NationStates Jolt Archive

Every time we drop a bomb, launch a cruise missle or even use gas in a hummer we spend money. Lots of money. This is what we would have to do to end it.

Give all that money we are spending on the war to the iraqi goverment. They will handle the terrorists. We move all our troops to the boarders so that no one may enter or leave the country. Then in a month the iraqi people will have the country cleaned out (I think they hate car bombs as much as us at this point) and we can leave.

I hate to say it, but nothing is that simple. If the situation proves ill for the insurgency, the likelihood is that they will merely retreat into the shadows of the population returning when times are more complacent.

They still have to know people. When there is a $100,000 reward for any insurgent a bunch will get turned in. I hate to say it, but, without the geneva convention they are going to get the rest of them pretty fast.

They still have to know people. When there is a $100,000 reward for any insurgent a bunch will get turned in. I hate to say it, but, without the geneva convention they are going to get the rest of them pretty fast.

But still that is an over-simplification. There will always be some that get away and it is these that will grow like a tumour converting others to their cause and growing once again. The insurgency will not die anytime soon, even if we were to follow your plan.

In addition, the offer of reward money is a double-edged sword. To accept it and give information to the Americans (and maybe even the Iraqi government) will likely stigmatise the informant in the community. Eventually, the insurgency would find him and shall we say, deal with him.

And finally, who is to say that the Iraqi government would fair any better than Coalition forces in quelling the insurgency? If anything they maybe even less successful.

And finally, who is to say that the Iraqi government would fair any better than Coalition forces in quelling the insurgency? If anything they maybe even less successful.

Either way it's not our problem anyways.

Either way it's not our problem anyways.
No no- you (i.e The United States/Britain) created this mess- you'll clean it up. :mad:

Either way it's not our problem anyways.

Every country is connected to every other country. What one country does affects others. We are all interconnected.
Problems at the local level will undoubtedly resonate at the global level with global effects.

So in a sense, localised problems are everyones problem.

The goverment will have protection plans for people who turn them in. The insurrgents will definitly not want to get caught by the iraqis because they know that they will get the shit tortured out of them. So alot of them will turn them selfs over to the americans and even more then that will try to leave the country.

They will have protection plans for people who trun them in. They will definitly not want to get caught by the iraqis because they will know that they will get the shit tortured out of them. So alot of them will turn them selfs over to the americans and even more then that will try to leave the country.

Which in turn is a problem in that nobody is going to turn anyone in if they are forced to relocate themselves. Who would want to move away from their family and friends whom they may have known for years? This is especially true in the more community minded cultures of the middle-east.
Even if you were to relocate the families, such a movement would be noticed especially if more people were doing it.

Not to mention that it would cost even more in addition to the cost of fighting the insurgents.

Which in turn is a problem in that nobody is going to turn anyone in if they are forced to relocate themselves. Who would want to move away from their family and friends whom they may have know for years?
Even if you were to relocate the families, such a movement would be noticed especially if more people were doing it.

Not to mention that it would cost even more in addition to the cost of fighting the insurgents.

Yes they are. $100,000 or how ever large of a sum for just a month. I think people are use to moving by now because of the war. It will not cost BILLIONS of dollars to fight them. Thats what it's costing us with cruise missles and aircraft carriers. M16s and reward money is a lot cheaper.

Yes they are. $100,000 or how ever large of a sum for just a month. I think people are use to moving by now because of the war. It will not cost BILLIONS of dollars to fight them. Thats what it's costing us with cruise missles and aircraft carriers. M16s and Reward money is alot cheaper.

But you are a making a lot of assumptions and assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups.

Pardon my language.

There were a lot of those when we started this war to. :p

But you are a making a lot of assumptions and assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups.

Pardon my language.

If you'll notice, the place is already screwed up. We aren't contributing anything by staying, so we should just leave.

We should go by the future war plans (which I posted in another thread). When a place bothers you, go in, waste it, overthrow the government, destroy the infrastructure and military, and immediately leave.

Yes, it still leaves a stinking mess. But it's a stinking mess that isn't killing any of your soldiers on a daily basis. And the best part is - no Cindy Sheehans can get any traction, because most Americans will think we're kicking ass and taking names.

And what voters think DURING your term is what matters. Not what they think long after you're not President.

They still have to know people. When there is a $100,000 reward for any insurgent a bunch will get turned in. I hate to say it, but, without the geneva convention they are going to get the rest of them pretty fast.

Rewards don't work. Look how many Pakis and Afghans took advantage of it.....;

If you'll notice, the place is already screwed up. We aren't contributing anything by staying, so we should just leave.

In fact your contribution was in creating the mess, that was a job well done!

The problem with leaving now is that it will create a power vacuum that can be filled by anyone, and most probably that anyone won't have the US best interests in mind. Truth is that when the US attacked Iraq, they were committing themselves to a very long stay, at least a decade, whether they knew it at the time (which they should have) or not.

Here's a solution: pull out of Iraq immediately, completely, and unconditionally, and let the Iraqis handle it themselves.

Here's a solution: pull out of Iraq immediately, completely, and unconditionally, and let the Iraqis handle it themselves.

Lew, when I proposed that idea, people on the forum here said I was immoral.

In fact your contribution was in creating the mess, that was a job well done!

The problem with leaving now is that it will create a power vacuum that can be filled by anyone, and most probably that anyone won't have the US best interests in mind. Truth is that when the US attacked Iraq, they were committing themselves to a very long stay, at least a decade, whether they knew it at the time (which they should have) or not.
Correct. We never should have attacked Iraq, but now that we have, it would not only be ethically wrong to abandon the Iraqis with an unfinished government, but also bad for our own interests. The US has to just get used to the idea that we will have a military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. We broke it, we bought it. A decade is optimistic, imo. We need to quit farting around with this quick war bullshit and develop a long term plan.

Correct. We never should have attacked Iraq, but now that we have, it would not only be ethically wrong to abandon the Iraqis with an unfinished government, but also bad for our own interests. The US has to just get used to the idea that we will have a military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. We broke it, we bought it. A decade is optimistic, imo. We need to quit farting around with this quick war bullshit and develop a long term plan.

Well, if you expect the military to stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future, I suggest that you go to Cindy Sheehan and convince her to stop protesting.

Every time we drop a bomb, launch a cruise missle or even use gas in a hummer we spend money. Lots of money. This is what we would have to do to end it.



Give all that money we are spending on the war to the iraqi goverment.

Even the "good guys" there are quite corrupt. And we haven't been too adept and figuring out who we think the "good guys" are. This soundsa like a good plan for opening a bottomless bag of money...

They will handle the terrorists.

How? Only 1 battalion of 86 ia able to operate on it's own without US support. Take away that support, particularly US intel assets, and the Iraqis are utterly at a loss.

We move all our troops to the boarders so that no one may enter or leave the country.

Do you know how very, very difficult that is? We'd need a minimum of double the forces we currently have to get anywhere near sealing the borders.

Then in a month the iraqi people will have the country cleaned out (I think they hate car bombs as much as us at this point) and we can leave.

Wanna buy a bridge?

Then clone this guy...


Injured Marine defies attackers

BY C. DAVID KOTOK

WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

RAMADI, Iraq - Once Marine Gunnery Sgt. Michael Burghardt realized he could wiggle his toes and fingers, he had one message for the insurgents who wounded him - defiance.

Marine Gunnery Sgt. Michael Burghardt signals defiance at his Iraqi attackers after being injured by an improvised explosive device near Ramadi. Attending to the Marine were Nebraska 167th Cavalry members Spc. John Adams (far left, in front) of Hastings, Neb., and Pfc. Darin Nelson of Fremont, Neb.

Burghardt, of Huntington Beach, Calif., started his third tour in Iraq trying to beat the insurgents to the IEDs - improvised explosive devices - and disarm them before the insurgents could set them off.

As is often the case, Burghardt and his Explosive Ordnance Disposal team were accompanied to a bomb site Monday by the First Platoon, 167th Cavalry of the Nebraska National Guard.

One IED had blown up a Bradley fighting vehicle and killed a U.S. soldier. As often happens, the insurgents left behind more IEDs. Burghardt disarmed two bombs that were found - quick action that probably saved the lives of several Nebraska soldiers.

But he couldn't get to a third.

When word spread that the third device had been found, 167th Capt. Jeff Searcey of Kearney, 1st Lt. Matthew Misfeldt of Omaha and their men hit the ground as a blast exploded skyward.

Burghardt was wounded.

But with two new young Marines in his ordnance disposal unit - and the insurgent attackers undoubtedly looking on - "I didn't want them to see the team leader carried away on a stretcher," he said.

So after the Nebraskans tended to wounds that reached from his boot tops to the small of his back, Burghardt rose to his feet and reached back with a one-finger salute for his attackers.


"I was angry," Burghardt said.

IEDs - which can be roadside bombs, car bombs or other booby traps - increasingly are the weapons of choice for the Iraqi insurgents.

Unwilling or unable to attack U.S. forces head-on, the insurgency has used the hidden explosives, often detonated by remote control. Some analysts have estimated that nearly 12,000 IED incidents occurred in Iraq in 2004.

The Explosive Ordnance Disposal units are assigned to locate, identify, disarm and dispose of IEDs. The Nebraskans alongside Burghardt's unit provide security at the scene, guarding the perimeter while the EOD teams do their dangerous work.

The 1st Platoon has been on 80 such missions, including some false alarms, since the 167th Cavalry arrived in Ramadi about 90 days ago.

Working together, the ordnance disposal Marines and the Nebraska National Guardsmen have developed a mutual respect - there's no Army-Marine trash-talking here.

"The biggest threat to us in Iraq is IEDs. We love working with them. They make us better soldiers," Misfeldt said.

Burghardt, an 18-year Marine with 15 years' experience disarming explosives, returns that admiration.

"I feel part of this Army team," he said. "They take care of us like brothers."

Burghardt received the Bronze Star during his last tour of duty for disarming 64 IEDs. This week's incident was his first injury.

Burghardt, 35, wouldn't accept painkillers when he was brought back to camp by the Nebraskans. He knew he might need them later. And he's not looking to leave Ramadi for five more months.

"I don't want a ticket out," he said. "I want to stay here so we can take as many people home as possible."

Soldiers all the way up to the brigade's commander, Col. John Gronski, viewed a photo of Burghardt - on his feet, arm extended and middle finger raised - as the embodiment of the American warrior.

As for Burghardt, he said he wanted to send a message to the insurgents who failed to kill him.

"I knew there was somebody disappointed out there."


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/BADASS.jpg

Lew, when I proposed that idea, people on the forum here said I was immoral.

What's immoral about it? I bet anyone here $100 that if America were to withdraw, insurgent activity would plummet dramatically. Granted, it would still be a problem, perhaps even a massive one, but it wouldn't occur on as great a scale as it does now.

What's immoral about it? I bet anyone here $100 that if America were to withdraw, insurgent activity would plummet dramatically. Granted, it would still be a problem, perhaps even a massive one, but it wouldn't occur on as great a scale as it does now.

I don't think it's immoral. And in fact, I think that morality and ethics have little to do with international political thought - effective political thought, that is.

What's immoral about it? I bet anyone here $100 that if America were to withdraw, insurgent activity would plummet dramatically. Granted, it would still be a problem, perhaps even a massive one, but it wouldn't occur on as great a scale as it does now.
Well, that's a challenging bet. It's kind of core question, isn't it? I'll never put down someone for arguing for pacifism. People who call pacifists immoral scare the crap out of me. But the way I see it, to pull out of Iraq now would only compound the problem we created by attacking in the first place because there are plenty of bad guys waiting to rush in to fill the vacuum it would leave. Rather than abandoning the situation, I believe we should be trying to change the terms of our presence there.

So, would pulling out the troops make the situation better or worse? To find out would be one hell of a roll of the dice.

Well, that's a challenging bet. It's kind of core question, isn't it? I'll never put down someone for arguing for pacifism. People who call pacifists immoral scare the crap out of me. But the way I see it, to pull out of Iraq now would only compound the problem we created by attacking in the first place because there are plenty of bad guys waiting to rush in to fill the vacuum it would leave. Rather than abandoning the situation, I believe we should be trying to change the terms of our presence there.

So, would pulling out the troops make the situation better or worse? To find out would be one hell of a roll of the dice.

You're the one who argues that the mere presence of American troops there is creating more terrorists and inciting violence against Americans and America.

On one hand you say stay there, and on the other hand you say staying is a bad thing.

Staying there is also a roll of the dice, according to your other statements.

If you think about it for a minute, unless you occupy all of the Arab Middle East, and subjugate it for generations, you're going to have to stay forever in Iraq, because it's neighbors will constantly send people, money, and weapons in to keep things hot.

Sure you want to stay?