NationStates Jolt Archive

For some time now, it's been bandied about as to whether it'll continue to be volunteer-only and exclusive no-bid contract-only work occurring in Iraq, based on United States interests. But a new measure has been taken regarding service (of sorts) over there:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5249632.html
Beginning Monday, 200 to 300 diplomats will be notified that they have been identified as "prime candidates" to fill 40 to 50 vacancies that will open next year at the embassy, said Harry Thomas, director general of the Foreign Service.

Those notified that they have been selected for a one-year posting will have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go to Iraq and face dismissal if they refuse, Thomas said.
...
"If someone decides ... they do not want to go, we will then consider appropriate action," Thomas said. "We have many options, including dismissal from the Foreign Service."

Only those with compelling reasons, such as a medical condition or extreme personal hardship (NOTE: See "pilonidal cyst", Rush Limbaugh - ed.), will be exempt from disciplinary action, Thomas said. He said the process of deciding who will go to Iraq should be complete by Thanksgiving.
...
When she ordered that Baghdad be given staffing priority, Rice had warned that unless more volunteers could be found, the department would have to implement directed assignments.

"It is my fervent hope that we will continue to see sufficient numbers ... volunteering for Iraq service, but we must be prepared to meet our requirements in any eventuality," she said in an unclassified cable sent to all diplomatic missions abroad on June 19.

So what do y'all think? A lot of folks were thinking our own politicians were good fodder for this great experiment ... is this close enough?

Send John Bolton to Iraq.

Send John Bolton to Iraq.

Agreed.
Ya never know - with a mustache (to say nothing of "personality") like that, he may indeed scare people back in line?

I'd go. It sounds fun.

And good for the resume.

I'd go. It sounds fun.

And good for the resume.

Fun, eh? o.9
Well, here's the paper perks:
Diplomats who are forced into service in Iraq will receive the same extra hardship pay, vacation time and choice of future assignments as those who have volunteered since Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this past summer ordered Baghdad positions to be filled before all others around the world.

A year in Baghdad for a career in Madrid, London, Paris, Berlin, or any other choice city? Plus extra pay and vacation time? Sign me up!

A year in Baghdad for a career in Madrid, London, Paris, Berlin, or any other choice city? Plus extra pay and vacation time? Sign me up!

Well, they're pretty easy to contact. Just steer clear of sexual persuasion. Don't worry about past felony issues!

Well, they're pretty easy to contact. Just steer clear of sexual persuasion. Don't worry about past felony issues!

The Foreign Service is a bit more selective then the military.

you can quit the foreign service any time you want to cant you?

you can quit the foreign service any time you want to cant you?

Yes. It's like every other government job. You don't sign away 4 years of your life like the guys in the military do.

This is going on throughout government. One of my brothers works for the Department of Defense as a Doctor. His job was to go with State Department and Defense teams throughout the world. He would fly off to 2-4 nations a week with delegations and the such. He got word early this year that there would be mandatory assignments in Iraq at 3 month intervals. This was not an option if you wanted to continue to work for the DoD. He went to Iraq once already this year and is preparing to leave for early this coming up year. The only upside to it is that he gets paid more. However he has told me a few incidents where he was closer then he would have liked to mortar rounds.

All politicians should be forced to send their own sons to any war they give their support to. After all, speaking and dealing with paperwork while people die in the battlefield is trivial. I'm sure a country where such thing happened they would think twice before accepting Exxon's bribe to support the invasion against an oil-rich poor country with an overkill military strength.

All politicians should be forced to send their own sons to any war they give their support to. After all, speaking and dealing with paperwork while people die in the battlefield is trivial. I'm sure a country where such thing happened they would think twice before accepting Exxon's bribe to support the invasion against an oil-rich poor country with an overkill military strength.

I can sympathize with what your saying however when making decisions such as war do you really want personal emotions to get involved?

One of my brothers works for the Department of Defense as a Doctor. Doesn't look like any shortage of work for that particular vocation.
Good luck to him.

Doesn't look like any shortage of work for that particular vocation.
Good luck to him.

He has more work then he knows what to do with. He did mention that his level of skill has shot way up. Pardon the pun....

I can sympathize with what your saying however when making decisions such as war do you really want personal emotions to get involved?

It's a question of fairness. It's the probably only way to make politicians think about how many of the citizens of their nation would die instead of how much money would go in their pockets besides forbidding any form of corporate funding to politics. I don't see how somebody who signs something to lure poor and unfortunate people to the grinder("Great Job in the Army! Join Now!") against a powerless insignificant nation that offers no significant threat is representing the interests of the people who elected him in the first place. Unless having enough gas for more a few decades before the fossil fuels go out for gas-guzzling SUVs counts as defending the people's interests.

It's a question of fairness. It's the probably only way to make politicians think about how many of the citizens of their nation would die instead of how much money would go in their pockets besides forbidding any form of corporate funding to politics. I don't see how somebody who signs something to lure poor and unfortunate people to the grinder("Great Job in the Army! Join Now!") against a powerless insignificant nation that offers no significant threat is representing the interests of the people who elected him in the first place. Unless having enough gas for more a few decades before the fossil fuels go out for gas-guzzling SUVs counts as defending the people's interests.


They did that in Starship Troopers.

Agreed.
Ya never know - with a mustache (to say nothing of "personality") like that, he may indeed scare people back in line?
Bolton scares Iraqis?

It's a question of fairness. It's the probably only way to make politicians think about how many of the citizens of their nation would die instead of how much money would go in their pockets besides forbidding any form of corporate funding to politics. I don't see how somebody who signs something to lure poor and unfortunate people to the grinder("Great Job in the Army! Join Now!") against a powerless insignificant nation that offers no significant threat is representing the interests of the people who elected him in the first place. Unless having enough gas for more a few decades before the fossil fuels go out for gas-guzzling SUVs counts as defending the people's interests.


Well I served in the Army. I was neither poor or unfortunate. The majority of the men I served with I would say were middle class. Basically they didn't have to be there.

Was at the tip of the spear per se in the first Gulf War. I don't regret doing it because I know we did the right thing. I would also say from talking to a number of veterans from our current wars they don't regret actually serving.

As far as a Senators son or even a son of the President they would represent far more of a problem for a combat unit then it's worth. In fact I would suggest that the men serving directly with these types would be at more of a risk then a normal unit. I know I would not have wanted a Senators son riding around in my tank with me. Would have been more of a hassle then anything.

Lastly we have a volunteer military. You could not force anyone to join without a nation wide draft.

I'm not surprised. Diplomats are not idiots, and don't want to be dead bodies in burning cars.

All politicians should be forced to send their own sons to any war they give their support to. After all, speaking and dealing with paperwork while people die in the battlefield is trivial. I'm sure a country where such thing happened they would think twice before accepting Exxon's bribe to support the invasion against an oil-rich poor country with an overkill military strength.

And those with no children? Send the politicians instead -- their children didn't vote for it!

A year in Baghdad for a career in Madrid, London, Paris, Berlin, or any other choice city? Plus extra pay and vacation time? Sign me up!

Until one day you drive over an IED.

Until one day you drive over an IED.

Green zone, my friend. Not the safest, but safer then most anywhere in Iraq. There's a reason we have an embassy the size of a castle over there.

I would still do this, dangers included. Condi, if you're reading this, send me a TG.

This is the same kind of unfounded fear used as a weapon in the last election. It didn't work for Kerry. People called bs on this.

There is never going to be another draft, it would take years even if a resolution did pass, which it would not.

This is the same kind of unfounded fear used as a weapon in the last election. It didn't work for Kerry. People called bs on this.

There is never going to be another draft, it would take years even if a resolution did pass, which it would not.

I wouldn't say never, politicians will eventually find some backdoor way to introduce these things.

Bolton scares Iraqis?

I would dare to say that he scares ordinary people, so by extension, a few Iraqis would be affected similarly, i suspect.

This is the same kind of unfounded fear used as a weapon in the last election. It didn't work for Kerry. People called bs on this.
It's already happening, though. What's so BS about that?
Didn't you bother to read it?

:confused: well I would not spend a year in iraq, not for 1000000 spinning oblongs... well maybe for that many

Bolton scares Iraqis?
Not Bolton, more the (ex)Iraqi he most resembles in appearance (well, in mustache) and personality traits.

I can sympathize with what your saying however when making decisions such as war do you really want personal emotions to get involved?

If it makes them think twice about going to war frivolously...yes.

I wouldn't say never, politicians will eventually find some backdoor way to introduce these things.

If it involves a politician, you can bet it's gonna involve someone's backdoor. :eek:
*nods emphatically*

If it involves a politician, you can bet it's gonna involve someone's backdoor. :eek:
*nods emphatically*

Yes, they are sneaky buggers :p

Yes, they are sneaky buggers :p

That reminds me, actually, of that "Look what the cat dragged in" thread.

*pic reserved for true believers*