2005:Armys worst recruiting year since 1979

[Joshmo]

The outlook is dimmed by several key factors, including:

- The daily reports of American deaths in Iraq and the uncertain nature of the struggle against the insurgency have put a damper on young people's enthusiasm for joining the military, according to opinion surveys.

THANK GOD!

Full story

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050930/D8CUHL7G1.html

[someguy]

More like don't thank god

That will just make a draft easy to see happening

I don't think that Georgie will put one up though, but you never know with him.

[outsyder]

2005 isn't over. Maybe they're all just waiting for Christmas.;)

[JohnTheHenchman]

Yeah thank god no one wants to join the military.

Really.

Thank god. It's such a great thing.:rolleyes:

[MacReady]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Yeah thank god no one wants to join the military.

Really.

Thank god. It's such a great thing.:rolleyes:

What a brilliant and detailed critique against the lack of new recruits that is plaguing the army. I simply for the life of me cannot think of anything that could defeat your airtight logic.

[<3mekthx]

The only good thing I can think of that could come from this is that the pay/incentives will go up to attract future recruits.

What a brilliant and detailed critique against the lack of new recruits that is plaguing the army. I simply for the life of me cannot think of anything that could defeat your airtight logic.

I was thinking the same thing about joshmo's 'THANK GOD'.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by MacReady
What a brilliant and detailed critique against the lack of new recruits that is plaguing the army. I simply for the life of me cannot think of anything that could defeat your airtight logic.

Thank you for your equally brilliant critique of my critique that I didn't even know was a critique.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Thank you for your equally brilliant critique of my critique that I didn't even know was a critique.

Your sarcasm combined with the statement that this is a positive thing means you really think it's a negative thing, and I wanna know why.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by MacReady
Your sarcasm combined with the statement that this is a positive thing means you really think it's a negative thing, and I wanna know why.

On what planet do you live , where low recruitng numbers is a good thing during anytime of conflict?

[MacReady]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
On what planet do you live , where low recruitng numbers is a good thing during anytime of conflict?

When that conflict is a deplorable one, it's good news for me.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by MacReady
When that conflict is a deplorable one, it's good news for me.

So America pulling out of Iraq and allowing the insurgents to take over would be good news to you as well?

[JohnTheHenchman]

Are you even an American?

Probably not, if you're as happy as you are that the force which serves to protect this country is low in numbers. Really, it makes you happy? Great to know.

I'm at a complete loss.

Every member of the military is engaged in the Iraq War, therefor it is good that no one is joining. Oh look, more sarcasm. Sorry.

[outsyder]

Mac is a Canadian, like me. I don't feel the same way on this issue though.

[JohnTheHenchman]

When you don't live in a country, it's real easy to not care about its plight. I mean, that's pretty much the logic behind American foreign policy.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
So America pulling out of Iraq and allowing the insurgents to take over would be good news to you as well?

The insurgents definetely should not get the country. However, I see this as a unwinable battle, and this shortage will simply quicken the withdrawal and lower the amount of casualties among U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Are you even an American?

Probably not, if you're as happy as you are that the force which serves to protect this country is low in numbers. Really, it makes you happy? Great to know.

I'm at a complete loss.

Every member of the military is engaged in the Iraq War, therefor it is good that no one is joining. Oh look, more sarcasm. Sorry.

And how exactly are they protecting America?

Just so I don't dumbfound you with apparent anti-Americanism, let me put it this way: you've got the national guard to help defend you. I fail to see how the soldiers in Iraq are defending you.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Oh yeah, no one in the National Guard is in Iraq. They're all here. And they're protecting us. Ok. Yeah.

Yeah, The Army only serves to further America's imperialistic needs. No good comes from them, hopefully no one joins and everyone quits. Who even needs an Army? Not America!

[EVILxxx]

The insurgents definetely should not get the country. However, I see this as a unwinable battle, and this shortage will simply quicken the withdrawal and lower the amount of casualties among U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Which is where we differ. This war can be won, but it has more to do with the Iraqies taking control of their country than America defeating the terrorists there.

And how exactly are they protecting America?

Just so I don't dumbfound you with apparent anti-Americanism, let me put it this way: you've got the national guard to help defend you. I fail to see how the soldiers in Iraq are defending you.

How does any military protect any country? Plain and simple our military prevents our enemies from conquering us.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Just because a war hasn't been won yet, doesn't mean it can't be won.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Which is where we differ. This war can be won, but it has more to do with the Iraqies taking control of their country than America defeating the terrorists there.

They're have been protests in Iraq against terrorism, however if we give them the country, their democratically elected leader's army will likely get overthrown and the country will tossed back into chaos. With the recent Hurricane disasters you might not be able to afford going all the way. I think it was Cheney or Rumsfeld who said that the insurgencies might last anywhere from 6 to 12 years.

Originally posted by EVILxxx
How does any military protect any country? Plain and simple our military prevents our enemies from conquering us.

In what way do they protect you from conquerors in Iraq?

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Oh yeah, no one in the National Guard is in Iraq. They're all here. And they're protecting us. Ok. Yeah.

Yeah, The Army only serves to further America's imperialistic needs. No good comes from them, hopefully no one joins and everyone quits. Who even needs an Army? Not America!

I never even implied America shouldn't have an army. I support this shortage because it makes a withdrawl more savory, and I support the withdrawl because I don't see extended presence being any good.

If you really want to keep a bigger army, why not simply encourage a pullout?

[EVILxxx]

They're have been protests in Iraq against terrorism, however if we give them the country, their democratically elected leader's army will likely get overthrown and the country will tossed back into chaos. With the recent Hurricane disasters you might not be able to afford going all the way. I think it was Cheney or Rumsfeld who said that the insurgencies might last anywhere from 6 to 12 years.

I wasn't suggesting handing complete control to the Iraqi government anytime soon, but when it comes down to it Iraq with prosper or fall depending on how their leaders run their country.

n what way do they protect you from conquerors in Iraq?

Well I was talking about the military in general, but I can go there if you like. The terrorists in Iraq have many faces. One of the most prominent of these faces is that of Alqueda and other anti-American terrorists groups. By us being over there we stop them from coming here. It is too sweet a target for them to pass up. Not that I think that is by any means a valid reason to keep troops in Iraq. But it is keeping terrorist who would be operating in the U.S. over seas.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Well I was talking about the military in general, but I can go there if you like. The terrorists in Iraq have many faces. One of the most prominent of these faces is that of Alqueda and other anti-American terrorists groups. By us being over there we stop them from coming here. It is too sweet a target for them to pass up. Not that I think that is by any means a valid reason to keep troops in Iraq. But it is keeping terrorist who would be operating in the U.S. over seas.

This is complete horseshit. Our operations in Iraq don't guarantee us any more safety from acts of terrorism here in the US. They sure didn't stop the UK from getting hit recently. If anything our invasion of Iraq has made us more vunerable with it actually helping Al-Qaeda to find many more previously unradicalized recruits. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050918/ts_nm/iraq_saudi_fighters_dc_1)

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
This is complete horseshit. Our operations in Iraq don't guarantee us any more safety from acts of terrorism here in the US. They sure didn't stop the UK from getting hit recently. If anything our invasion of Iraq has made us more vunerable with it actually helping Al-Qaeda to find many more previously unradicalized recruits. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050918/ts_nm/iraq_saudi_fighters_dc_1)

Words in my mouth. Who said guarentee? What emboldend the terrorist the most would have to be the 9/11 attacks. There has not been a single successful attack in the US in over three years.
Oh and the terrorist who bombed the UK did so because of Britian's military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Words in my mouth. Who said guarentee? What emboldend the terrorist the most would have to be the 9/11 attacks. There has not been a single successful attack in the US in over three years.
Oh and the terrorist who bombed the UK did so because of Britian's military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No terrorist attacks in the US? What about the Anthrax laced letters? And just like 9/11 they never caught who masterminded those did they? That not considered a terrorsit attack in your eyes? What about John Lee Mohummad and his boy's sniper attacks? True he a domestic terrorist but his stated reason for sniping all those poor folks was because of the US's imperialistic Middle East activites.

You honestly can't tell me that you think that because we invaded Iraq and Afghaninstan that we are less likely to be attacked again. Al Qaeda and it's offshoots are not legitmate forms of government and as such do not care if the US invades X, Y, and Z Middle Eastern countries. If anything the invasions only help them find more disgruntled Islamists. Bush went into Iraq because he's always had a hard on for it and 9/11 gave him the political climate of fear that he needed to falsely justify an invasion.

HE LIED/EMBELLISHED STORIES ABOUT IRAQ BEING CONNECTED TO TERRORISM AND WMDs.

[Joshmo]

I would like to clarify:

I am not anti military, but I am anti Iraq war. I see it as an unjust war. I am also torn, cause I dont think we can cut and run leaving it broken, but its time the U.N sent in their peacekeepers so we can get out. I would love to see a truly democratic poll without fear of repercussions of how our troops there feel.

Its hard enough for me to give myself over in blind faith to some of religions dictates..but I beleive in God and its a crap shoot I am willing to take... however, there is no way I could blindly give myself over and fight for Govt when I think its wrong. I dont put my faith in man and I really need a good reason to trust my govt

And as far as a draft..I long for an age where many more citizens after evaluating if what their govt is saying abut going into a war, gather the facts and if that war is found to be unjust or tainted with the hint of illegality, those who are drafted refuse outright in numbers never before seen to man. I think this is the only way to force rogue govts to think twice about whether they wanna get involved in unjust endeavers if more people adopt a think for themseleves attitude instead of willing to die for a "right or wrong..my country" ideal... that would be nice if all that died was you/me if ones country was wrong... but death also results in innocents dying... its bad enough in a necessary war that innocents die..but to me its thrice evil when that war is unjust...like I believe Iraq is.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by MacReady



I never even implied America shouldn't have an army. I support this shortage because it makes a withdrawl more savory, and I support the withdrawl because I don't see extended presence being any good.

If you really want to keep a bigger army, why not simply encourage a pullout?

Yeah, I mean it's really that easy isn't it.

Then we pull out. And things go to shit. Then you can say "You didn't finish what you started".

Thanks for supporting the military shortage in my country. I appreciate it a lot.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Yeah, I mean it's really that easy isn't it.

Then we pull out. And things go to shit. Then you can say "You didn't finish what you started".

Thanks for supporting the military shortage in my country. I appreciate it a lot.

You can't accomplish anything by staying. It'll probably take a trillion dollars for the whole war (if it ends by 2010 that is) and the U.S. casualties will likely reach their ten thousands while the civilians will likely reach their hundreds of thousands. I don't know what made you say that I'll say "you should of finished what you started". I'll simply say "you shouldn't of started period".

And please tell me why it's so sinister for me to encourage a shortage of troops that will no doubt make it more difficult for a pointless war to continue?

[JohnTheHenchman]

Hey look, you're asking me a question that will make us go in circles.

[EVILxxx]

No terrorist attacks in the US? What about the Anthrax laced letters? And just like 9/11 they never caught who masterminded those did they?

Indeed. Forgot about that. Those attacks didn't amount to a whole lot in the end, which is probably why they haven't attempted it again.

What about John Lee Mohummad and his boy's sniper attacks? True he a domestic terrorist but his stated reason for sniping all those poor folks was because of the US's imperialistic Middle East activites.

The Washington D.C. sniper's rampage was before America invaded Iraq. So if he had a problem with us invading Afghanistan than I don't really care what his motives are.

You honestly can't tell me that you think that because we invaded Iraq and Afghaninstan that we are less likely to be attacked again. Al Qaeda and it's offshoots are not legitmate forms of government and as such do not care if the US invades X, Y, and Z Middle Eastern countries. If anything the invasions only help them find more disgruntled Islamists. Bush went into Iraq because he's always had a hard on for it and 9/11 gave him the political climate of fear that he needed to falsely justify an invasion.

All I'm saying is that our soldiers now are keeping them occupied for the time being. Why would the terrorist travel across the ocean to attack America when we are right in their backyard?

HE LIED/EMBELLISHED STORIES ABOUT IRAQ BEING CONNECTED TO TERRORISM AND WMDs.

Did the British and Russian intelliegence embellish because of their hard-on oir Iraq. Or did the French and their amazing foresight justly warn the U.N. that an invasion of Iraq would disrupt their sweet oil for food scandel. . . I mean stability.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Did the British and Russian intelliegence embellish because of their hard-on oir Iraq. Or did the French and their amazing foresight justly warn the U.N. that an invasion of Iraq would disrupt their sweet oil for food scandel. . . I mean stability.

Russia was against the US invading and Blair is Bush's lapdog. The war has almost no popular support in the UK. None of it justifies a meaningless war that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and almost 2000 US soldiers.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Oh a war with no justification.

because we've gone through presidents that have never had these

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Oh a war with no justification.

because we've gone through presidents that have never had these

I don't get your point. So that means we should support something that we know is wrong? Simply be complacent about it? You make no sense at all.

[JohnTheHenchman]

There's a difference between supporting something and realizing that certain things are facts of life.

America being involved militarily in things they shouldn't is a fact of life. Sorry.

I make no sense.

You're right.

[Tuukka]

I don't really see how the Iraq war can be won.

The problem is that the Iraqi people don't want americans to be there. They are not particularly supportive of western democratic society and they certainly don't have the know-how of operating such society. More over, there isn't even a nation called "Iraq" except on paper and on maps. They have no sense of national identity, and are just a bunch of battling religious and national tribes.

In order to establish a working democratic society in Iraq, the county has to be controlled by western military forces by at least 10 more years. If you withdraw before it, there is a good chance that they will have a civil war, and the civil war will lead to a fundamentalistic islam society.

It's a no-win situation.

The only non-violent, non-disastrous option seems to be that the country will be invaded by USA for at least 10 more years. That *might* be enough to establish a democratic tradition in there.

If USA withdraws, it might lead to this:

- A civil war. Possibly millions of dead.
- A fundamentalistic islam state (As opposed to Saddam's atheist state)
- The world's largest anti-american, terrorist-supportive country.

...I don't think anyone finds that scenario particularly appealing. As for "war on terror", the results would be disastrous for USA.

Of course this is all a worst case scenario. But I think it would be VERY naive to consider only the best case scenario, since the worst scenario is much more likely.

Personally I hope that USA occupies Iraq as long as necessary. I also hope that USA has enough military resources to do so. The worst case scenario sounds pretty terrifying to me.

[someguy]

Originally posted by Tuukka
They are not particularly supportive of western democratic society

Just a question here, I don't want a back and forth, just an answer

If they are not supportive why was the voter turnout for the elections so high?

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Russia was against the US invading and Blair is Bush's lapdog. The war has almost no popular support in the UK. None of it justifies a meaningless war that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and almost 2000 US soldiers.

Well yeah, I don't any country that is for invading another country whom they have weapons contracts with. Their intelligence still said they had WMDs though.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Well yeah, I don't any country that is for invading another country whom they have weapons contracts with. Their intelligence still said they had WMDs though.

The whole point is that most of the intelligence was unverified and/or from unreliable sources and Bush selectively used those reports to further his personal agenda of invading Iraq. If he was really interested in protecting us from WMDs he should be invading North Korea and Iran. If he was truly concerned about terrorists attacking the US he'd be doing something about shoring up our porous borders. I live in Arizona and can tell you that there is no more security than there was pre 9/11, and that isn't even considering all the frieght containers coming in to this country. The stated reasons for being in Iraq are all a farce. Too bad we didn't listen to the Russians, we could've avoided this quagmire we now find ourselves in. But that would never happen since it was Bush's intention all along to invade Iraq by any means necessary.

[JohnTheHenchman]

You know what Mac Ready, I decided to answer you:

This is a very bad thing for what Someguy said, it could mean a return of the draft. You support that? I guess so. I guess you support the possibility of me (and many others) going off to fight a war I don't believe in and dying, against my very own will. If you're down with that, well then I just don't know.

[someguy]

Oh wait, I take it back now, I don't agree with Libertarians :p

[JohnTheHenchman]

:rolleyes:

:p :p :p :D

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
You know what Mac Ready, I decided to answer you:

This is a very bad thing for what Someguy said, it could mean a return of the draft. You support that? I guess so. I guess you support the possibility of me (and many others) going off to fight a war I don't believe in and dying, against my very own will. If you're down with that, well then I just don't know.

Maybe politicians will learn to go to war only when it is absolutely necessary.....ah who am i kidding.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
You know what Mac Ready, I decided to answer you:

This is a very bad thing for what Someguy said, it could mean a return of the draft. You support that? I guess so. I guess you support the possibility of me (and many others) going off to fight a war I don't believe in and dying, against my very own will. If you're down with that, well then I just don't know.

I don't. And that's a good point. However while I would never put it past Bush, right now his approval are dangerously low. If he even annouced, it might start touching 'Nixon-at-Watergate' levels and then even thos pussies at the democratic party might start throwing around the idea of a impeachment.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
The whole point is that most of the intelligence was unverified and/or from unreliable sources and Bush selectively used those reports to further his personal agenda of invading Iraq. If he was really interested in protecting us from WMDs he should be invading North Korea and Iran. If he was truly concerned about terrorists attacking the US he'd be doing something about shoring up our porous borders. I live in Arizona and can tell you that there is no more security than there was pre 9/11, and that isn't even considering all the frieght containers coming in to this country.

I totally agree.

The stated reasons for being in Iraq are all a farce. Too bad we didn't listen to the Russians, we could've avoided this quagmire we now find ourselves in. But that would never happen since it was Bush's intention all along to invade Iraq by any means necessary.

While I agree we rushed into Iraq, I don't think Bush believed he could right up fake charges on Iraq and expect America to be cool with it.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Yeah, like the Republican majority would impeach Bush. Doubtful, unless people do a 180.

Besides, what does impeaching him do. If he resigned, which I believe he never would, who takes his place? Oh, Cheney? A real step up.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by someguy
Just a question here, I don't want a back and forth, just an answer

If they are not supportive why was the voter turnout for the elections so high? ¨

Because that was the only thing they could do right now. The only way to make as stand. It's worth noting that voting in the election was a way to get americans out of the country faster. During the election Iraq was occupied by a foreign nation with military force, and the election was controlled by a foreign nation - Hardly a sign of stabilized democrazy.

But it's also worth noting that people were often giving their votes to people who are not supportive of democracy. In other words: If a citizen votes for a politician who wants Iraq to be a non-democratic, fundamentalistically muslim country, does that mean the citizen is supportive of democracy? I don't think so.

I think we can say that Iraqi people are truly supportive of democracy only after a democratic tradition has been established in the country. And one election is still a long way from establishing a tradition.

[Lynn7]

My son's friend just came back from Iraq- he said the Iraqi people are very supportive and kind to the US soldiers- he said they ARE ready for the US to leave but they have appreciated the soldiers' presence until now. He said all the people the military is arresting are Syrians these days.

I think the Iraqis do want democracy.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Tuukka
¨

Because that was the only thing they could do right now. The only way to make as stand. It's worth noting that voting in the election was a way to get americans out of the country faster. During the election Iraq was occupied by a foreign nation with military force, and the election was controlled by a foreign nation - Hardly a sign of stabilized democrazy.



If the election was controlled by us, then why did a less than favorable candidate get elected?

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
If the election was controlled by us, then why did a less than favorable candidate get elected?

Because USA didn't mind less than favorable candidates being selected. And I have never claimed otherwise.

However, like I said, Iraq is being occupied by a foreign county and the election was also controlled by a foreign country. The real test to Iraq's democracy comes when USA is not taking care of elections and the Iraqi people have to do it on their own.

Do you believe that the election would have gone as well as it did, if USA would have withdrawn from Iraq before the election? I don't.

It should be noted that in this case my comments are not in any way anti-USA, but in fact pro-USA. I hope America stays in Iraq as long as it is necessary to establish peace and democracy.

[EVILxxx]

I don't understand what you're saying. By "controlling" the election do you mean we fixed it, or provided security so people did not get shot as they voted?

We were discussing the Iraqies wish for democracy, and the voter turnout was evidence of that. No one claimed Iraq to be a stable democracy.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
I don't understand what you're saying. By "controlling" the election do you mean we fixed it, or provided security so people did not get shot as they voted?

We were discussing the Iraqies wish for democracy, and the voter turnout was evidence of that. No one claimed Iraq to be a stable democracy.

As for your first question: I mean neither. USA didn't "fix" the election in the sense that it would have been a fake election. USA created the democracy and the election Iraq. Neither would have happened without direct military interference by USA. It's a case of forcing democracy on a nation which was not democratic before, through war. It can be debated whether this is good or not - Personally I don't have a strong opinion either way.

As for your second point, the flaw I find in your argument is that you are looking at just one statistic, and ignoring the context. If voter turnout would be the only requirement to define that people wish for democracy, then many totalitarian countries could be defined as democratic. Of course in there people are FORCED to vote for the regime in power, and the voter turnout can be close to 100%.

Of course this is not what has happened in Iraq, since they had a free election. But my point is that you can't just look at one statistic and ignore the context.

If an Iraqi citizen votes for a local nationalistic or religious leader simply because this leader has told him to, does this mean the voter is supportive of democrcy? I don't think so.

If an iraqi citizen votes simply for the sake of getting USA out of the country, does this mean he is supportive of democracy? I don't think so.

If an iraqi citizen votes for a candidate who wants to establish a totalitarian goverment does this mean the voter is supportive of democracy? I don't think so.

If an iraqi citizen wants to fight against the competing religious and nationalistic groups with arms instead of voting once USA is gone from Iraq, does this mean the citizen in question is supportive of democracy? I don't think so.

If people who have the political influence in Iraq are using democratic methods to gain power once USA is in Iraq, does this mean they are all using only democratic ways to gain and sustain power even after USA is gone? I don't think so.

I think that in extremely complex and unstable political environments such as Iraq the context should always be taken into account. Let's not be overly positive, or overly naive.

And let's not forget what happened for example in Yugoslavia.

[The Postmaster General]

The idea that this is the army's worst recruiting year really says nothing to me --- I would wager that sometime between 2001 and 2003 was it's best turnout. I think such a statistic should be looked at on an average of many years -- It makes no logistical sense to look at just one year.

There are only so many people that can enlist into the army. Most of those people have probably already enlisted. I don't see what the point of the statistic is - The army has reached it's maximum ability to enlist tropps -- Okay, well what about the prior years -- Isn't it safe to say that these were probably more "prosperous" in the recruiting bank?? It isn't like people just wake up one day and say, "Hey, I should join the army!" -- Such a notion is built up through years and upbringing. To me, all this stat is telling me is that the army has drained the well. It doesn't indicate that fewer people are willing to join -- just that everyone who was willing has already enlisted.

Many are taking this statistic waaaayyyyy out of context, and distorting its meaning.


To touch on what Tuuka is saying about America controling the voting -

Image how many flags people started waving immediately after 9/11. This doesn't mean that all of a sudden people are embracing patroitism, it just mean that people are caught up in a fever, so to speak. I think the people in Iraq sort of have voting fever. This doesn't mean that they are all of a sudden ENGRAVED with a sense of democracy -- All it means is that they flocked to polls. I think voting is novel to the people of Iraq -- The same way being patriotic was novel to so many people in the days after 9/11. When your country goes through a major change and event, it's hard not to get caught up and rally together -- do what everyone else is doing.

Look at the show American Idol. In the beginning it was HUGE - people thought it was something that sounded good. But over the years, people have lost interest. Just because the first season had high numbers doesn't mean that all of a sudden the country is instilled with the belief that pop stars should be decided by telephone vote -- All it means is that people wanted to see what it was about.

I have no doubt that many in Iraq are happy to have a chance to vote -- but this is not the same thing as them understanding and appreciating democracy. It just means they are seeing what it's about, and if it works.

Hell, maybe some of the Iraqis were just happy to get a day off work to go vote -- Who knows? My point, and the point Tuuka is making is that numbers don't explain human conditions. Unless of course you're a mathematician in New York who is being hunted by a nameless company, and Hasidic Jews, but still - you'll probably just go nuts trying to make sense of it all, because it just ain't working.