[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm still disappointed over how little the war in Iraq has helped gas prices. Those freakin' liberals promised me oil!

It sure wasn't the conservatives. Unless it was conservatives who didn't know what they were talking about.

The fact that we have oil at all is the thing you should be thankful for.

[marden]

Originally Posted by black bear theory 

oil? yup people are still using it. the mantra? not so much anymore - oil companies are not all that excited about putting money into infrastructure in a country on the brink of collapse. it's bad business sense and dangerous. that's why any oil-related negotiations take place in jordan and not iraq.

in 2003 bush signed an Executive Order which "provides an extraordinarily broad legal shield for any and all contractors and mercenaries working in Iraq on behalf of US corporations in any oil related enterprise."

Executive Order 13303 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

even bush has said "[access to oil] is why we'll fight in iraq, and that is why we'll win in iraq." it's simply an extension of the carter doctrine.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0061105-3.html

You make some excellent points.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by subego 

Wow. This is a pretty idiotic statement. Of all the stupid reasons to institute a draft.

The strength of our military comes from it being all-volunteer. Conscript armies suck.

If we need more soldiers we should pay them more.

Ok I'm curious, do you have any evidence to support that claim? Vietnam used conscripts and the US eventually lost. Volunteers are used in Iraq and its a Quagmire. Even Kissinger is saying that an Iraq military victory is impossible. Kissinger: Iraq military win impossible - Yahoo! News

---

Oh and how much more do you think the soldiers would have to be paid to get new volunteers? How much can you pay someone to get blown up by an IED?

Using conscripts and indoctrinating them with patriotism would probably be a whole lot cheaper.

[tie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Wow. This is a pretty idiotic statement. Of all the stupid reasons to institute a draft.

The strength of our military comes from it being all-volunteer. Conscript armies suck.

If we need more soldiers we should pay them more.

Our military is strong enough. The problem is ourselves and our politicians. Almost everyone now agrees that we should never have invaded Iraq. But how do you stop such a colossal blunder from happening again?

1. Reform the intelligence community? Won't fix anything since intelligence wasn't the problem. The Iraq war was based primarily on imaginary fantasies of WMD, not intelligence.

2. Pledge to never again elect a liar and nincompoop like Bush? Nice sentiment, but what if we do? Not a great answer, imho.

3. Rangel's idea is to institute a draft to put heavy negative consequences on any voluntary war. We shouldn't be going around invading countries for fun, based on made-up lies, and a draft would be a sure-fire way of stopping these wars.

But I don't think a draft is a good idea. Not all voluntary wars are bad -- see Kosovo. And a draft, if implemented, would place such a huge, and unnecessary burden on young Americans. The Iraq war is going to cost maybe $15,000 per US household. A draft would be very expensive in opportunity costs, with the costs very unequally shared. My preferred answer is:

4. Invest heavily in nation-building capabilities. Bush pledged in 2000 not to go on nation-building sprees. We've all seen how that ended up. Realistically, I think any president -- Republican or Democrat, whatever they say during the election campaign -- is going to entangle us in nation-building campaigns. The military does not want to invest sufficiently in nation-building capabilities because it fears that developing them would only encourage these kinds of difficult missions. But if the missions are inevitable, we need to invest suitably.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Ok I'm curious, do you have any evidence to support that claim? Vietnam used conscripts and the US eventually lost. Volunteers are used in Iraq and its a Quagmire. Even Kissinger is saying that an Iraq military victory is impossible. Kissinger: Iraq military win impossible - Yahoo! News

---

Oh and how much more do you think the soldiers would have to be paid to get new volunteers? How much can you pay someone to get blown up by an IED?

Using conscripts and indoctrinating them with patriotism would probably be a whole lot cheaper.

From a link posted on page one.

Such questions cannot be answered as if we were talking about drafting abstract people into an abstract army. A military draft today would be very different in its consequences from the military draft in World War II.

Back in the days of World War II, the military were drafting young men who were, by and large, patriotic Americans, people who felt that they had a duty to protect this country from its enemies.

Today, a military draft would bring in large numbers of people who have been systematically "educated" to believe the worst about this country or, at best, to be non-judgmental about the differences between American society and its enemies.

The fact that we could use a larger army of the kinds of people who have already volunteered to put their lives on the line does not mean that we can get it by adding warm bodies fresh from our politically correct schools and colleges, where standards and self-discipline are greatly lacking.

Just getting such people used to the idea of duty and discipline could be a major drain on the military, not to mention a plague of lawsuits from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union if the little darlings were not handled with kid gloves.

More than that, so many American institutions, from the Congress to the courts, have degenerated into irresponsible self-indulgence that the military is one of the very few institutions left with a sense of purpose for which it is prepared to make sacrifices.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/T...;Comments=true

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by tie 

Our military is strong enough. The problem is ourselves and our politicians. Almost everyone now agrees that we should never have invaded Iraq. But how do you stop such a colossal blunder from happening again?

Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

[Nicko]

Wow marden I almsot feel sorry for you, hanging out at townhall.com. It must be like the crying game over there.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Ok I'm curious, do you have any evidence to support that claim? Vietnam used conscripts and the US eventually lost. Volunteers are used in Iraq and its a Quagmire. Even Kissinger is saying that an Iraq military victory is impossible. Kissinger: Iraq military win impossible - Yahoo! News

even Kissinger? Apparently you do understand that he has been advising Bush on this campaign for some time. What Kissinger said;

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he told the British Broadcasting Corp.

The key point made in his statement that you seemed to have missed;

"... in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support..."

Why is this the key point? It's been less than 4 years at attempting to build this democracy and we've been getting "IT'S A QUAGMIRE" for no less than 3 of them.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by The Left 

no it is not sarcasm. I do believe things would quickly become peaceful in Iraq once the U.S. troops leave... there would be no more occupation to rebel against.

Um, they aren't just fighting the US. They are also fighting the Iraqis that don't want to be ruled by the same type of government Saddam gave them. You know, the majority of the Iraqis that live there?

You obviously have no clue what is going on there. None.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm still disappointed over how little the war in Iraq has helped gas prices. Those freakin' liberals promised me oil!

Wha? I never ever heard it was gonna help gas prices.

I also remember in the late 90s being told by the Clinton that gas prices would rise a bunch in the coming years. Not that I blame them. It would be kinda silly to blame a president for the price of gas.

[Dakar²]

Yeah, this guy does this every few years. IIRC he managed to get a republican cosponsor on the last one.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why is this the key point? It's been less than 4 years at attempting to build this democracy and we've been getting "IT'S A QUAGMIRE" for no less than 3 of them.

Well, it is a quagmire. I gather you don't think so?

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Ok I'm curious, do you have any evidence to support that claim? Vietnam used conscripts and the US eventually lost. Volunteers are used in Iraq and its a Quagmire. Even Kissinger is saying that an Iraq military victory is impossible. Kissinger: Iraq military win impossible - Yahoo! News

---

Oh and how much more do you think the soldiers would have to be paid to get new volunteers? How much can you pay someone to get blown up by an IED?

Using conscripts and indoctrinating them with patriotism would probably be a whole lot cheaper.

A few associates of mine were offered large sums of money to 'serve', ranging from 10,000-25,000 cash bonus. They refused. So it's not the money, its the stupidity.

[Macrobat]

No, the draft is not "involuntary servitude," any more than the NBA or NFL drafts are "involuntary servitude."

See, you draw the SAME paycheck as the volunteers.

Hell, a draft might be just the thing to instate real welfare reform. lol

And Osiris, considering that mountains of empircal evidence exists that military people are MORE educated than you or your friends, I would rethink where the "stupidity" lies.

And no, Nicko, it's NOT a quagmire. Germany was far worse in the years following WWII. Study a little history, why dontcha?

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

And Osiris, considering that mountains of empircal evidence exists that military people are MORE educated than you or your friends, I would rethink where the "stupidity" lies.

I never said that military people are stupid, but instead quite smart for refusing such a high offer of cash to fight in such a senseless war. It's obvious that you can't read, so maybe you are the stupid one here.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

considering that mountains of empircal evidence exists

And please, kindly show me the mountains of 'empircal' evidence.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

And no, Nicko, it's NOT a quagmire. Germany was far worse in the years following WWII. Study a little history, why dontcha?

The number of casualties in Iraq is increasing by the day and the US is now spending $2 billion a week (which is twice as much as the first year of the war). If that isn’t a quagmire I don’t know what is.

[Macrobat]

Just so you know joining the military does NOT equate with "going to fight in the war."

Just a "for instance:"

After just a quick search, I found the following:

Academic Education

-- 49.2 percent of officers have advanced or professional degrees; 39.4 percent have master's degrees, 8.5 percent have professional degrees and 1.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

-- 22.8 percent of company grade officers have advanced degrees; 16.5 percent have master's degrees, 5.9 percent have professional degrees and 0.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

-- 85.4 percent of field grade officers have advanced degrees; 70.7 percent have master's degrees, 12.1 percent have professional degrees and 2.5 percent have doctorate degrees.

-- 99.9 percent of the enlisted force have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate's degree or equivalent semester hours; 4.7 percent have a bachelor's degree; 0.7 percent have a master's degree and .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree."

That comes from Service demographics offer snapshot of force

Refreshing from you, Nicko, honesty. No, you don't know what is.

[macintologist]

Let's see how many Democrats and Republicans actually end up voting for this.

[black bear theory]

any statistics for the other branches of the military - marines, army, navy? not just the air force?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, the draft is not "involuntary servitude," any more than the NBA or NFL drafts are "involuntary servitude."

See, you draw the SAME paycheck as the volunteers.

Um, if you can't quit, it's involuntary, see?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Ok I'm curious, do you have any evidence to support that claim? Vietnam used conscripts and the US eventually lost.

The US didn't lose that war, they left. (The war continued for two years after the US withdrew.) The US never committed itself to that war with the level of resolve on par with WWI or WWII. It was a political failure, not a military one.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The US didn't lose that war, they left. (The war continued for two years after the US withdrew.) The US never committed itself to that war with the level of resolve on par with WWI or WWII. It was a political failure, not a military one.

Well I guess if you get technical, the US isn't technically at war in Iraq either.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Well I guess if you get technical, the US isn't technically at war in Iraq either.

I didn't say the Vietnam war wasn't a war, I said the US made a half-assed effort of it, and left for political reasons.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Um, if you can't quit, it's involuntary, see?

You can get Other Than Honorable Discharge.
It's a bad mark on an employment record.
Even worse for an Officer.

[marden]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Um, if you can't quit, it's involuntary, see?

You do know that no one in the military in the enlisted ranks, whether voluntary or conscripted, can just quit until they complete their term of enlistment. Right?

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Well, it is a quagmire. I gather you don't think so?

Quagmire?
I've seen a quagmire.
Troops can move openly across Iraq.
Parts of the continent of Africa - a quagmire in 1992. A quagmire now.
Nothing has changed.
Kibera is a quagmire.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

You do know that no one in the military in the enlisted ranks, whether voluntary or conscripted, can just quit until they complete their term of enlistment. Right?

A better way to phrase it would be, "If you didn't volunteer to serve, it's involuntary servitude." That's a tautology right there.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

A better way to phrase it would be, "If you didn't volunteer to serve, it's involuntary servitude." That's a tautology right there.

Your way is more elegant. Mine more pedestrian. I like yours better but mine is easier to understand everything that each statement conveys.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by marden 

You do know that no one in the military in the enlisted ranks, whether voluntary or conscripted, can just quit until they complete their term of enlistment. Right?

Depends on where you live. Here in Canada, you can quit, but there may be financial consequences for choosing not to complete your contract.

Chuckit's terminology is most accurate anyway.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Um, if you can't quit, it's involuntary, see?

You voluntarily joined knowing you couldn't quit. So you volunteered not to quit the day you sign up.

But you know, how dare they expect people to keep their word and be responsible for their decisions and actions!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You voluntarily joined knowing you couldn't quit. So you volunteered not to quit the day you sign up.

But you know, how dare they expect people to keep their word and be responsible for their decisions and actions!

Let's not get thrown off track by a poorly phrased statement. The fact is that with a draft (you know, the topic of this conversation) the people didn't voluntarily join knowing they couldn't quit. They were forced to join against their will.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by marden 

It's simple, really.

As I've mentioned several times ANY war can have a Viet-Nam'esque ending if you introduce the same elements here at home that existed in America circa 1968 - 1973.

Once the draft is instituted that will bring demonstrations up a notch and literally FORCE the politicians to pull out completely.

Then we would get a chance to see (up close and personal!) that greg, Helmling and Ron Goodman's theory is bogus.

If you don't remember, they believe the threat of Global Jihad is overblown.

Call me crazy but.. isn't that sort of the most overly circuitous way to "cut and run"?


To be fair no sane person believes the threat of Global Jihad exists.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Ok I'm curious, do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Using conscripts and indoctrinating them with patriotism would probably be a whole lot cheaper.

You just provided your own evidence. If cheaper was better, everything would be cheaper.

I can toss in a few other bits though.

1) Conscription encourages the more highly qualified candidates to volunteer for a "safer" service, like the Air Force, rather than be forced into the Army.

2) Conscription causes a glut of recruits who need to be trained. This results in an overall decline in the quality of training.

3) Ideally, conscription is arbitrary, which will foster resentment in those that are chosen. The reality is conscription is not arbitrary. People with money and connections get deferments. This fosters even more resentment.



"Volunteers are used in Iraq and its a Quagmire" is false cause. What evidence do you have that there is any correlation between these two whatsoever?

Everything I've read says exactly the opposite. The combat operations were an unprecedented success. Things broke down when we transitioned out of combat operations into the post-invasion.

The problem is ultimately a misallocation of resources. Infantry takes and holds ground. They are not policemen. Our troops are having so much difficulty because they are not doing the job they are trained and equipped to do.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You voluntarily joined knowing you couldn't quit. So you volunteered not to quit the day you sign up.

Like I already said, it depends on where you live.

[besson3c]

All I know is that I've had some really strong urges lately to steal a school bus...

[Spliffdaddy]

I think that has an underlying meaning.

Were you traumatized by the levee breaks in New Orleans?

Do you miss your carefree highschool days? Perhaps you didn't attend the homecoming dance...or you did and discovered your girlfriend making out with the team's quarterback.

Where do you plan to travel in the stolen school bus? Mexico? Canada? (God forbid).

It may take several sessions to get to the root of your troubles, besson3c. But with a little effort I think we can rid your conscience of the demons that manifest themselves as goats and school busses.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why is this the key point? It's been less than 4 years at attempting to build this democracy and we've been getting "IT'S A QUAGMIRE" for no less than 3 of them.

Probably because Rumsfeld said it would take less than six months, and our fearless leader supported him.

And I imagine if Rumsfeld said that again today, you'd still fall for it.

It is a quagmire, and Bush is no longer trying to build a democracy -- he is trying to escape as quickly as he can, and hopefully pin at least partial blame on the Democrats (you'll fall for that, too, I'm pretty sure).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Probably because Rumsfeld said it would take less than six months, and our fearless leader supported him.

You and... well just you still believes this is what Rumsfeld and Bush were referring to.

And I imagine if Rumsfeld said that again today, you'd still fall for it.

That Saddam would be ousted and Shock and Awe a success within 6 months? Absolutely.

It is a quagmire, and Bush is no longer trying to build a democracy -- he is trying to escape as quickly as he can, and hopefully pin at least partial blame on the Democrats (you'll fall for that, too, I'm pretty sure).

I don't think anyone duped by bumper stickers as easily as you is qualified to guess what I will and will not fall for. Unless he plans to augment troop levels or institute a draft, I have no clue what he'll pin on the Democrats.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You voluntarily joined knowing you couldn't quit. So you volunteered not to quit the day you sign up.

Erm…being drafted means you didn't volunteer or sign up, actually.

[Kevin]

I misread the original quote. I apologize.

[marden]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

Call me crazy but.. isn't that sort of the most overly circuitous way to "cut and run"?


To be fair no sane person believes the threat of Global Jihad exists.

Yeah, maybe you're right.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Do you think that our soldiers in WWII should have just been paid incentives to join up rather than being drafted?

If it had been economically feasible. This is a no-brainer.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by subego 

You just provided your own evidence. If cheaper was better, everything would be cheaper.

I can toss in a few other bits though.

1) Conscription encourages the more highly qualified candidates to volunteer for a "safer" service, like the Air Force, rather than be forced into the Army.

2) Conscription causes a glut of recruits who need to be trained. This results in an overall decline in the quality of training.

3) Ideally, conscription is arbitrary, which will foster resentment in those that are chosen. The reality is conscription is not arbitrary. People with money and connections get deferments. This fosters even more resentment.



"Volunteers are used in Iraq and its a Quagmire" is false cause. What evidence do you have that there is any correlation between these two whatsoever?

Everything I've read says exactly the opposite. The combat operations were an unprecedented success. Things broke down when we transitioned out of combat operations into the post-invasion.

The problem is ultimately a misallocation of resources. Infantry takes and holds ground. They are not policemen. Our troops are having so much difficulty because they are not doing the job they are trained and equipped to do.

I totally agree with you. Winning the war is always easier than winning the peace , and the US efforts in Iraq to win the peace have until now been a complete disaster. Civilian casualties this month is the highest ever and all signs point to it only increasing further.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems is that all the educated Iraqis are leaving Iraq as quickly as they can. This just leaves the country to the extremists.

IMO I can't see the US leaving Iraq for about 10 years. That isn't to say that troop levels will reduce, but there is no way they are going to just leave Iraq after investing so much in it. Its a catch 22 situation and all options are going to be bad. Will the US learn their lesson in Iraq and be humbled?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

IMO I can't see the US leaving Iraq for about 10 years.

I'd say this is a rosy outlook, for it implies an ability to keep a lid on things with a deployment the American public can stomach. Ten years is three Presidential elections.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

If it had been economically feasible. This is a no-brainer.

I disagree but I'm interested in your rationale for this point of view. Oops, I'm reading the thread now and I see your post. BRB. Ok. I continue to read good reasons on both sides and I think I need to read more on the subject to see if I can settle on a position. Until then I'm officially undecided.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Probably because Rumsfeld said it would take less than six months, and our fearless leader supported him.

And I imagine if Rumsfeld said that again today, you'd still fall for it.

It is a quagmire, and Bush is no longer trying to build a democracy -- he is trying to escape as quickly as he can, and hopefully pin at least partial blame on the Democrats (you'll fall for that, too, I'm pretty sure).

As someone pointed out, the war was won just as Rumsfield predicted. It's the "peace" that has been hard to maintain.

There was a guy who predicted it would be a hard, long road - requiring patience, courage and not backing down. That guy was George Bush. I remembered him specifically stating this in a speech prior to the war. He warned that this sort of thing could take years and years. He didn't force people to have unreal perceptions of what would be needed to be done.

War sucks. The alternatives suck more unfortunately.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That guy was George Bush.

As history has shown the American people can stomach a war for about three or four years maximum, do you think "specifically stating this in a speech" was all that was required to prepare for this eventuality?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As someone pointed out, the war was won just as Rumsfield predicted. It's the "peace" that has been hard to maintain.

There was a guy who predicted it would be a hard, long road - requiring patience, courage and not backing down. That guy was George Bush. I remembered him specifically stating this in a speech prior to the war. He warned that this sort of thing could take years and years. He didn't force people to have unreal perceptions of what would be needed to be done.

War sucks. The alternatives suck more unfortunately.

People keep forgetting this. On purpose or not.

Again most people want to pull out for partisan reasons.

TAHT WILL SHOW BUSH@!!

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

IMO I can't see the US leaving Iraq for about 10 years. That isn't to say that troop levels will reduce, but there is no way they are going to just leave Iraq after investing so much in it. Its a catch 22 situation and all options are going to be bad. Will the US learn their lesson in Iraq and be humbled?

Like we've left Germany, Italy, Belgium, Japan, Spain?