fun in the middle east

[wu_trax]

just as i started thinking, against my former belifes, that the usa can really fix the iraq everything seems to fall apart.
and, to finally 'win their hearts' the us-army now uses snipers, tanks and helicopters to blow up the fundamentalists. thats quite a good strategy....





if you are searching for a reason to flee the country before the election.

[Apothos]

I didnt think they wanted to flee, just off-load security on the UN?

[wu_trax]

ofc they dont want to flee. but i think they will have to if they go on like this for the next months. i mean, how stupid is that? you certainly cant convice the people that you do something good if you blow up their houses, can you?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

just as i started thinking, against my former belifes, that the usa can really fix the iraq

Hehe. You expect anyone to believe that?

everything seems to fall apart.
and, to finally 'win their hearts' the us-army now uses snipers, tanks and helicopters to blow up the fundamentalists. thats quite a good strategy....





if you are searching for a reason to flee the country before the election.

The date for turning over sovereignty has already been set--June 30th--well before the election. Once again, Dubya seems to be way ahead of you.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Hehe. You expect anyone to believe that?

well, to be honest i dont like to be prooven wrong, but it certainly looked that way. except for fallutja (or whatever that city is spelled) everything seemed to be quite.

The date for turning over sovereignty has already been set--June 30th--well before the election. Once again, Dubya seems to be way ahead of you.

yes, but that doesnt mean that theyll pull out all their troops, does it?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

well, to be honest i dont like to be prooven wrong, but it certainly looked that way. except for fallutja (or whatever that city is spelled) everything seemed to be quite.

Quite what? A smashing success???

yes, but that doesnt mean that theyll pull out all their troops, does it?

No, but it means it's technically Not Our Problem. Please direct all inquiries to the Iraqi Provisional Government.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Quite what? A smashing success???

quite quite

No, but it means it's technically Not Our Problem. Please direct all inquiries to the Iraqi Provisional Government.

if an unstable iraq with a civil war and a mad fundamentalist with quite a bit of influence isnt your problem, then why the hell did you start that damn war? things were a lot safer and more stable for the rest of the world before the whole thing started.


(damn, i really missed this )

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

if an unstable iraq with a civil war and a mad fundamentalist with quite a bit of influence isnt your problem, then why the hell did you start that damn war?

You're not paying attention. When I said it's technically not our problem I meant it's about appearances and not about reality. The June 30th transfer of sovereignty isn't so much about Iraq, it's more about trying to get Iraq off the US political table before the November elections.

[evil one]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

No, but it means it's technically Not Our Problem. Please direct all inquiries to the Iraqi Provisional Government.

Ah, sounds like Afghanistan all over again. This will be fun in 30 years or so!

Btw how many american soldiers need to die to keep George from being re-elected?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

You're not paying attention. When I said it's technically not our problem I meant it's about appearances and not about reality. The June 30th transfer of sovereignty isn't so much about Iraq, it's more about trying to get Iraq off the US political table before the November elections.

and in what way does that make any difference? if there are dea american soldiers it certainly wont be 'off the political table' in november, no matter how much power you transfer to the people of iraq.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

This was mildly amusing. Naomi Klein wrote an article about 4 days ago saying: Unfortunately, the Iraqi people recently saw another version of press freedom when Bremer ordered US troops to shut down a newspaper run by supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr. The militant Shiite cleric has been preaching that Americans are behind the attacks on Iraqi civilians and condemning the interim constitution as a "terrorist law." So far, al-Sadr has refrained from calling on his supporters to join the armed resistance, but many here are predicting that the closing down of the newspaper--a nonviolent means of resisting the occupation--was just the push he needed."

And lookey what happened.

if sadr was using the paper to grow support that he would eventually use against the US, it would obviously make sense to shut it down now and confront his supporters now as opposed to waiting until they had doubled in number or somesuch before confronting them.

tbh much as i am anti-bush, he's done a pretty decent job these past few months. hasn't forced through any reckless tax cuts, hasn't invaded any more countries, so on and so forth.

the problem is he's had a really crappy hand to play. the guy who had been president from 2001-2003 really put him in a pretty much impossible spot.

personally i favor reinstalling Hussein. He knew how to deal with these shits.

[Qdeathstar]

the problem is that people are impantient. It takes a long time to rebuild a country, a lot of people would rather keep the power they had under saddam than face the choice of the majority. The attacks that are going on ARNT representative of the majority. In fact, the homicides in Iraq arnt significantly higher than any other country.... its just they are in the news a lot more.

[Snurx]

I wonder if this will be Vietnam part two, or not.
It would be really cool if it was, exept for all the innocent Iraq'ies that are dead beacause of the soliders and stuff

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Snurx

I wonder if this will be Vietnam part two, or not.
It would be really cool if it was, exept for all the innocent Iraq'ies that are dead beacause of the soliders and stuff

yes, because there's nothing like a lot of dead americans!! They deserve to die because they're all baby killers and war criminals!

[Tactitus]

Why is it whenever more than 5 American soldiers get killed it's "another Vietnam?"

If we ever did have another Vietnam we'd have to refer to it as "another holocaust" just to keep the hyperbole constant. :/

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

yes, because there's nothing like a lot of dead americans!! They deserve to die because they're all baby killers and war criminals!

I don't care if soldiers die, on either side. They have chosen to kill people, and althought i do not support the death penalty in any way, i don't care if they die. I've got thousands of kids every day that requires my attention first, before i will mourn anybody that upholds the status quo that kills these children.

The reason i "hope" for a new vietnam is that it might stir up some problems for Bush junior, so that he won't be re-elected. I belive that will be better for everybody, including Americans.

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Why is it whenever more than 5 American soldiers get killed it's "another Vietnam?"

If we ever did have another Vietnam we'd have to refer to it as "another holocaust" just to keep the hyperbole constant. :/

If you're thinking about my post, notice the "wonder". I don't know yet, or rather, nobody knows yet. It just seems that the US-led forces are encountering a tad more problems then they did under Afganisthan.
Of course, the effect the Vietnam war had will probably never happen again, as people today are too used to pictures of dead people on the telly to care as much as they did back them, or at least i think so.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Why is it whenever more than 5 American soldiers get killed it's "another Vietnam?"

If we ever did have another Vietnam we'd have to refer to it as "another holocaust" just to keep the hyperbole constant. :/

I think it's being referred to as another vietnam based on the fact that our ability to "win" is almost non-existant despite military dominance. At the end of the day, Iraq is torn internally by ideals, just as south vietnam was, and like South Vietnam, allowing an election will almost assuredly put one of the "bad guys" in charge and not allowing an election will just cause violence to flare, which is exactly what happened in Vietnam.

Basically, the will of the people is most likely going to be islam (communism) and US/UN/Whatever interference in such will just cause widespread violence and unrest (invasion and civil war).

The clerics have too much power in arabic culture and Iraq will end up divided along religious lines, which gives the Shia VAST power which is exactly what we don't want. The question is now "Can we hold off that powerplay long enough for the iraqi people to shake off that control or will this all just blow up in our face?"

While I don't agree with it being another vietnam just yet, I find the parallels disturbing.

[IncubusGod]

Well to be honest if they dont sort out this limited uprising in a fashion that won't piss people off more,then they are fked in the coming months.
It seems that if they continue bombing mosques and killing civilains over the next few days then they'll have more than a small minority of radicals attacking them.

Then throw in a total civil war between Sunni's Shiites and Kurds and you've got a pocket of instability that will soak up the lives of countless people Iraqi and International.

Plus I had to laugh at Rumsfeld today saying "Iran is meddeling in Iraq" and that "outside intereference of other nations in Iraq is damaging".
All said without even a hint of irony.
What a twat,I thought they'd had him bound and gagged since his assertions about the war in Iraq were almost entirely found to be false.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Snurx

I don't care if soldiers die, on either side. They have chosen to kill people, and althought i do not support the death penalty in any way, i don't care if they die. I've got thousands of kids every day that requires my attention first, before i will mourn anybody that upholds the status quo that kills these children.

The reason i "hope" for a new vietnam is that it might stir up some problems for Bush junior, so that he won't be re-elected. I belive that will be better for everybody, including Americans.

What a wide brush you paint with.... that and you used "status quo" which indicates "the norm" which is quite the opposite of what the soldiers, american or not, are there for. They're actually going AGAINST the status quo, and many beleive in what they're trying to do. They may not agree with why this all started, but they want to help change things for the better.

Not that you'd ever see what your average soldier wants in the media. Just a lot of bollocks edited to make them all look like warmongering pricks....

[IncubusGod]

Plus I think it's hilarious that they went in to "get weapons of mass dist...wait no,its was to liberate Iraq from Sadamm",then shit themselves when they realise that they cant install who they want and that if the will of the people is realised, Iraq will end up like Iran.
A total own goal. Im supprised they don't try to find a "single strong leader" who can supress the religious majority and play ball with the west...
Wait they tried that...
I mean its been done twice in Iraq in the past 70 years why not again?!

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

What a wide brush you paint with.... that and you used "status quo" which indicates "the norm" which is quite the opposite of what the soldiers, american or not, are there for. They're actually going AGAINST the status quo, and many beleive in what they're trying to do. They may not agree with why this all started, but they want to help change things for the better.

Not that you'd ever see what your average soldier wants in the media. Just a lot of bollocks edited to make them all look like warmongering pricks....

They uphold the status quo that's killing those children every day. The western supremacy status quo, i mean. They are "defending" America, or at least, attacking for America, and thus, no matter what way you put it, defending America's goals or ideals, and that is most often, the western ideal/goal. That goal, or maybe system, also capitalism, is the thing that makes the world as ****ed up as it is.

Of course they want to change things for the better. I really do think that everybody want to do that, I don't think there exists such a thing as a evil person. But, does that make their actions okay? Just beacause you think/belive that a thing is good or right to do, does not make it so. If you want to change things for the better, is it right to do it with a gun in your hands?

[Sandsnake]

Sometimes force is the only way, but it's rather pointless arguing with you as you're already spouting vague conspiracies and using trendy catchphrases like "western supremacy"...

Whatever you think, those soldiers leaving now would be the worst possible course of action, so until there's some form of authority in place, they will have to continue to do it with a gun in their hand. They will, as most of those soldiers are doing, strive to keep the peace, maintain order, and otherwise help the iraqi people come out of all of this better than they were.

Whatever you believe about the start of this whole thing, there is no going back; there is no happy-go-lucky, lets-all-hug-a-tree solution; there is only some guys in a country they don't know, far away from home, trying to help these people get their lives back and praying to god some fanatic with a deathwish doesn't kill them.

You say they're guarding the status quo that's killing people and I say they're fighting that very status quo, trying to bring about peace and order and a road to hope. Do not assign what you beleive to be leadership motivations to the men on the ground. They are rarely, if ever, the same thing.

[IncubusGod]

You dont sign up to keep the peace or to help other nations when you join the army. Your job is to use weapons and tactics to kill or otherwise conquer the enemy and to impose your nations supremacy.

People dont sign up while saying "Gee I hope I can use this M-16 to somehow help all those poor suffering people in some far off place achieve a better life"
Soldiers aren't taught advanced social interactions and peaceful resoltuions to civil problems in training. They are taught to kill suppress and rule a situation.

Your sentimental "they really do care about those poor iraqi's " viewpoint is not only naieve but false.


The point about this is, they went in all guns blazing. Killing,maiming,beating. They killed countless civilans. They commited hideous acts (war is a hideous act no matter what reason).
(They even complained and whinged that the Iraqis were fighting back and not "fighting fair",morons)
They are there now,they've removed the entire power base.They've put themselves in charge. They cannot leave. Its not a matter of staying there to help these people or to do good deeds,it's to cover their own arses. If they go the power base will shift to those the administration doesnt want. If they start to pull out their allies will get slaughtered. They will even loose more troops themselves.

You go in like that,you deserve everything you get.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Your sentimental "they really do care about those poor iraqi's " viewpoint is not only naieve but false.

ho ho ho....I wore the uniform, I carried the rifle. I know exactly what many of them are thinking because i WAS one of them.

If anyone is naive, it's you. No, they're not masters at peaceful operations because ultimately that ISN'T their primary job. However, they do not go into an area thinking "How many kids can I kill today?"

Soldiers do not sign away their right to think, they sign away their right to make the big decisions. It comes with the territory. They didn't choose to be where they were, but they make decisions every day on what they're going to do while they're there and none of them are easy.

However, your average soldier is not a murderer and isn't actively looking for a violent solution to every problem. In a peace keeping operation, you get to know faces and names and concerns. People talk to you, children flock around to get candy..hell, it's rather normal for emergency resupplies to get called because a unit just gave everything they had away.

You say I'm naive, but you don't have the first clue what it's like to be a soldier, much less one in a place like Iraq. I do. If I'm naive, what does that make you?

[wu_trax]

to blow up houses, kill innocents, humilate suspects, etc. doesnt sound too nice to me and it doesnt make you any more new friends in the country.
american soldiers are too trigger-happy and do not think enough. sorry, but thats how i see this. look at the british controlled areas, there isnt that much chaos there (at least not yet), is it? that is because they dont go on some stupid revenge mission every time something happens.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

look at the british controlled areas, there isnt that much chaos there (at least not yet), is it? that is because they dont go on some stupid revenge mission every time something happens.

To be fair to the Yanks this might have something to do with the areas that the British are controlling as opposed to the methods they are using. Especially since the area around Baghdad was always going to cause more trouble than the area around Basra.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

Sometimes force is the only way, but it's rather pointless arguing with you as you're already spouting vague conspiracies and using trendy catchphrases like "western supremacy"...

Trendy catchphrases? You mean the last few centuries of history? Heh.

But anyway, I don't see why people alwas criticise soldiers. It's ridiculous. They're doing a damn hard job, in a horrible climate, surrounded by a population any of whom could either hate them, or try to kill them. In such conditions I'd have probably accidently shot off my own leg, plus at least twenty or thirty civilians.

Should they be there? No, of course not. Are their leaders criminals who probably should face some kind of trial? Probably, yeah. But blaming the soliders? Sheesh.

Having said that, if soldiers do die, while it's unfortunate for their families, I personally don't care as they're volunteers and knew the risks. They live in a relatively free-society and thus have either learnt all about the history of interventions, or they couldn't be bothered.

[Vermillion]

While I agree that one cannot always criticise troops for the orders of their masters, an important legal military principle was established at Nuremburg following the Second world war: the precident that "I was just following orders" does not excuse wrong acts.

Now, while rumours are rife, and I suspect some excesses are inevitable, I have yet to hear any compelling evidence of such 'wrong acts' by US troops in Iraq. Given that, one cannot blame them for the political motivations, right or wrong, of the leadership of the United states.

Saying 'they joined the army, so they are responsable for what the army does' is like blaming a filing clerk at Enron for the financial scandal. Even though they had no links to decision making and power, they joined the organisation willingly, thus they must be responsable for what that organisation does...

I too hope Bush loses the next election, but as much as I am not fond of the United States as an entity, I have nothing against Americans as individuals, and would not wish more harm upon their troops.

Lastly, when you are calling for the death of more US forces in Iraq, think of this: US forces have a loss ratio since the official end of hostilities of about 12:1, so for each US soldier you wish killed, about 12 Iraqis will die killing him.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Saying 'they joined the army, so they are responsable for what the army does' is like blaming a filing clerk at Enron for the financial scandal. Even though they had no links to decision making and power, they joined the organisation willingly, thus they must be responsable for what that organisation does...

I agree, but the difference is that a clerk at Enron would have found it difficult to work out the invoices they were processing (say) were fradulently. While a pilot might be equally blind for the targets he or she is bombing, a soldier on the ground would have more information to work on (perhaps).

[wu_trax]

i think some of the policy of the us-army in iraq is partly responsible for whats going on right now. and that invloves decisions on all levels of command. because of that you can very well hold them responsible for the problems they face now.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Trendy catchphrases? You mean the last few centuries of history? Heh.

But anyway, I don't see why people alwas criticise soldiers. It's ridiculous. They're doing a damn hard job, in a horrible climate, surrounded by a population any of whom could either hate them, or try to kill them. In such conditions I'd have probably accidently shot off my own leg, plus at least twenty or thirty civilians.

Should they be there? No, of course not. Are their leaders criminals who probably should face some kind of trial? Probably, yeah. But blaming the soliders? Sheesh.

Having said that, if soldiers do die, while it's unfortunate for their families, I personally don't care as they're volunteers and knew the risks. They live in a relatively free-society and thus have either learnt all about the history of interventions, or they couldn't be bothered.

it is the soliders inability, or lack of desire to argue against their "criminal leaders" that make them just as liable to blame. The leaders wouldn't be able to deal our their cruelty, if it wasnt for moronic soliders that have become "yes" zombies without arguing.

Soliders would murder an entire village of innocents if their commander said to do so, and that is their fundamental flaw. They are trained to become mindless morons, who don't have an opinion of their own, and have no concept of morality whatsoever. If we look at it from this perspective maybe they are not to blame (do we blame people who are medically insane for doing things that they cant control?). If we do not look at it from this perspective, then they are just as bad as the leaders.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Zar

Soliders would murder an entire village of innocents if their commander said to do so, and that is their fundamental flaw. They are trained to become mindless morons, who don't have an opinion of their own, and have no concept of morality whatsoever. If we look at it from this perspective maybe they are not to blame (do we blame people who are medically insane for doing things that they cant control?). If we do not look at it from this perspective, then they are just as bad as the leaders.

Are you quite mad? The statement that all soldiers would murder an entire village of innocents if they were ordered to is certainly one of the more bizzare and unsupportable ones I've ever seen.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Are you quite mad? The statement that all soldiers would murder an entire village of innocents if they were ordered to is certainly one of the more bizzare and unsupportable ones I've ever seen.

dont insert words into my speech you little headed person

i said "soliders would" not "all soldiers would".

on the top of my head... the massacre at 'my lai' as an example of my claim above

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Zar

dont insert words into my speech you little headed person

i said "soliders would" not "all soldiers would".

on the top of my head... the massacre at 'my lai' as an example of my claim above

The word "soldiers" implies at least a majority act like this. Some other equally bizzare statement would be Germans would murder an entire village of innocents if ordered to. It's got historical precedent and there's no reason to suppose it couldn't happen again. I think we all realise how stupid that sounds though.

[Evergreen]

In the long run think of the employment boom if you keep bush in for another term, you'll need to replace all the conscripts who die somehow.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

In the long run think of the employment boom if you keep bush in for another term, you'll need to replace all the conscripts who die somehow.

Conscription ended in the US over 30 years ago. Try to keep up.

[Evergreen]

You clearly missed just about when the iraq war started the news article on the service that was recruiting people to conduct Conscription interviews in the US for the goverment

And the fact that said department while claiming they are doing nothing officially, have also officially had their funding doubled.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The word "soldiers" implies at least a majority act like this. Some other equally bizzare statement would be Germans would murder an entire village of innocents if ordered to. It's got historical precedent and there's no reason to suppose it couldn't happen again. I think we all realise how stupid that sounds though.

no, only little headed people like yours truely think how stupid it sounds.

For some reason whenever i reply/read your messages i picture little pinheaded person - so excuse the little headed comparison.

You casually ignored my comment on "my lai". Why?

Majority is not "all", and in the My Lai situation, a majority is more than suffice to back up my claim.

Historical precedent is enough to justify it. I can't know of something that hasn't happened yet (i cant see into the future - at least i think so!), so it could just as well happen in the future....

on an anecdotal view, the israeli army zealously kill innocents in the attempt to find a random militant that they claim is perpetrating some sort of random offence against their state. However they claim it to be cross-fire or accidental... (i dont).

[Evergreen]

http://www.bushdraft.com/

http://media.humboldt.edu/~merge/mod...ex&page_id=280

For all you naive ignorant americans. The Second url was a summary of a new york times article made into a student news column, the actual article evades me now but I remember reading it at the time.

[JonnyBGood]

Your comment on My Lai is meaningless. None of the soldiers who carried out that massacre are still in the armed forces (I think). Even if they all were there's nowhere near a majority, or sizeable minority, of all soldiers currently serving who have taken part in a massacre of a village of innocent civilians, or shown an inclination to do so.

Regarding the Israeli army I'm unsure about that situation. Even so that's hardly something that fully substantiates the statement "Soliders would murder an entire village of innocents if their commander said to do so".

[Evergreen]

May I also add that of late the minute any american student signs for student loan, one of the conditions of the loan is that you will be available to call up for the american military SHOULD they choose to call you up.

In other words a vast majority of the current student population of america is already conscripted, most just don't know it yet. I think there is massive penalties for breach of loan contract as well so you are totally screwed if you try fleeing to canada.

This time they've got the draft dodgers legally screwed before there's a draft to dodge.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

In other words a vast majority of the current student population of america is already conscripted, most just don't know it yet. I think there is massive penalties for breach of loan contract as well so you are totally screwed if you try fleeing to canada.

They can't actually legally do anything except attempt to deport you though, so I'm not seeing what you're talking about.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Your comment on My Lai is meaningless. None of the soldiers who carried out that massacre are still in the armed forces (I think). Even if they all were there's nowhere near a majority, or sizeable minority, of all soldiers currently serving who have taken part in a massacre of a village of innocent civilians, or shown an inclination to do so.

Regarding the Israeli army I'm unsure about that situation. Even so that's hardly something that fully substantiates the statement "Soliders would murder an entire village of innocents if their commander said to do so".

its not meaningless, because it applies to something that happened only a few decades ago.

As much as there is nothing that fully substantiates that soliders would not murder an entire village if ordered to do so.... there is no way of saying that it might not happen in the future. If anything history proves it can happen, and that it has happened before. I suppose we remain in limbo until another massacre happens again (although im pretty sure the massacarists if they be a western force - would claim it was an accident of some kind)

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Zar

its not meaningless, because it applies to something that happened only a few decades ago.

A lot can change in a few decades and even then it wasn't a final declaration on what soliders are like.

As much as there is nothing that fully substantiates that soliders would not murder an entire village if ordered to do so.... there is no way of saying that it might not happen in the future. If anything history proves it can happen, and that it has happened before. I suppose we remain in limbo until another massacre happens again (although im pretty sure the massacarists if they be a western force - would claim it was an accident of some kind)

Of course it could happen again, in fact I have very little doubt it will at some point in time. The fact that soldiers have committed massacres before does not mean that a definitive statement can be made on whether or not they'd do the same again.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

May I also add that of late the minute any american student signs for student loan, one of the conditions of the loan is that you will be available to call up for the american military SHOULD they choose to call you up.

In other words a vast majority of the current student population of america is already conscripted, most just don't know it yet. I think there is massive penalties for breach of loan contract as well so you are totally screwed if you try fleeing to canada.

This time they've got the draft dodgers legally screwed before there's a draft to dodge.

While I appreciate your conspiracy theory, I suggest you google "United States Selective Service".....The US does not conscript, yet every male 18+ has to register for the draft "just in case". This is old news and hardly worth the effort of typing.

Also, Zar, using general terms and then later claiming to have not meant it as such is somewhat thick. You wouldn't get away with it anywhere else, so why the hell do you think you can here? Nevermind your argument is somewhat crap as we could apply that to any number of groups in the last 30 years or so. I wouldn't be off in saying "Brits would kill anyone if they were of a different race!" and I wouldn't be wrong under your stance, even though it wouldn't be even remotely correct.

Also, the mai lai group were all court martialed, though many agree that the punishment wasn't near harsh enough.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

May I also add that of late the minute any american student signs for student loan, one of the conditions of the loan is that you will be available to call up for the american military SHOULD they choose to call you up.

Actually, virtually all American men, age 18 to 25, must register with the Selective Service Commission. This has nothing to do with whether they apply for any sort of loan or not. However, you are confusing registration with conscription. They are not the same.

The US military cannot simply call up whomever they choose whenever they want. Congress would have to authorize any re-introduction of conscription which, given the current political climate, has about zero chance of happening. That is why--once again--registration is not conscription.

In other words a vast majority of the current student population of america is already conscripted, most just don't know it yet.

No, they are not conscripted--your ignorance of the matter notwithstanding.

I think there is massive penalties for breach of loan contract as well so you are totally screwed if you try fleeing to canada.

If by "massive penalties" you mean the loans must be repaid with interest and--if late--penalties, then yes. That's pretty much true with any loan though. With respect to "fleeing to canada" there's nothing to flee from because--yet again--they are not conscripted. Anyone can flee to canada at any time. In fact, my family and I fled to canada a couple of years ago for a two week vacation.

[Kurashima]

Zar, stay on topic and quit with the "Hey Yank" shit, its blatantly racist and youre heading for a ban.

Snake, stop encouraging him ffs.

[Zar]

impressive modding i thought i was going mad seeing all those posts disappear - guess it was the better thing to do tho - sorry for snapping, having a hard time sorting out some accounts

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Zar, stay on topic and quit with the "Hey Yank" shit, its blatantly racist and youre heading for a ban.

Snake, stop encouraging him ffs.

first time that a thread I've posted in that has been moderated that none of the moderating was a result of my posts...... until now.