NationStates Jolt Archive

I still believe that the resistence is still relatively small, or else thousands of troops would be dead by now. But the situation is, nevertheless, troubling, and will only get worse until at least June 30 (and God forbid after that date). So now, we walk a tightrope. The guerillas have embedded themselves so that we can't destroy them without alienating all of Iraq. Should what should we do?

Exactly what we have been doing. And keep doing it until an Iraqi elected government is in power and laws have been enacted that can be enforced be their own government. Then let the people of Iraq protect theirself.

Honest question here. What do you do if you don't like the laws? You should do what Britain has done, as we have had a very peaceful sector.

I still believe that the resistence is still relatively small, or else thousands of troops would be dead by now. But the situation is, nevertheless, troubling, and will only get worse until at least June 30 (and God forbid after that date). So now, we walk a tightrope. The guerillas have embedded themselves so that we can't destroy them without alienating all of Iraq. Should what should we do?


Be less overtly agressive and indiscriminate in enforcing peace, adopt tactics more similar to those of Britain, they're not having anywhere near the level of difficulty as the US in the sector under their control.

I still believe that the resistence is still relatively small, or else thousands of troops would be dead by now. But the situation is, nevertheless, troubling, and will only get worse until at least June 30 (and God forbid after that date). So now, we walk a tightrope. The guerillas have embedded themselves so that we can't destroy them without alienating all of Iraq. Should what should we do?


Be less overtly agressive and indiscriminate in enforcing peace, adopt tactics more similar to those of Britain, they're not having anywhere near the level of difficulty as the US in the sector under their control.
I think that when it comes to Fallujah, that's out of the question. They are the city that has given us the most trouble since we arrived. Not even Baghdad and Tikrit has given us this much trouble. I'm sorry about anyone caught in the cross-fire, but I feel that no one in the world should be surprised by what's happening in Fallujah.
As for Najaf and Karbala, I think that, for the moment, the US is trying to be less agressive. The only reason they're getting this publicity is because of their presence, but I hope that they never enter Najaf. Besides, I don't feel we need to, anyhow. Just send more troops to be stationed around the city, and lay not a full seige, but what the military refers to as a "Golden Bridge": let some troops and supplies in and out, but cut off main acsess routes. The al-Mahdi army is so small and so unpopular that, if we continue to have Najaf surrounded, they'll be gone by June. Have humanitarian aide and such come in, and if Grand Aylotollah Sistani should, for some reason, request US troops in Najaf, go in. But I feel that things will work out if we station troops near Najaf. But I think that if we knew where he was, drop a special forces team in Najaf, and grab him.

Hand over administration to the arab league or the UN (or both).

Honest question here. What do you do if you don't like the laws? You should do what Britain has done, as we have had a very peaceful sector.

The British sector is also largely Shi'ite loyal to Sistani.

It would be cool if we could get some of that gas that they used in Goldfinger that knocks you out, and then spray Fallujah. Then we could go in and capture the resistance and leave the innocent! Oh well.

It would be cool if we could get some of that gas that they used in Goldfinger that knocks you out, and then spray Fallujah. Then we could go in and capture the resistance and leave the innocent! Oh well.

It would be even cooler if one of those baddies from James Bond actually succeeded in bringing that meteor on the USA, leaving only a huge greasy stain and some broken TV's.
I wish James would retire...

Hand over administration to the arab league or the UN (or both).

Heh heh heh, contract China's billion man army to take over occupation duties. :twisted: I'm sure they know how to handle....unwelcome resistance to peace. lol

Two options:

Option A: Hang in there till June 30th then begin the pull out of troops. Inform your coalition allies you will help them pull their troops out and thank 'em with some juicy trade deals. You finally pull out everyone and announce a job well done (Ignoring whether it was or wasn't, that's beside the point). Let the region devolved into chaos while giving tacid support to the Kurds.

Option B: Have a 4th star general come out and inform the "resistance" that unless they release ALL hostages then you will within 48hrs completely annihilate ONE Iraqi city. In the unlikely event you fail to release them OR exceute one of them, well then you use Daisy Cutters on a city combined with cluster bombs and wipe it off the map. Next you give the same deal for Sadr's surrender, his militias disbanding and etc...Key here is only to target cities which begin to form an uprising. I don't think anyone will actually do this. This would bring down SO much negative press in an election year that NO ONE would have the guts to go through with it. And threatening to do something and not doing it only leads to disaster so unless their willing to go through with it, its useless to threaten to do it. End result is you could stay longer at the expense of your image...

Just my thoughts :roll:

Two options:

Option A: Hang in there till June 30th then begin the pull out of troops. Inform your coalition allies you will help them pull their troops out and thank 'em with some juicy trade deals. You finally pull out everyone and announce a job well done (Ignoring whether it was or wasn't, that's beside the point). Let the region devolved into chaos while giving tacid support to the Kurds.

Option B: Have a 4th star general come out and inform the "resistance" that unless they release ALL hostages then you will within 48hrs completely annihilate ONE Iraqi city. In the unlikely event you fail to release them OR execute one of them, well then you use Daisy Cutters on a city combined with cluster bombs and wipe it off the map. Next you give the same deal for Sadr's surrender, his militias disbanding and etc...Key here is only to target cities which begin to form an uprising. I don't think anyone will actually do this. This would bring down SO much negative press in an election year that NO ONE would have the guts to go through with it. And threatening to do something and not doing it only leads to disaster so unless their willing to go through with it, its useless to threaten to do it. End result is you could stay longer at the expense of your image...

Just my thoughts :roll:

Two options:

Option A: Hang in there till June 30th then begin the pull out of troops. Inform your coalition allies you will help them pull their troops out and thank 'em with some juicy trade deals. You finally pull out everyone and announce a job well done (Ignoring whether it was or wasn't, that's beside the point). Let the region devolved into chaos while giving tacid support to the Kurds.

Option B: Have a 4th star general come out and inform the "resistance" that unless they release ALL hostages then you will within 48hrs completely annihilate ONE Iraqi city. In the unlikely event you fail to release them OR execute one of them, well then you use Daisy Cutters on a city combined with cluster bombs and wipe it off the map. Next you give the same deal for Sadr's surrender, his militias disbanding and etc...Key here is only to target cities which begin to form an uprising. I don't think anyone will actually do this. This would bring down SO much negative press in an election year that NO ONE would have the guts to go through with it. And threatening to do something and not doing it only leads to disaster so unless their willing to go through with it, its useless to threaten to do it. End result is you could stay longer at the expense of your image...

Just my thoughts :roll:

Two options:

Option A: Hang in there till June 30th then begin the pull out of troops. Inform your coalition allies you will help them pull their troops out and thank 'em with some juicy trade deals. You finally pull out everyone and announce a job well done (Ignoring whether it was or wasn't, that's beside the point). Let the region devolved into chaos while giving tacid support to the Kurds.

Option B: Have a 4th star general come out and inform the "resistance" that unless they release ALL hostages then you will within 48hrs completely annihilate ONE Iraqi city. In the unlikely event you fail to release them OR execute one of them, well then you use Daisy Cutters on a city combined with cluster bombs and wipe it off the map. Next you give the same deal for Sadr's surrender, his militias disbanding and etc...Key here is only to target cities which begin to form an uprising. I don't think anyone will actually do this. This would bring down SO much negative press in an election year that NO ONE would have the guts to go through with it. And threatening to do something and not doing it only leads to disaster so unless their willing to go through with it, its useless to threaten to do it. End result is you could stay longer at the expense of your image...

Just my thoughts :roll:

We have big gun *grunt grunt* we blow you up good.

:roll:

I think there are several things to consider.

First of all, exporting democracy is a laudible goal but is a practical impossibility. Democracy requires an evolution of thought regarding the rights and priveleges of governments and citizens. To think that overthrowing a despot, creating a council, then holding elections will produce a democracy in a people ruled by despots for thousands of years is a bit naive, to say the least. The first thing they will elect will be another despot.

The first element to creating a democracy must be a very long term American commitment to stay in Iraq.

That long term commitment must then be used to create the second element, security. The Allies are being far too "nice" in Iraq. Looters should be shot on sight, armed persons disarmed or shot, captured insurgents or terrorists, including members of the Mahdi Army, should be summarily executed. Nation building cannot occur in such an insecure setting, and the Allies will not be able to secure it using western methods in a despotic world.

The third element must be rebuilding infrastructure. Water, electricity, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, all must be rebuilt.

The fourth element must be education. It will take years...years... to educate people used to oppression in the manners of freedom.

Unfortunately, none of the Allies, including the U.S., have the political will to do what is truly necessary. Therefore, it is likely that the US will pull out on June 30th, and the situation in Iraq will spiral more quickly into chaos.

-Galen, Lord Protector of Shannumbria-

I think there are several things to consider.

First of all, exporting democracy is a laudible goal but is a practical impossibility. Democracy requires an evolution of thought regarding the rights and priveleges of governments and citizens. To think that overthrowing a despot, creating a council, then holding elections will produce a democracy in a people ruled by despots for thousands of years is a bit naive, to say the least. The first thing they will elect will be another despot.

The first element to creating a democracy must be a very long term American commitment to stay in Iraq.

That long term commitment must then be used to create the second element, security. The Allies are being far too "nice" in Iraq. Looters should be shot on sight, armed persons disarmed or shot, captured insurgents or terrorists, including members of the Mahdi Army, should be summarily executed. Nation building cannot occur in such an insecure setting, and the Allies will not be able to secure it using western methods in a despotic world.

The third element must be rebuilding infrastructure. Water, electricity, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, all must be rebuilt.

The fourth element must be education. It will take years...years... to educate people used to oppression in the manners of freedom.

Unfortunately, none of the Allies, including the U.S., have the political will to do what is truly necessary. Therefore, it is likely that the US will pull out on June 30th, and the situation in Iraq will spiral more quickly into chaos.

-Galen, Lord Protector of Shannumbria-

I think there are several things to consider.

First of all, exporting democracy is a laudible goal but is a practical impossibility. Democracy requires an evolution of thought regarding the rights and priveleges of governments and citizens. To think that overthrowing a despot, creating a council, then holding elections will produce a democracy in a people ruled by despots for thousands of years is a bit naive, to say the least. The first thing they will elect will be another despot.

The first element to creating a democracy must be a very long term American commitment to stay in Iraq.

That long term commitment must then be used to create the second element, security. The Allies are being far too "nice" in Iraq. Looters should be shot on sight, armed persons disarmed or shot, captured insurgents or terrorists, including members of the Mahdi Army, should be summarily executed. Nation building cannot occur in such an insecure setting, and the Allies will not be able to secure it using western methods in a despotic world.

The third element must be rebuilding infrastructure. Water, electricity, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, all must be rebuilt.

The fourth element must be education. It will take years...years... to educate people used to oppression in the manners of freedom.

Unfortunately, none of the Allies, including the U.S., have the political will to do what is truly necessary. Therefore, it is likely that the US will pull out on June 30th, and the situation in Iraq will spiral more quickly into chaos.

-Galen, Lord Protector of Shannumbria-

Two options:

Option A: Hang in there till June 30th then begin the pull out of troops. Inform your coalition allies you will help them pull their troops out and thank 'em with some juicy trade deals. You finally pull out everyone and announce a job well done (Ignoring whether it was or wasn't, that's beside the point). Let the region devolved into chaos while giving tacid support to the Kurds.

Option B: Have a 4th star general come out and inform the "resistance" that unless they release ALL hostages then you will within 48hrs completely annihilate ONE Iraqi city. In the unlikely event you fail to release them OR execute one of them, well then you use Daisy Cutters on a city combined with cluster bombs and wipe it off the map. Next you give the same deal for Sadr's surrender, his militias disbanding and etc...Key here is only to target cities which begin to form an uprising. I don't think anyone will actually do this. This would bring down SO much negative press in an election year that NO ONE would have the guts to go through with it. And threatening to do something and not doing it only leads to disaster so unless their willing to go through with it, its useless to threaten to do it. End result is you could stay longer at the expense of your image...

Just my thoughts :roll:

We have big gun *grunt grunt* we blow you up good.

:roll:

Did you actually read what he said? I didn't think so. :roll:

I think there are several things to consider.

First of all, exporting democracy is a laudible goal but is a practical impossibility. Democracy requires an evolution of thought regarding the rights and priveleges of governments and citizens. To think that overthrowing a despot, creating a council, then holding elections will produce a democracy in a people ruled by despots for thousands of years is a bit naive, to say the least. The first thing they will elect will be another despot.

The first element to creating a democracy must be a very long term American commitment to stay in Iraq.

That long term commitment must then be used to create the second element, security. The Allies are being far too "nice" in Iraq. Looters should be shot on sight, armed persons disarmed or shot, captured insurgents or terrorists, including members of the Mahdi Army, should be summarily executed. Nation building cannot occur in such an insecure setting, and the Allies will not be able to secure it using western methods in a despotic world.

The third element must be rebuilding infrastructure. Water, electricity, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, all must be rebuilt.

The fourth element must be education. It will take years...years... to educate people used to oppression in the manners of freedom.

Unfortunately, none of the Allies, including the U.S., have the political will to do what is truly necessary. Therefore, it is likely that the US will pull out on June 30th, and the situation in Iraq will spiral more quickly into chaos.

-Galen, Lord Protector of Shannumbria-
I think we may have the political will, if only out of necessity. Bush has pledged to leave as soon as possible, but that's unlikely. There'll always be a few thousand troops stationed in Iraq, in fact, I think I've heard of where they'll be based: a base in Nasiriyah, one near Syria, one at Baghdad Int'l, and one in the north, somewhere. The US has to always be ready to train the police and assist with the military, but the Iraqis choose their own government. I think that even if they do elect another despot, however, if the despot's better than Saddam, he/she will be better for Iraq. And of course, benevolent dictators always want a democracy for when they die, right?