my quotes are all screwed up so i just bolded them, sory for the inconviences
[quote]Ah, yes, the newly American friendly and American instilled government of Iraq decides to conscript an army with the "generous" aid of American forces. Now the American friendly government has a new American friendly army of conscripts.
You put 2 and 2 together.[/quote]
I dont you think you fully realize the mentality of the human mind. Are you implying that the Iraqi army would rebell? Why would they, maby some of them dont want to be there, maby most of them arent thrilled, that dosent mean they will rebell. Just as an example- at an a school there are usualy far fewer faculty then there are students. So why dont the students rebell and refuse to go to school? I dont know, but its the same concept.
[quote]This move will destroy relations with all countries near Iraq that aren't currently already allied with the United States.[/quote]
why? Because if they have there own military they'll be a more stable country, which could upset futelmentalist groups who want to take controle. Isnt that the point?
[quote]Do you even listen to yourself sometimes? You have no grasp on international relations if you honestly believe that the world could operate with a mentality like that.
Of course it's exaggerated. but my point was that the vast
majority would not agree with you.[/quote]
i will repeat my self.
you cannot predict the futrue, and nither can I. I have talked to plenty of people who think a draft in iraq is a great idea. Concidering that the majority of america is dissatisfied with the way things are going about in Iraq, i would guess that there would be plenty who would be in support of a draft in iraq. But like I said, i do not know for sure.
and besides that you have really gave me any real reasons why people would be upset with a draft. Please provide reasons for your way thinking.
[quote]And you don't believe that the US government had already figured that one out? Of course we need to take away their motivation, but nobody knows what it is for certain. [/quote]
Forgive me if a get the two sects of Islam mixed up. But i believe that a lot of these terrorist, which are Sunie, are affraid of shunie muslims taking controle.
[quote]It probably is religious fanaticism, however the people that become extremist and the people that don't comes down to the individual and their personality, since we cannot determine that much, there is no way to destroy their motivation. Since we cannot destroy their motivation, we have to destroy their will. [/quote]
there will is to die for their own religouse purposes.
[quote]In this case their will to fight. After prolonged presence in an area, the will to kill yourself will decline since it's apparently doing no good.[/quote]
except that it is causeing good from there point of view. I dont understand you logic. Military force is used to motivate people by the prospect of dieing. If i want to die, how is military force going to keep me from killing my self? These suicide bomers want to die in the name os Ismal. I dont think they care if what they are doing has significant effects, other wise they'd probable try to preserve there lives.
[quote]If you think of a way to destroy their motivation I'm all ears, but right now I firmly believe that the US can only destroy their will.[/quote]
Make people relize that two different sects of a religion can co-exsist in peace through propoganda. Pay millions to a middle easter pop stars to say that they love Sunie and Shia muslims. Educate people on tolerance, advertise that you can live your religion even if others around you arent the same religion. The possibilities are endles. The point is, is that we are dealing with a cultural issue, not a military issue. So millitary force, in my mind, isnt the best solution. Even though military force isnt the solution for solving iraq's problems, they still need a military, because a country needs a military force to back up the government. If the government didnt have a military force then theres nothing to give it its authority.
I did destroy your argument, you're just too bloody woolheaded to see it.
Of course I cannot predict the future! Everyone basis their opinions on their own experience and perception of the world, stop saying it like it's something new and I'm the only 1 doing it. Hey you know what? Let's launch a few bio weapons at London for no reason at all. Perhaps it will be a success, perhaps it wont and will be disastrous like you say, we donít know for sure.[/quote][/quote]
Comparing a draft to in Iraq, to bombing London is not a good comparision. Bombing, or sending missles to london has a direct harm to london. In this senerio we do know for sure, sence sending missles, or bombs, are mathimatically calculated to very accurate. Haveing a draft in Iraq is not a direct harm to other countries, or the U.S.'s allies. If countries feel that it will cause them harm, then its a precieved threat.
a good comparison would be throwing a rock at a person walking by, to placeing a stone in the middle of their walking path. A rock hitting them on the head is sure to hurt, much the same way bombing london would distory the city. Placeing a stone in the path dose not mean the purson will trip an fall over it, rather they have the potential to trip and fall over it, but they also have the potential to walk on by it with out getting hut, or they might trip on it slightly but beable to maintain there balance and continue walking- much the way haveing a draft in Iraq would be. Perhaps there is potential for some dammage, but are we not already causeing dammage?
[quote]Just because you aren't sure of something doesn't mean you might as well try it! If the probability is clearly one sided, then there is no point in trying it. And the debate that conscripting a friendly army is a bad thing is clearly one sided.
Facts? I read through the majority of the Wiki article and couldn't see a single bit of information about the US even spending a penny on helping Iraq recruit an army for itself. I don't doubt that they are spending some money, but not very much.[/quote][/quote]
the majority of the money being spent in iraq is military related, which includes building iraqs military.
[quote]Ah, somehow I knew you were going to bring up WWI and II yet I opted not to go into more detail.
The ratio of conscripts to volunteers does change depending on the situation, but the typical. I did say "typical". ratio is 3:1.
in World War 1 and II, there was actually a huge number of volunteers, in fact, I believe that the ratio was much higher than 3:1. In Canada there wasn't even conscription until the very end of the wars, we managed to do our part almost entirely on volunteer forces (to put it in perspective, only 79 Canadian conscripts died in all of WWII, compared to the over 42,000 volunteers who died.). I know in WWII the vast majority of American forces were volunteer as well, all inspired by Pearl Harbour. I'm not sure what the US's conscript status was like in WWI, but it doesn't really matter since you didn't do much in that war anyways.
To be honest, I think you're just stating random-a** things without any prior research and hoping they are true.
out of the 16 million people who served in wwII, 10 million were conscripted. Perhaps you are "stating random-a** things without any prior research and hoping they are true." that ratio for ww2 was 5 conscriptions for every 3 voluteers- insead of the suposeive 3 or more voluteers for every conscription that you said took place. Clearly a conscript army can be successfull.
[quote]How about the fact that volunteers want to be there, while conscripts are forced to be there? That alone makes volunteers more effective in combat than conscripts. Then you have the fact that conscripts will typically be less trained, less physically fit for duty, and less mentally prepared for war. Then conscripts are much less loyal, less dependable and will surrender much more easily. If you have an army of mostly conscripts, it won't last too long since it'll disband and\or surrender at the first hint of losing a battle.
If we had an entire conscript army in Iraq, I don't doubt for a second that our casualties would be twice as high if not much more.[/quote]
Despite the fact that coscipts are less trained, that dosnt mean that they are less loyal, or that they cant be effective. ITs the preception of the war that determines that how loyal they are. WW2 conscripts in america, from what i know, were loyal. Probably because there was a lot of support for the U.S. going to war. A draft in america right after 9/11 would have went over fine because a lot of people at that time had the attitude of "lets go nuke the middle east" abviousely not everyone, but people were very much in support of going to war, and probable would have been in support of a draft; people obviousely would not be now though because of the negative support for the war. If you could create enough support for an Iraqi draft, then it could be very successfull. Iraq wants america out of there country, and if having a draft ment withdrawl then im sure people would be in support of it. Just look at this chart
[quote]Conscription is much more acceptable if it's expected. In countries like Mexico, or ancient Rome, or Israel where you have to serve for a given amount of time at a certain age it's expected and so people are prepared. It's much different when conscription comes unexpectedly and interferes with people's lives.[/quote]
make it reqired then like they do Israel, or give advanced tonice to people that there will be a draft in 6 months or somthing.