<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059899335-post15.html]#15[/url]”>quote</a> I think we’ve done enough ethnic cleansing for a decade. 1.5-1.7 million dead;…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where do you get you’re 1.5-1.7 million dead number from and are you attributing it to the U.S. actions in Iraq?</p>
<p>Every time I see mini challenged on his source for all these numbers, his response is “I’ve posted it many times, find it yourself”. I find myself wondering often where these mythical posts are, hidden in the mists of time…</p>
<p>I followed one of his links once and was taken to a obscenely biased source. Of course he just responded by saying the MSM is a tool of “the man”</p>
<p>“If not enough men volunteered to fight Japan and the Nazi’s after Pearl Harbor, are you willing to assume enough will in a future crisis???”</p>
<p>No, I don’t assume anything. What I’m saying is if troop numbers are inadequate and more people don’t choose to enlist, the outcome may be different than if more had chosen to enlist. </p>
<p>Currently, we have a choice whether to serve, and many who choose not to serve make that choice because they disagree with the chosen battles. If people could choose whether to serve on a conflict-by-conflict basis, I don’t think the necessary fights would have a shortage of willing patriots. Sure, these people might not be as well trained as career military, but that hasn’t stopped us from using new recruits to fight in prior military conflicts.</p>
<p>When we have to live with the consequences of the choices made by a politician that most Americans consider an intellectual inferior, we feel we have no voice and become resentful. Individual Americans should fight what they believe is worth fighting for, and decline to fight the battles of idiots. If enough individuals reach consensus about what constitutes a worthy battle, there will be enough troops. If too few Americans can agree that a given battle is worthy, there won’t be enough troops to fight. If you’re going to ask people to be willing to die for their country, those people should have the freedom to choose which fights they deem worth dying for.</p>
<p>Anyone who didn’t see this war as a tragically stupid idea from before the beginning has my sympathies. Quagmire written all over it. Haven’t we learned anything? My God, Bush didn’t even listen to his own father–oh wait–maybe that explains a lot.</p>
<p>“If enough individuals reach consensus about what constitutes a worthy battle, there will be enough troops.” </p>
<p>So by your logic, the American public did not think WW2, WWI, or the Civil War (both the North and the South used conscription–.) was worth fighting, hence the need for the US to rely on the draft in each of those conflicts–not enough volunteers. </p>
<p>That seems at least a bit naieve and unrealistic given the fact that our nation would have been unable to successfully prosecute any of those conflicts without a draft. A population’s “desire” to fight a battle does not equate it to being “capable” of fighting it. Without a draft there could never be enough troops ready and trained to deal with the kind of mission they have now.</p>
<p>“So by your logic, the American public did not think WW2, WWI, or the Civil War (both the North and the South used conscription–.) was worth fighting, hence the need for the US to rely on the draft in each of those conflicts–not enough volunteers.”</p>
<p>We don’t know how many would’ve enlisted for WWI and WWII had there not been a draft, and if fewer were willing to serve, we don’t know that the outcome would have been less desirable. Perhaps in the world wars allied nations might have stepped up and carried a larger burden. The fact that conscription was used during the civil war doesn’t preclude the likelihood that the industrial north and the agrarian south would have eventually had a meeting of the minds without conscription. The fact that war lead to a particular outcome does not suggest that the absence of war would have led to a worse outcome.</p>
<p>shogun, what was your s/d’s BEAST company at usma? I was class of 09 until I got a medical discharge.</p>
<p>“Perhaps in the world wars allied nations might have stepped up and carried a larger burden”</p>
<p>Read your history—their burden couldn’t have been any larger for our allies in Europe or the Soviet Union.</p>
<p>“if fewer were willing to serve, we don’t know that the outcome would have been less desirable”–thankfully our leaders did not choose to roll the dice on that point, especially given the fact that by the time we got into WW2 Hitler already had contol of most of Europe and western Russia.
The point remains, an all volunteer force is not the way to go in a protracted conflict involving extended occupations on the ground, whether it be the “correct” war in Afganistan, or the poor decision to go into Iraq. Reality is Reality—we broke it, we own it–it’s time we brought troop strengths up to levels commensurate with the struggles we are engaged in. I don’t buy the right’s “win or retreat” in Iraq thing, but I do think we are dumb not to try to come out of there with the most positive outcome possible, whatever the past mistakes.</p>
<p>Lax—H-4 during Beast, but was scrambled into a different company when the academic year began. Hard to believe they will be Firsties at the end of May–class rings are ordered and summer training assignments being finalized. How ya doin?</p>
<p>“Reality is Reality—we broke it, we own it.”</p>
<p>We broke it, we PAY for it, and we take it out of the 5-year-old’s allowance, but we never even suggest that the 5-year-old is the one who should be gluing it back together. (Currently, we aren’t anywhere close to even paying for it - and neither Obama nor Hillary have a clue in that regard.)</p>
<p>I agree, the 5 year old that broke it is not going to fix it, but someone is going to have to. “We” is the United States and “we” broke it. As far as the world is concerned, our elected leaders (therefore us) blew this thing and it will have to be our elected leaders (us) that will have to try and make it right. Simply pulling the troops out is not going to cut it—we are in too deep.</p>
<p>“Read your history—their burden couldn’t have been any larger for our allies in Europe or the Soviet Union.”</p>
<p>We had allies in places other than Europe.</p>
<p>You’ve suggested my thoughts are “naieve and unrealistic” and admonished me to “Read [my] history.” In my experience, someone unable to have a discussion without making derogatory remarks about those with whom he disagrees, has little confidence in his argument.</p>
<p>shogun, I’m at ucla now, doing well, but would be lying if I said I didn’t miss it. I figure May of 09 is gonna be a little tough haha. Any idea of what branch he/she wants to go into?</p>
<p>Please name an allied nation not already knee deep in blood that could have “stepped up”?</p>
<p>Your thoughts are fine, your argument in naieve and unrealistic. I explained why, I will do it again:</p>
<p>You said:</p>
<p>“If enough individuals reach consensus about what constitutes a worthy battle, there will be enough troops.” </p>
<p>I replied, </p>
<p>“That seems at least a bit naieve and unrealistic given the fact that our nation would have been unable to successfully prosecute any of those conflicts without a draft. A population’s “desire” to fight a battle does not equate it to being “capable” of fighting it. Without a draft there could never be enough troops ready and trained to deal with the kind of mission they have now.”</p>
<p>I fail to see how my remarks were “derogatory” and I show confidence in my argument by actually stating what it is. If you are interested you can read about WW2 and the sacrifices the allied populations of Europe, the Soviet Union, China, North Africa, the Phillippines, and the South Pacific made. I doubt they could have “stepped up” any more than they did–that’s what I meant when I said “read your history”.</p>
<p>Still, if I offended you I do apologize, it was not my intention.</p>
<p>Lax–Military Intelligence is her branch choice so far. She did a summer with an MI unit last year as well as a summer training with the British at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst England. This summer it looks like she will be at the first detail of Beast (in the red sash!) and then its off to hawaii for more MI training. UCLA is a great school (even though I paid a fortune for my son to go to USC 
) Good luck there! Im sure your experience at West Point will always remain with you too!</p>
<p>No apology necessary; you didn’t offend me. I was simply pointing out something I’ve noticed over the years. And if you knew me you’d know I don’t need to read about WW II.</p>
<p>“Simply pulling the troops out is not going to cut it—we are in too deep.”</p>
<p>I agree. Starting with a commitment of $15 billion a year for rebuilding for the next 20 years with none of it to be administered by U.S. companies, an agreement to accept half a million refugees a year for three years and $2 billion a year for refugees who remain, and an agreement to support the freely elected government (which will be 60% Shia, and heavily supported by Iran as well), would go a very long way. But that would just be a start.</p>
<p>I think it would be unwise to accept a half a million Iraqi refugees. The one thing that country needs is to keep its people within its borders helping it to rebuild. The first regugees we would get would likely be the most educated and wealthy and their nation needs those doctors etc., far more than we do. They need to be encouraged to stay in Iraq by providing a stable Iraq. I agree that some sort of an arrangement has to be reached with Iran, as distasteful as it sounds. What we don’t need however is to allow the Iraqi gov’t to get so cozy with them that US aid to iraq ends up in Iran.</p>
<p>“They need to be encouraged to stay in Iraq by providing a stable Iraq.”</p>
<p>They aren’t in Iraq now, and they aren’t going back under a democratically elected 60% Shiite regime. And because so many of those ethnically cleansed by General Betrayus were pro-Western, they stand absolutely no chance of playing a significant role in the rebuilding of Iraq. And their personal resources are already gone.</p>