NationStates Jolt Archive

bump

I picked option number 6.

You mean after the invasion? Cause I wouldn't have invaded Iraq to begin with.

I wouldn't have invaded either, but if I had, Iraq would now be occupied by UN troops. Not to say that US forces wouldn't be a significant part of such a force, but they would be under UN command.

I'd have stormed every last city instead of negotiating. They hate us enough to send their kids to blow themselves up to kill us already, so I wouldn't have given a damn about a relations nightmare.

You mean after the invasion? Cause I wouldn't have invaded Iraq to begin with.

I meant, if right this minute, you were to assume the Presidency and take charge of things in the situation we're in now.

I wouldn't have invaded Iraq to begin with.

Agreed.

Bump

Bump

I second that.

I answered your poll, but had I been president I never would of went into Iraq in the first place, nor would I have sought to. Instead I believe I would of spent 100% of the effort towards going after the people that actually attacked the USA on 9/11.

I would have not invaded...
but if I was elected today...I would turn it over to the UN.

I answered your poll, but had I been president I never would of went into Iraq in the first place, nor would I have sought to. Instead I believe I would of spent 100% of the effort towards going after the people that actually attacked the USA on 9/11.

Same here.

I'm no fan of the UN so not that one I probably would have very little if anything to do with them now or to begin with even. I would slowly withdraw making sure that they got everything setup and can maintain themselves so that the action we took would not be in vain if we get out to soon it could result in disaster thus making our action worth nothing but nor do I plan to stay their and involved forever and such.

I'm no fan of the UN so not that one I probably would have very little if anything to do with them now or to begin with even. I would slowly withdraw making sure that they got everything setup and can maintain themselves so that the action we took would not be in vain if we get out to soon it could result in disaster thus making our action worth nothing but nor do I plan to stay their and involved forever and such.

You don't like the UN either?
Jeez, what else do we have in common? :D

What would I do? I'd glass the whole region...lol...

All joking aside though, I would have sent in black ops to kill the bastard, not start a war over it. Then again, as president, I'd probably be impeached for that too...

That fact is, I wouldn't help out Israel. That's where this hatred stems from. Let the middle east take care of themselves. Let israel take care of themselves. We should focus on strengthening our own nation. This is a republican talking too, if you didn't know.

We need to get the hell out of Israel! I don't care how, it just needs to happen soon.

I would have sent in black ops to kill the bastard, not start a war over it. Then again, as president, I'd probably be impeached for that too...

That fact is, I wouldn't help out Israel. That's where this hatred stems from. Let the middle east take care of themselves. Let israel take care of themselves. We should focus on strengthening our own nation. This is a republican talking too, if you didn't know.

We need to get the hell out of Israel! I don't care how, it just needs to happen soon.Makes sense...all of it....

Makes sense...all of it....

...not sure if you're being sarcastic or not...

That fact is, I wouldn't help out Israel. That's where this hatred stems from. Let the middle east take care of themselves. Let israel take care of themselves. We should focus on strengthening our own nation. This is a republican talking too, if you didn't know.

We need to get the hell out of Israel! I don't care how, it just needs to happen soon.

Agreed!

Agreed!

AHHHHHHHHHHH! What's the world coming too? Lol

What would I do? I'd glass the whole region...lol...

All joking aside though, I would have sent in black ops to kill the bastard, not start a war over it. Then again, as president, I'd probably be impeached for that too...

That fact is, I wouldn't help out Israel. That's where this hatred stems from. Let the middle east take care of themselves. Let israel take care of themselves. We should focus on strengthening our own nation. This is a republican talking too, if you didn't know.

We need to get the hell out of Israel! I don't care how, it just needs to happen soon.

Oh My :eek:

I actually agree with you as well. Now that doesn't happen every day :)

I'm glad nobody picked number 7 yet. :)

Oh My :eek:

I actually agree with you as well. Now that doesn't happen every day :)

See?

*points to self*

...not as psycho conservative as you think....or perhaps I'm just more conservative than I am "republican".

I thought more people would pick number 6...

I meant, if right this minute, you were to assume the Presidency and take charge of things in the situation we're in now.
Alrighty. In that case I would ask Britain and France for some pointers when it comes to occupying Muslim countries. Since attacks in British controled areas are rare. I would open all borders to the US for everyone and dismantle the entire nuclear arsenal and the capability to create new nukes. I would cut the defence budget to 1 million a year. And give the rest of the 417 billion to myself. Of course it would be logged under espenses. For toilet seats for the White house. Can't have enough of those.

I thought more people would pick number 6...

It doesn't solve the problem.

That fact is, I wouldn't help out Israel. That's where this hatred stems from. Let the middle east take care of themselves. Let israel take care of themselves. We should focus on strengthening our own nation. This is a republican talking too, if you didn't know.

We need to get the hell out of Israel! I don't care how, it just needs to happen soon.

The fact that I actually agree with Steel Butterfly on something is troubling...

Alrighty. In that case I would ask Britain and France for some pointers when it comes to occupying Muslim countries. Since attacks in British controled areas are rare. I would open all borders to the US for everyone and dismantle the entire nuclear arsenal and the capability to create new nukes. I would cut the defence budget to 1 million a year. And give the rest of the 417 billion to myself. Of course it would be logged under espenses. For toilet seats for the White house. Can't have enough of those.

Then the country falls apart. Realizing that the US has no nukes, North Korea launches a few to Washington. The US gets all pissed off...and sends investigators to Korea. Why would we attack? We advised the French after all...

The fact that I actually agree with Steel Butterfly on something is troubling...

*smiles* MORE...MORE!

...not sure if you're being sarcastic or not...
no sacasm...I just agree.

*smiles* MORE...MORE!

LESS! LESS! :)

Then the country falls apart.
So? I don't care. I probably lost the election anyway. And me and the rest of the defence budget are getting a tan on my own private, tropical beach while drinking ice cold beer.
Why would we attack? We advised the French after all...
Huh?

bump

This question assumes we're already in this morass. Personally, I would not have considered going into Iraq without The U.N. or at least NATO with me. Not only is there strength in numbers, there's legitimacy in numbers. There were still diplomatic channels the U.S. and the U.N. could have taken. There was NO RUSH. Whether Saddam had WMDs or not, we had no reason to believe he had the ability and will to use them on anybody. In fact, considering that for the last decade, he sat on his hands and did nothing, why would he do something different now?

Perhaps a military soulution was the only one that would have worked. I don't question that. I only question the timing. I don't think we needed to act WHEN we did.

But we're in this mess.

The way I see it, the Iraqi government and people have two problems: Insurgents and Public Opinion. The Insurgents mean to keep the area as unstable as possible so the U.S. is forced to maintain a military presense. That's right. You read that right. The insurgents in Iraq WANT US THERE! They want us there because the longer we are there, the more public opinion will turn against us, and the more unstable the current government will be. It will make the people desperate enough for stability that they will turn to whoever can provide it. Namely, the insurgents. Public Opinion in Iraq is that we are an occupying force. The Insurgents, in the eyes of the common Iraqi, are trying to drive us out. Of course, this is a lie. The violence in Iraq is carefully planned to prolong our stay, not to push us out. But the average Iraqi doesn't know this.

The most valuable thing we can do for the Iraqi government and it's people is to leave. The moment this becomes an entirely internal Iraqi matter, the Iraqi people will see who is REALLY their enemy. It's in our best interest to involve muslim countries in the sharing of responsibility to rebuild Iraq. All we are is an irritant.

I'd withdraw the troops to let them kill eachother and make a public announcement to the muslim world saying that if 1 more American is killed in a terrorist attack a random Muslim Capital will be nuked. I bet the Saudi financers would stop funneling funds to al Qaeda if Riyadh is just as likely a target as Tehran or Damascus. They may try 1 more thing to test us, but it would surely be the last when the promise is followed through.

I'd withdraw the troops to let them kill eachother and make a public announcement to the muslim world saying that if 1 more American is killed in a terrorist attack a random Muslim Capital will be nuked. I bet the Saudi financers would stop funneling funds to al Qaeda if Riyadh is just as likely a target as Tehran or Damascus. They may try 1 more thing to test us, but it would surely be the last when the promise is followed through.

A little extreme, but it would definitely get our point across.

A little extreme, but it would definitely get our point across.
I know it is extreme and will admit that, but it solves the problem of terrorism. The only thing our enemies know is force and we will show it to them.

A little extreme, but it would definitely get our point across.

and get the job done. However, using nukes is a little different in real life compared to nationstates...

I know it is extreme and will admit that, but it solves the problem of terrorism. The only thing our enemies know is force and we will show it to them.

True.

I know it is extreme and will admit that, but it solves the problem of terrorism. The only thing our enemies know is force and we will show it to them.

Eh, I think I have to disagree with what you believe the outcome would be. I believe if the Americans were to pull out now, civil war would break out and the Sunni and Kurds would lose because Iran would step in to help their fellow Shi'ites. After the war was over you would see a melding of Iraq and Iran and this would be a far bigger problem then it ever was to begin with. Iran and Iraq would be complete allies. I personally don't see a good out come no matter how you slice it. However total withdrawl at this point would be the worse thing to do. I hope I'm wrong, but I do suspect civil war to break out in Iraq 5 minutes after the Americans leave. Unless of course there has never been an exit plan, because they have never intended to exit.

Footnote: Of course nuking them is not an option.

The Administration will probably plan on staying in for years, while intentionally evading victory.

Eh, I think I have to disagree with what you believe the outcome would be. I believe if the Americans were to pull out now, civil war would break out and the Sunni and Kurds would lose because Iran would step in to help their fellow Shi'ites. After the war was over you would see a melding of Iraq and Iran and this would be a far bigger problem then it ever was to begin with. Iran and Iraq would be complete allies. I personally don't see a good out come no matter how you slice it. However total withdrawl at this point would be the worse thing to do. I hope I'm wrong, but I do suspect civil war to break out in Iraq 5 minutes after the Americans leave. Unless of course there has never been an exit plan, because they have never intended to exit.

Footnote: Of course nuking them is not an option.

If they are willing to kill Americans then nuking is an option. Just watch the Saudi bankers run and fund al Qaeda and the terrorist groups in Iraq if they knew Riyadh would be just as likely a target as Tehran, Baghdad, or Damascus. I am actually for the war and realize that we can't just pull out unless my plan is used where we scare them into submission. Lets just really see how much these Jihadist nuts want to see Allah

Lets just really see how much these Jihadist nuts want to see Allah

:D

If they are willing to kill Americans then nuking is an option. Just watch the Saudi bankers run and fund al Qaeda and the terrorist groups in Iraq if they knew Riyadh would be just as likely a target as Tehran, Baghdad, or Damascus. I am actually for the war and realize that we can't just pull out unless my plan is used where we scare them into submission. Lets just really see how much these Jihadist nuts want to see Allah

Well, perhaps an option to you..lol

I seriously doubt this course of action would ever even be considered. You want 1 billion really pissed off Muslims at America? You can't possibly take them all out. They're spread across the world. 1 billion vs. 300 Million, I don't like them odds.

I'd withdraw the troops to let them kill eachother and make a public announcement to the muslim world saying that if 1 more American is killed in a terrorist attack a random Muslim Capital will be nuked. I bet the Saudi financers would stop funneling funds to al Qaeda if Riyadh is just as likely a target as Tehran or Damascus. They may try 1 more thing to test us, but it would surely be the last when the promise is followed through.

Agreed. Force and violence are the only languages these scumbags understand.

Well, perhaps an option to you..lol

I seriously doubt this course of action would ever even be considered. You want 1 billion really pissed off Muslims at America? You can't possibly take them all out. They're spread across the world. 1 billion vs. 300 Million, I don't like them odds.

All they understand is force and if we take the gloves off we can demonstrate to them. If the threat scares them enough then we won't even come to the nuclear usage. Now if we have to use a nuclear bomb after they attack us, then most of the Muslims would be in fear and no longer support the terrorists. They aren't as willing to meet Allah as they would want you to be. Most of them probably want to live and if the US adopted this plan they would have to cut all ties to terrorism if they plan on living long.

Agreed. Force and violence are the only languages these scumbags understand.
Actually lot's of them also speak English and/or French next to their native language.

All they understand is force and if we take the gloves off we can demonstrate to them. If the threat scares them enough then we won't even come to the nuclear usage. Now if we have to use a nuclear bomb after they attack us, then most of the Muslims would be in fear and no longer support the terrorists. They aren't as willing to meet Allah as they would want you to be. Most of them probably want to live and if the US adopted this plan they would have to cut all ties to terrorism if they plan on living long.

I like your plan! :D

Actually lot's of them also speak English and/or French next to their native language.

:D

Wow, there's a way to show the world we're better human beings than the terrorists...

Wow, there's a way to show the world we're better human beings than the terrorists...

You've gotta admit, though, it would get our point across...

Wow, there's a way to show the world we're better human beings than the terrorists...
Well, if you can't beat them, join them. You have to howl with the wolves. You just have to howl louder.

All they understand is force and if we take the gloves off we can demonstrate to them. If the threat scares them enough then we won't even come to the nuclear usage. Now if we have to use a nuclear bomb after they attack us, then most of the Muslims would be in fear and no longer support the terrorists. They aren't as willing to meet Allah as they would want you to be. Most of them probably want to live and if the US adopted this plan they would have to cut all ties to terrorism if they plan on living long.

Yeah, but c'mon, the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. These jihadist are in the minority. Most Muslims don't feel the way these extremists do. So to take out a minority of people you would be willing to kill millions of innocent women and children and even men? It make for an interesting game plan in theory, but not a very realistic one.

Yeah, but c'mon, the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. These jihadist are in the minority. Most Muslims don't feel the way these extremists do. So to take out a minority of people you would be willing to kill millions of innocent women and children and even men? It make for an interesting game plan in theory, but not a very realistic one.
It's better to punish 10 innocents then to let 1 guilty get away. Don't you just love high American moral standarts?

Soak all the bullets pig blood.

Yeah, but c'mon, the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. These jihadist are in the minority. Most Muslims don't feel the way these extremists do. So to take out a minority of people you would be willing to kill millions of innocent women and children and even men? It make for an interesting game plan in theory, but not a very realistic one.

Hmmm...well put.

Very simple: If you fire on american troops or terrorist bomb american troops we will kill you(if your still alive), kill your entire family, kill everyone on the block you lived. That will cut the crap real fast because people wont perform attacks and if someone knows a person is going to perform an attack they'll report it so they dont die in the end. And eventually even if that didnt work there wont be any people in Iraq left to fight back after a few months.

I honestly think that most individual people can be brought to see your side of the argument with talk and education and calm persuasion. I'd withdraw the troops and start putting funding into education systems where they can learn not to be suicidal lunatics and learn to think for themselves rather than following what the guy ahead of them is doing.

"Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding." - Albert Einstein.

bump

Very simple: If you fire on american troops or terrorist bomb american troops we will kill you(if your still alive), kill your entire family, kill everyone on the block you lived. That will cut the crap real fast because people wont perform attacks and if someone knows a person is going to perform an attack they'll report it so they dont die in the end. And eventually even if that didnt work there wont be any people in Iraq left to fight back after a few months.

This would make you also a terrorist. You will lose the war if you become the enemy. Simple logic.

I say we just get the hell out of Iraq now. We never should have been there in the first place, and we certainly have no business there now.

Well, I wouldn't have invaded, but, since this is a post invasion question, I'd withdrawn immediately. Screw 'em!

This would make you also a terrorist. You will lose the war if you become the enemy. Simple logic.

nope we are the occupying force we are the government the government has the right to do anything that is necessary to ensure stability and the well being of our troops. It will also make us feared so no one will act against us, thus winning the war.

Rebuild the old Iraqi army (Republican Guard etc), release Saddam Hussein, apologize to him, rebuild his palaces that were destroyed, and then put him back into power.

Well, I wouldn't have invaded, but, since this is a post invasion question, I'd withdrawn immediately. Screw 'em!

Agreed! (Er, except for the "screw 'em" part)

nope we are the occupying force we are the government the government has the right to do anything that is necessary to ensure stability and the well being of our troops. It will also make us feared so no one will act against us, thus winning the war.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate or something like that. Osama will be gratefull you helped him to recruit millions of muslims around the globe. Wouldn't want to be an American when your plan is excecuted. (I wouldn't want to be one now either. Just so were clear on that)

As lovely as the "nuke 'em" options sounds, or the "you dead! your family dead!" option, anyone who thinks that this would change anything is delusional. In WWII in Poland it was understood that if the Resistance killed a German soldier, 100 random civilians would be shot in retalliation. And they were.

Did it change anything?

No.

Would it just inflame more moderates to the jihadist cause?

Yes.

Because then you have become the Great Satan that the moderates did not believe you were.

At that point, you pretty much have to glass over the whole region - including Indonesia, Pakistan (who has nukes of their own), the various ex-soviet Stans etc, and you best remember that every muslim of middle eastern descent in the US had family over there. So you better round all them up (and all the ones in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc) and shoot them just to be safe.

That seems one hell of a price to pay.

Agreed! (Er, except for the "screw 'em" part)
I never DID specify who "em" were... They could very well be the insurgents.

I never DID specify who "em" were... They could very well be the insurgents.

True.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate or something like that. Osama will be gratefull you helped him to recruit millions of muslims around the globe. Wouldn't want to be an American when your plan is excecuted. (I wouldn't want to be one now either. Just so were clear on that)

You have to keep the people perputaly in a state of fear, you cant go soft on them eventually it has to be constant. Which has to be backed up with brainwashing of the young to support your cause. Its an important stratagem to maintaining control.

You have to keep the people perputaly in a state of fear, you cant go soft on them eventually it has to be constant. Which has to be backed up with brainwashing of the young to support your cause. Its an important stratagem to maintaining control.

And it's also very Nazi-esque.

As lovely as the "nuke 'em" options sounds, or the "you dead! your family dead!" option, anyone who thinks that this would change anything is delusional. In WWII in Poland it was understood that if the Resistance killed a German soldier, 100 random civilians would be shot in retalliation. And they were.

Did it change anything?

No.

Would it just inflame more moderates to the jihadist cause?

Yes.

Because then you have become the Great Satan that the moderates did not believe you were.

At that point, you pretty much have to glass over the whole region - including Indonesia, Pakistan (who has nukes of their own), the various ex-soviet Stans etc, and you best remember that every muslim of middle eastern descent in the US had family over there. So you better round all them up (and all the ones in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc) and shoot them just to be safe.

That seems one hell of a price to pay.

Just curious, but what would you do, Zep? (May I call you Zep?)

And it's also very Nazi-esque.
Naah. It's the American way. Especially the brainwashing the young part.

Naah. It's the American way.

The way of some Americans, yes, but not most.

As lovely as the "nuke 'em" options sounds, or the "you dead! your family dead!" option, anyone who thinks that this would change anything is delusional. In WWII in Poland it was understood that if the Resistance killed a German soldier, 100 random civilians would be shot in retalliation. And they were.

Did it change anything?

No.

Would it just inflame more moderates to the jihadist cause?

Yes.

Because then you have become the Great Satan that the moderates did not believe you were.

At that point, you pretty much have to glass over the whole region - including Indonesia, Pakistan (who has nukes of their own), the various ex-soviet Stans etc, and you best remember that every muslim of middle eastern descent in the US had family over there. So you better round all them up (and all the ones in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc) and shoot them just to be safe.

That seems one hell of a price to pay.

The resistance in most of those countries werent strong until late 43-45 when the Germans started to lose badly in the war. When the Germans were undisputed masters of Europe terror attacks against German troops were low. Its only when they lost there stranglehold on Europe did the resistances come out in full force.

Look at the Soviets they kept all of eastern europe under there control for 50 years with minimal casualities by maintaining fear in the populace it was only when the SU could no longer support its core state did the satelites finally get enough power to break off. But if the SU indoctrinated the satelite peoples better then they could of kept control.

The way of some Americans, yes, but not most.
It's the way of the US government.(the some)

And it's also very Nazi-esque.

the ends justify the means.

The resistance in most of those countries werent strong until late 43-45 when the Germans started to lose badly in the war. When the Germans were undisputed masters of Europe terror attacks against German troops were low. Its only when they lost there stranglehold on Europe did the resistances come out in full force.

Look at the Soviets they kept all of eastern europe under there control for 50 years with minimal casualities by maintaining fear in the populace it was only when the SU could no longer support its core state did the satelites finally get enough power to break off. But if the SU indoctrinated the satelite peoples better then they could of kept control.

Think Poland, think Warsaw.. no one helped them and they never gave up. So that puts your theory in question now doesn't it.

Just curious, but what would you do, Zep? (May I call you Zep?)

At this point? Gad - talk about inheriting a mess!

Hide in a corner and whimper?

I would sure as hell stop construction on all of those permanenet bases being built in Iraq that's for sure! Waste of money and effort. Iraq won't let you stay that long. Put all that effort and resources into rebuilding for the civillians instead

The first question I ask is - do I think the three groups will hold together in the long term under a democratic arrangement? No, I don't. Especially not the Kurds.

So I would look to partition the country, establish Kurdistan, broker a deal with Turkey so that they accept this (might include helping grease their way into the EU which they deperately want). Once the border is set this region can be turned over to a UN contingent to supervise their transition to democracy. Cuts down on the area you need to manage.

This other two groups. Let them determine whether to work together or further subdivide according to a referendum.

The biggest item? Put a firm deadline for withdrawl and let the Iraqi Council (or future government) decide what the priorities are and set timetablees. Right now they have the luxury of blaming you for everything that goes wrong. Letting them set the agenda on what needs to be done before you leave will a) reassure the Iraqi's that occupation is not the intent and b) force people to get things done. If blue helmets are going to be needed to help out as you leave - that will be another issue. And not your problem.

For the good-faith gesture, I would also start to play hardball with Israel and force a redrawing of the wall to a more limited border. Impose sanctions if neccessary and cut off military aid as threats to get them to comply..

(If Ross Parot was in office durring 9/11)

You mean Iraq existed at one time?

(If Ross Parot was in office durring 9/11)

You mean Iraq existed at one time?

Uhh, I don't get it, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

*Confused*

Think Poland, think Warsaw.. no one helped them and they never gave up. So that puts your theory in question now doesn't it.

Isolated incident. As a whole resistance across Europe was slow to move and act until Germany was already weakened.

The Warsaw Uprising as you brought up happened late in the war August 1 1944. Its goal basically wasnt the removal of German control but to prevent control of Warsaw falling to that of the Soviets. The Uprising resulted in the deaths of 275 thousand Poles and the destruction of 85% of the city. The Uprising did last 63 days in Warsaw but by this time in 44 the german army was signaficantly weakened with 2nd and 3rd rate divisions serving as occupational troops. If it had happened earler during the war the revolt would of been put down brutally and quickly.

And the Only reason the Poles used Operation Tempest is because there initial plan of waiting till Hitler withdraw divisions from the eastern front to support allied landings in the west then rebelling fell through, because an allied invasion of Europe would not occur before the soviets reached pre war polish borders.

I was referring to the Middle East throught Iraq

Isolated incident. As a whole resistance across Europe was slow to move and act until Germany was already weakened.

The Warsaw Uprising as you brought up happened late in the war August 1 1944. Its goal basically wasnt the removal of German control but to prevent control of Warsaw falling to that of the Soviets. The Uprising resulted in the deaths of 275 thousand Poles and the destruction of 85% of the city. The Uprising did last 63 days in Warsaw but by this time in 44 the german army was signaficantly weakened with 2nd and 3rd rate divisions serving as occupational troops. If it had happened earler during the war the revolt would of been put down brutally and quickly.

And the Only reason the Poles used Operation Tempest is because there initial plan of waiting till Hitler withdraw divisions from the eastern front to support allied landings in the west then rebelling fell through, because an allied invasion of Europe would not occur before the soviets reached pre war polish borders.

Well, I can't really argue with that. However I still think your plan is at best insane.. *LOL*

I was referring to the Middle East throught Iraq

Ah, okay, got it. Thanks.

You see - if I were President - there never would've been a situation in Iraq in the first place. ;)

And it's also very Nazi-esque.

No, it's occupier-esque. Fear controls...there's no other way to do it.

Wow, this thread ain't dead yet!? :eek:

Uhh, I don't get it, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

*Confused*

saddam funded terrorist. it doesn't matter which terrorists he funded...they're all the same.

Wow, this thread ain't dead yet!? :eek:

sorry...i've been gone for a week :D

I would have made iraqi people think that god was mad at them. I would have detonated bombs in the sky so it looked like fire in the skies. I would have dropped billions of locusts on there cities. I would have dyed there water supplys like black or something. If possible I would have put speakers everywhere (hidden) and blared loud rock music so they couldnt sleep till they gave up there leaders. And maybe something to shake the ground. If I did bomb anything I like outside the cities I would make the bombs look like they were on fire like god was raining down fire. No casualties!! Make it so the people are to afraid to sleep and cant sleep cause the musics so loud. Putting speakers everywhere would be expensive but not as expensive as dropping millions of bombs and sending troops.

sorry...i've been gone for a week :D

No, it's okay, I'm just surprised, is all.

Where's the 'Make the Iraqi's build me a pyramid with my face carved on the side' option?

anyone think that the last post on page six is crazy enough to work??

Where's the 'Make the Iraqi's build me a pyramid with my face carved on the side' option?

Option number 9: 'Other.'

I'd stay the course. I wouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi army, but hey, hindsight is always 20/20.

firstly, i wouldn't have invaded.

but if i was elected in november 2004 to take over the quagmire left over by bush, i would begin negotiations with the militants in iraq to figure out a solution.