Government

by **PraiseA||ah** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:32 am

cavalierlwt I mostly agree with what you have to say.

Saddam was a brutal dictator who was power hungry and wanted to rule the Middle East. He didn't want to admit that he had no so-called WMD's (I hate that term as it is used to imply everyone but the U.S. has them where we have the most in the world) because the Middle East is actually a pretty brutal place. It's full of intrigue and political turmoil and if you're not strong you're history.
Iraq had the rule of law. I would say their laws were more strict and brutal than ours but law they had. Saddam's government was in charge and no one in that region had any doubts. He quelled uprisings and religious extremists with extreme prejudice. Now let's be clear that I'm not endorsing what he did. I'm just stating facts.
Maybe a Saddam type ruler is what that region needs? Their history is completely different from hours. Many of their laws are completely different or their punishments are different. Most of the countries do mix religion with government which is something we strive not to do.
Setting aside the why we're there and the blame for it as well - how do we extricate ourselves and on what timetable? To leave the country in a shambles is, I have to admit, not a very good idea. We as a country bombed and destroyed much of their infrastructure. We as a country do have an obligation to leave them in a position to be able to sustain themselves. If we don't, I think the anarchy that results will be much much worse than what exists now. We would be looking at a future Afghanastan like country. One where religious extremsists take over the country, where disillusioned and war orphaned children grow up without family values. All adding up to a very bad place and much worse than before we invaded Iraq.

by **CodeRed68** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:06 am

Well said, PraiseAllah. I don't think anyone wants the US in Iraq any longer than necessary. We are surely looking to bring the troops home asap. When is that? Who knows? Not too much longer hopefully. With the elections in Iraq going well today, we can look forward to that country getting back on it's own 2 feet and them stabilizing the region themselves. Remember after WW1 & 2, the US helped rebuild the infrastructure of Europe also.
You hate to police the world and force particular government ways on other countries but at the same time, as we move further into the 21st century, times are changing and modernizing. People in general deserve certain alienable rights and freedoms by the mere fact that all are born into the world equally as anyone else is.
The ouster of Saddam and the start of a new governemt ruled by the people of Iraq will hopefully spur growth and improve the quality of life of all its citizens.

by **Major SONAR** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:31 am

On a side note; one of our previous administrations put Saddam in power (or at least in his battles with Iran). How could I fail to mention that we also helped put Osama in power (or at least his battles against Russia in Afganastan). Man can we make some major mistakes... but I ramble.

As far as the original topic of drafting. I said no. As long as we have enough people willing to join on their own accord, why bring back the draft. If our country fails to entice enough people to join, then we need to bring back the draft.

I don't think we should ever leave our country/military undermanned.

by **PudriK** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:56 pm

Yes, but how do you deal with undermanning? A draft isn't the only answer. From the government-forced side, you could also a implement mandatory service program like Israel.

But even better, employ economics. If you increased pay and incentives, it would attract more people. Like any other job, if you pay more, you'll get more people who see the salary as just compensation. It is not surprising that in times of peace, people are willing to accept less pay for military service. In time of war, people will demand better compensation. Like any other career, the employer must offer a sufficient salary to attract the needed employees.

It's just another additional cost of war in a market, capitalist societ. A draft is ultimately a socialist (whether marxist or fascist) means of obtaining soldiers.

by **Chacal** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:00 pm

Originally posted by Greg
... gangsters and make some beef with them and towel heads ...

Don't use racial slurs on ECGN forums.

by **cavalierlwt** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:22 pm

Originally posted by PraiseA||ah

Iraq had the rule of law. I would say their laws were more strict and brutal than ours but law they had. Saddam's government was in charge and no one in that region had any doubts. He quelled uprisings and religious extremists with extreme prejudice. Now let's be clear that I'm not endorsing what he did. I'm just stating facts.
Maybe a Saddam type ruler is what that region needs? Their history is completely different from hours. Many of their laws are completely different or their punishments are different. Most of the countries do mix religion with government which is something we strive not to do.

It's strange but true. We loved Saddam back in the day because of his secularism. He fought against Islamic extremists, which made him *everybody's* little darling. Ironic that our government tried to make the case that Saddam was in bed with Al Queda. Iraq in it's present form is kind of an artificial country, formed by Britain out of what should be 3 seperate countries. Apparently it took someone like Saddam to hold it together. It's funny though, as f*cked up as our relationship is with Iraq, how so many other countries act like they had nothing to do with it, as though Iraq/Saddam was all a US project. Everyone loved Saddam back in the late 70s. France built him a nuclear reactor, Germany and especially Russia did huge business with Saddam. In the end, America is not good at staying out of the swamp, we consistently manage to stick both feet in, while most other countries know when to walk away. As for Iraq's future and democracy, one thing to consider: 60% of the population is Shiite, and those guys over the long run are probably going to choose some form of Iranian style government. Hey, if they choose it, what can we say? As for cultural difference, I don't know that we can even say that those people can respect a leader based purely on the fact that he got more votes than someone else. They are used to a very tribal lifestyle, where the good leader manages to grab and divert the lion's share of resources to his own tribe. I don't know, time will tell.

by **Twister026** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:16 am

Gonna be a damn long time before we teach them Iraqi's how to fight and what not.....But they keep on bombin there own damn countrie. All I wish that the US army would do, is that they should just organize the country as much as they can and keep a close eye on it.

by **SavageParrot** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:13 am

What it really needs is to be split into 3 separate countries. It won't happen though because Turkey will never accept an independent kurdhistan.

by **cavalierlwt** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:32 am

Turkey wouldn't accept it, though I think they'd change their mind if we offered to kick the shit out them over it.
Ahh, but life isn't that simple. Also, the Shiites would have a problem with it too because most of the oil is in the north, in Sunni territory. That's what most of the fighting about today is, the Sunnis can't imagine sharing the oil and power with a 'servant' caste like they perceive the Shiites to be.

by **SavageParrot** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:24 pm

I think the basic problem is that they are all total wankers. Same deal for Northern Ireland...complete tossers.

by **shockwave203** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:44 pm

"whatever the government thinks because i back them 100%"

I just have to laugh at the three people who chose to vote for that.

by **JimmyTango** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:46 pm

Originally posted by shockwave203
"whatever the government thinks because i back them 100%"

I just have to laugh at the three people who chose to vote for that.

You anti-american scum.

by **Rand0m** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:08 pm

Originally posted by JimmyTango
You anti-american scum.

these threads dont exist because of you and your comments like these. thanks for ruining it for us over and over and over. :tard:

not that anything justifies his comments but you just make insults.

by **cavalierlwt** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:18 pm

Originally posted by JimmyTango
You anti-american scum.

Not a flame, but how do you consider not 'Going with the government 100%' to be anti-American? I would laugh at anyone who says they agree with *anyone* 100%. Not exactly the individualism that we Americans espouse.

by **ferret963** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:27 pm

whatever the government thinks because i back them 100%

I clicked that just to be phunny :lol:

Government

Should the government bring back the draft?

Who is online