"Civil war in Iraq is Inevitable"

[DragonMasterAlex]

IF you believe what you wrote why do you persist in trying to force another will upon them by insisting they need to learn what to them is irrelevant. They can an will exist as they have for quite some time now. This earther life is nothing compared to living according to the will of Allah and spending eternity in his presence.
Their Ruler that you easily dismiss is Allah.. their Supreme and only Ruler. They live according to his will. Is this a savage notion? I think it to be a rather appropriate way to live. Actually, Moses had a similar notion as do most Christian folks.. hardly savage.

Oh yes, it IS savage, just as Christianity in its undiluted (read: Not what you see in America) form is savage. What Christianity propounds as Heaven is nothing less than SLAVERY. Go to Heaven and SERVE God for all eternity. Doesn't sound like such a pretty deal to me.

And as I've pointed out to you repeatedly, I've never ONCE said anything about forcing anything on anyone. What I've said is that we must ensure that the new government of Iraq recognizes the EQUAL rights of ALL citizens, regardless of whether they are the majority or not. For some reason you prefer to twist that to some distorted meaning that I never claimed.

I suppose you're one of those people who thinks that you can "Force" freedom on people? Little tip: People are free BY NATURE. You cannot force it on them, it's part of what they are. The only thing you can do with Force is to TAKE AWAY their freedom.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Incidentally, maybe Civil War WILL happen. Maybe it SHOULD happen. I don't know, I can't say. But at least in the case of the United States, our civil war ended up producing far more GOOD for our nation than BAD. Yes, we paid a heavy price, but Liberty is worth ANY cost.

Jason

 

[chess9]

DMAlex:

We can't get our government to recognize the rights of all of our citizens so why do you expect it of the Iraqis who could't give a rodent's derriere about your concepts of freedom and democracy?

You need to get out, boy. See the world, etc.

Why don't you join the Navy?

Or are you another one of those chicken hawks?

-Robert

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

IF you believe what you wrote why do you persist in trying to force another will upon them by insisting they need to learn what to them is irrelevant. They can an will exist as they have for quite some time now. This earther life is nothing compared to living according to the will of Allah and spending eternity in his presence.
Their Ruler that you easily dismiss is Allah.. their Supreme and only Ruler. They live according to his will. Is this a savage notion? I think it to be a rather appropriate way to live. Actually, Moses had a similar notion as do most Christian folks.. hardly savage.

Oh yes, it IS savage, just as Christianity in its undiluted (read: Not what you see in America) form is savage. What Christianity propounds as Heaven is nothing less than SLAVERY. Go to Heaven and SERVE God for all eternity. Doesn't sound like such a pretty deal to me.

And as I've pointed out to you repeatedly, I've never ONCE said anything about forcing anything on anyone. What I've said is that we must ensure that the new government of Iraq recognizes the EQUAL rights of ALL citizens, regardless of whether they are the majority or not. For some reason you prefer to twist that to some distorted meaning that I never claimed.

I suppose you're one of those people who thinks that you can "Force" freedom on people? Little tip: People are free BY NATURE. You cannot force it on them, it's part of what they are. The only thing you can do with Force is to TAKE AWAY their freedom.

Jason

One who chooses to serve is not a slave. It is a choice.

You live in the US, and abide by it's laws (or at least I expect you do). You are therefore a slave of you choose to obey them.

No, there are consequences to actions. That they are sometimes negative does not change that fact.

 

[chess9]

DMAlex:

How many Civil War battlefields have you visted? Have you seen the graves? I don't think very much good came out of the Civil War at all. Resentment still lingers almost 140 years later. We needed to find a way to rid our country of slavery without killing so many fine young men. The Civil War didn't need to happen.

I'm a Yankee by the way.

-Robert

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

OK, WHO, under the Law of the United States, does NOT have equal rights? What group?

Second, yes a LOT of good came from the Civil War. Blacks are free; women's freedom came later but might not have ever come (or it might have been just WHITE women) if not for the Civil War.

Yes, I've been to Gettysburg. It's definitely a horrible fact that so many died in the cause, but it WAS worth it. More importantly than you or I believing that, however, is that those who fought believed it.

Jason

 

[chess9]

DMAlex:

You obviously haven't read much about the Civil War. I'm not certain you fully comprehend the horrors of war either. Until the bullets start to fly, there are a lot of true believers. My father got the Bronze Star at Verdun and I can tell you he didn't think it was worth it at the time. ("What are we fightin' for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop is Vietnam." ) He hated Roosevelt and didn't want the U.S. to get involved in the war in Europe. He went because he had to. Trust me, he was a reluctant fighter. And he never talked about the Army though it took over 4 years out of his life.

Anyway, I know many, many Civil War soldiers had major doubts about what they were doing. Only an idiot wouldn't.

You have a very naive view of war young man.

-Robert-

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

IF you believe what you wrote why do you persist in trying to force another will upon them by insisting they need to learn what to them is irrelevant. They can an will exist as they have for quite some time now. This earther life is nothing compared to living according to the will of Allah and spending eternity in his presence.
Their Ruler that you easily dismiss is Allah.. their Supreme and only Ruler. They live according to his will. Is this a savage notion? I think it to be a rather appropriate way to live. Actually, Moses had a similar notion as do most Christian folks.. hardly savage.

Oh yes, it IS savage, just as Christianity in its undiluted (read: Not what you see in America) form is savage. What Christianity propounds as Heaven is nothing less than SLAVERY. Go to Heaven and SERVE God for all eternity. Doesn't sound like such a pretty deal to me.
I suppose the alternative (from their POV and mine) is less desirable. For you ... well, it is for you to decide. You and I both will find out the truth in time and If I'm right you'll lose and if I'm wrong it won't matter.. we'll both be ......... mushrooms or something..

And as I've pointed out to you repeatedly, I've never ONCE said anything about forcing anything on anyone. What I've said is that we must ensure that the new government of Iraq recognizes the EQUAL rights of ALL citizens, regardless of whether they are the majority or not. For some reason you prefer to twist that to some distorted meaning that I never claimed.
Again, you can use what ever word you'd like but there is no difference between forcing and in this context ensuring. If they don't comply with your ensuring it'll be ok you won't force them but, then you won't ensure.. see what I mean..?

I suppose you're one of those people who thinks that you can "Force" freedom on people? Little tip: People are free BY NATURE. You cannot force it on them, it's part of what they are. The only thing you can do with Force is to TAKE AWAY their freedom.
People are not free by nature. They are free by circumstance. Nature might suggest that folks ought to be free but not that they must be free. Besides, who is this nature and from where does it or her get its power over folks?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Incidentally, maybe Civil War WILL happen. Maybe it SHOULD happen. I don't know, I can't say. But at least in the case of the United States, our civil war ended up producing far more GOOD for our nation than BAD. Yes, we paid a heavy price, but Liberty is worth ANY cost.

Jason

Seems to me that the South wanted the freedom to leave the Union but, the North wanted to force the issue... and at the end of the day the liberty or freedom of lots of dead Americans provided the termination of the freedom the South wanted. But, I agree with the larger issue. The Slave should not have been taken from his land and made subservient in ours. In fact, I'd liken this to the British in My Ireland. But, in that case the resident catholic is the 'slave'. But, again not the point.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
OK, WHO, under the Law of the United States, does NOT have equal rights? What group?

The Giraffe, the Gnu, the Ostrich, The... need I go on... Natural rights, I guess, don't extend beyond the human and that seems unnatural.

ond, yes a LOT of good came from the Civil War. Blacks are free; women's freedom came later but might not have ever come (or it might have been just WHITE women) if not for the Civil War.

But Alex, What do you mean by woman's freedom? What about the Native American and their Natural Freedom... not to mention the Native American Female. Are they enjoying all those equal rights?

, I've been to Gettysburg. It's definitely a horrible fact that so many died in the cause, but it WAS worth it. More importantly than you or I believing that, however, is that those who fought believed it.

I wonder if the dead folks agree... or would agree if that were a possibility? I don't think many folks believe much when it is they doing the doing..

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Seems to me that the South wanted the freedom to leave the Union but, the North wanted to force the issue... and at the end of the day the liberty or freedom of lots of dead Americans provided the termination of the freedom the South wanted. But, I agree with the larger issue. The Slave should not have been taken from his land and made subservient in ours. In fact, I'd liken this to the British in My Ireland. But, in that case the resident catholic is the 'slave'. But, again not the point.

Hold it there, Kimosabi! Unless you've got a tribal membership card what makes you think this is your land. Some of us are waiting on a benevolent power to help liberate the native peoples of the Americas. Last I heard they were bickering over the wording for a UN resolution . . .

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I suppose the alternative (from their POV and mine) is less desirable. For you ... well, it is for you to decide. You and I both will find out the truth in time and If I'm right you'll lose and if I'm wrong it won't matter.. we'll both be ......... mushrooms or something..

You see, this is what I have been trying to get at. You and I as civilized human beings don't *have* to agree on something like this, and the notion that one or the other of us should have the right to force the other into compliance is barbaric. The whole issue of Life after Death, God and all that, is an issue of *Faith*. By it's *nature* it involves a belief without empirical evidence. That's the reason why we should be free to disagree and that we should not kill one another over the issue. The bottom line is that *neither* of us "Knows" what happens beyond death or whether the world was created by a God. You happen to believe in God and creation (from what you've posted so far) and I happen to think that the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming enough that I believe science is barking up the right tree. Nevertheless, and I hope I've come across this way so far, even though I disagree with you on that issue I would be willing to stand by your side and fight to the death to protect your *Right* to believe what you do. I don't agree with your belief, but I think you have every right in the world to reach your own judgment and not be killed or harmed by those who disagree with you.

Originally posted by: LunarRay Seems to me that the South wanted the freedom to leave the Union but, the North wanted to force the issue... and at the end of the day the liberty or freedom of lots of dead Americans provided the termination of the freedom the South wanted. But, I agree with the larger issue. The Slave should not have been taken from his land and made subservient in ours. In fact, I'd liken this to the British in My Ireland. But, in that case the resident catholic is the 'slave'. But, again not the point.

Now on the south issue, the reason that their issue wasn't a valid reason to secede is because they didn't want to do it in order to protect *their* freedom, they wanted to do it in order to *oppress* others, and Lincoln believed, and I concur, that no one can have such a right, therefore their secession was illegitimate. If, on the other hand, the Union had decided, for example, that no one is allowed to be a Baptist anymore, and that everyone should be Calvinists (or Catholics or whatever, it really makes no difference,) then the south would have had a justification.

As to my perception of war, I'm afraid I've got a little closer encounter than I enjoy. My father was one of those f-ed up Vietnam Vets, and believe me I saw the ins and outs of that, to the point of being held at gunpoint as a VC spy when I was 10 years old when he went off on one of his delusional trips. I KNOW that War is terrible. I don't think there is a one of us who *doesn't* understand that. It's never desireable, it's never fun, and the people involved never enjoy themselves (at least, I hope not...). Nevertheless, sometimes it is necessary, in cases where your freedom is being forcibly taken away by an invading power, for an example. I also don't think it's immoral to wage a war to liberate an oppressed and tortured people, though I do feel the sorrow that comes from that heavy cost.

In the end, as long as you have a person or a small group of people dictate the absolute truth to the people of a given country, particularly if their neighbor's dictator disagrees, you are going to have wars. There is only ONE solution to the problem of war: Respect the right of all people to their own lives, their own consciences, their own religious beliefs. In America and in many other civilized nations we have that, and we truly *cannot* understand what an oppressed life is like. I can't imagine standing in defense of tyrants or oppressors when so much *good* has come in nations that have liberated their people. If that's not evidence enough for why people should be free, what is?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
OK, WHO, under the Law of the United States, does NOT have equal rights? What group?

The Giraffe, the Gnu, the Ostrich, The... need I go on... Natural rights, I guess, don't extend beyond the human and that seems unnatural.

ond, yes a LOT of good came from the Civil War. Blacks are free; women's freedom came later but might not have ever come (or it might have been just WHITE women) if not for the Civil War.

But Alex, What do you mean by woman's freedom? What about the Native American and their Natural Freedom... not to mention the Native American Female. Are they enjoying all those equal rights?

, I've been to Gettysburg. It's definitely a horrible fact that so many died in the cause, but it WAS worth it. More importantly than you or I believing that, however, is that those who fought believed it.

I wonder if the dead folks agree... or would agree if that were a possibility? I don't think many folks believe much when it is they doing the doing..

OK, animals? Come on, let's not venture into the realm of the silly. Man's rights come from his natural ability to *REASON* and to act in accordance with that reason in the face of alternatives. Animals don't enjoy a similar capacity (although I've read about studies indicating that certain kinds of apes, and potentially dolphins, may have the reasoning capacity of a human child, and that I would probably be willing to side with the animals on. But Ostrich's? Come on, man

As for WOmen's freedom (OK, as for *any* US Citizen's freedoms...) I mean that they have the same rights UNDER THE LAW that everyone else does. Unless you can show me otherwise, I believe that Native Americans do as well (and being 1/4 blackfoot indian, I'm pretty sure that I'd have been nailed somehow if my rights were less than those of purely white folks).

Now as to dead folks agreeing, that's kind of a moot point since neither of us can effectively articulate the opinions of men who died 3 or 4 generations before we were born

Jason

 

[LunarRay]

DragonMaster,

OK, animals? Come on, let's not venture into the realm of the silly. Man's rights come from his natural ability to *REASON* and to act in accordance with that reason in the face of alternatives. Animals don't enjoy a similar capacity (although I've read about studies indicating that certain kinds of apes, and potentially dolphins, may have the reasoning capacity of a human child, and that I would probably be willing to side with the animals on. But Ostrich's? Come on, man

Good to see that you finally agree that the Iraqi who can reason his way to following the Will of Allah in the face of alternatives is in his own way subscribing to both his desire and the notion of nature. Freedom to choose to follow the word of God versus the word of man.
I use the Ostrich cuz he don't know what he don't know so he bounds about enjoying his freedom when he may be caged at the zoo. Even if that extends to the human it only matters what the human knows. In Iraq most know everything is the will of Allah.

As for WOmen's freedom (OK, as for *any* US Citizen's freedoms...) I mean that they have the same rights UNDER THE LAW that everyone else does. Unless you can show me otherwise, I believe that Native Americans do as well (and being 1/4 blackfoot indian, I'm pretty sure that I'd have been nailed somehow if my rights were less than those of purely white folks).

Well... lets see..
The Indian got to be a citizen in 1924 along with the vote in national elections but, not in state elections till much later.. I think it was in '62 New Mexico allowed it. As far as sovereignty goes.. "Tribal sovereignty describes the right of federally recognized tribes to govern themselves and the existence of a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Thus a tribe is not a ward of the government, but an independent nation with the right to form its own government, adjudicate legal cases within its borders, levy taxes within its borders, establish its membership, and decide its own future fate. The federal government has a trust responsibility to protect tribal lands, assets, resources and treaty rights." and civil rights.. well.. "The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (ICRA) prohibits Indian tribal governments from enacting or enforcing laws that violate certain individual rights. It is similar to the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, which guarantees personal freedoms against actions of the federal government, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which extends those protections to actions of state governments. Since these Constitutional limitations do not apply to tribal governments, Congress adopted the ICRA to ensure that tribal governments respect basic rights of Indians and non-Indians."

Now as to dead folks agreeing, that's kind of a moot point since neither of us can effectively articulate the opinions of men who died 3 or 4 generations before we were born

Well then I guess we can only go with the next best thing. Folks in battle who did not volunteer to be there.. the draft and other such conditions. I'd assume those folks (for the most part) had a rather different take on the being in harms way than did the folks who sent them to defend a point of view... no matter the import.. Issues like WWII had all sorts of folks jumping to join whereas VietNam did not. And, that is just one generation away from the big war..

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

OK, on the Iraqi who can find his way to believein Allah, that's *fine*, I have no issues with that. What I WOULD have issues with is if he decides that he has the right to kill his neighbor who happens to be a Jew or a Christian or an Atheist or whatever. I think that's simple, straightforward and well within the bounds of reason and rights.

As to the Civil War, there were *NO* Draftees. The draft wasn't created until 1940 under Franklin Delano Roosevelt (fascist extraordinaire, I might add, but that's another discussion...). Again, what percentage *agreed* with the war is anyone's guess, but I would gather that the majority did. Not to say that they weren't also racists. Many of them lobbied to have blacks shipped back to Africa after the Civil War rather than have them become citizens. Fortunately they failed at that endeavor.

On the Native Americans issue, if I read this right you're saying there is a problem because Congress made a law that applies to the Native American tribes stating that they can't abuse people? And your problem with this is....? I agree that the Natives should have had such laws on their own (and surely some of them did, though I can guarantee it wasn't my Blackfoot tribe, as they were really a savage, barbarous people, LOL without the intervention of the US, but I don't see it doing any harm whatsoever. In either case, you've really just given another example of how the roots of Liberty, planted by the Founding Fathers, simply *continue* to take hold and spread to all peoples. First the blacks, then women, then the native Americans. I'm not saying it should have gone in any particular order (It would have been best if it could have been everyone at once, but I can accept that there is a *process* to something as revolutionary as the idea of Liberation and that it doesn't have a magic bullet solution....)

You better be careful, man, I think we're getting close to meaningful understanding

Jason

EDIT: I fully agree with the Vietnam example of people being sent to fight when they never volunteered to do so being a bad thing. That's why I oppose the draft (though I DID sign up, no point going to jail over something like that, LOL) and applaud our current military, who are 100% volunteer.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
OK, on the Iraqi who can find his way to believein Allah, that's *fine*, I have no issues with that. What I WOULD have issues with is if he decides that he has the right to kill his neighbor who happens to be a Jew or a Christian or an Atheist or whatever. I think that's simple, straightforward and well within the bounds of reason and rights.

In '48 Mountbatten solved the Hindu/Muslim problem in India by partition. Would that not be an easier solution to what will occur in Iraq. They don't take kindly to breaking bread with the infidel.

As to the Civil War, there were *NO* Draftees. The draft wasn't created until 1940 under Franklin Delano Roosevelt (fascist extraordinaire, I might add, but that's another discussion...). Again, what percentage *agreed* with the war is anyone's guess, but I would gather that the majority did. Not to say that they weren't also racists. Many of them lobbied to have blacks shipped back to Africa after the Civil War rather than have them become citizens. Fortunately they failed at that endeavor.

I think you're a bit off on the draft.. remember the New York riots..? Well.. I think the Civil War was the first American war to draft folks. I think the South started it an the North followed in 1863. Well.. I've been arguing for the British to send their British folks back to their home land from Ireland.. but, then I'm Celtic.. a Celtic American..

On the Native Americans issue, if I read this right you're saying there is a problem because Congress made a law that applies to the Native American tribes stating that they can't abuse people? And your problem with this is....? I agree that the Natives should have had such laws on their own (and surely some of them did, though I can guarantee it wasn't my Blackfoot tribe, as they were really a savage, barbarous people, LOL without the intervention of the US, but I don't see it doing any harm whatsoever. In either case, you've really just given another example of how the roots of Liberty, planted by the Founding Fathers, simply *continue* to take hold and spread to all peoples. First the blacks, then women, then the native Americans. I'm not saying it should have gone in any particular order (It would have been best if it could have been everyone at once, but I can accept that there is a *process* to something as revolutionary as the idea of Liberation and that it doesn't have a magic bullet solution....)
You better be careful, man, I think we're getting close to meaningful understanding

Well.. I was addressing what you said. You said you were part Indian and didn't know if you missed out on any rights.. so being aware of the Indian rights issues to some extent I figured you'd be interested to know that the Indian has rights but they were long in coming. Rights are alot like the rain. You don't get wet unless you're under the cloud.. circumstance .. But, again this is here in the good ole US of A. Not in downtown Baghdad.. There they don't much care about Governor Clinton's relationship with Hamilton, in fact, I doubt they know that Hamilton was a New Yorker too..

EDIT: I fully agree with the Vietnam example of people being sent to fight when they never volunteered to do so being a bad thing. That's why I oppose the draft (though I DID sign up, no point going to jail over something like that, LOL) and applaud our current military, who are 100% volunteer.

Well.. I spent 6 years which at the time was my obligation.. cuz I like to force folks to my way of life.. Imagine them wanting to be commies.. well we showed em how to be free.. but they kept not wanting to play... dummies! They could've been like Japan today! Rich and we'd been that much poorer... I'm kinda glad they wanted to be commies... from my self POV. The sad thing is they like the Iraqi saw their Natural Law embedded in their ISM...

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

In '48 Mountbatten solved the Hindu/Muslim problem in India by partition. Would that not be an easier solution to what will occur in Iraq. They don't take kindly to breaking bread with the infidel.

When the US was founded, the English and the Irish didn't get along with each other, nor with blacks. There was friction with the Native Americans, with immigrants of all flavors. Nobody liked each other on the basis of silly issues like country of origin or religion. But fortunately the RIGHT policies were put in place, with a government who's founding principle was that all men are equal under the law. And look at the difference today. We have people of all cultures, religions, colors and nationalities within our borders, and with the exception of a few nutjobs here and there, we're all able to get along pretty well. A partition is a *temporary* solution. The real solution is COMMUNICATION and EDUCATION and RESPECT for one another.

I think you're a bit off on the draft.. remember the New York riots..? Well.. I think the Civil War was the first American war to draft folks. I think the South started it an the North followed in 1863. Well.. I've been arguing for the British to send their British folks back to their home land from Ireland.. but, then I'm Celtic.. a Celtic American..

Check the link, I'm not off at all.

Well.. I spent 6 years which at the time was my obligation.. cuz I like to force folks to my way of life.. Imagine them wanting to be commies.. well we showed em how to be free.. but they kept not wanting to play... dummies! They could've been like Japan today! Rich and we'd been that much poorer... I'm kinda glad they wanted to be commies... from my self POV. The sad thing is they like the Iraqi saw their Natural Law embedded in their ISM...

Were you drafted or volunteered? And as for us being that much poorer because another country has become richer, the flaw in that logic is an assumption, again, that wealth exists in a *Static* quantity. Wealth *isn't* static, it's dynamic and it grows or shrinks with many factors such as production, service and product availability and so on, which underscores the importance of getting as many people as possible worldwide working to produce, produce, produce. If we want *everyone* to have a decent standard of living, and I suspect that we all here do, then we have to create enough wealth to make that happen

Jason

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

In '48 Mountbatten solved the Hindu/Muslim problem in India by partition. Would that not be an easier solution to what will occur in Iraq. They don't take kindly to breaking bread with the infidel.

When the US was founded, the English and the Irish didn't get along with each other, nor with blacks. There was friction with the Native Americans, with immigrants of all flavors. Nobody liked each other on the basis of silly issues like country of origin or religion. But fortunately the RIGHT policies were put in place, with a government who's founding principle was that all men are equal under the law. And look at the difference today. We have people of all cultures, religions, colors and nationalities within our borders, and with the exception of a few nutjobs here and there, we're all able to get along pretty well. A partition is a *temporary* solution. The real solution is COMMUNICATION and EDUCATION and RESPECT for one another.
I don't think the Iraqi issue is the same at all. There is not much else to say on this matter, I don't think. The Folks don't want to be westernized and I don't think they ever will be.

I think you're a bit off on the draft.. remember the New York riots..? Well.. I think the Civil War was the first American war to draft folks. I think the South started it an the North followed in 1863. Well.. I've been arguing for the British to send their British folks back to their home land from Ireland.. but, then I'm Celtic.. a Celtic American..

Check the link, I'm not off at all.
The civil war the first American war in which soldiers were drafted. The South was first to employ the draft, followed by the North. In March of 1863, the National conscription act was passed. Draftees would be called by lottery. Once called, a draftee had the opportunity to either pay a commutation fee of $300 to be exempt from a particular battle, or to hire a replacement that would exempt him from the entire war. Over the course of the riots, Blacks were often the target of many of the rioters. Lincoln sent federal troops to put down the riots. There are various estimates of the number of dead and wounded? ranging from 70 to 1,000.
I hate to look stuff up.. but, I still think the draft started in the Civil War for Americans

Well.. I spent 6 years which at the time was my obligation.. cuz I like to force folks to my way of life.. Imagine them wanting to be commies.. well we showed em how to be free.. but they kept not wanting to play... dummies! They could've been like Japan today! Rich and we'd been that much poorer... I'm kinda glad they wanted to be commies... from my self POV. The sad thing is they like the Iraqi saw their Natural Law embedded in their ISM...

Were you drafted or volunteered? And as for us being that much poorer because another country has become richer, the flaw in that logic is an assumption, again, that wealth exists in a *Static* quantity. Wealth *isn't* static, it's dynamic and it grows or shrinks with many factors such as production, service and product availability and so on, which underscores the importance of getting as many people as possible worldwide working to produce, produce, produce. If we want *everyone* to have a decent standard of living, and I suspect that we all here do, then we have to create enough wealth to make that happen

I enlisted. I entered college very young so as soon as I could join I did... finished my degree via a Naval program and when I turned 21 was commissioned into the Supply Officer Corps... being a devot coward and all.
The cost to us would have been fairly large in terms of development and all. We'd have been trying to keep the other bad guys at bay and would have had god knows how many divisions protecting our investment.
We can debate the relative merits of wealth generation and investment potential all day long. I've my view and it pretty much has been developed over many years of analysis and application. In the case of Vietnam I can imagine the tactics the North and China and all the rest would have employed to win their freedom from the oppressive Yankee invaders.. It was a no win no win issue in my opinion.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

How odd that we've got two different historical sources concerning the draft with two different time periods listed as the start. That's irritating

As to Vietnam, I completely agree it was a no win situation. Pretty much surrounded on all sides by commies, with the North likely being fed troops from China, whatcha gonna do short of nuking them? And that would have been pointless.

In any case, I dunno if Civil War in Iraq is inevitable or not, or whether it will be for the best or not. Only history will tell, and we'll just have to sit back and see what happens because there's little any of us here can do to change the course of events.

Jason

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
How odd that we've got two different historical sources concerning the draft with two different time periods listed as the start. That's irritating

Yeah.. it is. But, I assure you that the big todo was over the rich folks buying out of the war. Sorta like in the '60's.. go to college, get married, or be convicted of (imagine this) a violent crime.. and you'd get a break.. same issue different day..

As to Vietnam, I completely agree it was a no win situation. Pretty much surrounded on all sides by commies, with the North likely being fed troops from China, whatcha gonna do short of nuking them? And that would have been pointless.

I've not really studied the issue but figure there had to be some reason for Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin resolution push. Well.. I've heard lots of reasons from lots of sources but the only one I can buy off on is to do with internal pressure from some well placed sources.. but, that is part of the conspiracy theory and JFK.

In any case, I dunno if Civil War in Iraq is inevitable or not, or whether it will be for the best or not. Only history will tell, and we'll just have to sit back and see what happens because there's little any of us here can do to change the course of events.

I think first will be the formation of government. I think a unified Iraq with Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite being represented in some form of Parlimentary system.. giving rise to comprimise governments.. since I don't think any one can muster a majority. Then in maybe four or five years it will have either worked or not and then the problems begin. I don't think Iraq would go for a partitioned Kurdistan but, maybe just to spite Turkey. I think further that it will be a system of comprimise and I don't see how it could be otherwise given the five factions there.. Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, Sunni/Kurd, Sunni/Shiite.. I think the merge will disolve into three basic factions and by local.. with folks moving to 'safer' regions. The other minorities well.. I don't know about them and doubt they'd have much standing.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think first will be the formation of government. I think a unified Iraq with Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite being represented in some form of Parlimentary system.. giving rise to comprimise governments.. since I don't think any one can muster a majority. Then in maybe four or five years it will have either worked or not and then the problems begin. I don't think Iraq would go for a partitioned Kurdistan but, maybe just to spite Turkey. I think further that it will be a system of comprimise and I don't see how it could be otherwise given the five factions there.. Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, Sunni/Kurd, Sunni/Shiite.. I think the merge will disolve into three basic factions and by local.. with folks moving to 'safer' regions. The other minorities well.. I don't know about them and doubt they'd have much standing.

Well sure, I mean, that's just the nature of living in a world where no one agrees 100% with anyone else, isn't it? That's all I've been trying to get at all along is that they've got to agree to disagree on personal religious matters and then tend to the affairs of their nation through compromise, cooperation and a whole lot of patience It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years, but I have high hopes for the people of Iraq and the entire middle east. If Iraq can learn to find a relative peace and freedom for their disparate groups of people they will be a beacon of hope for others who live in the region.

Jason