http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

I dont think the Military wants the draft, it would rather deal with Volunteer soldiers.

I know.

But the politicians don't care about that.

They want the Draft to make it harder for the US to go to war. They want to make it more painful on Americans. Rangle so much as says so.

It is easier to legitimize war when everyone in the military wants to be there and is professional.

It is easier to argue against war when the military is made of people who are there against their will, and are not there for the profession.


If the pool of candidates were limited to Members of Congress, and their families(male and female), I would wholeheartedly support the draft. Yup.

Politicians are a great source of comedy.

I know.

But the politicians don't care about that.

They want the Draft to make it harder for the US to go to war. They want to make it more painful on Americans. Rangle so much as says so.

It is easier to legitimize war when everyone in the military wants to be there and is professional.

It is easier to argue against war when the military is made of people who are there against their will, and are not there for the profession.


If the pool of candidates were limited to Members of Congress, and their families(male and female), I would wholeheartedly support the draft. Yup.

It should be hard to go to War. We shouldn't be going to war on the whimsy of a petulant man-child of a President.

But the answer isn't a draft. The first answer is to put some limits on presidential powers for deploying troops without an official declaration of war by Congress.

We haven't declared war in over 60 years because we've made it so a President doesn't need it.

We shouldn't be going to war on the whimsy of a petulant man-child of a President.

y new favorite quote!! I just love you Aidon :) And btw... I 100% agree with your entire post!

My new favorite quote!! I just love you Aidon :) And btw... I 100% agree with your entire post!

I agree with him too.

The solution for having less wars is not slavery.
And conscription is definitely a form of slavery.

I still like and support Pan's War Tax idea.
And if there are not enough people who want to join up, then the government should do what every other organization has to do to increase recruitment,,,offer more pay and more benefits. Not enslavement.

I know.
But the politicians don't care about that.

You should rewrite that:
"But a politician doesn't care about that.

It's just one nutjob with a pet project. It'd be political suicide for democrats to institute the draft. I can't disagree with the reasoning though. It'd keep this country from going to war under false pretenses.

In the Rama series of books, there is a race of cephalopods who, should war be required, had to kill themselves after the war was over.

I don't know about the wisdom of follow the social model of a fictional race of hyperintelligent snails...

In the Rama series of books, there is a race of cephalopods who, should war be required, had to kill themselves after the war was over.
Doesn't that sort of end the race though?

I suppose rather than institute a draft we could have a policy of randomly selecting 1 person from the non-military population that would be put to death or mained for every soldier that dies or is maimed. Might be very effective!

You should rewrite that:
"But a politician doesn't care about that.

It's just one nutjob with a pet project. It'd be political suicide for democrats to institute the draft. I can't disagree with the reasoning though. It'd keep this country from going to war under false pretenses.

It is Charles Rangel.

I, myself, would call him a nutjob. I would never have expected you to.

Every new day brings a new twist, Life Is Good.

Reinstituting the draft would be political hari-kari. I actually agree with his reasoning, but think it is politically insane.
Congressman Charlie Rangel plans to reintroduce a bill calling for the reinstating of the draft under the banner statement: if you're prone to knee-jerking America into war again, you had better be prepared to put your hawk-ass where you hawk-beak is. Otherwise, think twice before you rah-rah another misguided armed conflict because Uncle Sam will be asking you for help. And that help will involve a bit more than slapping a yellow-ribbon magnet on your SUV before waddling downstairs to play SOCOM.There's nothing in that sentiment I disagree with, especially the yellow-ribbon magnet on the SUV. Nothing like proclaiming you support the troops while driving a vehicle that gets lame mpg that increases our dependency on foreign oil and makes us eager to invade oil-producing countries for ****ty reasons.

But if the democrats don't want to be one-term wonders... they shouldn't vote for it.

Reinstituting the draft would be political hari-kari.
I agree. I think your war tax idea would be more effective as a deterrent given the distain with which most Americans seem to view taxes.

Yeah, the war tax is a good one. A little less bloody than the death lottery. :p

Ya, it would be a deterrent without actually being social engineering.

Well it would be, but it would not be artificial....people should pay for the governmental services provided.


And would entail some proportionate refund on other Federal taxes which are supposedly already going to fund Defense. Nevertheless, tying a tax directly on the expense of war is a great and novel idea.

I fully support the idea of a war tax as well. It's fiscally responsible (pay as you go!) and creates an appropriate deterrent to war. We should not go to war if we don't believe strongly enough in a cause that we're willing to give the government extra money for it.

Of course the tricky part would be making sure that the war tax actually goes away once the war is over. The government might find it convenient to use that extra income for other purposes...

As a Soldier, i will definately say that a draft would be bad for the Army. I disagree with a draft on the basis that if you have people who don't want to be there, they will not be as effective as people who DO want to be there. Also the guy next to you might not be watching your back, and you may not be as inclined to watch his either.

As a democrat, I agree with the legislation and the intent behind it. Make it harder to go to war. Make any war America enters affect everybody. Not just a select few. Let the Oil baron's children witness the horrors of combat firsthand so they don't laugh it off as they rake in the profits. Let the polititcians sons and duahgters be there too, so they aren't willing to send American Soldiers galavanting accross the globe to stick our noses into other countries affairs we do not belong in.

Let the Oil baron's children witness the horrors of combat firsthand so they don't laugh it off as they rake in the profits. Let the polititcians sons and duahgters be there too, so they aren't willing to send American Soldiers galavanting accross the globe to stick our noses into other countries affairs we do not belong in.
So how could you do that without a draft?

Of course, as others have pointed out, the second you have a draft, you've got the kids with wealthy, well-connected families finding ways of getting out of it anyway.

Let the Oil baron's children witness the horrors of combat firsthand so they don't laugh it off as they rake in the profits.

Get rid of corruption in politics. That sorts out everything.

Now how do you to that?

We had instituted campaign finance reforms. We set up Political Action Committees, PACs to prevent people from giving money directly to potential politicians.

Now we consider PACs corrupt.

Every citizen has a right to entreaty their representatives. Go to his or her office and make your case.

Every citizen has a right to hire and pay someone to sit in that representative's lobby waiting to speak with that representative. For unless you are unemployed or a student you really can't afford to sit around and wait in their lobbies.

Now we consider people who do that corrupt. We call them Lobbyists, even.

Back during the Viet Nam draft, we had a college deferment. If you were going to school and getting good grades you got to stay home. There was also an only son and a last remaining son provision for deferment as well. There is also the female deferment.

Those are corrupt in my mind, are they in yours?

If you feel the system is so corrupt that you can't even see the first steps to clean it up .... well all the more reason to vote out every son of a bitch that takes a backhander until there's nobody left in Washington. If the public voted out every corrupt politician every time and voted out politicians who use smears and dirty tricks then things would clear up. They only survive through public tolerance.

Lobbyists aren't necessarily corrupt. It is when they start to exchange items of worth for political favors or hire former politicians as favors to the party, that I think they're getting corrupt.

Lobbyists aren't necessarily corrupt. It is when they start to exchange items of worth for political favors or hire former politicians as favors to the party, that I think they're getting corrupt.

Is that all it takes?

When Republicans took money from Abramhoff, that was corrupt.
When Republicans gave the Abramhoff money back, that was corrupt.

When Democrats took the money from Abramhoff, then did not give it back, that was NOT corrupt.

Look at Reid. The biggest acceptor of Abramhoff money, and he adamantly did not give any of it back, he went relatively unscathed.

He kept it all, and nothing happened to him about it. Republicans give it back even, and take a drumming for being corrupt.

Corruption is a matter of opinion to most people, Anka. What is corrupt to one, is not corrupt for or to another. That was my real point, that what you define corruption as is not for everyone else. Saying, "Lets just end all corruption" does not really have any fruit.

Corruption is a matter of opinion to most people, Anka. What is corrupt to one, is not corrupt for or to another. That was my real point, that what you define corruption as is not for everyone else. Saying, "Lets just end all corruption" does not really have any fruit.

If everyone got rid of the corruption they could see then you'd probably still be in a better position than you are now. All you're suggesting is apathy.

In the case of Abramoff, how many of those people just got voted back into office? Did the voters clear out the corruption or did they tolerate it? There's no reason for the voters to complain about regulations and transparency if they can't be bothered to boot out the bad guys when they get their chance.

hehe,

The Republicans took a beating. The corruption tag stuck on them real good, and did not stick on Dems.

And about clearing it out?, a bunch of new politicians are getting ready to start working in Washington now.

It is all interpretation and opinion anyway.



We had a local Representative booted out.
From one point of view he championed private property rights. That is to say, that if you own property, that you should be able to do with it as you wish. And if the government takes that right away from you, then the government should compensate you for your loss.

From the other point of view, he was a corrupt politician who wants farmers to pollute their land, pollute your drinking water, and keep the government from doing anything about it.

It is all opinion and perception, and in this election the second point of view finally won out, and he is heading back to the family farm to raise chickens and corn.

There's no reason for the voters to complain about regulations and transparency if they can't be bothered to boot out the bad guys when they get their chance.

The only reason why there were more Republicans who took Abramhoff cash, is because there were more Republicans in Congress(and in positions of power). Dems, and power Dems took just as much cash.

Next time around it will just be Democrats, because there are more of them.

Just commenting on the war tax idea. I would be all for any reasonal policy that would prevent America from changing it's mind when it gets messey. We did it in Veitnam. We did it in Somalia (sp). Oh boy can't wait to run and hide again. Then act as if it were good policy.

What is the point of staying in a war if we can't win it?

What is the point of staying in a war if we can't win it?

Show me a war we could not have won.

It would be better to question if we should have been in the war in the first place.

It would have been better to ask if the price of winning was too high?

In my life time, two wars, maybe 3 depending on how things turn out in Afganistan.

I don't think we can win in Iraq. Sure, we could militarily crush the country but I don't believe we could ever take that country, with its warring factions, and put it together again in a peaceful democracy. So there is one.

I doubt we could have won in Vietnam. We were there for 10 years with a huge military commitment and we still couldn't win. And why were we there in the first place? Some yahoo's theory about the communist domino effect.

I think you are defining winning by a very new, narrow, and isolated parameter, honestly.

ost of the reason why we can't win wars, by our present parameters, is because we are unwilling to actually win wars by the old ones.

Your objectives to be met in order to win today, are set up like a huge Jenga puzzle.

I don't think it is ever going to be possible to win another war, at all, when we must act all civilized and nice about the endeavor.

To win a war prior to 1945, all you had to do was kill your enemy, depose its leaders, and take all your enemy's land for yourself. And then kill any further opponents who might have sprung up.

We enlightened folks don't really think that we should be doing any of those things, because those are mean things to do. Even though our enemies fight wars the old way. We need to be fair and consider their feelings, and walk a mile in their camels sh1tpiles and sh!t. Essentially, we don't want to win wars.

It is just like your Civ games, if you have a Democracy, and you have just a couple of turns of war, your people get all discontent and revolt on you. And do more damage to you and your infrastructure than your real enemies ever could have.

By the old standards of winning wars, Iraq was won long ago. But because we think we have to Marshall Plan everything, it is still going on. When a military can crush any other country's might, but that military's leaders(in this case us Americans, the People) tell them they can not, you are going to have issues like we have in Viet Nam or Iraq.

If the leaders, that is 'the People', tell the military, you must not win, then they will not, nor can not. Not unless Americans want a military independent of the People's Will. Which I doubt is a great idea.

So then, the only rational thing to do is change the People's Will. Which is very hard to do, especially with idiots like MM running around. And don't get me started on that traitor mom from Vacaville.

In my life time, two wars, maybe 3 depending on how things turn out in Afganistan.

I don't think we can win in Iraq. Sure, we could militarily crush the country but I don't believe we could ever take that country, with its warring factions, and put it together again in a peaceful democracy. So there is one.

I doubt we could have won in Vietnam. We were there for 10 years with a huge military commitment and we still couldn't win.
Vietnam was winnable. Not sure it would have been any better off under the souths rule though.

Iraq is winnable but not the way we are currently proceding. America today fights a more kindler/gentler war. We no longer crush our enemies take over. We sort of just ask them to move along. So when they refuse we get bogged down with political debates and maunervers for political power.

I guess technically Afganistan is a war but now it's more like a police action.

And why were we there in the first place? Some yahoo's theory about the communist domino effect.

I believe that any society bent on taking over the world should be placed in check. But hindsight being what it is, Vietnam was the wrong place/way to do it.

What is winning? I'd think it'd be leaving the country a stable democracy. I think most of you define it as a crushing military victory leaving the country in a smoking ruins.

What is winning? I'd think it'd be leaving the country a stable democracy. I think most of you define it as a crushing military victory leaving the country in a smoking ruins.
Winning a war?

Democracy is not easy.

It is not like you can even hand all the test answers to them, here take the test now, you can't fail.
And that is cheating anyways, it took hundreds of years for us to even invent the thing, and hundreds more trying to get it right.

And you want some bunch of noobs, living a totally different culture, to accept it and run with it in 5 years.

I think that parameter, that bar so to speak, is way way too high.

I think it is just better to defining winning wars as winning wars. And promoting the growth of Democracies, as just that. Militaries and generals have no business forging Democracies.

If you want to smoke up nation building with the act of tearing them down, go for it. But say so, set it off like that when you say, "Well we lost the war in Iraq", it needs to be predicated with your new and novel notion that winning includes building up the country's economy, and making sure that we leave them with a working Democracy.

Those were just icing. I would have been pleased if we got them too. But the Iraqis don't want our icing. That is ok, we defeated their military, and deposed their leaders. What they do with that, if they don't want our help, is now up to them by any reasonable notion.

Winning a war? .....

Good post :clap:

Wars are not fought just to win the war. Wars are fought for a purpose. If the purpose is lost then war just becomes an atrocity.

The US could not have started the Iraq war with the purpose of killing some arabs and then flying home. You would not have had allies. You would not have been able to use military bases in neighbouring arab countries for the operation. It is not even worth discussing as a viable option.

What is winning? I'd think it'd be leaving the country a stable democracy. I think most of you define it as a crushing military victory leaving the country in a smoking ruins.

Well, yea.

What you describe as winning is popularly termed as winning the peace. Which is a totally different thing.

What is winning? I'd think it'd be leaving the country a stable democracy. I think most of you define it as a crushing military victory leaving the country in a smoking ruins.


Smoking ruins works for me.

**** those assholes. The only thing they'd do with democracy would be to elect theocratic terrorists anyways.

Wars are not fought just to win the war. Wars are fought for a purpose. If the purpose is lost then war just becomes an atrocity.

The US could not have started the Iraq war with the purpose of killing some arabs and then flying home. You would not have had allies. You would not have been able to use military bases in neighbouring arab countries for the operation. It is not even worth discussing as a viable option.

We would have had those allies we have now, even if our express reason was killing some arabs and going home.

Our allies are our allies because we are friends of theirs as a nation.

Then there are pansy ass ingrate nations like France and Germany who lapped up the benefits of US largess for half a century and then turn on us because they still have delusions of being world leaders.

We would have had those allies we have now, even if our express reason was killing some arabs and going home.
FFS, what a crock. If you actually believe that twaddle then your bigotry towards Arabs has finally rendered you incapable of rational though.

We would have had those allies we have now, even if our express reason was killing some arabs and going home.

Our allies are our allies because we are friends of theirs as a nation.


NO.

FFS, what a crock. If you actually believe that twaddle then your bigotry towards Arabs has finally rendered you incapable of rational though.

Fine, i should have said:

If our express reason was the removal of the current regime, the decimation of Iraq's military capabilities and then picking up and pulling out to let the Iraqi's figure things out themselves.

Which amounts to the exact same thing as killing some Arabs and going home.

NO.

YES

I mean, ****, the people of Britain have been acting French since the beginning of this little conflageration, yet that hasn't deters the British government from doing the right thing and standing by their closest friends on the planet.

If our express reason was the removal of the current regime, the decimation of Iraq's military capabilities and then picking up and pulling out to let the Iraqi's figure things out themselves.
We might have been able to convince the same coalition partners but it would have been a harder sell to Americans. Many of the people who were attracted to the idea of converting Iraq to a democracy would have rejected the idea of leaving the country in ruins. It's a moot point though -- it was neo-con philosophy that provided the impetus for the war and they were definitely keen on democratizing Iraq.

Well, if you look at the reason we went to Iraq in the first place it was:

Saddam is working with terrorists and is developing, or has, weapons of mass destruction. We've got to do a regime change to neutralize the threat with continuing the terrorist thing.

So, we did the regime change but if we just leave, there's absolutely no guarantee that terrorists are going to just pack up and leave. So I don't see that as winning. It isn't winning by the terms of the current administration and it doesn't seem like a win in the "war on terror". We've just left a gapping, sucking vacuum that suck into Iraq every trouble-maker in the Muslim world.

Same issue if we stay. Iran and Syrian get to make all the trouble they want, most of the world realizes we're stretched way to thin. They'll just keep funneling money and arms to the various groups in Iraq and hope that Iraq implodes. We'll never be able to leave while we hold out false hopes while our national economy is sucked into an enormous quagmire that dwarfs everything else. Meanwhile, it takes the focus off of Lebanon's assinations of anti-Syrian politicians in Lebabnon.

So I don't see any win here, unless we commit utterly huge numbers of troops for a decade or more. I suspect that this whole adventure is going to totally destroy military recruiting like Vietnam did so I don't know how we could make up for the terrible attrition of troops that will surely start to happen. Other than restarting the draft.

YES

I mean, ****, the people of Britain have been acting French since the beginning of this little conflageration, yet that hasn't deters the British government from doing the right thing and standing by their closest friends on the planet.

Whatever you think of that, it is still a fact that Tony Blair couldn't have even persuaded his appointed government to declare war on Iraq without WMD, let alone the rest of his political party, let alone the rest of the country. Just before the war started there was an opinion poll which found 65% of the population opposed the war if WMD were not present, and 60% for the war if WMD was present.

You know that Bush is an awful President and everyone abroad spotted that from day one. You know that he tried to sell the war to the world based on the awful premise of Saddam's WMD. You know the reason that Bush failed to get good alliances on Iraq is because he f**ked it up. Why do you have to go blaming everyone else?

Some of the Commonwealth countries might be our best friends on the planet btw. They at least have the decency to play some cricket ;)

If our express reason was the removal of the current regime, the decimation of Iraq's military capabilities and then picking up and pulling out to let the Iraqi's figure things out themselves.

That wouldn't have got past the UN, which doesn't allow regime change, and that would have prevented support from new Europe and the Commonwealth countries. The US might have a low opinion of the UN but that doesn't mean the rest of the coalition are willing to sideline it.

Aidon, you know that the Iraq war was a really bad mistake, orchestrated by an awful US President, which has harmed every nation that took part, and it never should have happened. Why do you have to get so angry at other people who have also realised this, and might even have realised this from the outset?

I mean, ****, the people of Britain have been acting French since the beginning of this little conflageration, yet that hasn't deters the British government from doing the right thing and standing by their closest friends on the planet.

Once you have the decency to start playing cricket we might deign to consider you close friends, especially if you lose to us more often than those lousy Australians :).

Wars are not fought just to win the war. Wars are fought for a purpose.

Ah, the "just" war concept. That may indeed be useful to determine if you should go to war, but once you're in a war, you have only one goal. Win.

ilitarily I think we've done that. Democracy is left up to the Iraq people to decide if it's worth fighting the terrorists for.

The US could not have started the Iraq war with the purpose of killing some arabs and then flying home. You would not have had allies. You would not have been able to use military bases in neighbouring arab countries for the operation. It is not even worth discussing as a viable option.

I assure you, the US most assuredly could've started a war with that express purpose right after 9/11. No one would have said boo to us then, except our targets, of course. One of the errors is the delay between the overthrow of the Taliban and then trying to get support for Iraq a year or so later.

well all the more reason to vote out every son of a bitch that takes a backhander until there's nobody left in Washington. If the public voted out every corrupt politician every time and voted out politicians who use smears and dirty tricks then things would clear up

Like Fyyr points out, the Democrats that took Abramoff's money are equally culpable of corruption, yet they remain in office and refuse to refund the money. If the cries of "Corruption! Corrruption!" were anything else but the political whoring for attention that they were, then Democrats would have ousted all those recipients in their own camp. They did not.


You know that Bush is an awful President and everyone abroad spotted that from day one.

the Iraq war was a really bad mistake, orchestrated by an awful US President, which has harmed every nation that took part, and it never should have happened.

aybe he is, and maybe he isn't, but that's not for non-US citizens to say.

In a really hard twist of irony, the Bush critic that authored the legislation that started this thread, Charles Rangel, (D)-NY, said a few choice words about foreigners criticizing the President.

. . don't come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State," Rangel said.

"Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us," Rangel said.

If you're one of us, it's a cherished right of US citizens to criticize our leaders. If you're not a US citizen, then you probably should get your own country in tip top shape before seeking to adjust (interfere with) ours.

In the future, the US would attentively listen to nations that exceed our GNP. By that standard, we may have to attentively listen to China someday, and possibly India.

It is all about the economy. The biggest economy buys the biggest military and the nation with the biggest military strength wins the intimidation contest.

But Europe's only hope of again being a prominent figure on the world stage is to completely and totally unify under one government. How's that EU thing coming?

Not to pull this thread too much off Topic but I dont really think its fair to say that Blacks can restore their native cultures, not only do they usually lack any direct link to actually know where they come from. (Saying Africa is like saying European or Asian is a culture, but theres significant differences between Spanish, Polish, English Russian etc.) Native American tribes that are left probably have a better chance of knowing about their culture and practicing it.

Not to pull this thread too much off Topic but I dont really think its fair to say that Blacks can restore their native cultures, not only do they usually lack any direct link to actually know where they come from. (Saying Africa is like saying European or Asian is a culture, but theres significant differences between Spanish, Polish, English Russian etc.) Native American tribes that are left probably have a better chance of knowing about their culture and practicing it.

I dont understand what this post has to do with anything in this thread... did I miss something?

probably caused I replied to wrong thread

Like Fyyr points out, the Democrats that took Abramoff's money are equally culpable of corruption, yet they remain in office and refuse to refund the money. If the cries of "Corruption! Corrruption!" were anything else but the political whoring for attention that they were, then Democrats would have ousted all those recipients in their own camp. They did not.

That's the point! Don't wait for the Democrats to sort it out. Don't wait for the Republicans to sort it out. Use the ballot box to kick out all the politicians who took dirty money. Just how many of the people who took Abramoff's money got re-elected this year?

The electorate can't blame the parties for being intransigent and corrupt if they're personally unwilling to use their vote to sort it out.

(late edit to clean up my post too)

We might have been able to convince the same coalition partners but it would have been a harder sell to Americans. Many of the people who were attracted to the idea of converting Iraq to a democracy would have rejected the idea of leaving the country in ruins. It's a moot point though -- it was neo-con philosophy that provided the impetus for the war and they were definitely keen on democratizing Iraq.

I don't disagree with that assessment at all.

However, that wasn't the discussion at hand =D

Well, if you look at the reason we went to Iraq in the first place it was:

Saddam is working with terrorists and is developing, or has, weapons of mass destruction. We've got to do a regime change to neutralize the threat with continuing the terrorist thing.

The terrorists Saddam was working with (and make no mistake he was working with them) weren't necessarily located in Iraq. Working with meant providing them with funds and weaponry. Granted, since most Arab nations provide those things to various terrorist groups, I don't think that is necessarily sufficient cause, in and of itself, without the threat of nuclear, biological, or chemical development. However, Saddam was supporting them.

So, we did the regime change but if we just leave, there's absolutely no guarantee that terrorists are going to just pack up and leave. So I don't see that as winning. It isn't winning by the terms of the current administration and it doesn't seem like a win in the "war on terror". We've just left a gapping, sucking vacuum that suck into Iraq every trouble-maker in the Muslim world.[/quote]

Would it have had an effect on terrorists? Certainly. An immediate short term effect on those groups who were receiving funds from Saddam and possibly a long term effect in that it would show other Muslim leaders that if you provide tangible support for terrorism, you risk losing it all. Would the net result been to help or hinder terrorism at large? Who knows...but this sudden liberal revisionist philosophy of doing nothing because it might possibly bolster terrorism down the line is a ridiculous notion, in that the Muslim terrorists do not need our "help" in finding reasons to hate us. So long as we provide support for Israel (and before you Europeans and other Israel haters spout off, yes we should always continue providing support for Israel, the only Western Democracy in the region, for a myriad of other reasons as well), and for as long as they harbor hopes of expanding the global control of Islam...which will be pretty much for ever. As for the terrorists in Iraq...who cares? Hell, pull out, let them gather together and form larger groups which try to wrest control of the government, etc. and form a more normalized military presence, then blow the **** out of them again in five or six years.

Same issue if we stay. Iran and Syrian get to make all the trouble they want, most of the world realizes we're stretched way to thin. They'll just keep funneling money and arms to the various groups in Iraq and hope that Iraq implodes. We'll never be able to leave while we hold out false hopes while our national economy is sucked into an enormous quagmire that dwarfs everything else. Meanwhile, it takes the focus off of Lebanon's assinations of anti-Syrian politicians in Lebabnon.

We shouldn't stay...well we should, but only along the border with Iran as a staging area for an invasion. If we want to stop Iran from making trouble...give them a dose of the ole regime change as well. So long as we abandon this notion of trying to bring democracy to cultures which inimical to the concept, we can continue removing hostile regimes in that part of the world with a fair amount of impunity and without too much economic cost.

As for Lebanon...the world expected anything less when they pressured Israel heavily to stop their attacks before the destruction of Hezbollah could be completed? Another few weeks and Hezbollah would have been essentially destroyed, instead of attempting to usurp the current covernment with not entirely subtle threats of civil war...and assassinations.

So I don't see any win here, unless we commit utterly huge numbers of troops for a decade or more. I suspect that this whole adventure is going to totally destroy military recruiting like Vietnam did so I don't know how we could make up for the terrible attrition of troops that will surely start to happen. Other than restarting the draft.

Vietnam didn't destroy military recruiting...we had the draft until '73. Recruiting standards and capabilities immediately took hits for a few years, yes, until America figured out that if it wants to recruit quality soldiers, it needs to provide quality compensation and benefits. Some liberals complain now about how only the poor in America are fighting this war, and thus we should reinstate a draft (which is a particularly ridiculous notion from the premise to the solution). The better solution, to all of our recruitment ailments, from the inability to meet goals and the lowering of our recruiting standards in an attempt to meet those goals, to the notion that only the poor in the America serve, is quite simple.

Stop treating our soldiers like faceless servants and start paying them well. Middle and Upper Middle America treats service as something done by those who couldn't make it "for real"...when that is the social perspective, of course only those without the option to make it "for real", i.e. the poor, are going to enlist (officer ranks are an entirely different situation across the board).

Pay the military better and ensure the government spends money on protective gear for the troops (instead of purposefully overpaying Halliburton subsidiaries for gas). That will bolster recruiting almost immediately.

Further, let us look at those calling for a draft (mind you, none of them are of age or sex to be drafted...in fact everytime I hear some woman suggest that perhaps it would be more fair to return to a draft system, I want to bitch slap the silly cunt who never had to send in a selective service card when she turned 18). The very notion that they feel we need a draft to make things equal and fair is indicative of their point of view on service. They feel it is onerous, something left for those without their opportunities. Because they feel that way, they presume everyone feels that way and so those who enter service must do so because its the only way out of their life situation. Perhaps if America shifted its opinion of service there would be less economic disparity in the ranks and higher recruitment.

Whatever you think of that, it is still a fact that Tony Blair couldn't have even persuaded his appointed government to declare war on Iraq without WMD, let alone the rest of his political party, let alone the rest of the country. Just before the war started there was an opinion poll which found 65% of the population opposed the war if WMD were not present, and 60% for the war if WMD was present.

I may very well be mistaken on British Governance and Parliamentary proceedure...but I was under the impression that once a decision was made it wasn't immutable, that Prime Ministers who didn't have support could be removed from office, and that there was no dictatorial control, but democracy which determined the course of the nation?

Am I wrong?

You know that Bush is an awful President and everyone abroad spotted that from day one. You know that he tried to sell the war to the world based on the awful premise of Saddam's WMD. You know the reason that Bush failed to get good alliances on Iraq is because he f**ked it up. Why do you have to go blaming everyone else?

He is aweful, most of America knew it from day one, his premise was bull****, and none of that matters. We did, however, get good alliances. I don't consider France or Germany to be good alliances. Granted France, Russia, and China would never have agree'd because all three were making a boatload of money from Iraq.

Lets look at our Alliance? It has Britain, Canada, Australia, and many of the Eastern European bloc who've decided that Russia is bad for them and perhaps the West is better. We had Spain until they turned French on us at the first sign of risk. We had Japan, who even sent military troops abroad for the first time...ever (though with the stipulation they wouldn't be in combat, because of constitutional issues).

We had our major allies and some lesser allies. Frankly, I'd take Britain, Australia, and Japan over France, Germany and Russia every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Some of the Commonwealth countries might be our best friends on the planet btw. They at least have the decency to play some cricket ;)

No. I assure you, economically, politically, and militarily, The US is Britain's closest ally and Britain is the US's closest ally. Australia is a close second for Britain (and a close ally of the US as well).

We did, after all, save your limey asses from Hun aggression and French ineptitude twice.

That wouldn't have got past the UN, which doesn't allow regime change, and that would have prevented support from new Europe and the Commonwealth countries. The US might have a low opinion of the UN but that doesn't mean the rest of the coalition are willing to sideline it.

The UN didn't support the current situation...and the Commonwealth countries...well Australia and Britain both would have helped the US on principle, for the same reason Japan made a symbolic effort which skirted on being unconstitutional for them. To show the world that there is still a strong friendship and alliance between those great powers...well mainly to show China, the EU, and Russia.

Canada would have gone where Britain went (is India considered part of the Commonwealth? Are there any other Commonwealth countries besides Australia, Canada, and whatever Caribbean islands?).

Aidon, you know that the Iraq war was a really bad mistake, orchestrated by an awful US President, which has harmed every nation that took part, and it never should have happened. Why do you have to get so angry at other people who have also realised this, and might even have realised this from the outset?

It was a mistake. Not really bad mistake, no. It hasn't really harmed any nation which took part in it, aside from Iraq who didn't really take side. It shouldn't have happened, no.

None of that matters, though, because the war wasn't evil. Wrong, based on incorrect premises, but not evil in intent. Thus, our supposed friends, on whom the US has spent untold trillions of dollars, and shed much American blood for, should have been right there next to us publically, while privately trying to continue to disuade our President. Instead, they chose to align themselves against us. Its called loyalty, and seeing as you encompass the ideology of mainland Europe over the traditional virtues the rest of the world associates with Brits, it is a concept you obviously do not understand.

You may as well be French.



Once you have the decency to start playing cricket we might deign to consider you close friends, especially if you lose to us more often than those lousy Australians :).

Brits will be playing Baseball and American football before we ever decide that watching some guy in faggoty white shorts running back and forth between a pair of sticks for hours (and sometimes days) on end is something worth doing. Hell, I'd eat vegemite and whatever the original Brit version of that stuff is, first.

But, as I said before, yes, The US and Britain are closer friends and allies than Britain and Australia or the US and Australia, but the relationships between all three are very close (I'm not sure how you measure which is a closer ally of the US between Australia and Japan).

Like Fyyr points out, the Democrats that took Abramoff's money are equally culpable of corruption, yet they remain in office and refuse to refund the money. If the cries of "Corruption! Corrruption!" were anything else but the political whoring for attention that they were, then Democrats would have ousted all those recipients in their own camp. They did not.

I don't know about other states...but the cries of Corruption in Ohio were focuses on local issues...like a major GOP supporter being given millions of the State's money as an investment...and then losing and stealing millions. We were also fed up with the general mess the GOP has made of Ohio in its tenure here. Abramoff was nothing more than affirmation of something Ohioans had already figured out...the GOP is hive of scum and villainy.

Gah I doubled posted, and got twice as much anti-European polemic back from Aidon in return! :)

I don't disagree with that assessment at all.

However, that wasn't the discussion at hand =D
Okay, you've forced me to wade through the discussion (you bastard) and it appears that you're suggesting that we could have convinced our allies that the war was justified in the absence of the threat of WMDs and the (false) assertion that Iraq supported the 9/11 terrorists. Without those being the basis for "removal of the current regime" and the "decimation of Iraq's military capabilities" there's absolutely no way we'd have been able to muster the coalition we did for invading Iraq.

Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't, but that's not for non-US citizens to say.
Bush is an awful President. Non-US citizens can't express their opinions about him through the ballot box but it's silly to suggest that they can't criticize him. It's not like his polices and actions don't impact them.

Did you ever criticize Saddam Hussein? How is that for you to say if you're not an Iraqi?

aybe he is, and maybe he isn't, but that's not for non-US citizens to say.

Did you ever criticize Saddam Hussein? How is that for you to say if you're not an Iraqi?

You all didn't read the entirety of my post.

The way the dog-eat-dog world of national politics, war, and dominance works is that the bigger your economy, the bigger your military budget is. The bigger your military is, the fewer countries whose advice you have to heed. Not that we don't listen to advice from time to time, mind you, we just don't have to do it. Unlike Saddam.

Right now, the US, by virtue of its economy, has a economic and military presence in the world that cannot be ignored. This will not always be the case, as I said, China and possibly India will have the position in the future that the US holds today; projections on the growth of their economies by 2050 are truly scary scenarios for the US. I'm sure China and India are delighted at their futures though. Anyways, in 2050 or thereabouts, all the other nations will make snide comments about how the has-been US used to be so powerful. Much like the French, German, and British comments of today.

However, even if the US wasn't top in the pecking order of nations at the current moment, I can criticize Saddam's way of running his country because he was already beaten by all of the allied forces in the first Iraq war, and had to accede to all of the terms all of the allies placed upon him. Since he didn't follow those terms precisely, we were free to come in and remove him from power, and try to get another sort of stable government going over there.

That starry-eyed, idealistic goal is seemingly impossible, so unfortunately it looks like the Iraqi people will get increased unrest and violence when the Democrats cut all the funding to the war effort, thus forcing the US military to withdraw, thus forcing whatever others to also withdraw, since the US is the backbone of any military effort to go into a country and forcefully reorder their priorities.

If you think the violence and bloodletting is bad now, wait til the US, UK, and whatever other few countries' troops are over there pull out.

It's lamentable also that the Iraqi police and military can't somehow stop the violence without resorting to brutal tactics reminscent of Saddam's reign.

And, foreign nationals verbally attacking our President is not the same as arguing amongst ourselves. He may very well have screwed up, but he's OUR screwup. Not yours. Get your own.

If you think the violence and bloodletting is bad now, wait til the US, UK, and whatever other few countries' troops are over there pull out.

So are you prepared to pay for a war (in American lives and money) that'll last 10 years with a much larger number of troops we currently have for a country that really doesn't even want us there now?

And, foreign nationals verbally attacking our President is not the same as arguing amongst ourselves. He may very well have screwed up, but he's OUR screwup. Not yours. Get your own.
I'm sure they've got their own. And if their own screwups were making the world less safe and more dangerous, like Putin in Russia, then I'll definitely be criticizing them. I wouldn't expect any different rules to apply despite their economic or military clout. Besides, what the hell can you do about it other than bellyache on a message forum?

Gah I doubled posted, and got twice as much anti-European polemic back from Aidon in return! :)

That's what you get for bringing cricket into the mix.

Okay, you've forced me to wade through the discussion (you bastard) and it appears that you're suggesting that we could have convinced our allies that the war was justified in the absence of the threat of WMDs and the (false) assertion that Iraq supported the 9/11 terrorists. Without those being the basis for "removal of the current regime" and the "decimation of Iraq's military capabilities" there's absolutely no way we'd have been able to muster the coalition we did for invading Iraq.

Iraq supported terrorism, Islamic terrorism. Its close enough ;)

Further, my point is that, yes, I think we could have mustered the coalition that we did, because who joined us (even if essentially in name only) would have done so regardless.

Further, my point is that, yes, I think we could have mustered the coalition that we did, because who joined us (even if essentially in name only) would have done so regardless.

Well I think plenty of other people will disagree. I've stated the reasons previously and there's no need to repeat them.