and a year later.....what is the answer? My guess is that having f'd up, Bush can't admit it....and so he keeps saying that the battle against terrorism is focused on Iraq. Meanwhile, Taliban are slowly getting more control in Afghanistan, Osama is still alive and training extreme terrorists, Pakistan is falling apart, with terrorist extremists as one candidate to take over the country and its nuclear arsenal.
The answer is that the surge has worked, much to the dismay of democrats, who hoped for a defeat. And apparently still pouting they didn't get it.
I'm pleased, and wrote earlier at dp that it appeared the surge was working in having reduced attacks on Americans. At this time it appears that it has worked to severely limit current al-queda in iraq forces. Who knows the long term effect. I see no impact in its working to help the Iraqi govt coalesce as was the original plan. In fact, if anything it pts to what Biden has been pushing for--a loose federal govt with strong sectarian areas of shiites, sunni's, and kurds. A big unknown is how the south, majority population shiite area will evolve. There are real questions if shiites bonded to Iran will gain majority control of the majority population base of the nation. From a US perspective that would be a disaster. I in no way buy into that this is the central point for fighting fundamental Islamic terrorism. That is rampant. In fact it is probably gaining strength and security in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So well in fact that no one is talking about it anymore.. Why? No one is dying.... It's no longer fun without the doom and gloom factor. The "majority" of what "people?"
uS stays Iraq just for petrol... is there any counter for uSa for tranport petrol from Iraq...nobody knows...and USA will stay till last petrol drop.
Ah, the US not pumping "petrol" out of Iraq.... If it were, gas prices in the US would be 10 cents a gal..
The effort in Iraq is a horrible US boondoggle. We are pumping in hundreds of billions that will escalate to trillions of dollars, have had almost 4,000 soldiers die, about 13,000 soldiers suffer serious casualties, have overextended the military to an unprecidented level, and have done nothing to stem the growth of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism or stemmed Iran from its terrorist leanings or efforts to add nuclear weapons. The neocons and Bush who wanted this war thought a takeover and regime change in Iraq might dramatically turn the tide of dictatorial, non-democratic, and extreme govts in the middle east. None of that has occurred. The Bush dream of spreading democracy has been a failure around the world. Its especially dangerous in the middle east. Lebanon is a potential enormous disaster with a non-functioning govt and an ultra dangerous semi-state of Hezbollah. The democratic effort in Gaza established an ultra dangerous terrorist oriented govt. Democracy in Iraq has veered toward dangerous sectarianism that has created vicious warfare between sunni's and shiites. Democracy efforts around the world elsewhere have collapsed. Our money and efforts into Pakistan now have resulted in chaos in a hugely populated nation with atomic weapons, wherein taliban and terrorists have free rein....and the population and freedoms amongst a reasonably large, somewhat modern society have collapsed. Al Queda is free and unfettered. They and the taliban are gaining ground somewhat in Afghanistan. They are the sources that create world wide serious terrorism, not Iraq--and it never was Iraq. There needs to be some serious rethinking and efforts at changing direction from an administration that is small sminded and stubborn, trying to convince a now cognizant American public that everything depends on iraq. There are various different strategies and options that need to be explored. Morton Kondracke, a republican oriented commentator highlighted the thoughts of Rep. Congressman Mark Kirk here: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_7379008 with regard to different strategies going forward. They are dramatically different than those of the administration. The Biden thoughts on creating a weak central govt in Iraq with strong sectarian regions representing the dominant sects has both gained majority acknowledgement in Congress but clearly represents where the Iraq population is heading. Militarily stemming the daily violence against Americans from Al-queda in Iraq is a short term piece of good news that may or may not have any long term benefits. They are remarkably susceptable to coming back and they are still manifesting some violence. Meanwhile the central Iraqi govt has made no clear progress toward any of the goals that were the so-called "reasons for the surge" in the first place. Bush continues to mislead America, either claiming that Iraq is the central point and focus of combatting terrorism, attacking those that disagree in a discordant way that a majority of Americans no longer believe, and is unable to effect other changes because we are so tied down in this Iraq boondoggle. Finding new direction would be a godsend to America.
Earl, please stop tearing our country down and saying things that are opinionated vs fact. The surge in Iraq has worked. It's time for Iraqis to take charge of their country and either make it successful or make it a failure. We've done our part. I don't know where you are getting news about Afghanistan to come to these conclusions. It's as if *everything* must *always* be 100% success, or *everything* is a failure. Bush has never mislead America. You and I both know this. Time and again, I've sourced many of the very democrats of today whining and crying, who begged Clinton for war with Iraq in the 90s, citing the very same WMDs as a reason. Democrats called for war with Iraq, Bush gave it to them. Democrats wanted additional troops for a surge (how can we forget how many times kerry used this in his campaign, how other democrats time and again called for more troops?) and Bush gave it to them. We all know you hate Bush, and we all know that it's unreasonable to acknowledge successes out of fear that it may appear to give Bush some minuscule amount of credit. I wish you would get past this. *Our soldiers* have done a remarkable job...a job that many democrats prematurely called a loss for our country; a job that many democrats wanted to see failure of. Please stop rewriting history here. It's not going to work.
lol, why would they pass any savings on to us Do you actually think now that is established that $3 gasoline won't kill the economy the price will go down?
A savings would naturally occur with a larger supply. That's simple economics.. Law of Supply and Demand.. Go look that up. Come back in a few weeks once you've fully digested the concept. The fact of the matter is, the price of gas atm is controlled by a huge demand, coupled by a lack of supply brought on by reduced refining capacity. Want to bring prices down? Contact your congressman and ask them to do the following: 1. Allow drilling in Anwar 2. Build more refineries Holy crap, it's just that simple!
True, but the current rise is almost entirely to blame on a lack of refining capacity. Gas was actually more per gallon with crude at $65/barrel then it is now, by comparison, again, the result of a lack of refining capability. No, of course not.. Environmentalists are the reason there is a lack of refineries... Same goes for the lack of Nuclear Power, and a whole host of other problems concerning our energy policy, or lack there of... You spend 8 years of Clinton with NO ENERGY policy what so ever, what do you expect? That still seems to be lacking now as well...
isn't using less energy a better energy policy than building more refineries to power those ever bigger suvs?
Yes, but both needs to be done.. Conservation, and increased capacity.. The problem is not so much a world wide lack of refining capability, but a US based lack of refining capacity. We are forced to rely on outside entities for the increased production, to keep up with demand.. Same can be said of power. So while I agree, we should conserve more energy, the reality is, even with conservation, our needs continue to grow as our population grows. That said, we need to couple both together.. With power production in the US, we have not conserved, nor built additional capacity in over 30 years.. It is hard to just say, well, we are going to conserve now... That's is not going to help since the needs we have are far beyond that of what conservation has to offer. My solution on the automobile front is to tell the Auto makers, US and foreign, all automobiles must get 100 miles to the gallon. You have 6 months to do it. This would include the SUV's too. If you do not, then you can no longer do business, ie., sell any cars in this country. That is until you do. When a automaker like Ford tries to tout their hybrid SUV as getting 34MPG as if this is some type of accomplishment, I feel like puking. The Datsun 280Z in 75 got 35MPG... Come on. What's more disturbing is that a new Corvette with 550HP can get upwards of 32MPG, but automakers cannot take a hybrid dixie cup excuse of a truck with a 4 cylinder and give it 100MPG? That's pure BS... Automakers had to surcome to public demand back in 70's during oil embargo, and they did... With better MPG on heavier cars than we have now. The bigger problem is, the people driving gas guzzling SUV's want their gas guzzling SUV's. As long as there are people that want these disgusting vehicles, not much is gonna change unless the US Dept of Energy demands automakers do as I say and force them to innovate... Either way, gas in the US, (all things being equal) is pretty damn cheap compared to other places.. Always has been.. Even now, with higher prices, it's still pretty damn cheap. I'd like to be pay the 80cent/gal I paid back in high school, but I would not like to be making the $2.03/hr I was making then either.. That 80cent/gal with salaries what they were then was about $4/gal, by comparison.. However, my Mustang and Camaro back in high school got better mileage than any SUV, hybrid or otherwise gets today!!! And they could still smoke the tires.
All Law of Supply and Demand: Political Anxieties: US Government hopes to keep prices down by increasing supply, however does not ask the consumer to lower their demand. OPEC stinginess: OPEC nations like to lower supply in order to increase profits. Weak Dollar: Dollar grows stronger as demand increases, as consumer spends more for less as supply shrinks CHINA: Used a hell of a lot... HUGE DEMAND, lowering supply... All these factors do play into it, but all of them are related to one commonality.. Supply vs. Demand...