Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Why is it more naive then believing we need a draft to deal with Iran or North Korea?>> I don't think we need a draft to deal with Iran or North Korea. I think we need a draft so that the sacrifice is more equally shared by all segments of society during wartime.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh So that indicates to me that my argument wasn't naive, and that your comment was a dishonest attempt at dismissing an argument you disagreed with.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I meant modern liberals. Say, since the mid-70's.> Well, there's the obvious example. That Iraq would not be the "cakewalk" neocons said it would be and that far from being "greeted as liberators," we would instead unleash centuries-old enmities that would lead to disaster. We were right about that, and the neocons were wrong. Even IF Iraq somehow still turns out well (far from a certainty), the neocons have already been shown to be wrong about so many things they confidently assumed before the war (strength of the insurgency, cost of the war, number of dead, oil revenues, degree of sectarian violence), and liberals (and some paleoconservatives) who thought otherwise were right.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>So that indicates to me that my argument wasn't naive, and that your comment was a dishonest attempt at dismissing an argument you disagreed with.<< Maybe I meant Congress.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That Iraq would not be the "cakewalk" neocons said it would be and that far from being "greeted as liberators," we would instead unleash centuries-old enmities that would lead to disaster.> See, I don't remember any liberals saying that. I remember predictions of urban warfare and tens of thousands of dead US soldiers. Can you post some predictions of liberals who got most of the specifics right?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Here's a quote from former Senator Paul Wellston, now deceased, who was one of 23 Senators to vote against the Iraq invasion. This statement was made in 2002. "The United States could face soaring oil prices and could spend billions both on a war and on a years-long effort to stabilize Iraq after an invasion," Wellstone said.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <"The United States could face soaring oil prices and could spend billions both on a war and on a years-long effort to stabilize Iraq after an invasion," Wellstone said.> Well, that doesn't sound so bad.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj If you are wealthy, not serving in Iraq, and could care less about the future of our constitutional government, not too bad at all.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If you are wealthy, not serving in Iraq, and could care less about the future of our constitutional government, not too bad at all.> Since he doesn't mention anyone dying, I'm not sure why it would sound bad to those serving in Iraq. And I'm not sure why it sounds bad to those who care about the future of our constitutional government. In fact, the only people who I would think it sounds bad to would be the wealthy, since they are the ones who pay the most in gas and taxes.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Wow! Is the Pollyanna DVD playing in the background -- let's continue to play the Glad Game with Iraq!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Is the Pollyanna DVD playing in the background -- let's continue to play the Glad Game with Iraq!> What does Pollyanna or the "Glad Game" have to do with the fact that Sen. Wellstone underestimated how bad Iraq would be?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>It is way too easy for our country to become involved in these overseas adventures when the ruling class knows that their children will not be sacrificed.<< In these days of globalism I don't see this being a problem for the ruling and wealthy elites. Those with political connections will keep their kids out of harms way via state side assignments. The wealthy will just relocate their young to a safe haven (Switzerland?) should they be drafted.
Originally Posted By jonvn It's hard to move to Switzerland. They have very stringent rules on who they let in, and how you can become a Swiss citizen. Plus, who would want to live there? All that yodeling would be hard to take after a while.
Originally Posted By jonvn The thing to do if you want to avoid a draft is to start researching it now. Figure out where 1) They speak your native language, and 2) They'll take you easily enough, and 3) They won't draft you either. But if you're young, you might want to start looking now. The way Bush has managed to destroy our military, we're likely headed towards a draft. This is how it's going to go down: There will be a few calls for it, then the leadership will say "Oh, no, we don't want that" then more and more things will happen that indicate we need a stronger military, and as these things happen, more voices will call for a draft. In a few years, we'll get one. Might be fifteen to twenty years off though. So, if you're reading this, maybe you're safe. I'd still find out about moving out of this country. Not much reason to live here anymore anyway.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That Iraq would not be the "cakewalk" neocons said it would be and that far from being "greeted as liberators," we would instead unleash centuries-old enmities that would lead to disaster.>> <See, I don't remember any liberals saying that. I remember predictions of urban warfare and tens of thousands of dead US soldiers. Can you post some predictions of liberals who got most of the specifics right?> I did, for one. Wes Clarke did. I remember reading many thoughtful people who said this in 2003 (I probably read more liberal sources than you do) - it's hard to remember exactly who 3 1/2 years later, but just a quick google search brought this: <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/18/123010/600" target="_blank">http://www.dailykos.com/story/ 2006/3/18/123010/600</a> (From March 2003) "Powers: It is hard to say when the trouble will begin. You know the thing that worries me about this whole episode is the magnitude of the grand scheme that the Bush Administration has dreamed up for transforming the political landscape of the Middle East. Big ideas are the ones that give you the most trouble. Trying to make the world perfect just leads to disaster in my opinion. And I think that is the record of human history. Whenever we've engaged in a really big endeavor, trouble comes. Now exactly when that is going to happen I don't know. There is going to be some kind of government there, we're going to be there. Eventually the fighting stops and the dust settles, everything is quiet for awhile and for a time it looks like "Gee, this wasn't going to be so hard, this is going to be a big success." But you have changed the fundamental relationships of people there and gradually they realize what the limits of their actions are and they realize, "Well we can't have any military forces with tanks attacking the Americans but it isn't that hard to sneak up on them in the streets." I think an endless amount of trouble will begin to bubble forth. I figure we will have a month of war, then a month of indecision, and we will have a couple months where everything looks pretty good and then after that things are going to go down hill. It's gonna be trouble and it's gonna be money and it will take a generation to resolve it." and this: <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0414-04.htm" target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/vi ews02/0414-04.htm</a> (From April 2002), headlined Iraq War: The Coming Disaster "Still, there will be an invasion, which will be difficult if not impossible to win. The action could well become another Vietnam. Just as in Vietnam, the war will drag on and will cost many U.S. lives. And the political effects will be so negative for the U.S. that eventually Bush (or his successor) will pull out. A renewed and amplified Vietnam syndrome will be the result at home." And the hell of it was, it wasn't just liberals. War games in 1999 predicted trouble even if 400,000 troops were sent. <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003352553" target="_blank">http://www.editorandpublisher. com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003352553</a> The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue. In its "Desert Crossing" games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs. (snip) "The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground." (snip) The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003: --"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability." --"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic - especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments." --"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad." --"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development." --"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government." --"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."
Originally Posted By ecdc "Game, Set, Match to Dabob2." You obviously missed the Rush Limbaugh thread where the clearest of statements was so turned, twisted, and spun that when it was all over it made Lombard Street look positively straight as an arrow.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Wes Clarke did.> Really? These guys say that his opinions were all over the place. <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0916-10.htm" target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/ne ws2003/0916-10.htm</a> <War games in 1999 predicted trouble even if 400,000 troops were sent.> Did they? I looked over the actual document, and the above sentence is a mischaracterization of it. It was a seminar in which 70 people from various branches of the government brainstormed about what would be possible problems in a post-Saddam Iraq. You can read it yourself here: <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/Desert" target="_blank">http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/N SAEBB/NSAEBB207/Desert</a>%20Crossing%20After%20Action%20Report_1999-06-28.pdf
