Is using the deaths of Iraqi civilians as a reason to leave Iraq intellectually dishonest?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I have an answer for Iraq: start a draft and put 750,000 US troops in, secure all of the borders, secure the infrastructure, and start disarming their entire population...completely! At the same time, I want to see France, Germany, Russia, and China bring in $1 billion in food PER DAY for the Iraqi people (our troops can secure the treatments).

If they want to see a real fvckin "occupation," we'll give 'em one!

The problems: NO politician is willing to make this happen and take the steps necessary to solve the problems of Iraq... not a single g'damn one of them, including Bush & Co. Second, I believe that 50-55% of the US population is too chicken-sh*t soft to go through with it and actually make the necessary sacrifices.

therefore, we have a stalemate. On one hand, we can stay there for a while, bleeding slowly, and hope and dream for a secure Iraqi democracy (yay!). On the other hand, we can pull out quickly and let them tear eachother to pieces for another decade or two...or three...or... (my guess: Total body count of dead Iraqi's will approach 5-10 million, and the battles will reach the borders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria...etc)

And all because Rumsfeld was an idiot, Bush is gutless, and the rest of you are p*ssies.

Swell.

To a degree I agree with you. If we are willing to go to war, the cost should not be relevant (or d*mn close). That should also be part of the criteria for going to war (that the cost is irrellevant). None of these "authorization to threaten" vagueries.

That said, I am not the guy you want in your military. I tend to believe that I would kill myself before killing someone else (that has never been tested). If that makes me a pvssie, then so be it. But there are many beliefs out there and everyone is bound to be considered weak for not standing up for one one of them.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: palehorse74
We COULD fix what we broke in Iraq, but more than half of our country is too pussified to step up and get it done.
The President is in charge of the armed forces; I'm curious why you blame 150 million Americans for the leadership of one person?

If anybody is too big of a pussy to get the job done, it's Bush. 4 years into it, and he's still a certified loser in Iraq.
Read back a few posts to where I called the man "gutless." He's too afraid of the political fallout to re-institute the draft that we so badly need to do the job right - that is, drop 750,000 troops into Iraq and disarm and secure the whole country - and I also believe that at least 50% of this country is too gutless to step up if/when their number gets called.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
I personally think we should re-implement the draft. If we would have had one at the start of these we could have called up enough troops to do the job right. That's assuming the polticians and rich people wouldn't have rasied hell and stopped the war when they realized that there kids were going to get shot up too.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
I don't understand the last two replies in this thread

Americans never needed to attack Iraq anyways.. Wouldn't need a draft if Neocon/Terrorists weren't in power
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: dahunan
I don't understand the last two replies in this thread

Americans never needed to attack Iraq anyways.. Wouldn't need a draft if Neocon/Terrorists weren't in power
wtf year are you living in?! do you have a time machine that we don't know about? Are you too afraid of the here and now to deal with it?

We all know who to blame and what mistakes were made - why you insist on making that point for the 100000th time is beyond me... it's getting pretty ridiculous.

That said, it's time to forget about the the year 2003 and rejoin the living in the present. In the present, we are at war in Iraq, and we need to find a way to move forward. With that in mind, it is my opinion that we should re-institute the draft and send at least 600,000 more troops into Iraq to do the job right.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: dahunan
I don't understand the last two replies in this thread

Americans never needed to attack Iraq anyways.. Wouldn't need a draft if Neocon/Terrorists weren't in power
wtf year are you living in?! do you have a time machine that we don't know about? Are you too afraid of the here and now to deal with it?

We all know who to blame and what mistakes were made - why you insist on making that point for the 100000th time is beyond me... it's getting pretty ridiculous.

That said, it's time to forget about the the year 2003 and rejoin the living in the present. In the present, we are at war in Iraq, and we need to find a way to move forward. With that in mind, it is my opinion that we should re-institute the draft and send at least 600,000 more troops into Iraq to do the job right.


And as long as we're there we just as well take care of Iran too. ;)
 

Cybercraig

Senior member
Jun 14, 2004
328
0
0
60 Neutron bombs - $500,000,000

20 Stealth bombers - $2,000,000,000

140,000 gallons of jet fuel - $300,000

Watching Iraq turn into a sheet of glass.....................priceless!:Q
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,682
40,038
136
Does someone have their ordinance mixed up?



Edit: Yep. Sorry. Silly Cybercraig, neutrons are for infantry and armor. ;)

 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I have an answer for Iraq: start a draft and put 750,000 US troops in, secure all of the borders, secure the infrastructure, and start disarming their entire population...completely! At the same time, I want to see France, Germany, Russia, and China bring in $1 billion in food PER DAY for the Iraqi people (our troops can secure the treatments).

If they want to see a real fvckin "occupation," we'll give 'em one!

The problems: NO politician is willing to make this happen and take the steps necessary to solve the problems of Iraq... not a single g'damn one of them, including Bush & Co. Second, I believe that 50-55% of the US population is too chicken-sh*t soft to go through with it and actually make the necessary sacrifices.

therefore, we have a stalemate. On one hand, we can stay there for a while, bleeding slowly, and hope and dream for a secure Iraqi democracy (yay!). On the other hand, we can pull out quickly and let them tear eachother to pieces for another decade or two...or three...or... (my guess: Total body count of dead Iraqi's will approach 5-10 million, and the battles will reach the borders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria...etc)

And all because Rumsfeld was an idiot, Bush is gutless, and the rest of you are p*ssies.

Swell.

Why should France, China et al pay for the mess created by the US? The US broke it, let the US pay for it. Start a draft in the US to bring in the necessary troops. Put the UN in command of the whole operation. Find the best leaders and most respected people in the Muslim world and let them work as political intermediaries, ambassadors and diplomats. Try the Bush junta for war crimes to restablish US credibility world wide. If it was a UN led operation I think even the EU would be willing to send troops (like they have to Afghanistan) and aid.


 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: dahunan
I don't understand the last two replies in this thread

Americans never needed to attack Iraq anyways.. Wouldn't need a draft if Neocon/Terrorists weren't in power
wtf year are you living in?! do you have a time machine that we don't know about? Are you too afraid of the here and now to deal with it?

We all know who to blame and what mistakes were made - why you insist on making that point for the 100000th time is beyond me... it's getting pretty ridiculous.

That said, it's time to forget about the the year 2003 and rejoin the living in the present. In the present, we are at war in Iraq, and we need to find a way to move forward. With that in mind, it is my opinion that we should re-institute the draft and send at least 600,000 more troops into Iraq to do the job right.

You know if you had a war worth fighting, you'd probably get your 600K troops. But with the way the war was sold, prosecuted, bumbled and continues to fail, I can't imagine what loser would WANT to fight this war. It was a house of cards, built on a sand castle. It's a war that 70% of America goes "WTF? Why are we in Iraq again?" It's a f'ing joke is what it is.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: palehorse74
We COULD fix what we broke in Iraq, but more than half of our country is too pussified to step up and get it done.
The President is in charge of the armed forces; I'm curious why you blame 150 million Americans for the leadership of one person?

If anybody is too big of a pussy to get the job done, it's Bush. 4 years into it, and he's still a certified loser in Iraq.
Read back a few posts to where I called the man "gutless." He's too afraid of the political fallout to re-institute the draft that we so badly need to do the job right - that is, drop 750,000 troops into Iraq and disarm and secure the whole country - and I also believe that at least 50% of this country is too gutless to step up if/when their number gets called.

Not at all, as we've already proven in numerous conflicts. The real truth is we're too moral to do the things that you suggest, because only a terrible person would even consider them.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I personally think we should re-implement the draft. If we would have had one at the start of these we could have called up enough troops to do the job right. That's assuming the polticians and rich people wouldn't have rasied hell and stopped the war when they realized that there kids were going to get shot up too.

Draftee armies are notoriously ineffective compared to volunteer armies. The military itself wants no part of a draft because of the problems it causes and the decline of skill associated with it. You use a draft in a time of need...in other words when we are under attack. You don't implement a draft to rally to the call of a madman with aspirations of world domination.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I have an answer for Iraq: start a draft and put 750,000 US troops in, secure all of the borders, secure the infrastructure, and start disarming their entire population...completely! At the same time, I want to see France, Germany, Russia, and China bring in $1 billion in food PER DAY for the Iraqi people (our troops can secure the treatments).

If they want to see a real fvckin "occupation," we'll give 'em one!

The problems: NO politician is willing to make this happen and take the steps necessary to solve the problems of Iraq... not a single g'damn one of them, including Bush & Co. Second, I believe that 50-55% of the US population is too chicken-sh*t soft to go through with it and actually make the necessary sacrifices.

therefore, we have a stalemate. On one hand, we can stay there for a while, bleeding slowly, and hope and dream for a secure Iraqi democracy (yay!). On the other hand, we can pull out quickly and let them tear eachother to pieces for another decade or two...or three...or... (my guess: Total body count of dead Iraqi's will approach 5-10 million, and the battles will reach the borders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria...etc)

And all because Rumsfeld was an idiot, Bush is gutless, and the rest of you are p*ssies.

Swell.

Why should France, China et al pay for the mess created by the US? The US broke it, let the US pay for it. Start a draft in the US to bring in the necessary troops. Put the UN in command of the whole operation. Find the best leaders and most respected people in the Muslim world and let them work as political intermediaries, ambassadors and diplomats. Try the Bush junta for war crimes to restablish US credibility world wide. If it was a UN led operation I think even the EU would be willing to send troops (like they have to Afghanistan) and aid.

:thumbsup:
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I personally think we should re-implement the draft. If we would have had one at the start of these we could have called up enough troops to do the job right. That's assuming the polticians and rich people wouldn't have rasied hell and stopped the war when they realized that there kids were going to get shot up too.

Draftee armies are notoriously ineffective compared to volunteer armies. The military itself wants no part of a draft because of the problems it causes and the decline of skill associated with it. You use a draft in a time of need...in other words when we are under attack. You don't implement a draft to rally to the call of a madman with aspirations of world domination.

I see/know people who have did several tours of duty in Iraq and not by choice either. I really think our army is too small. We like spending our money on those multi-millon dollar cruise bombs little too much. Plus a draft would be a deterant to letting ourselves be put in situations like we now find ourselves.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Nothing will stop WARPIGS from sending your children off to war.. nothing

Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerers of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds.
Oh lord, yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away.
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.

Time will tell on their power minds,
making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
wait till their judgement day comes, yeah.

Now in darkness world stops turning,
ashes where the bodies burning.
No more War Pigs have the power,
Hand of God has struck the hour.
Day of judgement, God is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercies for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.
Oh lord, yeah!
--Black Sabbath, War Pigs

 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I personally think we should re-implement the draft. If we would have had one at the start of these we could have called up enough troops to do the job right. That's assuming the polticians and rich people wouldn't have rasied hell and stopped the war when they realized that there kids were going to get shot up too.

Draftee armies are notoriously ineffective compared to volunteer armies. The military itself wants no part of a draft because of the problems it causes and the decline of skill associated with it. You use a draft in a time of need...in other words when we are under attack. You don't implement a draft to rally to the call of a madman with aspirations of world domination.

I see/know people who have did several tours of duty in Iraq and not by choice either. I really think our army is too small. We like spending our money on those multi-millon dollar cruise bombs little too much. Plus a draft would be a deterant to letting ourselves be put in situations like we now find ourselves.

The only way it would deter future conflicts is in the chaos it would cause here at home, and the costs associated. Try to draft me, I dare you. I'll go down fighting, and so would a huge number of other people. If there was a real war I'd be happy to fight it...but I won't be a part of what this administration has done. In fact I'm willing to kill or die to not be a part of it.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The only way it would deter future conflicts is in the chaos it would cause here at home, and the costs associated. Try to draft me, I dare you. I'll go down fighting, and so would a huge number of other people. If there was a real war I'd be happy to fight it...but I won't be a part of what this administration has done. In fact I'm willing to kill or die to not be a part of it.
Like I said...
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The only way it would deter future conflicts is in the chaos it would cause here at home, and the costs associated. Try to draft me, I dare you. I'll go down fighting, and so would a huge number of other people. If there was a real war I'd be happy to fight it...but I won't be a part of what this administration has done. In fact I'm willing to kill or die to not be a part of it.
Like I said...

I never claimed to be a pacifist, or be against the use of force. I just said I was against this administration and pretty much everything they had done. In my opinion that's one of the biggest misunderstandings by neocons and others like them - they assume that people who stand against their agenda are doing so because they're cowards or pacifists, when in reality it's because they're intelligent and moral. Push us far enough and find out just how wrong you are.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The only way it would deter future conflicts is in the chaos it would cause here at home, and the costs associated. Try to draft me, I dare you. I'll go down fighting, and so would a huge number of other people. If there was a real war I'd be happy to fight it...but I won't be a part of what this administration has done. In fact I'm willing to kill or die to not be a part of it.
Like I said...

I never claimed to be a pacifist, or be against the use of force. I just said I was against this administration and pretty much everything they had done. In my opinion that's one of the biggest misunderstandings by neocons and others like them - they assume that people who stand against their agenda are doing so because they're cowards or pacifists, when in reality it's because they're intelligent and moral. Push us far enough and find out just how wrong you are.
I have little respect for anyone who would force someone else to take their place once their number was called in a draft - regardless of politics and circumstance.

When you are asked to serve your country, you don't get to pick and choose your battles.

What is that smell?...
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The only way it would deter future conflicts is in the chaos it would cause here at home, and the costs associated. Try to draft me, I dare you. I'll go down fighting, and so would a huge number of other people. If there was a real war I'd be happy to fight it...but I won't be a part of what this administration has done. In fact I'm willing to kill or die to not be a part of it.
Like I said...

I never claimed to be a pacifist, or be against the use of force. I just said I was against this administration and pretty much everything they had done. In my opinion that's one of the biggest misunderstandings by neocons and others like them - they assume that people who stand against their agenda are doing so because they're cowards or pacifists, when in reality it's because they're intelligent and moral. Push us far enough and find out just how wrong you are.
I have little respect for anyone who would force someone else to take their place once their number was called in a draft - regardless of politics and circumstance.

When you are asked to serve your country, you don't get to pick and choose your battles.

What is that smell?...

That would be your own bullshit. If you can HONESTLY tell me that you TRULY BELIEVE that German soldiers did what was right in WWII then I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree about our definitions of citizenship.

BUT, if you agree with 99.99% of the world that German soldiers were criminals because they acted immorally REGARDLESS of laws and civic duty arguments then you also have agreed with my point of view, rather you know it or not.

NO ONE EVER HAS TO ACT IMMORALLY OR AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS. Ever. You can disagree about rather or not the current actions in Iraq qualify as wrong, illegal, immoral, or whatever else...but the right of every person to reach their own decision about it is absolute and if you want us to respect your opinion you must also respect ours.

Personally I have little respect for anyone who does what they're told without question, and without reasoning for themselves the ethical nature of the request. If you question and then agree, that's fine. More power to you. But you must also have the right to question and disagree.

Let's not forget that I earned my veteran status and National Defense service ribbon already, and I did it while maintaining my high moral standards. I faced hardships for my dedication, but I made it through. If I can do that so can everyone else.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
That would be your own bullshit. If you can HONESTLY tell me that you TRULY BELIEVE that German soldiers did what was right in WWII then I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree about our definitions of citizenship.
The average drafted German foot-soldier did absolutely nothing wrong when called on to fight against us in WWII. Only those who volunteered for the SS, and worse, were evil. Germany's foot soldiers were decent German citizens - and most WWII vets would agree. In fact, many WWII vets have written and spoken of the respect they had for the average German soldiers who were only doing his duty.

So yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

BUT, if you agree with 99.99% of the world that German soldiers were criminals because they acted immorally REGARDLESS of laws and civic duty arguments then you also have agreed with my point of view, rather you know it or not.
You really need to differentiate between the SS volunteers, and the standard drafted foot soldier, before I can take you seriously.

NO ONE EVER HAS TO ACT IMMORALLY OR AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS. Ever.
True - and that is why the Army will never ask you to intentionally shoot at unarmed civilians. And, if they do ask you to do so, THEN you have every right to refuse.

You can disagree about rather or not the current actions in Iraq qualify as wrong, illegal, immoral, or whatever else...but the right of every person to reach their own decision about it is absolute and if you want us to respect your opinion you must also respect ours.
I DO respect your opinion - right up until you refuse to serve if called up in a draft. Even then, I may "respect" your beliefs... even as I march you toward the firing line or plane for deportation.

Personally I have little respect for anyone who does what they're told without question, and without reasoning for themselves the ethical nature of the request. If you question and then agree, that's fine. More power to you. But you must also have the right to question and disagree.
You can do so with every order given in the US military. However, if Congress initiates a draft - making it law - then you need to go. period. Those who refuse to do so should, at the very least, have their citizenship revoked.

Let's not forget that I earned my veteran status and National Defense service ribbon already, and I did it while maintaining my high moral standards. I faced hardships for my dedication, but I made it through. If I can do that so can everyone else.
Thank you for your service... and, uhh, congrats on the ribbon?
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
German citizen soldiers protected the SS.. re-evaluate that. Or are you going to tell me that they had never heard of the ovens and never heard of the concentration camps?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I may "respect" your beliefs... even as I march you toward the firing line or plane for deportation.
The only thing you'd be respecting is the taste of the leather from his boot after he inserts it up your punk a** Rambo!

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I knew it.. we're surrounded by wanna-be-draft-dodgers! swell.

I sincerely hope that Congress initiates a draft so that we can weed each of you out - we'll finally get to see your faces as they drag you to the airplanes for deportation!

God willing.