Almost half of new Iraq army quits

The Gaijin · Post by **The Gaijin** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:36 pm

Basically local militia--minutemen refers to the fact that they were ready in a minute.

avenger69ie · Post by **avenger69ie** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:53 pm

makes sense, kind of like terrorists lol

Radoteur · Post by **Radoteur** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:54 pm

Haha, You are comparing France to the United States?
The United States has a far better fighting force than any Arab country or France. Although I see how that analogy might work in that some of them don't like America much. Much like how some Americans dislike France.

Here's that link trythebill mentioned. It's a pretty interesting essay, but I wouldn't know enough about the subject to say if was credible.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Is ... rabs1.html

So Franz, which of the news agencies in America would you consider conservative?

I'm pretty convinced that the more you disagree with someone else's bias, the more likely you are to detect their bias.

Play Freedom Force. It's a really fun game with a minuteman in it. Or actually, The Minuteman.

avenger69ie · Post by **avenger69ie** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:25 am

nope, its not a comparison at all.... its this

f france invaded the states and organised an american army which was run by french people in a french way of thinking, would american nationals quit?

replace france and french with nation of choice, also replace america and american with nation of choice = why the iraqi guys are leaving in droves.

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 6:26 am

Franz_Schubert wrote:Rule of the universe: Liberals see only right-wing BS in the media, and conservatives see only left-wing BS in the media.

Well you can't see what isn't shown to you, therefore you can't make an honest assessment. The way the major media outlets portray Iraq, you'd figure 99% of the country was a complete warzone; that the local population are all like the "Falleujah Clowns", or they all want the Americans to leave immediately.

I'm all for reporting the bad news in Iraq, and both the adminstration and military should be criticized for several issues because the public has a right to know. But the major media (I'm not referring to obscure websites) have almost completely avoided what's been accomplished in Iraq, and incessently report strictly bad news, giving you a heavily slanted interpretation of what's occuring throughout the country. Do you know how sad it is that the Department of Defense website covers a wider degree of coverage in Iraq than our media?

Let's take a local NYC news program for example. What if all that it reported were all the murders and deaths in the area for the entire 30 minute broadcast? It would give you the impression that NYC was a breeding ground for crime and it was complete chaos. Of course it really isn't like that, and they don't do that; they report the good and bad things that are going on in the city.

The purpose of the media is to give us the facts (from both sides of the story) and let us decide what our opinon of it is; not force-feed it down our throats. If they want to give their opinions, do that in their editorials. However the media, especially the mass media corporations, have been blurring the line between facts and opinion. Or even by deciding what things to show and what not to show; sometimes purposely witholding information. Let's say that anti-terrorism demonstration in Baghdad this week was really an anti-american demonstration. I bet you my soul that it would have been widely reported throughout the media as front-page news. Every other day they report a soldiers have died, in most cases just a single soldier. Why do they report a solider's death, but not every police officer who's died in the US? Is the soldier the son of Christ that it has to be such major news? Soldiers are not gods, and should never be elevated as such. Some wil die, and this should be accepted and shouldn't become a surprise to anyone. Then they convienently add at the end about 'X' amount of soldiers who died since March, etc. It basically pushes that body count in your face repeatedly, even though its a remarkably low number. Can you honestly tell me this is fair and honest journalism? I'm an Independent, neither left-wing or right-wing. Yet even I can tell that the media is largely portraying the situation in Iraq with extremely pessimistic views.

The campaign conducted in Iraq, and you can agree with me or not, has gone extremely well. Unfortunately, this campaign will never get the credit it deserves because it's been awash with bad press since the onset. It's even gone much better than the rebuilding processes of both Germany and Japan after World War II (and those efforts had the same criticisims the rebuilding effort in Iraq had, over a much longer period of time). We live in an age where wars are fought in accordance with a stopwatch where over a month's fighting is deemed a "failure"; an age where countries are supposedly rebuilt from scratch in months instead of years, an age where you're branded as a "unilateralist" when in fact you have over 50+ countries supporting you, and an age where 300-400 soldiers killed is the equivelent of losing 100,000.

Our entire government is based on a system of checks and balances; the purpose of free press is for the public to know about any governmental issues/abuses, so in a way it (attempts) to keep your government in line. However, there are no such checks for the media. This wasn't much of a problem for most of the US's history, but now most news stations/newspapers are owned by 4-5 large corporations. Their views can vastly influence the public. Propaganda works both ways, it can be overly optimistic but also overly pessimistic, and what you're seeing with the reporting in Iraq is an extremely pessimistic viewpoint being expressed by the general media.

replace france and french with nation of choice, also replace america and american with nation of choice = why the iraqi guys are leaving in droves.

This isn't necessarily true. For example, most of the Iraqi police are being trained by Americans, and they are actually enlisting in droves (even with threats to their lives). The Iraqi soldiers leaving isn't necessarily that black and white; you do have to remember that being in an Army isn't really the greatest lifestyle. It's alot of long, hard work; most of the men in the Iraqi army prior to the war wouldn't even be able qualify to be in most modern professional armies. But whatever their reasons for leaving may be, I seriously doubt it was because it was an American commander. Green Berets routinely train foreign troops (and are in demand to do so), as do other military personnel. The basic fact of the matter is some people aren't cut out to be in the military, and may sometimes make up excuses for that fact (lack of pay, and so forth).

avenger69ie · Post by **avenger69ie** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:05 pm

lack of pay is the reason for mass desertion? lol now that is funny menno, i could see some people leaving on those grounds, but it wouldnt be newsworthy worldwide. the fact of the matter is these guys arent any happier now than they were with saddam hussein as CIC but he was iraqi, which made the difference, to them an infidel(s) has taken control of their armed forces.
This isnt to say that they wont or wouldnt get great military training, because i'm sure they would if they stuck it out.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:15 pm

trythebill wrote:because anyone who voluntary categorizes themselves based on a multitude of political values held by others that they may not even completely understand or accept is a goddamn moron.

Almost every issue has a "left wing" viewpoint and a "right wing" viewpoint. I tend to agree with the left wing viewpoint on 99% of issues, thus I consider myself "left wing". Explain me how that's being conformist?

trythebill · Post by **trythebill** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 4:48 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:
trythebill wrote:because anyone who voluntary categorizes themselves based on a multitude of political values held by others that they may not even completely understand or accept is a goddamn moron.
Explain me how that's being conformist?

i never said anything about conformity.

The Gaijin · Post by **The Gaijin** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 8:46 pm

avenger69ie wrote:lack of pay is the reason for mass desertion? lol

That isn't what he said at all. They're using bullshit reasons (lack of pay, etc) to cover up the fact that they're just probably not cut out to be soldiers...that's what Menno was trying to say, anyway.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 9:54 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:Almost every issue has a "left wing" viewpoint and a "right wing" viewpoint. I tend to agree with the left wing viewpoint on 99% of issues, thus I consider myself "left wing". Explain me how that's being conformist?

See, the problem is that if two people talk about an issue you have no opinion on or that you haven't personally researched at all, and one is liberal and the other conservative, you'll probably believe the liberal. Why? Just because he's liberal. American partisan politics, in my opinion, are contrary to independent thought. Even though I tend to learn more towards a conservative viewpoint than a liberal viewpoint, I try to make up my mind on each issue separately and not choose a belief simply because it's the position conservatives take. The result is that I may have a somewhat odd mix of political views.

You know, I had a very intelligent Public Speaking professor last semester. In fact he was one of the most intelligent, well read, well traveled people I have ever met. Dr. Fick was also very liberal. Despite all of Dr. Fick's intelligence, he made a few statements during this class that clearly indicated severely-clouded judgment. The most ludicrous of these was that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own firearms in this country. He claimed that the amendment gave the government the power to raise an army, and that 'the people' referred to the President as the representative of the people. Exactly why this is wrong is another post in and of itself, but it should suffice to say that this interpretation not only requires that certain grammatical rules be ignored, it all also requires that you take the amendment completely out of the context of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

I never confronted Dr. Fick about this like I should have. Part of it was that I just wasn't sure how to react; this guy was so smart that I was shocked to hear him make such a wrong, clearly unresearched claim. He held this belief, as far as I can tell, entirely because of his political leanings.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

avenger69ie · Post by **avenger69ie** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 12:26 am

The Gaijin wrote:
avenger69ie wrote:lack of pay is the reason for mass desertion? lol
That isn't what he said at all. They're using bullshit reasons (lack of pay, etc) to cover up the fact that they're just probably not cut out to be soldiers...that's what Menno was trying to say, anyway.

trying to say? it took up a full page but this point wasnt included? that doesnt make sense.

The Gaijin · Post by **The Gaijin** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 12:33 am

The Iraqi soldiers leaving isn't necessarily that black and white; you do have to remember that being in an Army isn't really the greatest lifestyle. It's alot of long, hard work; most of the men in the Iraqi army prior to the war wouldn't even be able qualify to be in most modern professional armies. But whatever their reasons for leaving may be, I seriously doubt it was because it was an American commander. Green Berets routinely train foreign troops (and are in demand to do so), as do other military personnel. The basic fact of the matter is some people aren't cut out to be in the military, and may sometimes make up excuses for that fact (lack of pay, and so forth).

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 12:40 am

avenger69ie wrote:
The Gaijin wrote:
avenger69ie wrote:lack of pay is the reason for mass desertion? lol
That isn't what he said at all. They're using bullshit reasons (lack of pay, etc) to cover up the fact that they're just probably not cut out to be soldiers...that's what Menno was trying to say, anyway.
trying to say? it took up a full page but this point wasnt included? that doesnt make sense.

Actually my point was included in the last sentence, in which Gaijin referred to. Only my last paragraph was in response to what you wrote before.

I'm sure there are a variety of reasons why 300 of 700 soldiers left. By the way, this hardly constitutes an "army", its barely even a Battalion level force, even before the desertion. Did they go on a "mini-strike" to try and earn more money? Maybe, for the majority of them. They got the adminstration by the balls and they know it. The Coalition forces are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Since they can't directly discipline that Iraqi battalion, if they don't give them a raise it would make the Coalition look dirt cheap and the Administration looks worse in the media because of it. If the Coalition caves into their demands, other groups would be able to bully them for more money. It's a lose-lose situation for the Coalition. Just remember this the next time someone tells you only Jews are money-grubbing.

avenger69ie · Post by **avenger69ie** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:22 am

Strange that its called an army in the first place.
also, if this was your main point, why did it take a full page before you got to it? it would have saved us both time to have just put in that line without the essay

heheh

Anyways, fair point, but
why shouldnt they be paid more money? how much are they getting now?

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 4:51 am

avenger69ie wrote:Strange that its called an army in the first place.
also, if this was your main point, why did it take a full page before you got to it? it would have saved us both time to have just put in that line without the essay heheh

Anyways, fair point, but
why shouldnt they be paid more money? how much are they getting now?

My first point was towards Franz and my viewpoint on the media (which took up a few paragraphs) before I got to my Iraqi "army" comments.

I read that the initial pay scale was for around $60 dollars per month, and the ones that initially deserted were mostly married men with large families (therefore needing to earn more money). $60 dollars is paltry to make a living in modern nations, but in Iraq it can pretty much just get you by.

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Sun Dec 14, 2003 4:45 pm

why the hell cant you people state and prove your point and not add all that useless bullshit. when i read something i dont want to have to sift through 60 goddamn paragraphs when i can get the idea in one.

Jawz II · Post by **Jawz II** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:52 pm

whoa man what a bunch of right wing yahoos

u guys r so full o shit im not even gonna start

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:54 pm

Holy shit, long posts. Learn how to make a point with fewer sentences...

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 7:01 pm

It's not my fault people can't read.

"OMG PaRaGRaphS maKE mY EyEs huuRT"

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 7:05 pm

That's not the problem. The above posts are full of useless detail which don't add to the point. Rule 1 of writing anything: Omit needless words. Being concise and to the point is better than spewing verbal and factual diarrhea.