By the way, removing a genocidal maniac from power is not a "social experiment".
Okay, so according to Card we went in to spread democracy and freedom. I'd say invading a country to see spread ideals in a moderately unfamiliar way is a social experiment. Secondly
In late February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate reports that Iraq was attempting to purchase additional yellowcake from Niger. Wilson returned and informed the CIA that reports of yellowcake sales to Iraq were "unequivocally wrong."...On May 1, 2005 the "Downing Street memo" was published in The Sunday Times. It contained an overview of a secret July 23, 2002 meeting among UK Labour government, defense, and intelligence figures who discussed the build-up to the Iraq war — including direct references to classified U.S. policy of the time. The memo stated, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."...On September 18, 2002, George Tenet briefed Bush that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Bush dismissed this top-secret intelligence from Saddam's inner circle which was approved by two senior CIA officers, but it turned out to be completely accurate....Indeed, Colin Powell, in his address to the U.N. Security Council just prior to the war, made reference to the aluminum tubes. But a report released by the Institute for Science and International Security in 2002 reported that it was highly unlikely that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium. Powell later admitted he had presented an inaccurate case to the United Nations on Iraqi weapons, and the intelligence he was relying on was, in some cases, "deliberately misleading."
Wikipedia's page on "Iraq War" (second Gulf War), all sources are cited.
Sounds like a lot of bad intelligence to me. But that's a different story, anyway--the point is Card acts as though it was our ultimate goal the entire invasion was to spread freedom and democracy. Seems like, even if our intelligence was assumed to be good (not something I am granting), we went in for self preservation or selfish means, not for spreading democracy. Card sugar coats it because he wont come of as convincingly at attacking one group if the alternative group is seen as incompetent. It's dishonest editorializing, just like most liberal snuff is complete bullshit in the same manner. I figure he's just about as good as the people he's bashing because he is doing most the things he bashes.
Also, a massively mandatory military would require some shifting of policy (not all people in the military are troops, too--especially since in a mandatory military policy most the troops would be stationed at home like a national reserve, since I can't imagine we would ever actually use our people, God forbid, in actual peacekeeping missions unless it was cried for by the western international community). I understand that. I still feel it is something that should be looked into. Surely you aren't suggesting, Green, that people who are drafted are inadequate to serve? I believe you've been in the military--every aspect of the military is geared towards making people into those who fit into the military. I mean, they hire psychologists to work out ways to take people who would not normally be a good soldier and train them into being who you meet in the military.
It's not a perfect idea, but I think it could be implemented well and I think it would solve a lot of problems. That's just one person's opinion.
