Feel that Draft?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What a dumb idea. Yeah, so we only value your education if you decide to hand over your liberty to us. Be our army slaves or break the bank to get an education.

It's called public service. Because you cut a snippet of his ideas, you didn't get the rest. Look at his three tiered model. You don't have to go over and fight in Iraq to get federal aid. You can aid your country in other ways. I don't see anything wrong with that, especially when so many people take our freedoms for granted and forget that some sacrificed for the good of all.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Fair enough. And, as you know, it is my opinion that you are utterly wrong.

I think it's not correct to think that now that we've removed Saddam from power, another figure won't appear to be that "iconoclastic figure" to inspire militant youths to war and death. Even now, they have bin Laden, Al-Zarquai, and Al-Sadr for "inspiration". If the leaders of Syria and Iran continue to thumb their noses at the West, they'll have them as well. And given our overextended commitment in Iraq, our fracturing Armed Forces, and the emerging threats from China & North Korea, they'll thumb their noses with impunity, knowing there is precious little we can do about it.

I call that "looking at the big picture".

Inaction would be worse.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What a dumb idea. Yeah, so we only value your education if you decide to hand over your liberty to us. Be our army slaves or break the bank to get an education.

Would you prefer a soldier get nothing in return for his service? I don't understand what you're suggesting is a "good" idea for federal service.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Inaction would be worse.

Completely agree, and the really important thing to realize is that there is no choice between "inaction" and "action" here. There really isn't. The question that's being raised is whether or not our military is going to be a part of the action. Our culture and corporations are not going to leave the so-called "arc of instability" or the "Gap" or whatever terminology you want to use for these places that have yet to enter into globalization's rule sets and the connectivity and stability they create. So the action is going to be there, pretending that removing troops is going to remove the friction is missing the point. Poverty, oppression, jobless and hopelessness are the real recruiting tools for extremists, when you integrate peoples into a system that defeats those things, give them ownership in that system, then they have a lot less motivation to destroy it. Ultimately that integration is going to be next to impossible without the physical presence of military personnel to help maintain some degree of stability while these states transition. I don't understand why people get so pessimistic about what's going on in Iraq, there's a lot of hope there. And I understand that the administration has not been a great spokesperson for the "plan," and unfortunately W, even as a second term President (probably because he's trying not to torpedoe Jeb for '08), hasn't had the courage to fully elucidate that plan. But the plan is bring these places into the global economic and social fold, put extraordinary amounts of pressure (militarily when necessary) to force societal change, and make a better world. If you look at the truly remarkable amount of stability in the nations that have bought into globalization's rules, you'll see that we've got an historical opportunity to transform the world into a place where I'm selling FOF2 on ebay to some guy in Basra, and getting pwned in an FM network game by some lethargic Saudi teenager. There is a plan, the next few years (shit decades) are just the messy part of it. I think if we just had a little eensy frigging bit of leadership people would rally to that, but I could be way off.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Inaction would be worse.

I wasn't advocating inaction.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Would you prefer a soldier get nothing in return for his service? I don't understand what you're suggesting is a "good" idea for federal service.

I don't think that's what he was saying. I think what he's saying is that making it so that the only way you can qualify for any federal student aid is through service is unfair.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I don't think that's what he was saying. I think what he's saying is that making it so that the only way you can qualify for any federal student aid is through service is unfair.

Even so, I fail to understand how it is unfair. You serve the Federal Government, you get something from the Federal Government. The way it stands right now, many people get it for free. Again, see the three tiered service proposal. You don't have to be in the military. You can also join the Peace Corps, etc. to qualify.

Give back directly to your country. Sacrifice. I guess those things don't apply to everyone here.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Completely agree, and the really important thing to realize is that there is no choice between "inaction" and "action" here.

Well, of course there isn't. You either do something or you don't.

Semantics aside, there's a myriad of options that fall under the category of "action". It's my belief that invading Iraq wasn't the best option.

But the plan is bring these places into the global economic and social fold, put extraordinary amounts of pressure (militarily when necessary) to force societal change, and make a better world. If you look at the truly remarkable amount of stability in the nations that have bought into globalization's rules, you'll see that we've got an historical opportunity to transform the world into a place where I'm selling FOF2 on ebay to some guy in Basra, and getting pwned in an FM network game by some lethargic Saudi teenager.

I've bolded the part I think is gravely mistaken. I'd like an example of where this technique was successful in the long term.

Fact is, if you want these societies to change and enter the global economic world, you're going to have to let them come to that decision themselves, instead of having it forced upon them. Support moderate and modernist elements in these countries as much as you can without undermining them (i.e. too overt a connection to America is bad). Help with trade to let the global economic system get a hold.

Given time and opportunity, people will agree that economic opportunity and jobs are better than bin Laden and theocrats. But a messy military operation only accentuates the negative, and allows the fundamentalists to control the dialogue.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's my belief that invading Iraq wasn't the best option.

You are not alone...regardless, it happened, and now we have to deal with it. Please let it go.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Even so, I fail to understand how it is unfair. You serve the Federal Government, you get something from the Federal Government. The way it stands right now, many people get it for free. Again, see the three tiered service proposal. You don't have to be in the military. You can also join the Peace Corps, etc. to qualify.

I think you've got my argument backwards.

I don't have a problem with federal aid being available to those who serve the country (i.e. G.I. Bill), and I'd never advocate that it be taken away. I'm just saying that moving to a system where only those who serve their country are eligible for federal aid is an unnecessary and unfair exclusion.

I think I'm fine with the system as it exists now, to be honest. I'm sure the number of folks who go to school free because they served (or are serving) their country greatly outnumbers the number who go to school free who aren't serving their country (in that sense). Sounds fine to me. If you serve in the Armed Forces, or via a similar type of service, a reward of that type sounds appropriate.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

You are not alone...regardless, it happened, and now we have to deal with it. Please let it go.

I'll let it go as soon as there's an Exit Strategy. Otherwise, it's just Vietnam all over again, and, as we know, that accomplished nothing.

Vietnam's an interesting example of course. Nowadays it's a reasonable responsible member of the global capitalist economy, even though *shock*, we let the Godless Communists get a hold of it.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think I'm fine with the system as it exists now, to be honest. I'm sure the number of folks who go to school free because they served (or are serving) their country greatly outnumbers the number who go to school free who aren't serving their country (in that sense). Sounds fine to me. If you serve in the Armed Forces, or via a similar type of service, a reward of that type sounds appropriate.

To be specific, I don't think that the education benefits are entirely "free". I think depending on what school you choose, it could be, but not necessarily.

Second, the question I have is that is it fair that some must serve their country or give back to their country in order to get this benefit and some do not? Maybe I'm a little myopic, but I don't see many situations where it would be appropriate to give government aid to someone who doesn't serve their country.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Second, the question I have is that is it fair that some must serve their country or give back to their country in order to get this benefit and some do not? Maybe I'm a little myopic, but I don't see many situations where it would be appropriate to give government aid to someone who doesn't serve their country.

Merit scholarships for budding geniuses? Aid for smart kids who otherwise couldn't afford college?

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I've bolded the part I think is gravely mistaken. I'd like an example of where this technique was successful in the long term.

Fact is, if you want these societies to change and enter the global economic world, you're going to have to let them come to that decision themselves, instead of having it forced upon them. Support moderate and modernist elements in these countries as much as you can without undermining them (i.e. too overt a connection to America is bad). Help with trade to let the global economic system get a hold.

Given time and opportunity, people will agree that economic opportunity and jobs are better than bin Laden and theocrats. But a messy military operation only accentuates the negative, and allows the fundamentalists to control the dialogue.

Two hugely successful military examples, Germany and Japan. Other hugely successful non-military examples (if they can really be separated from the military factor's inherent pressure), China and Russia (Regardless of any criticisms you may have of these two countries they have undergone a huge amount of societal change and are now a part of our integrated world, and are being judged accordingly. An American President having a dialogue about his disappointment with a particular ruling in the Russian legal system would have been beyond absurd twenty years ago. The same with the fact that the greatest threat China poses to America is the number of cotton pants they're shipping over. These are HUGE changes.). There are as well conflicting successes with regard to your "don't associate too heavily with countries lest they be undermined by us" theory. Look at South Korea. Compare it with North Korea. Not only have our troops not undermined the government, they've given that society a chance to grow into one of the richer nations in Asia without falling under the thumb of an oppressive miserable regime to the north plaqued by poverty and stagnation. What I disagree with, and think is gravely wrong, is the notion that we shouldn't rock the boat in regions where the freaking boat is already rocking. You're approaching these problems as though the places we're dealing with in this discussion play by the same rules that we do, they don't, as though we fought a preemptive war with France or Canada or something, we didn't. We went into a place, and should go into more places, with a history of complete disregard for the structures of international law and order, of human decency, of value systems that champion certain rights for everyone. Places where a reasonable solution to airing grievances is strapped to your chest. These places are not a part of the stability we enjoy, we should be more concerned with Entrance Strategies to bring them into the fold than we are with Exit Strategies to get out of the places that need us most. I feel strongly about that, and I think we're strong enough to do that, not as just a country, but as an international order of the people that we're connected with. Unfortunately, right now it's mostly us, we start selling a plan and maybe others will follow.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Merit scholarships for budding geniuses? Aid for smart kids who otherwise couldn't afford college?

Join the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines. It's good enough for other people.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Merit scholarships for budding geniuses? Aid for smart kids who otherwise couldn't afford college?

Oh...the first part, whatever. If they're budding geniuses, then they can get full rides on scholarships. They don't need Federal money.

[Dutch]

Also, to be clear, we are not forcing societal changes on the middle east. We are granting the people freedom to be in a situation where they can hold their leaders accountable. Liberty.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Also, to be clear, we are not forcing societal changes on the middle east. We are granting the people freedom to be in a situation where they can hold their leaders accountable. Liberty.

Right . I meant extraordinary amounts of pressure to aid societal change.

[flere-imsaho]

I hope no one's waiting for the Iraqi Army to be ready to take things over.

Building Iraq's Army: Mission Improbable
Project in North Reveals Deep Divide Between U.S. and Iraqi Forces

By Anthony Shadid and Steve Fainaru
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 10, 2005; A01

BAIJI, Iraq -- An hour before dawn, the sky still clouded by a dust storm, the soldiers of the Iraqi army's Charlie Company began their mission with a ballad to ousted president Saddam Hussein. "We have lived in humiliation since you left," one sang in Arabic, out of earshot of his U.S. counterparts. "We had hoped to spend our life with you."

But the Iraqi soldiers had no clue where they were going. They shrugged their shoulders when asked what they would do. The U.S. military had billed the mission as pivotal in the Iraqis' progress as a fighting force but had kept the destination and objectives secret out of fear the Iraqis would leak the information to insurgents.

"We can't tell these guys about a lot of this stuff, because we're not really sure who's good and who isn't," said Rick McGovern, a tough-talking 37-year-old platoon sergeant from Hershey, Pa., who heads the military training for Charlie Company.

The reconstruction of Iraq's security forces is the prerequisite for an American withdrawal from Iraq. But as the Bush administration extols the continuing progress of the new Iraqi army, the project in Baiji, a desolate oil town at a strategic crossroads in northern Iraq, demonstrates the immense challenges of building an army from scratch in the middle of a bloody insurgency.

Charlie Company disintegrated once after its commander was killed by a car bomb in December. And members of the unit were threatening to quit en masse this week over complaints that ranged from dismal living conditions to insurgent threats. Across a vast cultural divide, language is just one impediment. Young Iraqi soldiers, ill-equipped and drawn from a disenchanted Sunni Arab minority, say they are not even sure what they are fighting for. They complain bitterly that their American mentors don't respect them.

In fact, the Americans don't: Frustrated U.S. soldiers question the Iraqis' courage, discipline and dedication and wonder whether they will ever be able to fight on their own, much less reach the U.S. military's goal of operating independently by the fall.

"I know the party line. You know, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, five-star generals, four-star generals, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld: The Iraqis will be ready in whatever time period," said 1st Lt. Kenrick Cato, 34, of Long Island, N.Y., the executive officer of McGovern's company, who sold his share in a database firm to join the military full time after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "But from the ground, I can say with certainty they won't be ready before I leave. And I know I'll be back in Iraq, probably in three or four years. And I don't think they'll be ready then."

"We don't want to take responsibility; we don't want it," said Amar Mana, 27, an Iraqi private whose forehead was grazed by a bullet during an insurgent attack in November. "Here, no way. The way the situation is, we wouldn't be ready to take responsibility for a thousand years."

Maj. Gen. Joseph J. Taluto, commander of the 42nd Infantry Division, which oversees an area of north-central Iraq that includes Baiji and is the size of West Virginia, called the Iraqi forces "improved and improving." He acknowledged that the Iraqis suffered from a lack of equipment and manpower but predicted that, at least in his area of operation, the U.S. military would meet its goal of having battalion-level units operating independently by the fall.

"I can tell you, making assessments, I think we're on target," he said in an interview.

U.S. officers said the Iraqis had been particularly instrumental in obtaining intelligence that led to the detention of several suspected insurgent leaders in the region. They said it was unfair to evaluate the Iraqi forces by U.S. standards.

"We're not trying to make the 82nd Airborne here," Taluto said.

Overall, the number of Iraqi military and police trained and equipped is more than 169,000, according to the U.S. military, which has also said there are 107 operational military and special police battalions. As of last month, however, U.S. and Iraqi commanders had rated only three battalions capable of operating independently.

Two Washington Post reporters spent three days traveling with the Americans and the Iraqis, respectively. The unit was selected by the U.S. military. The journey revealed fundamental, perhaps irreconcilable differences over everything from the reluctance of Muslim soldiers to search mosques and homes to basic questions of lifestyle. Earlier this year, for instance, the Americans imported Western-style portable toilets that the Iraqis, accustomed to another style, found objectionable. In an attempt to bridge the difference, the U.S. military installed diagrams depicting proper use of the "port-a-johns."

The differences clash across a landscape that has grown increasingly violent since Iraq's Jan. 30 parliamentary elections, when U.S. commanders made the training of the Iraqi forces their top priority. In Taluto's region, insurgents set off five car bombs in February; there were 35 in May. Over that period, 1,150 roadside bombs were planted, according to division statistics.

Last week, U.S soldiers from 1st Platoon, Alpha Company, and Iraqis from 2nd Platoon, Charlie Company, clambered into their vehicles to patrol the streets of Baiji. The Americans drove fully enclosed armored Humvees, the Iraqis open-backed Humvees with benches, the sides of which were protected by plating the equivalent of a flak jacket. The Americans were part of 1st Battalion, 103rd Armor Regiment of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.

As an American reporter climbed in with the Iraqis, the U.S. soldiers watched in bemused horror.

"You might be riding home alone," one soldier said to the other reporter.

"Is he riding in the back of that?" asked another. "I'll be over here praying."

'Preschoolers With Guns'

The Iraqi soldiers were a grim lot, patrolling streets where they lived and mosques where they worshiped. As they entered their neighborhoods, some of them donned black balaclavas and green scarves to mask their identities. They passed graffiti on walls that, like the town, were colored in shades of brown. "Yes to the leader Saddam," one slogan read. "Long live the mujaheddin," said another. Nearly all the men had received leaflets warning them to quit; the houses of several had been attacked by insurgents.

"Don't you dare move!" shouted Cpl. Ahmed Zwayid, 26, pointing his gun at an approaching car.

The men spoke of the insurgents with a hint of awe, saying the fighters were willing to die and outgunned them with rocket-propelled grenades and, more fearsome, car bombs. Zwayid, a father of three, looked in disgust at his own AK-47 assault rifle, with a green shoelace for a strap.

"We fire 10 bullets and it falls apart," he said. Zwayid patted a heavy machine gun mounted in the bed of the Humvee. "This jams," he said. "Are these the weapons worthy of a soldier?" He and others said it was a sign of the Americans' lack of confidence in them.

"We trust the Americans. We go everywhere with them, we do what they ask," he said. "But they don't trust us."

Up ahead, McGovern conducted his own tour of Baiji's panorama of violence. He pointed out "dead man's grove," a stand of trees the Americans recently bulldozed because it was used to conceal bombs, and "dead man's road," a dangerous stretch of highway. A nearby lot was strewn with jagged pieces of car bomb.

"Honestly, I don't think people in America understand how touchy the situation really is right now," McGovern said. "We have the military power, the military might, but we're handling everything with kid gloves because we're hoping the Iraqis are going to step up and start taking things on themselves. But they don't have a clue how to do it."

Asked when he thought the Iraqi soldiers might be ready to operate independently, McGovern said: "Honestly, there's part of me that says never. There's some cultural issues that I don't think they'll ever get through."

McGovern added that the Iraqis had "come a long way in a very short period of time" and predicted they would ultimately succeed. But he said the effort was still in its infancy.

"We like to refer to the Iraqi army as preschoolers with guns," he said.

An hour later, the men returned to Forward Operating Base Summerall, a sandy expanse behind concrete barricades and concertina wire a few miles outside town. They followed U.S. military protocol: Each soldier dismounted from the vehicle and cleared his weapon. Zwayid stayed in the truck, handed his gun to a friend and asked him to clear it.

"Get down and clear your own weapon!" Cpl. William Kozlowski shouted to Zwayid in English.

Zwayid answered in Arabic. "That's my weapon," he explained, pointing to his friend.

"Corporal, you're a leader!" Kozlowski shouted back. "Take charge!"

Zwayid smiled at him. "What's he saying to me?" he whispered.

Searching for Respect

Charlie Company collapsed at 9:15 a.m. on Dec. 5. A gray Chevrolet Caprice packed with explosives detonated among a crowd of Iraqi soldiers during a shift change. Among the five dead was Capt. Mohammed Jassim Rumayidh, the company commander. His death prompted all but 30 of the company's 250 soldiers to quit; many took their weapons with them.

The bombing coincided with the arrival of a battalion of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard. The unit began rebuilding the Iraqi company from scratch. The Americans initially sent a small group of soldiers to work with the Iraqis. That changed after the Jan. 30 elections. Cato said the unit received a flurry of orders from commanders to make the training of Iraqi security forces "our main effort."

The battalion dispatched McGovern's platoon, about 35 soldiers, to work exclusively with the Iraqis. But the effort was immediately beset by problems. Due to a mixup in paperwork, dozens of Iraqi soldiers went without pay for three months. Many lacked proper uniforms, body armor and weapons. To meet the shortfall, U.S. forces gave the Iraqis rifles and ammunition confiscated during raids in Baiji. Of six interpreters assigned to the company, two quit and two others said they were preparing to.

"They've come a long way in a short period of time," Cato, the Alpha Company executive officer, said of the Iraqi soldiers. "When we first got here, soldiers were going to sleep on the objective. Soldiers were selling their weapons when they went out on patrol. I was on missions when soldiers would get tired, and they would just start dragging their weapons or using them as walking sticks."

The men are housed at what they call simply "the base," a place as sparse as the name. Most of the Iraqis sleep in two tents and a shed with a concrete floor and corrugated tin roof that is bereft of walls. Some have cots; others sleep on cardboard or pieces of plywood stacked with tattered and torn blankets. The air conditioners are broken. There is no electricity.

Drinking water comes from a sun-soaked camouflage tanker whose meager faucet also provides water for bathing.

"This is the shower of the National Guard, Baiji Division," said Tala Izba, 23, a corporal, as others laughed.

"Mines, car bombs and our duties, and then we have to come back to this?" said another soldier, Kamil Khalaf.

Pvt. Aziz Nawaf, 23, shook his head. "At night, I'm so hot I feel like my skin is going to peel off," he said.

Almost to a man, the soldiers said they joined for the money -- a relatively munificent $300 to $400 a month. The military and police forces offered some of the few job opportunities in town. Even then, the soldiers were irate: They wanted more time off, air-conditioned quarters like their American counterparts and, most important, respect. Most frustrating, they said, was the two- or three-hour wait to be searched at the base's gate when they returned from leave.

The soldiers said 17 colleagues had quit in the past few days.

"In 15 days, we're all going to leave," Nawaf declared.

The two-dozen soldiers gathered nodded their heads.

"All of us," Khalaf said. "We'll live by God, but we'll have our respect."

But the Americans said the Iraqis hadn't earned respect. "As Arab men, they want for us to think that they're just the same as us as soldiers, that they're just as brave," Cato said. "But they show cowardice. They'll say to me, 'I wasn't afraid.' But if you're running, then you were obviously not just afraid, you were running away."

Divided by Culture

Last month, three trucks filled with two dozen soldiers from Charlie Company were ambushed near a Tigris River bridge. Instead of meeting the attack, the Iraqis fled and radioed for help. The Americans said the Iraqis told them they had lost 20 men, had run out of ammunition and were completely surrounded.

When a U.S. quick reaction force arrived, the area was quiet and the Iraqi soldiers were huddled around their trucks. Four were missing; it was later learned that they had hailed taxis, gone home and changed into civilian clothes. One soldier, the company's senior noncommissioned officer, refused to come out for several hours, saying he continued to be surrounded by insurgents.

After the incident, McGovern said he summoned an interpreter, asked him to translate the soldier's words verbatim and "disgraced" the Iraqi soldiers.

"You are all cowards," he began. "My soldiers are over here, away from our families for a year. We are willing to die for you to have freedom. You should be willing to die for your own freedom. If you continue to run away from the enemy, the enemy will continue to chase you. You will never win."

McGovern asked the interpreter, Nabras Mohammed, if he had gone too far.

"Well, you shouldn't have called them women, and you shouldn't have called them" wimps, Mohammed told him.

"Of course they were scared," said Cpl. Idris Dhanoun, 30, a native of Baiji with two years in the security forces, who defended his colleagues. "The majority of them haven't seen fighting, they haven't seen war, they haven't been soldiers. The terrorists want to die. A hundred percent, they want to die. It's jihad. They want to kill themselves in the path of God."

Shortly after the ambush, a sniper shot a U.S. soldier standing on the roof of a police station, inflicting a severe head wound. The Americans suspected that the fire had come from the nearby Rahma mosque. American and Iraqi troops surrounded the building. Fearful of inflaming resentment, U.S. soldiers ordered their Iraqi counterparts to search the mosque. They initially refused, entering only after McGovern berated them.

"But I don't know if they searched it that well. They were still tip-toeing when they were in there," said Sgt. Cary Conner, 25, of Newport News, Va., who was among the first soldiers on the scene.

U.S. forces then ordered the Iraqis to arrest everyone inside the mosque, including the respected elderly prayer leader. The Iraqi platoon leader refused, U.S. soldiers recalled. The platoon leader and his men then sat down next to the mosque in protest.

"We wanted to tell the Americans they couldn't do this again," Dhanoun said.

In a measure of the shame they felt, the men insisted they had not entered the mosque.

"You can't enter the mosque with weapons. We have traditions, we have honor, and we're Muslims," Dhanoun said. "You enter the mosque to pray, you don't enter the mosque with guns."

At 4:30 a.m. Monday, the men of Charlie Company and the entire U.S. battalion -- some 800 soldiers -- set out in a convoy for west Baiji. The Americans used night-vision goggles to see in the dark. The Iraqis had glow sticks. Before the troops had left the base, an Iraqi driver plowed into a concrete barrier, momentarily delaying the convoy.

U.S. commanders said the involvement of the Iraqis on the mission -- a series of raids to crack a bomb-making cell -- was critical to its success. But the Americans clearly have lowered their expectations for the Iraqis' progress.

"Things are going to change according to their schedule, not our politics back home," said Sgt. Jonathan Flynn, 36, of Star Lake, N.Y. "You can't just put an artificial timetable on that."

Along dirt roads bisected by sewage canals, the men of Charlie Company crouched, their weapons ready. Before them was their home town, dilapidated and neglected. Cpl. Amir Omar, 19, gazed ahead.

"Look at the homes of the Iraqis," he said, a handkerchief concealing his face. "The people have been destroyed."

By whom? he was asked.

"Them," Omar said, pointing at the U.S. Humvees leading the patrol.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I hope no one's waiting for the Iraqi Army to be ready to take things over.

Articles like that are great, and it's good to get a sense of what's happening but I've got two big problems with it. One I've read literally hundreds (as part of a research project, and it was not comprehensive in any way) of letters from Union soldiers talking about the impossibility of victory to their loved ones, that they were in dire straits, that not only would they not take back the South but that they truly felt the North was very vulnerable to invasion. I'm just saying one man on the ground has almost no real historical perspective, and very little understanding of the scope of societal change.

And my second point is totally different, but I think it's important to make. I just don't see this as a problem we're going to "hand over," an integrated world is the world's problem. We've got troops in Italy for christ's sake, why would we not keep some troops in Iraq?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by malcpow

put extraordinary amounts of pressure (militarily when necessary) to force societal change

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Two hugely successful military examples, Germany and Japan. Other hugely successful non-military examples (if they can really be separated from the military factor's inherent pressure), China and Russia (Regardless of any criticisms you may have of these two countries they have undergone a huge amount of societal change and are now a part of our integrated world, and are being judged accordingly.

No societal change happened in Germany. They went from being ruled by a Nazi dictator, to not being ruled by a Nazi dictator.

We enabled Japan to become an economic power, but didn't force it upon them.

The Soviet Union fell under the weight of its own mismanagement, coupled with the general populace realizing their life could be better under another model.

China? You've got to be kidding me. The ruling caste long ago realized the need to engage the global marketplace in order to make money. They've hardly been forced to affect societal change.

An American President having a dialogue about his disappointment with a particular ruling in the Russian legal system would have been beyond absurd twenty years ago.

What they heck do you mean by this?

The same with the fact that the greatest threat China poses to America is the number of cotton pants they're shipping over.

Until they invade Taiwan or decide to stop buying U.S. T-Bills and let our currency sink out of sight.

What I disagree with, and think is gravely wrong, is the notion that we shouldn't rock the boat in regions where the freaking boat is already rocking. You're approaching these problems as though the places we're dealing with in this discussion play by the same rules that we do, they don't, as though we fought a preemptive war with France or Canada or something, we didn't. We went into a place, and should go into more places, with a history of complete disregard for the structures of international law and order, of human decency, of value systems that champion certain rights for everyone. Places where a reasonable solution to airing grievances is strapped to your chest. These places are not a part of the stability we enjoy, we should be more concerned with Entrance Strategies to bring them into the fold than we are with Exit Strategies to get out of the places that need us most. I feel strongly about that, and I think we're strong enough to do that, not as just a country, but as an international order of the people that we're connected with. Unfortunately, right now it's mostly us, we start selling a plan and maybe others will follow.

So, we know best, and we should make others come around to our point of view. Gotcha.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Articles like that are great, and it's good to get a sense of what's happening but I've got two big problems with it. One I've read literally hundreds (as part of a research project, and it was not comprehensive in any way) of letters from Union soldiers talking about the impossibility of victory to their loved ones, that they were in dire straits, that not only would they not take back the South but that they truly felt the North was very vulnerable to invasion. I'm just saying one man on the ground has almost no real historical perspective, and very little understanding of the scope of societal change.

Speaking of historical perspective, has it occured to you that for much of the Civil War the outcome was very much in doubt?

And my second point is totally different, but I think it's important to make. I just don't see this as a problem we're going to "hand over," an integrated world is the world's problem.

? Presumably if we want the "world" to deal with the problem of integrating nations with each other, we do need to hand over this "problem" to the "world"?

This is why you guys can't develop an Exit Strategy. You don't even understand the context of what we're doing in Iraq.

We've got troops in Italy for christ's sake, why would we not keep some troops in Iraq?

The troops in Italy serve a NATO mission, a mission with which Italy is involved and Italians approve. It's not analagous to Iraq.

[HomerJSimpson]

I was just recently talking to a young man who was being recruited by the Arny. His recruiter told him that 1) No one goes to Iraq or Afganistan in their first term, and 2) Tours in the War zones are voluntary. I nearly laughed my butt off. How do recruiters get away with such bald-faced lies, and how do kids fall for them? I told the kid to talk to the local resident that tried to refuse deployment with his NG unit. You can contact him in Fort Leavenworth for the next few years.

[JPhillips]

And now the problem reaches the officer core. From Reuters:


Strained US Army relaxes new officer requirements By Will Dunham
Thu Jun 9, 6:36 PM ET



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army, facing recruiting woes and a reorganized force, will relax requirements for new officers, welcoming older candidates and allowing more tolerance of past minor crimes, officials said on Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Trying to stem the loss of current personnel, the Army also has made it more difficult to kick soldiers out of the military for alcohol or drug abuse, being overweight or "unsatisfactory performance," according to a recent memo.

"We are an Army at war and increasing levels of attrition of first-term enlisted soldiers in both the training base and units is a matter of great concern," the memo stated.

These changes come as the Army struggles amid the Iraq war to sign up new soldiers at the same time it restructures its force to add numerous additional combat brigades. The regular Army has missed four straight monthly recruiting goals and is in danger of missing its first annual goal since 1999.

Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman, said in a statement the Army was seeking 300 currently enlisted soldiers and 300 civilians with college degrees, up to age 42, to enter Officer Candidate School. Its graduates are second lieutenants, the Army's lowest-ranking officer.

The average age for graduates of the 14-week program is 27. Hilferty said current policy normally requires a waiver for anyone over 30 to enter the school. The oldest person to get such a waiver was 40, Hilferty said.

A May 25 memo also stated commanders "may recommend waiver of civil or military offenses" that otherwise might disqualify an applicant. Hilferty said this was not meant to lower quality standards for officers, adding, "Felonies cannot be waived. Drug offenses and sex offenses are not waived."

"An example may be a conviction for underage drinking that occurred prior to enlistment several years ago," Hilferty said of offenses that might be waived.

Col. Joe Curtin, another Army spokesman, said as the Army creates more brigades, there is a greater demand for lieutenants as well as the higher-ranking captains and majors.

Curtin downplayed the issue of having junior officers much older than those in the current Army, stating they would possess the virtues of experience and maturity.

REDUCING ATTRITION

Separately, a May 5 Army memo sought to stem the numbers of soldiers being kicked out or allowed to leave the Army before their volunteer commitment ends. By reducing attrition by 1 percentage point, the Army can keep 3,000 soldiers in the ranks who otherwise would have to be replaced by new recruits, it said.

The memo informed battalion commanders, responsible for 300 to 1,000 soldiers, they cannot remove soldiers from the military for reasons such as "alcohol or other drug abuse rehabilitation failure," "failure to meet body fat standards," pregnancy and "unsatisfactory performance." These commanders generally have made such decisions in the past.

The decisions will now be elevated to brigade commanders, responsible for 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers, the memo stated.

"It's one more check to ensure that a soldier who's being recommended for release may have some redeeming values," Curtin said. "Let me give you an example. You may have a soldier who is the best mechanic in the company yet can't meet height and weight standards. Is there a way to fix that?"

"Each soldier retained reduces the strain on Recruiting Command and our retention program, which must replace every soldier who departs the Army early," the memo added.

[Dutch]

So, two guys named Shadid and Faneiru quoted a 1st Lt as saying we have a 5-star general?

"I know the party line. You know, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, five-star generals, four-star generals, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld: The Iraqis will be ready in whatever time period," said 1st Lt. Kenrick Cato, 34, of Long Island, N.Y., the executive officer of McGovern's company, who sold his share in a database firm to join the military full time after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "But from the ground, I can say with certainty they won't be ready before I leave. And I know I'll be back in Iraq, probably in three or four years. And I don't think they'll be ready then."

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So, two guys named Shadid and Faneiru quoted a 1st Lt as saying we have a 5-star general?

Attack the messenger, not the message, eh? Way to support the troops, bud.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Attack the messenger, not the message, eh? Way to support the troops, bud.

*sigh*...

[MalcPow]

Wow I'm not trying to pick a fight here, we don't have to just take up opposite sides for the sake of our manhood or anything. Some of the stuff you're saying flere is pretty crazy.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No societal change happened in Germany. They went from being ruled by a Nazi dictator, to not being ruled by a Nazi dictator.

No societal change? They went from a fascist dictatorship with goals of world domination and racial extermination and are now a democracy with goals of selling Mercedes cars and hosting international soccer tournaments.

We enabled Japan to become an economic power, but didn't force it upon them.

Same deal. Dictatorship, totalitarian society. Now a democracy, and one of the free-est and richest countries in the world.

The Soviet Union fell under the weight of its own mismanagement, coupled with the general populace realizing their life could be better under another model.

China? You've got to be kidding me. The ruling caste long ago realized the need to engage the global marketplace in order to make money. They've hardly been forced to affect societal change.

Wow, how did they come to these conclusions? Meditation? Maybe the influx of new ideas from the West and the inability of these regimes to maintain an impenetrable grip on society forced them into a process of change.

What they heck do you mean by this?

I mean Russia has transitioned from a state where the totalitarian ruling party imprisoned and oppressed its people as a matter of course to a state where the rule of law is important enough that one trial with simply the appearance of impropriety is worthy of international diplomatic dialogue.

Until they invade Taiwan or decide to stop buying U.S. T-Bills and let our currency sink out of sight.

This is the equivalent of, as someone around here likes to say, punching themselves in the dick. Except with a sledgehammer. Coated with broken glass. Not going to happen, except of course to a small degree as there is legislation in Congress to FORCE China to sell some dollars.

So, we know best, and we should make others come around to our point of view. Gotcha.

Is this what you say when a police officer arrests someone for breaking the law? I have a problem with simple rights not be afforded entire groups of people because they've been dominated and oppressed by totalitarian rulers. Are these people subject to our laws? No. I think the world would be a better place if they were. And do I think we know better than rulers digging mass graves and gassing their own people? Yup, you got me.

Speaking of historical perspective, has it occured to you that for much of the Civil War the outcome was very much in doubt?

Has it occured to you that the 1Lt you quote doesn't seem to have any doubt? Maybe he should. That was my point.

Presumably if we want the "world" to deal with the problem of integrating nations with each other, we do need to hand over this "problem" to the "world"?

This is why you guys can't develop an Exit Strategy. You don't even understand the context of what we're doing in Iraq.

I don't know there are just so many countries with their hands up dying to help out with Iraq, we're probably just having trouble picking which one we would like give it to. Others not stepping up is not an excuse to sit down. And you're not listening to me, you think of this part of the world as a place we should leave, and I see it as the most important part for us to be.

The troops in Italy serve a NATO mission, a mission with which Italy is involved and Italians approve. It's not analagous to Iraq.

This is at least a reasonable point, but it almost supports what I'm saying. This is the part of the world that needs us, the Iraqi government approves of our troops, we need to have a standing NATO like force in the Middle-East. We've fought much more large scale conflicts in that region than in Europe in recent history.

And I'm spent...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I hope no one's waiting for the Iraqi Army to be ready to take things over.

That's never really crossed my mind, or at least not anytime in my lifetime.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Some of the stuff you're saying MalcPow is pretty crazy.

Fixed that for you.

No societal change? They went from a fascist dictatorship with goals of world domination and racial extermination and are now a democracy with goals of selling Mercedes cars and hosting international soccer tournaments.

So all Germans were fascist Nazis? I find your understanding of Germany social history lacking.

Same deal. Dictatorship, totalitarian society. Now a democracy, and one of the free-est and richest countries in the world.

Yeah, but they attacked us, dude. We didn't wade in there with the intent of enforcing societal change. We fought Japan so they'd stop killing people.

Wow, how did they come to these conclusions? Meditation? Maybe the influx of new ideas from the West and the inability of these regimes to maintain an impenetrable grip on society forced them into a process of change.

Sure. Explain how "put extraordinary amounts of pressure (militarily when necessary) to force societal change" (your words) moved this along.

I mean Russia has transitioned from a state where the totalitarian ruling party imprisoned and oppressed its people as a matter of course to a state where the rule of law is important enough that one trial with simply the appearance of impropriety is worthy of international diplomatic dialogue.

I'm not disputing this. You seem to claim that we "put extraordinary amounts of pressure (militarily when necessary) to force societal change" and it is this which forced them to change. That's baloney. It was going to happen anyway.

This is the equivalent of, as someone around here likes to say, punching themselves in the dick. Except with a sledgehammer. Coated with broken glass. Not going to happen, except of course to a small degree as there is legislation in Congress to FORCE China to sell some dollars.

Wow, nice tortured analogy. I'll add "global currency issues" to "Germany social history".

Is this what you say when a police officer arrests someone for breaking the law? I have a problem with simple rights not be afforded entire groups of people because they've been dominated and oppressed by totalitarian rulers. Are these people subject to our laws? No. I think the world would be a better place if they were. And do I think we know better than rulers digging mass graves and gassing their own people? Yup, you got me.

1. You're not talking about "simple rules". You're talking about complete societal and economic changes.

2. Why aren't we involved in the Sudan and Zimbabwe, as well as Burma & East Timor? How about Tibet? How do you prioritize places which "need our help"? By your criteria, we should invade China, where billions of people are kept from the opportunities of a free society and a free market.

Has it occured to you that the 1Lt you quote doesn't seem to have any doubt? Maybe he should. That was my point.

Give me a break. They guy's training Iraqi soldiers, and says they're not suited for the task, and won't be soon. I'd say he's in a pretty good position to say so.

I don't know there are just so many countries with their hands up dying to help out with Iraq, we're probably just having trouble picking which one we would like give it to. Others not stepping up is not an excuse to sit down.

So, if a large number of people disagree with the way you're going about something, you should continue to do it your way? Yep, sounds like George Bush to me. A guy who, before 2000, had never left the country. He knows a lot about world affairs.

And you're not listening to me, you think of this part of the world as a place we should leave, and I see it as the most important part for us to be.

Good for you. When do you enlist?

This is at least a reasonable point, but it almost supports what I'm saying. This is the part of the world that needs us, the Iraqi government approves of our troops, we need to have a standing NATO like force in the Middle-East. We've fought much more large scale conflicts in that region than in Europe in recent history.

NATO existed to counter a threat upon which everyone could agree. Aside from terrorism (which isn't helped by Bush's somewhat nebulous definition of it), there's nothing similar in Iraq. Instead, there's a gathering sectarian war.

Here's an idea - let's put British troops in Belfast. That should calm the Catholics down.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's never really crossed my mind, or at least not anytime in my lifetime.

Your President & his administration think otherwise.

[judicial clerk]

So, two guys named Shadid and Faneiru quoted a 1st Lt as saying we have a 5-star general?

Ike was qouted as saying that the iraq police forces would be ready.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Fixed that for you.

Thanks.

So all Germans were fascist Nazis? I find your understanding of Germany social history lacking.

Well they were citizens of and participants in a society that imprisoned and exterminated people because of their racial makeup or religious beliefs. They were citizens of a country that invaded other countries for resources and territory under the ethos of world domination. If all Germans were opposed to these things, they probably wouldn't have happened. And if they were, then it apparently required the military defeat of their government (which they at one point elected) for their true society to re-emerge. Thankfully, that happened.

Yeah, but they attacked us, dude. We didn't wade in there with the intent of enforcing societal change. We fought Japan so they'd stop killing people.

No I agree, but I thought we were looking for examples where military force (and in the case of both Germany and Japan a long and costly presence and rebuilding project to shape a new nation) led to the transformation of a society.

Sure. Explain how "put extraordinary amounts of pressure (militarily when necessary) to force societal change" (your words) moved this [Russia's collapse] along.

Everything I've read by every expert worth anything acknowledges that it was Russia's attempts to keep up with the US with regard to military buildup and maintaining force levels that ultimately bankrupted the country. So I think US military posturing had a profound effect on the Soviet Union's fall, but I also see how you could say it was inevitable, but only inevitable in the context of the growing tide of globalization. There were too many inefficiencies to survive in the new competitive world market place. And those are ultimately the sorts of extraordinary pressures I'm talking about.

Wow, nice tortured analogy. I'll add "global currency issues" to "Germany social history".

Ugh, I've got a great article from the Economist that lays this out pretty well, but it's long and would just kind of clutter an already cluttered thread. China is just as dependent on the status quo as we are, they have no real motivation to start selling dollars, weakening the dollar, making their exports more expensive and less attractive, and sending their economy into recession. I'll post a new thread when I get back to my desk with the article, it's a good read in general.

I've got to run to a meeting so I'll just give a quick rundown on your other points. Why aren't we in the Sudan? I don't know. I don't make policy, clearly it's fits the criteria of places I think we should be. When do I enlist? It's something I looked at, ultimately there were better opportunities for me to do what I believed in other than entry-level military work. I have trouble with your ideas about regime change in Iraq when you seem to believe that all that was necessary for societal change in Germany, Japan, and Russia were their "inevitable" governmental regime changes, and the people themselves were already on board with value systems very similar to ours. I don't think Iraq is the template to use for any other country in the world other than North Korea (and that's just the messiest fight I can think of, but the post-war transition might be easier), even Iran I think can be brought in without invasion and occupation. So when I say "militarily when necessary" I really mean when necessary, not hey whenever baby! So that's that, and ultimately no one else in the world has the military to do this job, we'd have to be the point country no matter who was involved, so although I think we need to do an infinitely better job of explaining our thought process to the world, I don't think coalition building lightens our load all that much.

[Raiders Army]

Just inserting a short post in here for readability.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

You serve the Federal Government, you get something from the Federal Government. The way it stands right now, many people get it for free.

Education is not given away for free, it is given away in the expectation that the individual will make a good contribution to society and end up creating more tax revenue and increasing the economy in general. Giving students money for college is not a giveaway, it's an investment. I don't see how restricting that investment is in any way good for the country.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Education is not given away for free, it is given away in the expectation that the individual will make a good contribution to society and end up creating more tax revenue and increasing the economy in general. Giving students money for college is not a giveaway, it's an investment. I don't see how restricting that investment is in any way good for the country.

The problem is when people take bullshit classes with that money.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

It's called public service. Because you cut a snippet of his ideas, you didn't get the rest. Look at his three tiered model. You don't have to go over and fight in Iraq to get federal aid. You can aid your country in other ways. I don't see anything wrong with that, especially when so many people take our freedoms for granted and forget that some sacrificed for the good of all.

I saw the entire model. It's bullshit. So you have to either join the military or national guard or peace corp to get any money to go to college? All it is is another way of fucking over the poor, who don't have the money to tell the government to take a flying leap over this plan. You can't get loans or grants unless you put in some time with the government (Daddy will just pay for the rich kids to go anyway). Being someone that believes in personal liberty, I find that very distasteful. I can see the draft as a necessary evil when the country's very being is threatened, but beyond that? Pffft!

Originally Posted by Dutch

Would you prefer a soldier get nothing in return for his service? I don't understand what you're suggesting is a "good" idea for federal service.

What in the world are you going on about? The author is saying give the soldier the benefits by STRIPPING them from people who don't volunteer for a government or peace corp position.

I don't understand how this is a "good" idea for the country. The reason we have a volunteer military is because we believe it is wrong to force someone to join the military unless the country's existance is threatened.

I have no problem in offering more federal aid for college for military members. I think we should. But at the expense of offering grants and loans to non-military (or non-peace corp) members? That's silly. The reason those loans and grants exist in the first place is because we believe that even poor people should get the benefits of college. To make them join the military or the peace corp or do some 'service' while the rich kids can avoid it is ridiculous.

If you want compulsory military service, make it for everyone. Don't penalize the poor.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

The problem is when people take bullshit classes with that money.

I see... and you are the final arbiter of 'bullshit classes', I take it?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Also, to be clear, we are not forcing societal changes on the middle east. We are granting the people freedom to be in a situation where they can hold their leaders accountable. Liberty.

Except when those leaders are secular as opposed to Islamic (see Pakistan, Algeria). Lets at least be honest -you're helping to install new leaders that you hope will be better partners- liberty is less important than their Islamic leanings.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Well they were citizens of and participants in a society that imprisoned and exterminated people because of their racial makeup or religious beliefs. They were citizens of a country that invaded other countries for resources and territory under the ethos of world domination. If all Germans were opposed to these things, they probably wouldn't have happened. And if they were, then it apparently required the military defeat of their government (which they at one point elected) for their true society to re-emerge. Thankfully, that happened.

There's a wide range of academic books written on the subject of the Germans, psychology and their society, and how it so happened that the Nazis got control.

Everything I've read by every expert worth anything acknowledges that it was Russia's attempts to keep up with the US with regard to military buildup and maintaining force levels that ultimately bankrupted the country.

Overstated. The seeds for economic collapse were planted by Stalin, who abandoned any pretence of economic sustainability in favor of a dictatorship-oligarchy. The Soviet Union only lasted as long as it did, economically, due to massive natural resources.

The seeds for political collapse were, ironically, planted by the detente between Brezhnev & Nixon. This allowed Brezhnev to rule for so long, and with so much control, that the Politburo decided to follow him up with two old, ineffectual guys (Gromyko & Andropov). Those years of interregnum weakness then led to the Politburo going for someone younger, who happened to be the reformer Gorbachev.

So I think US military posturing had a profound effect on the Soviet Union's fall, but I also see how you could say it was inevitable, but only inevitable in the context of the growing tide of globalization. There were too many inefficiencies to survive in the new competitive world market place. And those are ultimately the sorts of extraordinary pressures I'm talking about.

Well, if that's the way you want to define "extraordinary pressures", then we may agree on more than it appears at first blush. However, your rhetoric initially led me to believe that you advocated direct diplomatic, economic, and military action to speed societal change.

Ugh, I've got a great article from the Economist that lays this out pretty well, but it's long and would just kind of clutter an already cluttered thread. China is just as dependent on the status quo as we are, they have no real motivation to start selling dollars, weakening the dollar, making their exports more expensive and less attractive, and sending their economy into recession. I'll post a new thread when I get back to my desk with the article, it's a good read in general.

I'm well versed in this issue. Suffice it to say that there's no incentive for China to do this to us now, because we represent the largest market for their goods. But what about the time when we don't? What's to keep them from dropping out T-Bills then?

I have trouble with your ideas about regime change in Iraq when you seem to believe that all that was necessary for societal change in Germany, Japan, and Russia were their "inevitable" governmental regime changes, and the people themselves were already on board with value systems very similar to ours.

Well, as I've said, there was no societal change in Germany, and we didn't intend to drive social change there anyway. We didn't drive social change in Japan, we just wanted to stop them from killing us, and they changed their own society. And, of course, the Soviet Union did fall in an "inevitable" manner.

It should be pointed out that both Japan and Germany emerged and prospered in the post-WWII era economically by employing decidedly non-Free Market approaches to global capitalism. Both favored a high level of government-industry integration, and pursued economic and social programs that led to a high level of government-sponsored distribution of wealth. So, it's difficult to claim, really, that we forced them to change to "our" way.

I don't think Iraq is the template to use for any other country in the world other than North Korea (and that's just the messiest fight I can think of, but the post-war transition might be easier), even Iran I think can be brought in without invasion and occupation.

Iran's an interesting case, really. Years of being ignored diplomatically by the U.S. has resulted in greater ties amongst the people with folks in Europe (Germany, especially) and the actual growth of a moderate political movement. Case in point, I think, of what can be achieved without the U.S. being overt.

So when I say "militarily when necessary" I really mean when necessary, not hey whenever baby! So that's that, and ultimately no one else in the world has the military to do this job, we'd have to be the point country no matter who was involved, so although I think we need to do an infinitely better job of explaining our thought process to the world, I don't think coalition building lightens our load all that much.

Compare & contrast Gulf War I to Gulf War II. Coalition building is important.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I see... and you are the final arbiter of 'bullshit classes', I take it?

I'm glad that you finally recognize that I am the final arbiter of "bullshit classes."

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Lets at least be honest -you're helping to install new leaders that you hope will be better partners- liberty is less important than their Islamic leanings.

We didn't install new leaders. The Iraqi people did. We only helped give the Iraqi people the liberty to choose.

This is definately a battle over information and how it's presented isn't it?

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think Americans are always willing to answer the call when their 'freedom' is on the line (on the line from a foreign power, anyway). It's diversions like Vietnam and Iraq that people aren't too keen on dying for, and I can't say that I blame them.

why don't all those Young Republicans who believe we are protecting American freedoms by invading Iraq answer the call? Oh wait, sacrifice........

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

why don't all those Young Republicans who believe we are protecting American freedoms by invading Iraq answer the call? Oh wait, sacrifice........

Never once have I used this, but....

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We didn't install new leaders. The Iraqi people did. We only helped give the Iraqi people the liberty to choose.

Riiiiiiiiiggghhtt.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Riiiiiiiiiggghhtt.

Care to explain which part of the process you disagree with?