View Full Version : IRAQ: You make the call.
BLZBUBBA
03-19-2007, 08:52 PM
<p>Let's say YOU are running for president and you have to put forth your Iraq policy. Be somewhat specific, but not vague. </p><p>Here's mine. I say we calculate the number of US troops currently serving in Iraq. We tell the Iraqi government that they need to bring us THAT SAME NUMBER of Iraqis willing to serve in THEIR army. That's in addition to those already being trained. We train them in the manner of a US soldier. A few months. Then we pull back into the desert and finally out of the country leaving some IN THE DESERT for air/tech support for one year.</p><p>If they don't bring us enough to serve in their army (the amount equivalent to our troops) we pull out immediately. That would indicate to me they don't really give a shit. I'm beginning to wonder anyway.</p>
Judge Smails
03-19-2007, 09:02 PM
<p>Split the country in three. Everybody gets their own autonomous area - Shia, Sunni and Kurds. Slap together some half-assed oversight governmental body thingy with equal representation from all three groups with the sole purpose of overseeing that oil revenue is shared equally among all three and then we bug out.</p><p>Obviously, the second we leave all-out war will break out and Darwinism will ensure that the fittest (ie: strongest) will gain control of the oil and the region. But we can say: "Hey we tried to be as fair and just as possible, we can't help it if these savages love killing each other. Now, who do we make out the check for the oil to?"</p><p> </p>
patsopinion
03-19-2007, 09:12 PM
<strong>Judge Smails</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Split the country in three. Everybody gets their own autonomous area - Shia, Sunni and Kurds. Slap together some half-assed oversight governmental body thingy with equal representation from all three groups with the <span style="background-color: #ffff99">sole purpose of overseeing that oil revenue</span> is shared equally among all three and then we bug out.</p><p>Obviously, the second we leave all-out war will break out and Darwinism will ensure that the fittest (ie: strongest) will gain control of the oil and the region. But we can say: "Hey we tried to be as fair and just as possible, we can't help it if these savages love killing each other. Now, who do we make out the check for the oil to?"</p><p> </p><p> oil is in the hands of the "bad guys"</p><p>this may work but it wouldnt stop the civil war and if/when we leave the iranians will move in the second we move out=much worse</p><p><a href="http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/FCX/">buy hydrogen people</a></p><p>buy buy buy</p><p> </p>
hedges
03-19-2007, 10:50 PM
"It's not worth one more dead American to uphold a line drew on a map that Winston Churchhill drew, probably when he was drunk. We disbanded the Iraqi army, which was not a great idea because now there's a group of Sunnis who know how to use weapons, have no future and have reason to hate us because we put the Shiites in power. We created a massive insurgent guerrilla army. We painted ourselves into a corner, and Bush still doesn't get it. The Iraq that was is gone and will never rise again. It has already partitioned itself into three countries...Moderate Iraq doesn't exist anymore." Bill Maher Playboy Interview
I agree with Maher that we should get out soon, but not without at least trying to bolster there own security forces, as best we can.
patsopinion
03-19-2007, 11:21 PM
<strong>hedges</strong> wrote:<br />"It's not worth one more dead American to uphold a line drew on a map that Winston Churchhill drew, probably when he was drunk. We disbanded the Iraqi army, which was not a great idea because now there's a group of Sunnis who know how to use weapons, have no future and have reason to hate us because we put the Shiites in power. We created a massive insurgent guerrilla army. We painted ourselves into a corner, and Bush still doesn't get it. The Iraq that was is gone and will never rise again. It has already partitioned itself into three countries...Moderate Iraq doesn't exist anymore." Bill Maher Playboy Interview I agree with Maher that we should get out soon, <span style="background-color: #999999">but not without at least trying to bolster there own security forces, as best we can.</span><p> i was originally on the side of this argument, but in reality i dont think bush is competant enough to do that any more</p><p>i was anti iraq before it started, but i thought that pulling out NOW was a democratic reaction to get votes and bolster support.</p><p>Now that they have accomplished their goal of taking legislative power and havent done a dam thing about iraq i want us out of there</p><p>how long do we need to teach these people to handel savages</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>you dont teach a zoologist to deal with a rabies infested bear, you put the bear down and walk away </p><p>-thats mine none of you can have it </p>
<p>I'd have U.S. ring the borders of the country and let everyone fight it out inside. I call it the "Clemenza Doctrine". These things have to happen every five years or so -- ten years -- helps to get rid of the bad blood. </p>
<p>1 - Stop the blame; let history and lawyers sort out what to do with the ones who got us into this</p><p>2 - Take ownership of the war; go to the rest of the world with a "Yes, we started this war, and this is what we have on our hands."</p><p>3 - Appeal to Europe and the Middle East for their own best interest; underline what will happen to THEM if we "cut and run" - we all know that Iraqis won't be swimming across the ocean to attack or settle in the USA; as humble, but as direct, as possible reach out to have them pick up the slack </p><p>Basically, what all that does, is admit we fucked up, but ask the region that has the most to lose to help us fix it BECAUSE our only other option, because of political pressures at home, is to pull out.</p><p>While that is going on:</p><p>4 - Look at all options, including dividing it up into thirds</p><p>5 - Stay firm with the timetables for the Iraqis to govern themselves</p><p>6 - Keep a U.S. pressence there, and spread out to other parts of the region, only to fight the "War on Terror" - NOT to side in a civil war. </p><p>7 - Be a strong leader and advocate in the peace process between Israel and Palestine</p><p>We need some diplomacy and better understanding of the region and the people than what we currently have now. </p>
Midkiff
03-20-2007, 07:02 AM
<font size="2">Fuck 'em. Just leave, 100%. Never shoulda been there in the first place. But we should hide one nuke underground in Baghdad with a remote control, though, and tell them if they get out of line we'll press the button.</font>
Yerdaddy
03-20-2007, 07:16 AM
<p>I think we should invade Iran. Then people will forget all about Iraq. And if that doesn't work we should invade Poland. </p>
ralphbxny
03-20-2007, 07:37 AM
<strong>jdmidkiff</strong> wrote:<br /><font size="2">Fuck 'em. Just leave, 100%. Never shoulda been there in the first place. But we should <font style="background-color: #999999">hide one nuke underground in Baghdad with a remote control, though, and tell them if they get out of line we'll press the button</font>.</font> <p>Finally a man with a real plan!! I say you set up one in each of the crazy religious nuts theres cities.</p>
Furtherman
03-20-2007, 07:57 AM
<strong>BLZBUBBA</strong> wrote:<br /><p>We tell the Iraqi government that they need to bring us THAT SAME NUMBER of Iraqis willing to serve in THEIR army. </p><p>That looks good on paper, but there is a dirty little secret among those Iraqis being trained. Some of them get trained, then leave. They go back to their neighborhoods and fight for whomever side they are on: Shiite or Sunni. The numbers of Iraqi's doing this is rising. I only know this from knowing soldiers who were over there training them. It is a lost cause. Democracy cannot be installed. The majority of people have to WANT it. When we leave, they will fight it out among themselves. It will be bloody and unfortunate. Whatever side wins - will they choose a democracy? Maybe, but there is the strong possibility it will fall under another dictatorship. Of course, if we stay, we'll prevent that from happening... but is that worth American lives? <strong>Hell no.</strong></p><p> </p>
BLZBUBBA
03-20-2007, 01:12 PM
<p>If they threw down their weapons and went home that would be an improvement over what they've already done on at least one occasion...They, the Iraqi forces, in one battle joined those fighting us. At some point they're going to have to take control of their own country. I don't see why we should be spilling our blood trying to keep control. I say ramp up the training and pull back into the desert....and then out. Put the situation in their hands. If they want a democracy (or a version of it) it's up to them. If not. So be it. </p><p>I like Smails idea of three provinces. I've heard that before. But as Smails said it will deteriorate into bedlam until one person takes control again. Another Saddam...if we're lucky. </p><p>Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. </p>
Jujubees2
03-20-2007, 03:07 PM
<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I think we should invade Iran. Then people will forget all about Iraq. And if that doesn't work we should invade Poland. </p><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana">No Yerdaddy, he wasn't asking what BUSH would do.</span><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana"></span> <p><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana">I agree that the best would be to split into three autonomous regions but that wouldn't worked because they all want the oil and Turkey (a big ally) doesn't want a Kurdish state. But we have to do a better job at telling the Iraqis that we will be leaving there <strong><u>someday</u></strong>. The way it's going now, the Iraqis feel no pressure to be ready to defend themselves as long as the US is around.</span></p></font>
AirJordanJoe
03-20-2007, 03:23 PM
We should prop up a secular military strongman to keep the Shia in check and the Kurds oppressed. A government favoring the Sunni minority with absolute power is the only way to avoid a civil war that will spread into a regional conflict between Shia's and Sunni's. Too bad we already hung Saddam. He kept Iraq civil-war free for decades.
high fly
03-21-2007, 06:24 PM
<p><font size="2">Get out as quickly as possible.</font></p><p><font size="2">We will still have enough force in the region to protect our oil.</font></p><p><font size="2">Our presence was what pissed off bin Laden in the first place and our presence in Iraq merely exacerbates hatred toward us.</font></p><p><font size="2">They want us offa their land, plain and simple.</font></p><p><font size="2">Let them find their own way as to a government. Anyone we impose will be viewed as an illigitimate puppet.</font></p><p><font size="2">Then we give Bush the Joan of Arc treatment...</font></p>
<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I think we should invade Iran. Then people will forget all about Iraq. </p><p><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_announces_iraq_exit_strategy">"Bush announces exit strategy from Iraq".</a></p>
<strong>high fly</strong> wrote:<br /><p><font size="2">Our presence was what pissed off bin Laden in the first place and our presence in Iraq merely exacerbates hatred toward us.</font> </p><p>Well, that and our <em>carte blanche</em> support of Israel and the "apostate" Arab regimes.</p>
BLZBUBBA
03-22-2007, 04:31 PM
<p>What really got bin Laden pissed was when we went into Saudi Arabia for Gulf War I. He thought it was his right to defend Saudi soil with his bunch that drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Mujahadeen? Not sure on the spelling. And when the Saudis allowed us to establish bases in Saudi Arabia that was the straw that broke the camel's back. No pun intended.</p><p>You have to wonder though. Saddam and Osama were our allies...when it suited us. Saddam killed a shitload of Iranians...on the heels of them screwing us over with the hostage deal. And it was pretty sweet when Osama and the Mujahadeen (with our help) drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan. There are more than a few people that think that was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. Our funding of the Mujahadeen went all the way back to the Carter administration. The Soviet Union falls and now we have the terrorists...headed by the guy who helped bring down the Soviet Union. </p><p>We'll always have an enemy. It's as American as apple pie to have enemies and a defense industry gobbling up the budget. </p><p>And not to pleased with our blind support of Israel either. Have no problems with Jews. But Israel? Their flag kinda says it all. Jews only. </p>
oh_kee_pa
03-22-2007, 04:52 PM
the reason we are not winning this war is based off of support of the people.... I would meet w/ the top democratic people and make sure they understand that fact
TheMojoPin
03-22-2007, 05:03 PM
<strong>oh_kee_pa</strong> wrote:<br />the reason we are not winning this war is based off of support of the people.... <p>That's like saying we're not "winning" because we're not doing praying enough. Ridiculous.</p>
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.