1,300 Iraqi Troops, Police Dismissed

[Pale Rider]

1,300 Iraqi Troops, Police Dismissed



2008-04-13 13:14:40
By BUSHRA JUHI Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD (AP) — The Iraqi government has dismissed about 1,300 soldiers and policemen who deserted or refused to fight during last month's offensive against Shiite militias and criminal gangs in Basra, officials said Sunday.

Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said 921 police and soldiers were fired in Basra. They included 37 senior police officers ranging in rank from lieutenant colonel to brigadier general.

The others were dismissed in Kut, one of the Shiite cities where the fight had spread.

Last month, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered the security forces to confront armed groups in Basra, Iraq's second largest city.

But they met fierce resistance and the attack quickly ground to a halt as fighting flared across the Shiite south and Baghdad.

Since then, government officials have revealed that about 1,000 members of the security forces — including an entire infantry battalion — had mutinied, on some cases handing over vehicles and weapons to the militias.

The majority of Iraqi soldiers and police are Shiites.

Article continues here... (http://charter.net/news/news_reader.php?storyid=14549598&feedid=249)

[Monkeybone]

and this right here is the basic reason that makes me say we shouldn't be there anymore. they don't want to change, they don't care, if it involves work then they just give up. sad.

[Nukeman]

Shoot them all in the back of the head for desertion!!!!!! That will put a stop to it!!! j/k sort of!


This right here is a perfect example of why we can't just pull out and leave this country to its own.... If they are willing to desert and join the oppision forces with the US there what do you thinkwill happen when we up and leave..:poke:

[retiredman]

Shoot them all in the back of the head for desertion!!!!!! That will put a stop to it!!! j/k sort of!


This right here is a perfect example of why we can't just pull out and leave this country to its own.... If they are willing to desert and join the oppision forces with the US there what do you thinkwill happen when we up and leave..:poke:

and what in the world makes you think that sunni and shiite members of the Iraqi military and police force won't desert to join their respective sectarian militias WHENEVER America finally does leave?

[Dilloduck]

and what in the world makes you think that sunni and shiite members of the Iraqi military and police force won't desert to join their respective sectarian militias WHENEVER America finally does leave?

What makes you think America is EVER gonig to leave ?

[Nukeman]

and what in the world makes you think that sunni and shiite members of the Iraqi military and police force won't desert to join their respective sectarian militias WHENEVER America finally does leave?
One can always hope that with enough time even the closed minded shia and sunni can see that security and safety should take precedent over religious affiliation!!! I'm not saying this will happen but like I said "one can always hope"...

I post the same question to you "what in the world makes YOU think that it is impossible to change perception in the sunni/shia "?:poke:

[retiredman]

One can always hope that with enough time even the closed minded shia and sunni can see that security and safety should take precedent over religious affiliation!!! I'm not saying this will happen but like I said "one can always hope"...

I post the same question to you "what in the world makes YOU think that it is impossible to change perception in the sunni/shia "?:poke:

a millenium of distrust and hatred.

Are you suggesting that we flush billions of dollars of American treasure and buckets of American blood into Iraq for another millenium based upon your "one can always hope" Little Orphan Annie philosophy? What is so sacrosanct about the boundaries of this artificially constructed "country" called Iraq that it demands our undying commitment to try to save it even as we bleed ourselves dry?

[glockmail]

One can always hope that with enough time even the closed minded shia and sunni can see that security and safety should take precedent over religious affiliation!!! I'm not saying this will happen but like I said "one can always hope"...

I post the same question to you "what in the world makes YOU think that it is impossible to change perception in the sunni/shia "?:poke:


I've said from Day One that we should divide the stinking country into three: Kurdistan, Sunni-istan, and Shia-istan, whatever, together with a small federal entity to distibute oil money to each based on the relative population at the break up. All we would then do is have a nice air base somewhere to protect our own interests in the area.

[Nukeman]

a millenium of distrust and hatred.

Are you suggesting that we flush billions of dollars of American treasure and buckets of American blood into Iraq for another millenium based upon your "one can always hope" Little Orphan Annie philosophy? What is so sacrosanct about the boundaries of this artificially constructed "country" called Iraq that it demands our undying commitment to try to save it even as we bleed ourselves dry?
Tell you what fuck nut why don't we just NUKE the whole fucking place than??? You obviously hold absolutely NO hope for the area so we might as well wipe the whole place off the face of the earth.! After all they (sunni/shia) have been fighting for millenium and there is NO way they are ever going to change...:poke:

[retiredman]

Tell you what fuck nut why don't we just NUKE the whole fucking place than??? You obviously hold absolutely NO hope for the area so we might as well wipe the whole place off the face of the earth.! After all they (sunni/shia) have been fighting for millenium and there is NO way they are ever going to change...:poke:


why not be a big boy and answer the second question in my post?

Either that, or tell mommy that you logged on to daddy's political website and your tummy ache is all gone and you can go to school now.

[Nukeman]

why not be a big boy and answer the second question in my post?

Either that, or tell mommy that you logged on to daddy's political website and your tummy ache is all gone and you can go to school now.

Aren't we a little testy this morning!!!!!

To answer your second question, No I don't think we shoould be there forever and I personaly don't think we should have been there in the first place (since we are, we should try to do ALL we can to help). I think it was a mistake to go in there. I feel the only thing these people understand is an iron fist. If you want to get our troops out of there cut the damn ties off of them and let them do what needs to be done in a military way not the BS politicly correct war that you lefties want to wage.

I would like to add MY first post to you was in no way inflamatory or provoking in manner, you came at me with contempt and name calling...
I know you catch a lot of grief on this web site for your stance, but you do hold to your convictions and I admire that! Now can we attempt this without attacks......????:slap:

[retiredman]

nuke:

the question is:

"What is so sacrosanct about the boundaries of this artificially constructed "country" called Iraq that it demands our undying commitment to try to save it even as we bleed ourselves dry?"

In other words, why are we so singlemindedly determined to see Iraq succeed as a country? Why not just hack it up into three countries? When "Iraq" was formed, it was not by any joint efforts of the people there. They have no history of Iraqi national pride that somehow supercedes pride and loyalty to sect. "Iraq" is nothing but space inside lines drawn on a map by Europeans dividing up the Ottoman Empire as spoils of war in the aftermath of WWI. For us to just assume and expect that the people living inside those lines chose to live together or to jointly share the burdens and blessings of Iraqi citizenship is silly. It simply proves our ignorance of the area and provides the residents with rationale to distrust and dislike us.

[Nukeman]

nuke:

the question is:

"What is so sacrosanct about the boundaries of this artificially constructed "country" called Iraq that it demands our undying commitment to try to save it even as we bleed ourselves dry?"

In other words, why are we so singlemindedly determined to see Iraq succeed as a country? Why not just hack it up into three countries? When "Iraq" was formed, it was not by any joint efforts of the people there. They have no history of Iraqi national pride that somehow supercedes pride and loyalty to sect. "Iraq" is nothing but space inside lines drawn on a map by Europeans dividing up the Ottoman Empire as spoils of war in the aftermath of WWI. For us to just assume and expect that the people living inside those lines chose to live together or to jointly share the burdens and blessings of Iraqi citizenship is silly. It simply proves our ignorance of the area and provides the residents with rationale to distrust and dislike us.

I have never said we should keep Iraq as a whole country!!! I think it should be split into three lands(states, provences, countries, or whatever you want to call them) and they should form a small federal gov't to see about relations between them (and the out side). If the US does this than we WILL have to stay long enough to police this untill it becomes second nature to the people living there..

You confuse me with others on this board who scream "stay the course" I say the course has to be changed, but we do owe the people of Iraq help in creating some form of joint government. Since we did rid them of the oppressor Saddam we can at least help them from having somone just like him take over...

[retiredman]

I say the course has to be changed, but we do owe the people of Iraq help in creating some form of joint government. Since we did rid them of the oppressor Saddam we can at least help them from having somone just like him take over...

do we just "hope for the best" when confronted with the cultural realities that would suggest that the people of "Iraq" don't really CARE about creating some form of joint government? Do we just ignore the fact that clannish sectarian loyalties in that area of the world are more easily adaptable to oppressive dictatorships than they are multicultural jeffersonian democracies?

[Dilloduck]

do we just "hope for the best" when confronted with the cultural realities that would suggest that the people of "Iraq" don't really CARE about creating some form of joint government? Do we just ignore the fact that clannish sectarian loyalties in that area of the world are more easily adaptable to oppressive dictatorships than they are multicultural jeffersonian democracies?

Is taking the "more easily adaptable" way that you really want? Slamming an oppresive dictator on them doesn't sound like something they will really appreciate. Oh--and the rest of the world won't like us for doing that either.

[retiredman]

Is taking the "more easily adaptable" way that you really want? Slamming an oppresive dictator on them doesn't sound like something they will really appreciate. Oh--and the rest of the world won't like us for doing that either.

Where did I suggest "slamming an oppresive dictator on them"?

I'll wait.

[Pale Rider]

a millenium of distrust and hatred.

Are you suggesting that we flush billions of dollars of American treasure and buckets of American blood into Iraq for another millenium based upon your "one can always hope" Little Orphan Annie philosophy? What is so sacrosanct about the boundaries of this artificially constructed "country" called Iraq that it demands our undying commitment to try to save it even as we bleed ourselves dry?

OIL. Bush has admitted that we need to keep guard over it, and Greenspan has also said that's why we went there in the first place. I can guarantee you... if there wasn't the second largest oil field in the world there, we wouldn't be either.

[mundame]

OIL. Bush has admitted that we need to keep guard over it, and Greenspan has also said that's why we went there in the first place. I can guarantee you... if there wasn't the second largest oil field in the world there, we wouldn't be either.

Of course not. You want to see a dictator a LOT worse than Saddam, look at Mugabe in Zimbabwe. But he hasn't got any oil, so who cares.

And I'll tell you what, if that idiot Bush had managed to actually WIN that war in Iraq when he had a chance to do so, instead of falling asleep for three years, oil would be a whole lot lower and we wouldn't be on the edge of a recession and oil wouldn't have rocketed through the world's production and distribution chains to the point that this week we have food riots in some ten countries around the world.


At this point I think the best way to get at Iraqi oil is to pull out and let them get their own act together and throw up one of their usual strongmen --- Sadr, presumably. They'll get the oil going again: it's all they've got for money, after all.

[glockmail]

Of course not. You want to see a dictator a LOT worse than Saddam, look at Mugabe in Zimbabwe. But he hasn't got any oil, so who cares.

...... He doesn't have any oil or anything of value to trade, so therefore not within our sphere of influence. Plus, lack of funds keeps him from being a danger to the US.

Are you suggesting that we go around knocking off dictators because we can?

[mundame]

Are you suggesting that we go around knocking off dictators because we can?


No, indeedy-pie!! What a thought. http://macg.net/emoticons/fear1.gif Could we NOT, please?

We're in quite enough losing wars as it is, thank you anyway.


No, I think oil is an obvious national interest, and is certainly why we fought the FIRST Iraq War, and to pretend that somehow all this was NOT about oil is silly. Or even to pretend that it being about oil ("Kein Blüt für Öl") is somehow evil or wrong or bad.

May as well call war with Germany in 1917 wrong and evil because they didn't attack us, they just kept sinking our shipping. No. Nations have crucial national interests and they fight for them: Japan fought us because we interfered with THEIR oil in the late '30s, after all.

Of course, it's more useful if you actually win the war. http://wade.hu/smiley/kategoriak/megkerg%FCltek/speechless-smiley-014.gif

[glockmail]

....
Of course, it's more useful if you actually win the war. http://wade.hu/smiley/kategoriak/megkerg%FCltek/speechless-smiley-014.gif
Americans don't have the stomachs for what would need to be done to win a war as quickly as we did against Germany and Japan. So we end up with long protracted BS. Most Americans don't even have the stomach for that.

[mundame]

Americans don't have the stomachs for what would need to be done to win a war as quickly as we did against Germany and Japan. So we end up with long protracted BS. Most Americans don't even have the stomach for that.

I don't agree --- we have the stomach for it IF WE ARE ATTACKED FIRST.

What we don't care for are these useless politicians' wars, like Vietnam or this Iraq War. The wars they try to trick us into with hard-to-believe propaganda, like Saddam's supposed "WMD." No, we don't want to do those, and the pols know it, so they try to do it on the cheap and quick (just advisers! Light at the end of the tunnel as soon as we escalate a little!) and they always, always lose and take a long time losing.

Nobody minded Bush I going in with carpet bombing until the Iraqis were so demoralized they surrendered to CNN camera crews. It was apparent Saddam meant to control all the oil in the area and had his eye on Saudi Arabia as well: that's why we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia. That was a major national interest, and we weren't having it.

No, I think we fight wars the wrong way, the way Americans are worst at. We aren't good at unjust invasions. Germany was GREAT at goose-stepping right over every border they could find. Us, not so good. And guerrilla warfare? Oh, migod. Just not our thing. We never caught the Swamp Fox, either........And he was closer.

However, Americans ARE good at wars of indignation. They bomb us, or strike at our major interests, we go after them big time while we're still angry: and those wars, we don't lose. It has to be real, though: Tonkin Gulf is not going to cut it. Faked up "Remember the Maine" stuff will never fool the public in the Internet age.

So I think we should stop this constant invading uselessly, losing all the time. Just keep our powder dry and if we are attacked, the people will respond, and we can pound the enemy. If we aren't attacked, better still.

[Gaffer]

No, indeedy-pie!! What a thought. http://macg.net/emoticons/fear1.gif Could we NOT, please?

We're in quite enough losing wars as it is, thank you anyway.


No, I think oil is an obvious national interest, and is certainly why we fought the FIRST Iraq War, and to pretend that somehow all this was NOT about oil is silly. Or even to pretend that it being about oil ("Kein Blüt für Öl") is somehow evil or wrong or bad.

May as well call war with Germany in 1917 wrong and evil because they didn't attack us, they just kept sinking our shipping. No. Nations have crucial national interests and they fight for them: Japan fought us because we interfered with THEIR oil in the late '30s, after all.

Of course, it's more useful if you actually win the war. http://wade.hu/smiley/kategoriak/megkerg%FCltek/speechless-smiley-014.gif

What do you call winning?

What do you call losing?

The primary reason we went to war in WW1 was because Germany tried to enlist Mexico to attack the US. Japan attacked us because we had an embargo against them for attacking China. And they were looking to expand their empire to include the entire east.

If its all about oil how come gas keeps going up. If we just pull out then iran and AQ can move in and use the oil revenue to fund their war against us. How do you intend to prevent that?

[retiredman]

What do you call winning?

What do you call losing?

The primary reason we went to war in WW1 was because Germany tried to enlist Mexico to attack the US. Japan attacked us because we had an embargo against them for attacking China. And they were looking to expand their empire to include the entire east.

If its all about oil how come gas keeps going up. If we just pull out then iran and AQ can move in and use the oil revenue to fund their war against us. How do you intend to prevent that?


AQ and Iran are not allied in any way. Iran is going to move in and exert significant influence in Iraq the minute we leave whenever that is.... AQ is not an issue in Iraq and never really has been...the sunni-shiite problem is the overriding issue and AQ was always just an irritant - not any significant player in terms of political control. Iran doesn't really have any real need to fight a "war" against us, other than a war of words. They gain enormous credibility in the muslim world by pulling the tail of the tiger.... they are not a real threat to America in any substantive way, IMHO.

[Gaffer]

AQ and Iran are not allied in any way. Iran is going to move in and exert significant influence in Iraq the minute we leave whenever that is.... AQ is not an issue in Iraq and never really has been...the sunni-shiite problem is the overriding issue and AQ was always just an irritant - not any significant player in terms of political control. Iran doesn't really have any real need to fight a "war" against us, other than a war of words. They gain enormous credibility in the muslim world by pulling the tail of the tiger.... they are not a real threat to America in any substantive way, IMHO.

iran supplies hezbullah and hamas. They have agents spread throughout the world. They supply the money, arms, training and manpower to sadr and his thugs along with other groups. They are building bigger and better missile systems on which to place the nuclear war heads they are developing. They have threatened to wipe out Israel and anyone that supports Israel and the threat has been ratched up to include any nonmuslim country that does not submit to islam. By controling iraq they control the oil of iraq and it puts them in a better position to threaten the other countries of the region.They are giving shelter to a number of AQ members, including bin laden's son. They are providing weapons and assistance to the taliban and AQ.

But hey they are just tail pulling, they won't do anything. Your dhimmitude is astounding.

[retiredman]

iran supplies hezbullah and hamas. They have agents spread throughout the world. They supply the money, arms, training and manpower to sadr and his thugs along with other groups. They are building bigger and better missile systems on which to place the nuclear war heads they are developing. They have threatened to wipe out Israel and anyone that supports Israel and the threat has been ratched up to include any nonmuslim country that does not submit to islam. By controling iraq they control the oil of iraq and it puts them in a better position to threaten the other countries of the region.They are giving shelter to a number of AQ members, including bin laden's son. They are providing weapons and assistance to the taliban and AQ.

But hey they are just tail pulling, they won't do anything. Your dhimmitude is astounding.


hamas and hezbollah are not worldwide organizations. they have a very nationally focused agenda. Iran supports the shiites in Iraq. Iran is not providing assistance to AQ. Even McCain quickly corrected himself when he made that same erroneous assertion.

[Gaffer]

hamas and hezbollah are not worldwide organizations. they have a very nationally focused agenda. Iran supports the shiites in Iraq. Iran is not providing assistance to AQ. Even McCain quickly corrected himself when he made that same erroneous assertion.

hamas and hezbo are world wide. They have cells in Europe and the US. hezbo has attacked targets in other countries before and have threatened to do so again. The missiles both groups fire at Israel are from iran. iran has been supplying AQ and the taliban in afgan for a long time. There were captured convoys just last year from iran to the taliban. AQ has been using iranian made weapons to attack US forces in afgan and iraq. Just because they don't like each other doesn't mean they won't work together.

I haven't made any erroneous assertions. binladen's son is still safe and warm in iran, they must not hate each other that badly.

[retiredman]

hamas and hezbo are world wide. They have cells in Europe and the US. hezbo has attacked targets in other countries before and have threatened to do so again. The missiles both groups fire at Israel are from iran. iran has been supplying AQ and the taliban in afgan for a long time. There were captured convoys just last year from iran to the taliban. AQ has been using iranian made weapons to attack US forces in afgan and iraq. Just because they don't like each other doesn't mean they won't work together.

I haven't made any erroneous assertions. binladen's son is still safe and warm in iran, they must not hate each other that badly.

where is the nearest hezbollah cell from YOUR house? :laugh2:

Iran has not supplied AQ... like I said, even McCain quickly retracted that misstatement when he said it.

[Gaffer]

where is the nearest hezbollah cell from YOUR house? :laugh2:

Iran has not supplied AQ... like I said, even McCain quickly retracted that misstatement when he said it.

wow, he's a dhimi comedian.

iran isn't supplying AQ according to mfm. But the military and state department say they are. Let's see, who should I believe?

I don't give a rats ass what mccain says or retracts. We are not discussing mccain, we are discussing AQ and iran teaming up. Which based on the reports seems to be happening. Even the muslim brotherhood is accepting shea as true muslims. 70% of AQ leadership is made up of mb members.

[retiredman]

wow, he's a dhimi comedian.

iran isn't supplying AQ according to mfm. But the military and state department say they are. Let's see, who should I believe?

I don't give a rats ass what mccain says or retracts. We are not discussing mccain, we are discussing AQ and iran teaming up. Which based on the reports seems to be happening. Even the muslim brotherhood is accepting shea as true muslims. 70% of AQ leadership is made up of mb members.Show me where the state department says that Iran is supplying AQ.... and you were the one who said that Hezbollah and Hamas had cells in America...you must know where.

[Gaffer]

Show me where the state department says that Iran is supplying AQ.... and you were the one who said that Hezbollah and Hamas had cells in America...you must know where.

I'm not showing you anything. And if I knew where the hezbo and hamas cells were I wouldn't discuss it with you. The thing to be concerned about is they are here. I'm sure they will call you if they need someone to defend their actions.

[retiredman]

I'm not showing you anything. And if I knew where the hezbo and hamas cells were I wouldn't discuss it with you. The thing to be concerned about is they are here. I'm sure they will call you if they need someone to defend their actions.

the cells are here and you know that....how? the voiced told you?:lol:

you are not showing me anything from the state department showing that Iran is supplying AQ because it doesn't exist.

don't even suggest that I would aid our enemies.

[Gaffer]

the cells are here and you know that....how? the voiced told you?:lol:

you are not showing me anything from the state department showing that Iran is supplying AQ because it doesn't exist.

don't even suggest that I would aid our enemies.

Your suppose to be a former military man. You really believe there aren't cells here with orders to strike when war breaks out with iran? We have a border that arabs can slip across disguised as mexicans and a piss poor immigration policy in place with poor screening and people who over stay their visas and you really believe hamas and hezbo are not here? What kind of naval officer were you? There are also AQ cells here and qods force agents as well. It's why the administration wants to be able to listen in on phone calls. But all that stuff goes over your head.

[retiredman]

Your suppose to be a former military man. You really believe there aren't cells here with orders to strike when war breaks out with iran? We have a border that arabs can slip across disguised as mexicans and a piss poor immigration policy in place with poor screening and people who over stay their visas and you really believe hamas and hezbo are not here? What kind of naval officer were you? There are also AQ cells here and qods force agents as well. It's why the administration wants to be able to listen in on phone calls. But all that stuff goes over your head.

We aren't talking about what I believe. In fact, I believe that Al Qaeda most definitely has cells in America, but I can't prove it. Iran may even have sleepers here to create havoc if we begin hostilities against them, but I do not think that Hamas and Hezbollah, who both have very regional strategies, would waste assets in America when they could be put to much better use in the middle east. Do us both a favor and stop insulting my naval service. that would be real nice.

[Gaffer]

We aren't talking about what I believe. In fact, I believe that Al Qaeda most definitely has cells in America, but I can't prove it. Iran may even have sleepers here to create havoc if we begin hostilities against them, but I do not think that Hamas and Hezbollah, who both have very regional strategies, would waste assets in America when they could be put to much better use in the middle east. Do us both a favor and stop insulting my naval service. that would be real nice.

hezbo has cells all over the world. They are just another arm of iran. They are not wasting assets by having cells in this country. They can be used to raise money for their cause and to attack our infrastructure in time of war. A number of them have been arrested and prosecuted. They have thousands to draw from in the region, there is no lack of manpower there.

I'll stop insulting your naval service when you start posting like an experienced naval man and not some dhimi appolgist for islam. You know as well as I do they can't directly strike us at this time so they are going to try to strike from within. It's what they do.

[retiredman]

hezbo has cells all over the world. They are just another arm of iran. They are not wasting assets by having cells in this country. They can be used to raise money for their cause and to attack our infrastructure in time of war. A number of them have been arrested and prosecuted. They have thousands to draw from in the region, there is no lack of manpower there.

I'll stop insulting your naval service when you start posting like an experienced naval man and not some dhimi appolgist for islam. You know as well as I do they can't directly strike us at this time so they are going to try to strike from within. It's what they do.

Hezbollah is a political party that takes its inspiration from Iran. They are far from being under Iranian control... merely Iranian influence. And your assertions about Hezbollah cells are pretty much wacky unsupported rants at this point. And I do not believe that striking inside the united states is anything of any great interest to the Iranian authorities. Their concerns are much less global and much more regional than you give them credit for.

I have NEVER apologized for radical extremist Islam. I have spoken my own truth and know that I knew thousands of muslims in my job with the UN. It was my job to gain their confidence and I did my job well. I knew and continue to know a great many christians, jews, sunnis shiites, alawites and druze while I was there. I can report that the vast majority were peace loving friendly people who worshipped their God and worked hard in their jobs to make better lives for their families.

[mundame]

What do you call winning?

The plain Clausewitz definition on the first page of his book will do: forcing the enemy to do your will.

Also, achieving one's war aims.


What do you call losing?

Neither of the above occurring: the enemy is still fighting, and we can't achieve our war aims, like is happening now in Iraq.


The primary reason we went to war in WW1 was because Germany tried to enlist Mexico to attack the US.

No, that was Wilson's casus belli he presented to the people some time after the British gave their captured Zimmerman telegram to him. The telegram infuriated America and war was declared within a week, but Senator Lodge smelled a rat and I agree: why did Wilson release the telegram to the newspapers just then?

The Zimmerman telegram was the MEANS by which Wilson got us into war. Mexico was of course no real danger, anymore than it is now -- militarily.

The REASONS we went to war was that the Germans were sinking our shipping and had just upped the ante by restarting unrestricted submarine warfare (sinking ships with no warning). And because the Triple Entente nations of France and Britain owed us billions they could not repay if Germany won. And because the French were mutinying and there were riots on the home fronts: the war might well be lost without us, despite the economic superiority of the allies. The Germans, after all, have always had the world's best military. And then what? Germany as a regional hegemon, looking to take on the rest of the world, namely us? Yes. So Wilson, who campaigned in 1916 on the slogan "He Kept Us Out Of War," took us to war April 6, 1917.


Japan attacked us because we had an embargo against them for attacking China. And they were looking to expand their empire to include the entire east.

An OIL embargo, as I said. It keeps coming back to oil. Well, for that matter, British action in the Mideast in WWI was also about oil. They were in and out of Iraq/Iran oilfields several times in three decades.




If its all about oil how come gas keeps going up. If we just pull out then iran and AQ can move in and use the oil revenue to fund their war against us. How do you intend to prevent that?


There is no war against us. Have you seen any more American cities bombed in the last six years or more? No. Al Qaeda is on the run. Iran isn't at war with anyone.................at the moment. Bush just carries on with his "war" propaganda to try to confuse Americans enough so he can continue to keep troops fighting in Iraq indefinitely. In fact, the only aggressor is us, since Iraq certainly had nothing at all to do with 9/11, and Bush has never bothered to go after bin Laden, who DID have something to do with 9/11. So I have to conclude Bush cares nothing about New York being bombed, and everything about his hopeless legacy, and his family's and Texas friends' oil interests.

It's certainly about oil, and gas keeps going up because there is a speculator runup of oil because the WAR is going so badly. And because the Mideast is in such a dangerous state of unrest. Oil is also going up because of high demand from India, China, and the rest of Asia, because of very poor, old production methods by idiots like Chavez, and because the paper dollar is falling and so real things like oil rise. Aren't we all supposed to know all this?

Oh, and we don't have enough refineries, to the point that a fog on the Gulf of Mexico sends oil up.

[Gaffer]

The plain Clausewitz definition on the first page of his book will do: forcing the enemy to do your will.

Also, achieving one's war aims.



Neither of the above occurring: the enemy is still fighting, and we can't achieve our war aims, like is happening now in Iraq.

We achieved our first war aim of taking down saddam, our second aim is to stabilize iraq. That is on going. And is proving successful. It will be successful because of our military, not because of Bush.

No, that was Wilson's casus belli he presented to the people some time after the British gave their captured Zimmerman telegram to him. The telegram infuriated America and war was declared within a week, but Senator Lodge smelled a rat and I agree: why did Wilson release the telegram to the newspapers just then?

The Zimmerman telegram was the MEANS by which Wilson got us into war. Mexico was of course no real danger, anymore than it is now -- militarily.

The REASONS we went to war was that the Germans were sinking our shipping and had just upped the ante by restarting unrestricted submarine warfare (sinking ships with no warning). And because the Triple Entente nations of France and Britain owed us billions they could not repay if Germany won. And because the French were mutinying and there were riots on the home fronts: the war might well be lost without us, despite the economic superiority of the allies. The Germans, after all, have always had the world's best military. And then what? Germany as a regional hegemon, looking to take on the rest of the world, namely us? Yes. So Wilson, who campaigned in 1916 on the slogan "He Kept Us Out Of War," took us to war April 6, 1917.

So you at least know your history. The zimmerman letter was the straw. The other reasons you gave are correct. Though oil was not a primary concern in those days.

An OIL embargo, as I said. It keeps coming back to oil. Well, for that matter, British action in the Mideast in WWI was also about oil. They were in and out of Iraq/Iran oilfields several times in three decades.




There is no war against us. Have you seen any more American cities bombed in the last six years or more? No. Al Qaeda is on the run. Iran isn't at war with anyone.................at the moment. Bush just carries on with his "war" propaganda to try to confuse Americans enough so he can continue to keep troops fighting in Iraq indefinitely. In fact, the only aggressor is us, since Iraq certainly had nothing at all to do with 9/11, and Bush has never bothered to go after bin Laden, who DID have something to do with 9/11. So I have to conclude Bush cares nothing about New York being bombed, and everything about his hopeless legacy, and his family's and Texas friends' oil interests.

The is no war against us? Ever stop to think that there have been no attacks because they were stopped before they could take place. Do you have any clue how many aq have been arrested and locked up before they could make attacks? London, Madrid, Bali, Glasgow, the would be bombers from London. And many more than don't make the news. If you ignore all that and bury your head you can deny anything is going on.

No one said iraq had anything to do with 911. iraq was a separate threat in and of itself. bin laden escaped into pakistan. Should we attack pakistan now? How many troops should we send in there? Do you think pakistan is going to sit back and let us invade? You could save yourself a lot of typing by just typing "I HATE BUSH".

It's certainly about oil, and gas keeps going up because there is a speculator runup of oil because the WAR is going so badly. And because the Mideast is in such a dangerous state of unrest. Oil is also going up because of high demand from India, China, and the rest of Asia, because of very poor, old production methods by idiots like Chavez, and because the paper dollar is falling and so real things like oil rise. Aren't we all supposed to know all this?

Oh, and we don't have enough refineries, to the point that a fog on the Gulf of Mexico sends oil up.

Yes it is about oil. It's about keeping the world oil market functioning. And it's about keeping iran and aq from getting iraqs oil to promote their war on us. And to prevent iran from intimidating and controlling the whole region.

But you just go back to burying your head and keep repeating "I hate Bush" and everything will go away. Your being protected in spite of yourself.