andymoon was wrong yet again. I'll bet old andy is crying over the excellent news from the army retention numbers.
I asked a question based on a bill before Congress. This is hardly me being "wrong" about anything. BTW, I am happy the Army is reaching its retention goals, I am not happy about people being told to "suck it" and once again being accused of not being patriotic. Nice try, rookie.
You should be thrilled by this. The more it happens, the more clear the desperation is of the people on the other side. You'll never "win" or "lose" an argument on this board, but you'll know when you're on the right side when you see the other grasping for straws.
I just hope the country can survive the rest of Bush's term of office without invading some other country. We're getting stretched mighty thin, and a tipping point will be faced, in my opinion, with another significant deployment of troops overseas. With the number of troops we have in Iraq, were we are faced with a similar deployment elsewhere, at the same time, we can do it, but we would see a major disruption in our economy by the huge number of reservists that would have to be called up, and it could not be sustained for a long period without a draft. Sometimes, a great power is seen as more powerful by withholding her power, rather than committing it. It has always been my opinion that we were more intimidating before Bush's Iraq adventure and, as a result, had more influence on countries like Iran to tread carefully. Our success in Afghanistan made a huge impact on the rest of the world (something Bush did right) which, combined with worldwide sympathy from 9/11, could arguably be described as the pinnacle of American influence in the post-Cold War era. Bush threw it all away in Iraq. Like Britain with her struggles during the Boer War, the giant was seen to have cracks in her armor. Had the occupation been carried out differently, perhaps we could have managed Iraq without looking weaker as a result, but that hasn't been the case. When we had unfinished business destroying Al-Qaeda, and unfinished business in Afghanistan, with more serious threats from Iran and North Korea, Iraq should have been way down on the list of places worthy of a massive commitment of troops, material, and wealth. Invading Iraq was crazy before it started. Events have shown that it was even crazier than some of us thought at the time. If it leads to a resumption of the draft, still uncertain, Bush's place in American history will be cemented as one of a very small group of truly incompetent and destructive persons to have held the office. Keep D&D Civil.
No chance of a draft. That would simply be political suicide for the Republican Party. Just the mere mention of such an idea would be enough to scare off a lot of voters who might have otherwise voted Republican
Bush isn't running for reelection, and still has a lot of time left in office, worst luck. What he does is largely dependent on his own notions of what the right thing to do is, and our system of checks and balances. You can see why I might be worried. Keep D&D Civil.
Is that a serious question? (you don't have a link, basso?) I would say the vast majority of it was rhetoric for public consumption. At the risk of repeating myself for the millionth time, Saddam was not a clear and present danger to the United States. We didn't have to deal with him when we had unfinished business elsewhere, and when we had him in his proverbial "box." Were his people suffering? No question about it. Are they better off today? Many Iraqis, in my opinion, would have serious doubts about that, the ones that are not dead and wounded, or have family dead or wounded, that have seen businesses and livelihoods destroyed, religious sites destroyed, a fear of walking the street to shop at a market... one could go on at great length. Why should I? Should I cut and paste previous posts to respond to posts like yours? Are we better off today for having invaded and occupied Iraq? I would say we are not. Do you think we are? Obviously, you do. So I'll ask you a question... why? Keep D&D Civil.
We had a "strong inspection system." It was busy verifying that Iraq was indeed free of WMDs right up until the day that Bush pulled them out. How exactly had Saddam "crippled the weapons inspection system" when they were in Iraq right up until Bush pulled them out? Again, there was no defiance. Inspections were going on, the inspection system was hardly "shattered" and we had him totally contained with our forces in Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Bush and Blair had decided to invade even before this speech was made. The date was "penciled in" already. No, it should be obvious that what we were already doing was "contain[ing] Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program," and that what we were doing was working. This is the first semi-true statement you quoted. Though Saddam could not have affected the "security of the world" given how he was contained and did not have the capacity to threaten "the peace of his region," he did threaten the "well-being of his people." The "costs of action" have not been as low as the costs we would have faced in continued containment and inspections. Not even close. He may have, but that cannot be known. We do know that he would have been unable to restart those programs quickly and that he would not have been a threat even to his neighbors for quite some time. No, now we face the danger of an all-out civil war that could engulf the entire region. That is a much worse danger than Saddam was.
objective analysis suggests otherwise: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12092 -- We consider three questions related to the choice between war in Iraq and a continuation of the pre-war containment policy. First, in terms of military resources, casualties and expenditures for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction, is war more or less costly for the United States than containment? Second, compared to war and forcible regime change, would a continuation of the containment policy have saved Iraqi lives? Third, is war likely to bring about an improvement or deterioration in the economic well-being of Iraqis? We address these questions from an ex ante perspective as of early 2003. According to our analysis, pre-invasion views about the likely course of the Iraq intervention imply present value costs for the United States in the range of $100 to $870 billion. Our estimated present value cost for the containment policy is nearly $300 billion and ranges upward to $700 billion when we account for several risks stressed by national security analysts. Our analysis also indicates that war and forcible regime change will yield large improvements in the economic well-being of most Iraqis relative to their prospects under the containment policy, and that the Iraqi death toll would likely be greater under containment.
Now that is a new one. Are you saying war saves Iraqi lives. Holy cow! I can hear the White House now. The U.S. is bringing war to your country to save your life. At this point, does Iraq even have an economy. The only thing Iraq is exporting these days is death.
Not really, Congress would still be held accountable and there's no way a republican wins on those coattails. I guarantee the Republicans would get blown out of both houses and the presidency if they ever institute a draft. Bush is largely a pawn in a greater political game. The republicans have made a concerted effort to slowly gain support and power in levels of government across the country and they're not going to jeopardize that by doing something that is guaranteed to breed massive resentment from the general population.
No, the "analysis" presented here shows that the costs of intervention could easily outpace the costs of containment. The "analysis" also seems to totally ignore the fact that things are rapidly devolving into what could be a civil war with the potential to spread into Iran. So, you respond to a single point I make with the abstract from an article that doesn't even refute that point? You really are getting desperate, aren't you?
Perhaps you didn't understand my point. It wasn't whether or not Bush would institute a draft before he leaves office, or whether Congress would do the same. (Bush certainly can't do that without permission from Congress) It was that if Bush takes further military actions similar to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a draft will almost certainly be required to provide the needed manpower. In other words, a draft would be a result of Bush policies and actions before leaving office, not necessarily coming before that happy day, that being unlikely. My concern is the residue of the Bush administration, which the coward has already started handing off to those that would follow him, making the incredible problems caused by his Presidency a mess to be cleaned up by whoever comes next. He has as much said that is his intention, bluntly stating that the Iraq War will continue until he is out of office, like it or not. Bush is still running away from responsibility, something he has spent his whole life doing. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil.
