Paying ex-soldiers

[Paddyboy1]

If we're seizing Iraq's oil revenues, shouldn't we at least be paying the soldiers what we promised them. I have to think that the $12.5 million a month ($50 x 250,000) is less than what Bremer is spending on gardening at the Saddam palace where he stays. I'd guess we haven't even reimbursed these guys for the kit that we took off of them when they surrendered.

We've already killed some of these protestors who wouldn't take us at our word when we said it was all a mixup and they would get paid. Wouldn't it be easier for us to just go down there and pay them rather than shoot at them?

[Michael Davlin]

Paying the soldiers of Saddam's former army anything strikes me as a disgusting, but strategically wise, thing to do. So, I agree with you.

[Paddyboy1]

Davlin: I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine a 1 million man army that lost 1 million men in the past 15 years from getting their a$s kicked in wars of aggression is probably not a volunteer outfit. Not in a country with maybe 5 million 18-35 year olds. There but for the grace go I. $50 a month is not a subsistence wage, not even in Iraq. 3 months of that doesn't pay for your repossessed equipment and trip home from the POW camp. The soldiers are also victims of Saddam, and many are likely blacklisted from future govt employment.

[Michael Davlin]

These are the reasons that I agree with you, but with some reservations. I'm pretty sure they weren't all involuntary conscripts, but I do agree that the vast majority of them were. I lost a sweet software gig at the European Space Agency at the start of the Gulf War I for expressing sympathy for these poor *******s. Just as well, I figured afterwards. I suspect some of this money would find its way to being used against the foreign forces within Iraq, and that doesn't sit well with me either.