Vote Passes recommending Libs resign

[CanadianChris 0]

The Prime Minister announced that the budget vote will be next Thursday. It seems like Martin is daring the blue alliance to bring down the government.

 

I was joking with someone last week about how Canadian law automatically prevents the Conservatives from forming a government -- the law in question being the one that says that federal elections must be 36 days, which is about 33 days more than the Conservatives need to say something monumentally stupid and torpedo their chances.

[cbacon 0]

Anyone notice that the Conservatives are now suggesting that the Liberals are delaying the vote in the hopes that two Conservative MP's with cancer will die and the vote won't be so close? Just when you think that party can't hit a new low . .

[Red Baron 0]

Anyone notice that the Conservatives are now suggesting that the Liberals are delaying the vote in the hopes that two Conservative MP's with cancer will die and the vote won't be so close? Just when you think that party can't hit a new low . .

Where'd you get that from? National Post? Global?

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Anyone notice that the Conservatives are now suggesting that the Liberals are delaying the vote in the hopes that two Conservative MP's with cancer will die and the vote won't be so close? Just when you think that party can't hit a new low . .

Where'd you get that from? National Post? Global?

 

True dat.

 

I'm sure the editors of the Calgary Sun will have plenty to say. We have no need for an election yet.

[Red Baron 0]

Sure we do.

 

"SCANDAL!!!"

 

How else do you think the Conservatives will win?

[Highland 0]

Anyone notice that the Conservatives are now suggesting that the Liberals are delaying the vote in the hopes that two Conservative MP's with cancer will die and the vote won't be so close? Just when you think that party can't hit a new low . .

Indeed. Apparently mob connections, threats and a nation scandal do not truly show the depths to which they'll sink: The Liberals have to resort to delaying votes in the hopes that two ill MPs will be unable to vote for the Conservatives.

 

Harper's your next Prime Minister. Suck it, Toronto.

[CanadianChris 0]

Anyone notice that the Conservatives are now suggesting that the Liberals are delaying the vote in the hopes that two Conservative MP's with cancer will die and the vote won't be so close? Just when you think that party can't hit a new low . .

Indeed. Apparently mob connections, threats and a nation scandal do not truly show the depths to which they'll sink: The Liberals have to resort to delaying votes in the hopes that two ill MPs will be unable to vote for the Conservatives.

 

Harper's your next Prime Minister. Suck it, Toronto.

It's the Conservatives who have hit the new low for even suggesting it.

 

And there's no way Harper can carry Ontario.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

They're going on the same platform they did 11 months ago, and they're in bed with the Bloc now, which won't sit well with most of English Canada. As such, the same result as last June, with more NDP seats than last time, and a few less Conservative seats.

 

Which doesn't make much sense, since the Bloc is more left then the Libs or Tories. Oh, Harper. What a scumfuck. What he'll do for votes.

[Highland 0]

Oh, Martin. What a scumfuck. What he'll do for votes.

 

Edited for accuracy and truth.

[Red Baron 0]

Oh, Martin, Harper and Layton. What  scumfucks. What they'll do for votes.

 

Edited for accuracy and truth.

Is there any possible way that Gilles Duiceppe can win this election?

[Highland 0]

Your gods Martin and Chretien laundered millions of taxpayer's money, but that's alright because Harper is a scary robot. God forbid we actually treat our closest allies as our closest allies or have a decent fucking military.

We can't even bother giving what little troops we have decent equipment, but out vaunted prime minster has to be ferried around in only the best transportation, while those brave enough to serve in the armed forces risk their lives just getting on the antiquated equipment the government supplies them with: the castoffs that other nations wouldn't bother using, but it's good enough for us.

 

Not one of you have given any good reasons why the Liberals should stay in power. Sorry, but childish remarks like "Harper is scary" don't cut it. I'd rather a "scary" Prime Minister than one who should be facing time in prison. Martin had full knowledge of Adscam and if he didn't he is incompetent, or he's just willful ignorant: Two admirable and desirable characteristics for the leader of a country.

 

Help save Canada, don't vote if you're genetically incapable of not voting for the Liberals.

[Red Baron 0]

Have you ignored what most of us said?

 

The party is unstabled, and if there is an election and Harper wins, we'll be talking about another election next year.

 

Until then, the Liberals are in power, and quite frankly, scandals and all, the Liberal gov't has done a good job.

[Highland 0]

Have you ignored what most of us said?

 

The party is unstabled, and if there is an election and Harper wins, we'll be talking about another election next year.

 

Until then, the Liberals are in power, and quite frankly, scandals and all, the Liberal gov't has done a good job.

If by good you mean nothing, then you are right.

 

And why should I settle for the Liberals because they are the only "stable" party?

 

Why should the Liberals be rewarded with another election? If they were a private corporation they would be under a criminal investigation and charged. Frankly, Christ could be running against the Liberals and you'd still vote for them.

[cbacon 0]

I don't recall singing the godly praises of Chretien or Martin. And if i'm not mistaken, i'm not sure anyone in this thread had stated they'd be voting Liberal. Unfortunately it comes down to voting for the lesser of 4 evils in these sorts of situations. We could do far better then having Martin or Stephen Harper running the country, but if it means sticking with the devil you know, then the Liberals should stay in power. My vote would be going to the NDP however, that is, if I had my damn citizenship already.

 

Support for the Liberals is down, but people are afraid of the Conservatives, for good reason. It's not just a question of apathy or not caring about the scandals, it's about lack of a real alternative. If polls are any indication the NDP will do better, and the Bloc will probably capture almost every seat in Quebec.

 

God forbid we actually treat our closest allies as our closest allies

 

God forbid we actually keep our sovereignty intact and further ourselves from being America's lap dog.

[Highland 0]

God forbid we actually treat our closest allies as our closest allies

 

God forbid we actually keep our sovereignty intact and further ourselves from being America's lap dog.

 

That's just too funny, but I expect that from you.

 

OMG~! We have to tell the US to fuck off at every turn or we'll lose our sovereignty! What fucking tripe. Clearly I have more faith in my country than you do, and see no need to shore up my pride in my country with vehement anti-Americanism, or pro-Americanism for that matter.

[CanadianChris 0]

Oh, Martin. What a scumfuck. What he'll do for votes.

 

Edited for accuracy and truth.

Glad to see the level of intelligent debate has increased in the folder since Mike's banning.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

God forbid we actually treat our closest allies as our closest allies

 

God forbid we actually keep our sovereignty intact and further ourselves from being America's lap dog.

 

That's just too funny, but I expect that from you.

 

OMG~! We have to tell the US to fuck off at every turn or we'll lose our sovereignty! What fucking tripe. Clearly I have more faith in my country than you do, and see no need to shore up my pride in my country with vehement anti-Americanism, or pro-Americanism for that matter.

I disagree. It's Bush's fault relations are "down", if they even are. Who closed the border to cattle? And softwood lumber?

 

Rejecting left right and centre, as you put it? Hmm. We declined to send troops to Iraq. By the way, how are things in Iraq working out?

 

Declined missile defence. Now the Yanks have to let Canada know if missiles will be flying over head. Gee, why would we want to know that? (Not that the defence system isn't totally without merit, to be fair)

 

If we were really rejecting America as you put it, would you guys still have power? Or oil? Nope. But you do. 79% of your imports are from Canada. That hasn't changed. I really don't feel any differently about the States than I did five years ago. I don't like Bush, but I don't feel that should get in the way of relations between the two countries.

 

And why should I settle for the Liberals because they are the only "stable" party?

 

Why should I vote for the Tories because of some money the Grits pissed away? Now, by no means am I letting them off the hook, but why would I vote for the Conservative Party? First off, have you watched Parliament over the last two or three weeks? They're just squabbling and trying to bring the government down. Considering they've been going on about the sponsorship scandal for months, they don't seem to mind the idea of wasting another estimated 350 million dollars for an election they won't win. That seems hypocritical to me.

 

Second, it's absurd for me to vote for any right wing party when I don't believe in their ideals, just because of a shitty job the Libs have done. And they haven't done a bad job, either. True, they need to be punished for AdScam, but I believe Paul Martin when he said he didn't do anything wrong. I don't believe him when he said he didn't know it was going on, but Chretien was likely the real culprit in all of this. Even so, it's ridiculous for me to vote for a party that I don't agree with. I support gay marriage, mulit culturalism, public health care. The Tories don't. Now, make a case for me voting for them.

 

Red Baron, this one's for you: "I disagree, you redneck fundamentalist". (Not a shot at anyone personally, an inside joke with the Baron, who, by all accounts, isn't very good at Jeopardy! And fuck off about Luxembourg, I know every African capital.

 

And what's the deal with Mike and INXS getting banned? Cyber slapping war? Didn't they get banned a few months ago, only to be back days later?

[CanadianChris 0]

The crap that's being pulled right now with the Tories and Bloc voting to adjourn the House of Commons without doing any work is just absurd. The Opposition is behaving like a bunch of spoiled children, stamping their feet and screaming because they don't get what they want immediately when they demand it.

 

If Harper was a TSM member, he'd have been sent to Whiny Bitches by now.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

The crap that's being pulled right now with the Tories and Bloc voting to adjourn the House of Commons without doing any work is just absurd. The Opposition is behaving like a bunch of spoiled children, stamping their feet and screaming because they don't get what they want immediately when they demand it.

 

If Harper was a TSM member, he'd have been sent to Whiny Bitches by now.

[Highland 0]

The crap that's being pulled right now with the Tories and Bloc voting to adjourn the House of Commons without doing any work is just absurd.  The Opposition is behaving like a bunch of spoiled children, stamping their feet and screaming because they don't get what they want immediately when they demand it.

 

If Harper was a TSM member, he'd have been sent to Whiny Bitches by now.

If Martin was a TSM poster, it'd say Group: BANNED

Edited May 13, 2005 by Highland

[Highland 0]

I also find it not surprising that none of you want an election. OMG it's too expensive! Pesky democracy, how dare the plebians go to the polls and vote.

Then again, maybe we shouldn't have elections at all, you know because a dictatorship is so much preferable to a democracy. Saddam was such a nice guy after all.

[Highland 0]

Rejecting left right and centre, as you put it? Hmm. We declined to send troops to Iraq. By the way, how are things in Iraq working out?

 

They've held elections, real elections and things are going quite well, all things considered.

 

Are you disappointed that Saddam isn't in power anymore? He seems to be the new hero for the left nowadays, fighting valiantly against the evil American imperialists who bring in such vileness as democracy, freedom and a market economy.

 

Damn those Americans!

[Justice 0]

I disagree. It's Bush's fault relations are "down", if they even are. Who closed the border to cattle? And softwood lumber?

Huh? It all started with Iraq, if I remember correctly. And it's gone "Downhill" since then. Please, don't try to pin this one on us.

 

Rejecting left right and centre, as you put it? Hmm. We declined to send troops to Iraq. By the way, how are things in Iraq working out?

 

Improving daily. Free elections, a military and police force that is beginning to take over operations... much better than you'll likely admit. Of course, it would have helped to had our closest ally (And I mean that with all honesty; I'm a dual citizen and we are honestly closer to Canada than anyone else). It was quite a shot to us that you didn't support us, whether you like to believe that or not.

 

Declined missile defence. Now the Yanks have to let Canada know if missiles will be flying over head. Gee, why would we want to know that? (Not that the defence system isn't totally without merit, to be fair)

 

'Cause, you know, a missile defense wouldn't let you know that in the first place, right? Bad reasoning, I'd say.

 

If we were really rejecting America as you put it, would you guys still have power? Or oil? Nope. But you do. 79% of your imports are from Canada. That hasn't changed. I really don't feel any differently about the States than I did five years ago. I don't like Bush, but I don't feel that should get in the way of relations between the two countries.

 

First off, Highland is Canadian. Stop referring to him as an American and accusing him of shit.

 

And you are an ass. One fifth of all our total exports are to you, and we account for nearly 1/4 of your economy. You want to try to disconnect us? You'll wither just as quickly.

 

Jesus, it's all of these uppity asses who live in Ontario and think that they'll just be fine without the US. No, no you won't. You won't be fine by just rejecting us, just as we won't. We are too interlinked to possibly consider a 'split', so trying to bring one up is more retarded than Doyo's opinion on the Pentagon Plane.

 

Just because you agree with us doesn't make you a lapdog. You agree with us tons with Clinton, why are you suddenly a lapdog with Bush? All this jingoistic shit that people like C-Bacon try to push down your throats is utter bullshit, and if you could just see past the 'OMG NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY" bullshit you'd understand that you've always had it and the US has never intended to take it from you, despite all the "51st State Jokes".

 

God...

Edited May 13, 2005 by Justice

[starvenger 0]

Honestly, I know about jackshit about Canadian politics, but some of the stuff mentioned in the article clearly sounds like collusion and seems downright illegal.

This is what happens with a minority government. You need support from others to get anything done, so you change your policies to account for that.

 

See? This is why you need to have the Executive Office of the gov't independent of the Legislative.

If that were the case we'd probably be in a nightmarish country where Jack Layton was PM. Or worse, Mel Lastman.

[CanadianChris 0]

I also find it not surprising that none of you want an election. OMG it's too expensive! Pesky democracy, how dare the plebians go to the polls and vote.

Yes, heaven forbid Canadians wouldn't want an election only a year after the last one, especially when the result will be the same anyway.

 

Then again, maybe we shouldn't have elections at all, you know because a dictatorship is so much preferable to a democracy. Saddam was such a nice guy after all.

Why didn't you mention Hitler and get it over with? It certainly couldn't make your hyperbole any more foolish.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Are you disappointed that Saddam isn't in power anymore? He seems to be the new hero for the left nowadays, fighting valiantly against the evil American imperialists who bring in such vileness as democracy, freedom and a market economy.

 

Hey, Mike's back!

 

YOU DON'T LIKE WAR YOU LIKE SADDAM!!! [/retardvoice]

 

Improving daily...much better than you'll likely admit.

 

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wo...y-top-headlines

 

Experts: Iraq verges on civil war

 

BY TIMOTHY M. PHELPS

WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

 

May 12, 2005

 

WASHINGTON -- An unchastened insurgency sowed devastation across Iraq Wednesday as experts here said the country is either on the verge of civil war or already in the middle of it.

 

In the course of the day: Four car bombs detonated in Baghdad; a man wearing explosives at an army recruitment center in Hawija, north of Baghdad, blew himself and many others up; a car bomb exploded in a marketplace in Tikrit, north of Baghdad; and the country's largest fertilizer plant was heavily damaged by a bomb in the usually quiet southern city of Basra. Meanwhile, U.S. Marines were winding up a remarkable pitched battle against surprisingly well-equipped and determined insurgents on Iraq's western border. Some 76 Iraqis were reported killed and more than 120 wounded in the one day of violence.

 

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.

 

Other experts said Iraq is on the verge of a full-scale civil war with civilians on both sides being slaughtered. Incidents in the past two weeks south of Baghdad, with apparently retaliatory killings of Sunni and Shia civilians, point in that direction, they say.

 

Also of concern were media accounts that hard-line Shia militia members are being deployed to police hard-line Sunni communities such as Ramadi, east of Baghdad, which specialists on Iraq said was a recipe for disaster.

 

"I think we are really on the edge" of all-out civil war, said Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who worked for the U.S. coalition in Iraq.

 

He said the insurgency has been "getting stronger every passing day. When the violence recedes, it is a sign that they are regrouping." While there is a chance the current flare of violence is the insurgency's last gasp, he said, "I have not seen any coherent evidence that we are winning against the insurgency."

 

"Everything we thought we knew about the insurgency obviously is flawed," said Judith Kipper of the Council on Foreign Relations. "It was quiet for a little while, and here it is back full force all over the country, and that is very dark news."

 

The increased violence coincides with the approval of a new, democratic government two weeks ago. But instead of bringing the country together, the new government seems to have further alienated even moderate Sunnis who believe they have only token representation.

 

"That is a joke," said Sunni politician Saad Jabouri, until recently governor of Diyala Province, in an interview here. "The only people they allowed in the government are ones who think like them," he said of the majority Shia faction, who mostly come from Islamic parties.

 

Military and civilian experts said the insurgency seemed designed to outlast the patience of the American and Iraqi peoples.

 

"I just think this Sunni thing is going to be pretty hard," said Phebe Marr, a leading U.S. Iraq expert reached in the protected Green Zone in Baghdad. "The American public has to get its expectations down to something reasonable."

 

Lang said there is new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime carefully prepared in advance for the insurgency, with former Iraqi officers at the core of each group. They are well coordinated and have consistently adjusted their strategy, he said.

 

Now the 140,000-plus U.S. troops in the country are mainly "a nuisance" factor in the insurgents' overall goal of preventing the new government from consolidating.

 

"They understand what the deal is here," Lang said, "to start applying maximum pressure to the economy and the government and make sure it will not work." Their roadside bombs are intended to keep U.S. forces inside their bases, he said.

 

All the while the insurgents are gaining strength, he said. "The longer they keep going on the better they will get," said Lang, a student of military history. "The best school of war is war."

 

The Sunni insurgents could win the battle if they persevere long enough to sour U.S. voters, Feldman said.

 

He said, "There is no evidence whatsoever that they cannot win."

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I also find it not surprising that none of you want an election. OMG it's too expensive! Pesky democracy, how dare the plebians go to the polls and vote.

Yes, heaven forbid Canadians wouldn't want an election only a year after the last one, especially when the result will be the same anyway.

Why didn't you mention Hitler and get it over with? It certainly couldn't make your hyperbole any more foolish.

Exactly what I said about 5 or 6 posts up.

 

Then again, maybe we shouldn't have elections at all, you know because a dictatorship is so much preferable to a democracy. Saddam was such a nice guy after all. 

 

One's got nothing to do with the other. I don't see any dictators waiting in the wings in Canada.

 

They've held elections, real elections and things are going quite well, all things considered.

 

Come on. Insurgency, 2000 coalition troops killed, it's not safe whatsoever, no power or water, looting, riots, violence. I'm not saying it would be better off with Saddam, but it's really not any better now.

 

 

First off, Highland is Canadian. Stop referring to him as an American and accusing him of shit.

 

And you are an ass. One fifth of all our total exports are to you, and we account for nearly 1/4 of your economy. You want to try to disconnect us? You'll wither just as quickly.

 

Jesus, it's all of these uppity asses who live in Ontario and think that they'll just be fine without the US. No, no you won't. You won't be fine by just rejecting us, just as we won't. We are too interlinked to possibly consider a 'split', so trying to bring one up is more retarded than Doyo's opinion on the Pentagon Plane.

 

When did I say we were better off without the States? Go ahead. Find it. I dare you. But I speak to so many Americans who tell me they don't need Canada, which is also bullshit.

 

And I didn't call you any names. That's just a sign of pettiness and a lost argument.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

a military and police force that is beginning to take over operations

 

You must be privy to some information that the rest of us aren't.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=580235

 

Pentagon Data on on Iraq Security Forces Unreliable-GAO

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon told Congress on Monday that there are 142,472 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, but a Capitol Hill watchdog agency said data on the forces was unreliable and it was difficult to gauge whether billions of U.S. dollars were being used effectively.

 

"Data on the status of Iraqi security forces is unreliable and provides limited information on their capabilities," Joseph Christoff, of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), told a House of Representatives Government Reform subcommittee.

 

Christoff also said Pentagon intelligence data showed an escalating insurgency, as "each monthly peak in the number of violent incidents is followed by a higher average number of attacks in subsequent months."

 

Rear Adm. William Sullivan, who provided the Pentagon figures to the committee, acknowledged they included some Iraqi police who may have left their post or were absent without leave. He also said the Pentagon is trying to develop a way to measure how ready the Iraqi forces are for combat or various types of security duty.

 

Assessing the readiness of Iraqis to take over the role of U.S. forces in countering the insurgency has become a crucial factor in judging when the United States will be able to start withdrawing from Iraq.

 

The administration has spent about $5.8 billion to develop Iraq's security forces. President Bush is seeking another $5.7 billion in an $81.9 billion emergency spending bill that Congress is considering for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

"Without reliable information, Congress may find it difficult to judge how federal funds are achieving a goal of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqis," Christoff told the panel.

 

The U.S. goal is to train and equip about 271,000 Iraqi security forces, police and military combined, by July 2006.

 

The Pentagon has been forced to scale back its estimates of ready forces from about 206,000 as it became apparent many were not combat-ready, particularly after the November offensive in Fallujah.

[Justice 0]

a military and police force that is beginning to take over operations

 

You must be privy to some information that the rest of us aren't.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=580235

 

Pentagon Data on on Iraq Security Forces Unreliable-GAO

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon told Congress on Monday that there are 142,472 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, but a Capitol Hill watchdog agency said data on the forces was unreliable and it was difficult to gauge whether billions of U.S. dollars were being used effectively.

 

"Data on the status of Iraqi security forces is unreliable and provides limited information on their capabilities," Joseph Christoff, of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), told a House of Representatives Government Reform subcommittee.

 

Christoff also said Pentagon intelligence data showed an escalating insurgency, as "each monthly peak in the number of violent incidents is followed by a higher average number of attacks in subsequent months."

 

Rear Adm. William Sullivan, who provided the Pentagon figures to the committee, acknowledged they included some Iraqi police who may have left their post or were absent without leave. He also said the Pentagon is trying to develop a way to measure how ready the Iraqi forces are for combat or various types of security duty.

 

Assessing the readiness of Iraqis to take over the role of U.S. forces in countering the insurgency has become a crucial factor in judging when the United States will be able to start withdrawing from Iraq.

 

The administration has spent about $5.8 billion to develop Iraq's security forces. President Bush is seeking another $5.7 billion in an $81.9 billion emergency spending bill that Congress is considering for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

"Without reliable information, Congress may find it difficult to judge how federal funds are achieving a goal of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqis," Christoff told the panel.

 

The U.S. goal is to train and equip about 271,000 Iraqi security forces, police and military combined, by July 2006.

 

The Pentagon has been forced to scale back its estimates of ready forces from about 206,000 as it became apparent many were not combat-ready, particularly after the November offensive in Fallujah.

??

 

The article states that the Iraqi Security forces aren't yet up to par. That's true; they aren't the best and there have been problems with them. I never denied this.

 

(State Department) -- Following is a fact sheet issued by the U.S. delegation to the United Nations April 11 regarding the state of Iraqi security forces:

 

April 11, 2005

 

Report on behalf of the Multinational Force

 

Pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1546

 

    * In less than a year, the Iraqi Regular Army and Intervention Forces grew from one operational battalion to 27 operational battalions. The total number of operational combat battalions is now 80, which includes the units incorporated from the intervention force and the National Guard.

    * Iraq's Navy became operational, with five 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels, and a naval infantry regiment that recently completed training.

    * Iraq's Air Force has three operational squadrons; one additional squadron was stood up in late-January/early February. They have nine reconnaissance aircraft, a helicopter squadron, and three C-130 transport aircraft.

    * Iraq's Special Operations Forces now include a superb Counter-terrorist Forces and a Commando Battalion, each of which has conducted dozens of successful operations.

    * Iraq's 1st Mechanized Battalion became operational in mid-January, along with a tank company and a transportation battalion; the remaining elements of a mechanized brigade will be trained and equipped by the summer.

    * Iraq's two Military Academies reopened in October 2004 and each graduated a pilot course of new lieutenants, 91 total, in early January. The new year-long military academy course has already begun.

    * The Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 trained and equipped police officers, up from 26,000 last Summer. Of the nearly 29,000 police officers who have been trained since then, over 12,000 were former police who underwent three-week transition course training and over 16,000 were new recruits who underwent eight-week basic training. More than 35,000 additional police are on duty and scheduled for training.

    * Five basic police academies became operational; together, they produce over 3,500 new police officers from the 8-week course each month, a course recently modified to better prepare the new police officers for the challenging environment in which some may serve. Several other regional academies are under construction.

    * Iraq's Mechanized Police Brigade recently completed training and began operations in mid-January, using fifty BTR-94 wheeled armored vehicles. One additional Mechanized Police battalion is in training.

    * Nine Police Commando battalions are operational.

    * Nine Public Order Battalions are operational. Three more battalions will commence training shortly.

    * Iraq's National Police Emergency Response Unit is now operational, and its elements have conducted operations in Baghdad, Fallujah, and Mosul.

    * Iraq's First Special Border Force Battalion is operating on the Syrian border in western Anbar Province; the Second Battalion competed training in February and has begun its deployments, and a third completed training in March.

    * Seven provincial SWAT teams have been trained, two more are in training, and eleven more are scheduled for training by August 2005.

 

Total of 155,000 men. And yes, they have been acting in more and more operations. It's the reason why the US Casualty rate has been down so much.

 

And indeed, violence has turned up. We've seen it happen before. We've heard cries of Civil War before as well with Sadr. They got through those, and I'm sure they'll get through these as well. They've just got a new Democratic government and they have a hardline insurgency to deal with. It's not to be unexpected. I'm not saying it's sunshine and roses, but it's been improving slowly since the original invasion and it'll continue to, despite the insurgency turning it up every Spring (Before today April 2004 was the big month as well, and then things calmed back down again).

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You:

The article states that the Iraqi Security forces aren't yet up to par.

 

That's not the gist of the article.

 

"Data on the status of Iraqi security forces is unreliable and provides limited information on their capabilities," Joseph Christoff, of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), told a House of Representatives Government Reform subcommittee.

 

You:

Total of 155,000 men.

 

The Pentagon told Congress on Monday that there are 142,472 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, but a Capitol Hill watchdog agency said data on the forces was unreliable and it was difficult to gauge whether billions of U.S. dollars were being used effectively.