, whatever reasons it gave for going to war - it lost.

There were no WMDs. There is no functioning civil government; and little chance there will be one. Indeed, Iraq could well become three coutries, in prolonged conflict.

They got Saddam because he was a "bad man". Getting that bad man cost the lives of over a million innocent Iraqi people, destroyed the infrastructre, created millions of refugees, destroyed the economies of both Iraq and the US, has driven most Americans into a frenzy of religious hatred at least as great as the older race hatred.

The US lost because it gained nothing, and lost a great deal, including its image in most of the world. But the American press refers to it as a victory, and so will the American history books in that vast anthology of myth that we call American History.

But it was a victory - for the arms industry.

nice try

Graeme pretty much nailed it.

Bush needed another war he could win to boost his political fortunes. It turned into another Vietnam. You'd think the US would learn...

Graeme, can I buy your book?

As-salaamu alaikum, Ramadan mubarak

-Omni

I've got one on back order!

But on a more serious note, Bush needed his image booster, but what about Obama?

I hate it. I simply hate it that the US need to have their fingers in everyone's business. I hate it that they act like any other superpower. Instead of using the trillions of dollars to bring education and development, they waste it on destruction.

Soon, their time will be over and they will get in line with all the other superpowers that had their chance but didn't do anything. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, China, India, the Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, Portuguese Empire, the Spanish Empire, France, the Dutch Republic and the British Empire.

Well and China, China will care about China.

ahh, but we go with them.

I'm afraid warped purity is right.

American military power is waning. It can destroy on a scale beyond even our imagination. But it has lost that western ability to win, an ability that goes back to the days of Columbus.

They killed,probably, some five million Vietnamese - and still lost. They killed over a million Iraqis and destroyed the country. But gained nothing. We are watching the same process in Afghanistan - and will be watching it in Africa and Latin America. After centuries of western domination, the lesser breeds without the law have learned how to counter our style of war.

US prosperity has been built on military power. Remember, it began as a thin strip of states on the east coast. It spread across the continent by military power, destroying native societies on othe way. Then it stole a third of Mexico with a staged war. Then it added puerto Rico and The Phillipines by military force - and it used military force to estabish dictators in Central America. Oh, and it used its military power to annex Hawaii - almost adding Canada along the way.

By 1945, Canada gave up its brief independence by becoming a puppet of the US. Harper has even given up on our northern claims. But all US power is based on military strength. And that is fading.

And we shall fade with it. because we have linked ourselves to it. We won our independence by the sacrifice of 60,000 Canadians in 1914-1918. Then we gave it away for please Canadian business leades.

The great opportunity to change the world after 1945 was thrown away.

Actually, we can. But we won't.

To be fair, 5,000 of the troops remaining in Iraq are not, strictly speaking, combat troops.

Five thousand or of are thugs from all over the world, rented out by private contractors who provide America's mercenaries. This 5,000 is hired out to work alone or in small groups as assassination teams. (politicians prefer to call them special ops.)

Thousands of others work in nobody knows how many countries , but at least twenty. They also have access to the services of robot bombers which are controlled by civilians sitting at computer in the US. Two days ago, one of their drones killed a couple of dozen civilians in Somalia.

hi folks, I've been awol for a bit...

Graeme - you said " US prosperity was built on military power" - I'd say also on a bit of confidence from 'winning' occasionally, and egocentric morality/values.  The problem is that it inflamed the country on a variety of levels until it seemed like a superpower - tons of money & political will for military, tons of acceptance of Capitalist money-making which turns a blind eye, or even a full-out cheer to being filthy rich at the expence of the poor/the earth.  The US built itself on a thug/king of the hill value system, where the rest of the world can't measure up unless they are playing the same game.

When Bush took the US to war against Iraq, the rest of the Western World, except the UK, said NO, wait, this is wrong.  At that point it was clear that American Dominance was precarious.  Now even Blair has said he might have been wrong (duh??) and Obama's moderate middle of the road policies are decried by his country as Muslim, or even worse: liberal!  And the Tea Party rises!

At some point, the Emperor had no clothes, and people started to laugh.  Then it was over.  I'm not sure Obama = the compromised Emperor here, in fact maybe he was the one who pointed it out.  The naked Emperor is the continued ridiculous arrogance & the structure that sustains it.

The US has a ways to go before it is crushed.  But the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

If I may ... there seems to be a scripture that seems to fit....

Proverbs 26:17
He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own Is like one who takes a dog by the ears.
 

Now how do they let go and not get bitten .... hmmmmmm.....

...just a thought........

Hugs

Rita

Agreed with both of you. - though I fear the US fall may come much sonner than we expect.

I'm starting to hope for it, though it won't be good for anyone.  Well, that is easy to say from my safe Canadian perch, while I watch the Tea Party & crazy Christian right destroy that country.  Oh wait.... Harper is ushering them up here with velvet ropes and a red carpet.  

anyway - always better to trudge forward through the storm than stay mired in the muck?

Obama's speech about Iraq being behind us was a disappointing one. It was so lying, it was the equivalent of Bush's Mission Accomplished. He gave extremely misleading figures. He gave available electricity, for example, in Kwh - which has meaning to few since we  have no idea of the electricity needs of Iraq. In reality, most of Iraq still has no steady supply. - with predicatable effects not only on peope but on sewage, hospitals, schools....

He's now going to have to make choices about budget cuts. And guess who won't get cut. As for taxers, Congress is almost certain to stop him on raising taxes for the rich. We're watching the biggest theft in history as the rich pull in every penny they can get to move their money out of the US..

Yep - I heard him carefully spinning gold out of straw, or at least gold-coloured straw out of straw....  mind you, he has crap to work with, and the hot-tempered pro-war Americans and the hot-tempered pro-soldier Americans and the hot-tempered anti-war Americans to pacify.  And of course middle-east power people watching his every move.  I am pleased that he didn't dance around saying 'we won!' or something like Bush would have tried.  I'm pleased that he didn't try too hard to sugarcoat what wasn't a very patriotic story. 

I feel like it won't matter what he says or does, the system is eating him up & spitting him out, and in doing so, bringing itself down.  And the tea party will keep cheering as that theft continues.

Again, if they go, we go with them.

Beshpin - I can't call it 'bias'.  I've studied politics in university, and a fair bit of compassion- Christian style too.  I've voted in every election, for every single major party from the PC's to the NDP.  I take my time to hear the platforms and the rationale for the various parties.  (Even when it makes me ill).  How is that bias?  how is that 'not getting it?'

It isn't bias, nor is it not getting it when one can describe their position and give solid reasons for it.  Perhaps we aren't functioning on the same values system - but I'm not irrationally 'biased'.

thanks Jon.  Aptly said.  He also walked into the guerilla tactics of the GOP and its associated pals.  Win at all costs for money.  I don't believe that Democrats are all innocent (not by a long shot) but at least it still seems to matter to them what the country needs.  Their value system includes strenghtening the lower classes and keeping them healthy enough to work & contribute. .

and I won't argue, the economy was inflated on banks & oil & other top-heavy juggernauts, but it fell as Bush left, not as part of Obama's policies.   We could raise our eyebrows and wonder if Bush pulled some magic Kerplunk straw just in time to lose to Democrats.  Far fetched?  I wouldn't put it past the GOP. 

Obama is taking the right step in leaving Iraq, at least for the headlines.  It is time the White House displays an end to the war.  I also believe sadly that it is not possible to walk away for real yet.  Maybe it is the right thing to do, to leave and get US noses out of where they aren't wanted/don't belong; but it might not be the right thing to do, to leave a vacuum when the US caused it.  (Saddam needed to be brought down, but by the US? at this level? at this cost? what a mess)

Just a big mess.

Sadddam needed to be brought down. It was none of the business of the US to bring him down. Nor did Saddam's badness justify the killing of well over a million, innocent people, the the effective destruction of a country.

Nor is it likely that the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11. The US has no evidence that it did. Neither Saddam nor the Taliban had anything to do with either war.

Bush is a neo-conservative. Read their statement of purpose. It is on the web. Project for the New American Century - to establish US military dominance in the world in order give American capital access to the world's markets. It's not a secret.

American policy, followed by Bush and Obama, is to encircle Russia and China while establishing dominance everywhere else.

Moslem are attacking the west for  reasons. It's not just because they're evil foreigners. It's because the west is attacking them - and has been for a very long time.

 As to the economy, it's going fine for the very wealthy.Few bankers or auto execs have had to mortgage their mansions. The burden of the recession has fallen on the middle class and the poor.

Nor will stimulus spending help. There is very little in the US to stimulate. Why should a car maker use stimulus money to rebuiild manufactuing in the US? The same car can be built far cheaper with parts from China. Americans can't buy it? So what? China is a far bigger market than the US. That's one of the drawbacks of free trade that nobody mentioned.

*quiet  head nodding*   lots of people with no jobs, no money, no prospects.  &%$#@

Right now, the politics in the US don't matter much at all.  Neither party is in any position or has enough heart to really make a difference.

I'm still curious as to how Canada is going to be affected by a downfalling American economy.  I think we really need a party with better interests than the conservatives.  Depending on USA can't work forever, as we're seeing.

based on looking at American employment statistics. Based on the American debt. Based on the expense of wars without end.

I think it's a safe call.

We are now in a deficit position with regard to US trade. That's not likely to change, certainly not in the foreseeable future. The reality is that any government will be forced to change our dependence on US trade relations.

Canadian business should not be confused with Santa Claus. It will be looking for other trade relations no matter what any government does.

backup is not a verb. in fact, it's rather slangy in this context. I think the word you are searching for might be "support".

 The US is not gettinig out of Iraq. It can't. There isn't ever going to be a stable democracy in Iraq, not even if you put "democracy" in quotation marks. The US has to stay there to protect its oil supply, and to maintain an "ally" in the middle east.

The US is now involved in many wars, most of which our news media don't bother to report. Most of them are not winnable. Its goal has be publicly stated, and it's been pursued by both Bush and Obama - to dominate the world economy through military power. So far, it's not going to plan.

Any party is a better choice than the Harper conservatives. Harper is a blind ideologue with an utter contempt for democracy. I'm not crazy about any of the parties. But Harper is clearly a disaster.

Any political party is going to be flawed.  This whole solidarity front thing doesn't help democracy very much.  Its just a matter of "how many of my people can i get into the house of parliament."  Individual views end up getting watered down and lose all functionality.

Which could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your viewpoint Warped.

I believe it most often to be a bad thing.  And most likely would run as an independant for prime minister >: )

As-salaamu alaikum, Eid Mubarak

-Omni

Given the current crop, you might win. (Alas! We don't have elections for prime ministers.)

I've got a bucket and would happily water down Harper....'s viewpoints.  Heck, I'd take Duceppe before I'd vote for Harper.  Not sure about Sarah Palin - I might not take her over Harper.  Um...  just don't know on that one.

not any more.  Of course, Sarah couldn't name any policies off the top of her head either - remember her hand?

No, I sat and watched her embarrass her self from the first moment.  I heard people say 'women would support her' and I heard her bring women down a peg.  I heard people say parents would support her, and I couldn't stomach her.  I watched her disgrace herself, McCain, and the GOP night after night.  I listened, and I have enough of a background to recognize what I'm hearing.  She's crazy, and she's a horrible politician.  Put her on a talk show (oh- that's her plan, right?) and let her continue to destroy her own credibility.

She certainly reflects the viewpoints of some people - of course, but I bet Pastor Jones thinks she's awesome.

WE CAN BE THE WONDERCAFE PARTY!

Nobody runs for prime minister. The position does not exist until the governor general names someone. (The one chosen is the person who seems to have the largest following in the Commons. But even that is not necessarily true.)

I think Beshpin and Sara would make a great couple - though Beshpin might find her too intellectual.

well, we can return to the topic. The big news is out. I believe it may be in the Toronto Sun today or yesterday. It comes from Eric Margolis in London. British intelligence, generally considered the best in the world, reports that there are no more than 50 Al Quaeda fighters in Afghanistan, virually no Al Quaeda anywhere in the world, and that the Taliban had no connection with 9/11 whatever.

The estimate of some 50 al quaeda in Afghanistan confirms what Leo Panetta (CIA) told OBAMA before he committed 120,000 troops.

The also report the western powers are using charges of terrorism to justifying interfering in countries where it does not exist.

Oh. one of six children in Iraq is an orphan.

That gives us almost two million innocent people slaughtered on both side in two wars. If we had a real international law system, Bush and Blair would be on trial for war crimes. And we would hang them as we hanged Saddat.