It Seems All Is Not Lost, Despite What Some Say

[Patroklos]

Nice opinion he has there.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Nice opinion he has there.

An honest opinion worth far more than the revisionist spin you posted from two men that got Iraq wrong, much as you did.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's hard to be right when the final chapter hasn't been written yet Gepap.

What prognosticative abilities does it require to say that war will be difficult?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's hard to be right when the final chapter hasn't been written yet Gepap.

What prognosticative abilities does it require to say that war will be difficult?

That is the best you can do!?

My assumption is simple, the false beliefs and flawed opinions that have led folk like you and Patrokolos to be wrong about how things would go in Iraq not only in 2003 but since have not changed, and therefore, you, and him, simply have no crediblity on the issue anymore.

And as for your question, clearly ones you, Pati, the two authors of the article posted in the OP, and the Bush administration lacked. Go back to the stuff the supporters of the war bought abck in 2003, of how this would all be paid through Iraqi Oil revenues, about how it would only take 75,000 troops, and how they would be out in a few years, and how those statements were touted as coming from the experts, and then come back....

The unmittigated gall of some people....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes that is true. That they do so willingly is a testimony of the attractiveness of the armed forces.

Or, rather (and probably more apt), a testimony of the unattractiveness of jobs in poor areas.

And yes, if a disproportionate number of poor people sign up, one of the suggestions is that those who are poor are more loyal to their home country.

Which is an absolutely horse**** "suggestion". Why are the rich less patriotic simply because they have more money? A far more rational "suggestion" is that the poor don't want to be there as much as the rich don't, but the poor don't have as many alternate options.

[Lancer]

Mercs make better money, they should join corporate armies.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Lancer
Mercs make better money, they should join corporate armies.

college students make better money for the risk load.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Which is why they waited until the end of 1917 to do so.

Rot.

Prove this.

Otherwise, we'll just go with the U.S.A. entering the war in teh first half of 1917 after the resumption of unrestricted U-boat warfare by a desperate Imperial Germany and Wilson having waited for re-election. Oh, and that little bombshell, the Zimmerman Telegram... of January 1917.

Entering a world war with an under-equipped and under-trained and under-sized army, too, mind you.

Following America's entry into the war in April 1917 the question of recruiting sufficient men to fight a war in Europe arose. A policy of conscription was rapidly formulated and adopted, requiring men between the ages of 21 and 30 (inclusive) to register for military service.

The U.S. Congress approved conscription on 18 May 1917; reproduced below is the text of President Woodrow Wilson's conscription proclamation issued ten days later formally implementing the policy.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usconscription_wilson.htm

United States enters war: April 1917.

United States introduces conscription: May 1917

Big wait....

Interesting rhetoric. I would be more impressed to hear this from some of the army figures, not someone who wholeheartedly endorsed conscription. Of course he likes conscription, it means others are forced to fight for him.

Gompers had previously opposed the war and had been a pacifist.

I would be more impressed if there were more than your own suppositions to back your assertions....

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why did you bring 'class' into this argument?

Because some well-off 'patriots' in this country can buy themselves out of the military after serving for only a short time (Michael Heseltine) then make much of their supposed military credentials in later life.

Because in other countries people whose parents are extremely wealthy can obtain positions for their children that somehow manage to never place their offspring in any danger.


Odd how in a supposedly classless society with a history of citizen militias, money can replace birth when it comes to privilege...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Yup.. and the word be.... Molly.

.

No, the word is hypocrisy, judging from the content of your posts.

The difference is I understand what I am doing and am fine with it. (Mocking it as it were.)

Oh, that old 'ironic' get out clause.

It allows one to make insulting remarks and then say: 'Had my fingers crossed behind my back! Didn't mean it really! '

Tedious and unconvincing when first used, even more so now.

You apparently are not

No, I understand perfectly the contents of your posts. They're hardly rocket science or 'Finnegans Wake' :

Note to self - Sometimes sarcasm is wasted on mongoloids.

Ogie Oglethorpe


My, that was really 'ironic' and 'mocking' wasn't it ?

The difference between the insult in that nasty little post and the people I've met with Down's Syndrome, is that in the main they wouldn't use in writing any congenital defects you were born with to insult you or others.

[Patroklos]

Because some well-off 'patriots' in this country can buy themselves out of the military after serving for only a short time...

No, you can't.

Because in other countries people whose parents are extremely wealthy can obtain positions for their children that somehow manage to never place their offspring in any danger.

Choose your rate, choose your fate. As it is in this country the middle and upper class are more involved in combat than the lower class.

Odd how in a supposedly classless society with a history of citizen militias, money can replace birth when it comes to privilege...

Proof?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lancer
Mercs make better money, they should join corporate armies.

Mercs are almost all ex-soldiers, not 18 year old kids straight out of the ghetto.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because some well-off 'patriots' in this country can buy themselves out of the military after serving for only a short time (Michael Heseltine) then make much of their supposed military credentials in later life.

Again, why is this a problem if their length of service is documented. You seem to be applying the rules that happen in conscription to a volunteer army. I don't see why someone who volunteers for the forces should not be able to leave early if they choose to do so.

Because in other countries people whose parents are extremely wealthy can obtain positions for their children that somehow manage to never place their offspring in any danger.

Why is that a problem? They are volunteering for the Army. They have chosen to serve their country. Are you implying that folks who do not see combat on the front line are somehow less worthy of counting their military service?

[Ben Kenobi]

My assumption is simple, the false beliefs and flawed opinions that have led folk like you and Patrokolos to be wrong about how things would go in Iraq not only in 2003 but since have not changed, and therefore, you, and him, simply have no crediblity on the issue anymore.

What were my opinions Gepap?

I would be impressed if you could find them. I was very clear. I said NUMEROUS TIMES prior to the war that the US should be prepared to be engaged for a very long time, much longer then they have already been there if they wish to see a democracy that is stable. I made many numerous allusions to the British in India as a successful transition, and used that as an argument against intervention. You can look it up.

I love it how you seem to know everything about me Gepap, but yet you haven't found a single quote from me in 2003 on this issue.

And as for your question, clearly ones you, Pati, the two authors of the article posted in the OP, and the Bush administration lacked.

Have I ever been a supporter of the war?

Go back to the stuff the supporters of the war bought abck in 2003, of how this would all be paid through Iraqi Oil revenues, about how it would only take 75,000 troops, and how they would be out in a few years, and how those statements were touted as coming from the experts, and then come back....

Was I one of those, Gepap? Go back and check. I never said that US intervention would be short or easy, I said it would be long and much longer then most folks even considered.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gompers had previously opposed the war and had been a pacifist.

So in other words he sold out. Thanks Molly.

I knew you would assume that I knew nothing about Gompers.

What do you say about a man who opposes a war when it is voluntary and supports a war when conscription is enacted. As I said, he is a man who prefers to force others to fight for him.