I would really like to read your papers.
social conservative, economic conservative, aggressive foreign policy
social conservative, economic conservative, internationalist foreign policy
social liberal, economic conservative, aggressive foreign policy
social liberal, economic conservative, internationalist foreign policy
social conservative, economic liberal, aggressive foreign policy
social conservative, economic liberal, internationalist foreign policy
social liberal, economic liberal, aggressive foreign policy
social liberal, economic liberal, internationalist foreign policy
I would really like to read your papers.
Basically, the NCOs were just treated like the jundees (soldiers), except for a few that had officer potential but didn't have the bribe money for a commission from MOD or OCS. It was HARD to get the team and squad leaders to take charge and accept responsibility. Don't get me wrong, some of the company commanders and platoon leaders were garbage, also. It's weird because Iraqis kind of put their studs on staff, instead of on the line sometimes. There were some good dudes in the line companies, but unfortunately, sometimes it's about who you know and not what you can do. We fought SO HARD to get a couple of guys to Officer School, but they didn't have the money or the connections. Sad.
It's been two years, but people don't change that much. I heard that the NCO corps is improving; I sure hope so. They are the biggest challenge in the Iraqi Army. The Iraqi culture is kind of aristocratic, to where the officers make ALL the decisions. I hope we can change that.Another item I am interested in. You have a front row seat. Are Iraqi NCOs demostrating improved leadership at all? How are they getting better? How are they falling short?
Except our governments aren't ordering hits on people.Sounds like our government...messy isn't it?
The Kurds are going to come out of this as the winners, but I don't think they will ever declare indepedence, which they basically have now. They tell me that the creeping Iranian influence is scary. PM me and I'll foward you some emails that I've gotten from them.Kurds will get theirs for sure. I have seen, from afar, what I believe to be actions independent of Tehran. Like the Basra mission against Sadr forces. I worry about the lack of reconciliation between Shia and Sunni. I am very interested in this too. What do your contacts tell you?
Not for civilians. We had a 60 year old man from Dallas that spoke Arabic, persian, turkish and Kurdish. He was a force multiplier.Dude, I am 5'8" and weigh 240 now. As a civilian would be good if they don't have weight restrictions....do they?
Yeah, it is. I picked it up over there after getting about 8 weeks worth of class here in the states. Easier to read and write than you think.I'll look into this. I have almost bought the Rosetta Stone - Arabic like 4 times now. I took 3 semesters of it in Seattle. Cool language.
No, but it helps your cred, in my eyes. Career politicians that are hawks just rub me the wrong way. John McCain sending me to war? At least I respect him and know he's asking me to do something that he has done himself.You didn't offend me. I was a little shocked, since I have only heard that before from anti-war activists. I think it is not a fair requirement, that to be a Hawk you have to either have served or be serving.
Unless said war is unjust (Walzer definition) and not for defense of the nation. In that case, I hope the public doesn't support it. Then the troops never have to deal with it.When we go to war, we need public support and good public support happens when you believe in the mission.
I don't. I totally resent them and always will. Not only did they unnecessarily invade a country, but they didn't plan it worth a damn and then were to arrogant to admit they made any mistakes or acknowledge the hardships it put on us. It took a retired General and a West Point professor to come up with The Surge to save their butt.This requires Hawks that are not serving. I like what Wolfowitz, Perle and Cheney have done.
Oddly, I don't hold Bush responsible. I'm not sure he could envision what happened. And I kind of view him as aloof through the whole thing. I'm most disappointed in Powell. He could have stopped this. He knew it was wrong, but was the good Soldier, saluted, and did the King's bidding. He has to look at himself in the mirror at night. I hope it hurts.I like what Bush has done. I think it is damn smart.
No, we won't. You might be right. I doubt it. Arabs are Arabs.We won't really know for years.
Yeah, the Kurds are just as corrupt, but since they don't kill Americans, I tend to like them better. Kirkuk is a powderkeg. It will be one of the last places we pull out of.I think both Kirkuk and Open Lists are going to be ugly. Open Lists because it threatens the power structure that has formed from these groups. That is what may breakup some of this corruption - I said some mind you.
I have them on an external hard drive somewhere. I'll try to dig them up for you.I would really like to read your papers.
You think Iraq was unjust, even with WMD suspicions and that building a democracy isn't justification enough, right?
I look forward to reading the book you recommend and see if my view changes. That would be a blow to me, after 7 years of supporting this.
There's not sufficient range here, as the categories of "economic conservative" and "economic liberal" don't really account for non-capitalists.
Just and Unjust Wars in particular. He's the modern day Thomas Aquinas, IMOIs this Michael Walzer? I found a couple of books by him: "Arguing about War" and "Just and Unjust Wars". Which would you recommend to me?
Yes. National Defense! Was Iraq a threat to Americans? Hardly. There were more grave threats to take care of at the time.You think Iraq was unjust, even with WMD suspicions and that building a democracy isn't justification enough, right?
It's a tough read, but a good one. I hope you see it my way.I look forward to reading the book you recommend and see if my view changes. That would be a blow to me, after 7 years of supporting this.
If this is true, all the more reason to hate them.You aren't going to like what I am getting ready to say. I think that the lack of planning was planned. How's that for fancy dancing! I mean that their objective was to install a real democracy. They had to hide this from Iran. They had to tear down the existing structures supporting Sunni power. So they did not install a Sunni strongman. The disbanded the Iraqi Army and rebuilt it. They let the insurgency turn into a civil war, although I don't see how they planned for that. Aww, hell that's probably giving them WAY to much credit. I can picture Rumsfeld saying "There's no insurgency...". Ok, never mind.
However, they're hostile to actual socialism. You'll hear many of the same talking points about the public ownership and management of the means of production from liberals as you will from conservatives, all of them relating to the ill-informed sentiment that there's a "utopian" aspect of this that fails to consider "human nature." There's always some degree of ambiguity involved with such a claim (as well as a consistent failure to acknowledge successful implementations of socialism that are cited), but it seems to be associated with the common misconception that socialism eliminates remunerational differences and naively assumes that individuals will exert themselves "for the common good." As this is untrue and completely unrelated to any socialist economic theory, it's perhaps the weakest of the many asinine anti-socialist talking points available.
Ok, so how about the following:
- economic social democrat (was economic liberal)
- economic capitalist (was economic conservative)
- economic socialist
those names work? need others?
Also, since we are on the topic, how does the elimination of money work out? I was thinking the other day, that a socialist country, that uses no money, may have to interact with other countries with money. How do they do this?