NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's my opinion on how the war should be won. It's probably not realistic politically, but I would support any politician who advocates this.

1. Bring back the draft. Get like a million guys in there for a couple of years, rebuild their infrastructure and security forces, and then execute a rapid withdrawal. If they still can't take care of themselves after that, then nothing will work, and we can only look on this as a regrettable chapter of American history.

2. Maintain a small contingent of special forces for logistics, technical support.

Here's my opinion on how the war should be won. It's probably not realistic politically, but I would support any politician who advocates this.

1. Bring back the draft. Get like a million guys in there for a couple of years, rebuild their infrastructure and security forces, and then execute a rapid withdrawal. If they still can't take care of themselves after that, then nothing will work, and we can only look on this as a regrettable chapter of American history.

2. Maintain a small contingent of special forces for logistics, technical support.
Here's an even better way to win the Iraq War:
1. Get the hell out of Iraq
2. Get the hell out of the Middle East
3. Stop sending money to everyone in the Middle East (especially Israel)
4. Stop using oil
Problem solved.

Iraqi forces MUST be trained better, and the sunnis and the shittites cant fight

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=penny_drop

Replace Afghanistan with Iraq.

Here's an even better way to win the Iraq War:
1. Get the hell out of Iraq
2. Get the hell out of the Middle East
3. Stop sending money to everyone in the Middle East (especially Israel)
4. Stop using oil
Problem solved.

It makes sense.

1.) It stops the Middle East from being angry at us.

2.) It stops the Middle East from being angry at us.

3.) It stops the Middle East from being angry at us.

4.) It will help the Middle Eastern Economy to search new ways to increase its monetary earnings.

Stopping the Middle East from being angry at us = Peace at last.

:D

Here's an even better way to win the Iraq War:
1. Get the hell out of Iraq
2. Get the hell out of the Middle East
3. Stop sending money to everyone in the Middle East (especially Israel)
4. Stop using oil
Problem solved.

I agree with everything except #1. If we get out now, Iraq will be more chaotic than it already is, and there is a very good chance that it will be taken over by extremists who support terrorism. I don't know about you, but I for one, would lose some sleep over that.

Here's my opinion on how the war should be won. It's probably not realistic politically, but I would support any politician who advocates this.

1. Bring back the draft. Get like a million guys in there for a couple of years, rebuild their infrastructure and security forces, and then execute a rapid withdrawal. If they still can't take care of themselves after that, then nothing will work, and we can only look on this as a regrettable chapter of American history.

2. Maintain a small contingent of special forces for logistics, technical support.
Sounds almost like what was planned for Vietnam.



That sure turned out well didn't it?

Sounds almost like what was planned for Vietnam.



That sure turned out well didn't it?

It never happened in Vietnam. We didn't get the number of soldiers we needed. In Vietnam, it was always a case of too little, too late. Here, I'm proposing getting all the soldiers we need (and then some)

1. Bring back the draft. Get like a million guys in there for a couple of years, rebuild their infrastructure and security forces, and then execute a rapid withdrawal. If they still can't take care of themselves after that, then nothing will work, and we can only look on this as a regrettable chapter of American history.
How about: no. Drafting is a morally reprehensible tactic that is never justified, even as a means of last resort. If a country can't convince it's citizens to defend it, then it doesn't deserve to exist.
The best way to "win" is to just leave Iraq and Afghanistan. We shouldn't be in the business of rebuilding other nations, but if we must play at being pigs, then we should just bomb them and run leave. If they rebuild themselves in a way that we don't like, we just bomb them back to the ground again.

It never happened in Vietnam. We didn't get the number of soldiers we needed. In Vietnam, it was always a case of too little, too late. Here, I'm proposing getting all the soldiers we need (and then some)
You don't get it. Your logic is along the lines of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it". The more soldiers there, the more collateral damage, the more you turn the populace against you.


In the end we'd "win", but the result would be an American force sitting in a wasteland devoid of life, with the rest of the world hating and condemning us, with good reason.



Not everything can be solved by force.

Here's an even better way to win the Iraq War:
1. Get the hell out of Iraq
2. Get the hell out of the Middle East
3. Stop sending money to everyone in the Middle East (especially Israel)
4. Stop using oil
Problem solved.
This is one of two things: Either a poor joke, or blind stupidity.

1) Would just create an even more ferocious civil war, and one that could potentially expand to include Iran (due to the Shi'a majority) and Turkey (due to Kurds fighting for independance, including the oil rich regions of south eastern Turkey)

2) Again, this is the same as #1. The U.S. doesn't station troops in large numbers anywhere else in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. Bases do not equate to a military presence.

3) Again, this makes no sense. So you stop giving money to Egypt and allow them to crumble under the sway of extreme Islamists? The same is true of other nations in the region.

4) Earth to hollow-skull, that's a nice thought but not exactly feasible. Unless you want to stop using: Automobiles, electricity, mass produced goods, etc, then you'd better get used to oil.

Then again, there's really no reason to bother explaining a decent solution to the problems in Iraq because most people here are either too ignorant of the real problems (such as the Sunni tribal culture, and Kurdish demands, especially in Kirkuk), or too young to understand the economic and political forces at work.

It never happened in Vietnam. We didn't get the number of soldiers we needed. In Vietnam, it was always a case of too little, too late. Here, I'm proposing getting all the soldiers we need (and then some)

oh yeah, putting the draft back would solve EVERYTHING. It would get people in prison, increase the death rate, wow. great idea.

and you said and then some?!?! why? do you look forward to fighting another war to "assert your surperiority?" or do you just like death that much?

I agree that pulling out of Iraq wouldn't solve anything. But the current policy of "hold the line in Iraq" hasn't been successful either, largely because (1) not enough soldiers were sent in the first place. You cannot wage war on the cheap, as Rumsfeld hoped to do. It requires many well-equipped and well-trained soldiers. (2) the occupation forces have not tried hard enough to convince the Sunnis that it is in their best interests to stop resisting and begin working with the new Iraqi government. The Sunnis don't seem to appreciate the fact that they are digging their own graves right now. When the Shia and Kurd dominated new Iraqi military has been trained to the point of self-sufficiency, and Allied forces are asked to leave, if the Sunnis are still resisting and detonating bombs all over the place, and killing Shia muslims as they worship in their mosques; What do you think the new Iraqi military's response will be (without Allied forces to restrain them)?

4. Stop using oil
Problem solved.
I dont know about you but I enjoy products such as "plastic" and gasoline, but then again I am sure most Americans would disagree here. Oh wait, no they wouldnt.

Bases do not equate to a military presence.

wtf? I sure am glad I don't use your logic. Maybe you should read up on history so you can better understand why Muslims may be pissed off at us, and why his post is somewhat credible, though of course those four steps should each be done over a long period of time.

I dont know about you but I enjoy products such as "plastic" and gasoline, but then again I am sure most Americans would disagree here. Oh wait, no they wouldnt.
come on, you can't really be that dumb, can you?

iraq isn't even the main point right now. they are only doing bad things to our soldiers cause we wont leave them alone! If our U.S. soldiers are going to be anywhere, then put them in turkey or iran! those are where the problems are. And while your at it, make a treaty with North Korea so that we don't get ourselves blown to bits from nukes that the government thinks aren't even there!


wait scratch all that.

We just need a new damn president.

iraq isn't even the main point right now. they are only doing bad things to our soldiers cause we wont leave them alone! If our U.S. soldiers are going to be anywhere, then put them in turkey or iran! those are where the problems are. And while your at it, make a treaty with North Korea so that we don't get ourselves blown to bits from nukes that the government thinks aren't even there!


wait scratch all that.

We just need a new damn president.
no nation, or terrorist group, is ever going to use nukes. even bush knows of the international consequences that would result. Well, he didn't know until Rove told him :p

no nation, or terrorist group, is ever going to use nukes. even bush knows of the international consequences that would result. Well, he didn't know until Rove told him :pThere is only one small glitch in that theory.


And it sports a funny haircut, big glasses, rules North Korea and is bat shit crazy.

How to win the war in Iraq? Not possible. We already lost the moment we decided to participate.

There is only one small glitch in that theory.


And it sports a funny haircut, big glasses, rules North Korea and is bat shit crazy.
Dick Cheney?:p But you're right. North Korea is the most probable country to use nukes, if he really is that crazy, so why aren't we invading North Korea? Again.

they don't have oil!!!!111!!!11!!!11!1!!1!!!1!!!1!!

Dick Cheney?:p But you're right. North Korea is the most probable country to use nukes, if he really is that crazy, so why aren't we invading North Korea? Again.

they don't have oil!!!!111!!!11!!!11!1!!1!!!1!!!1!!Well there's that...


Along with the fact that they will use the nukes we can't be sure they have or not.

It's a game of Russian roulette on scale even Dubya isn't stupid enough to play...

You don't get it. Your logic is along the lines of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it". The more soldiers there, the more collateral damage, the more you turn the populace against you.


In the end we'd "win", but the result would be an American force sitting in a wasteland devoid of life, with the rest of the world hating and condemning us, with good reason.



Not everything can be solved by force.

No, there is a way to win without bombing a country to hell. It's called "clear and hold" which is when your soldiers come in to a hamlet, town, village, etc, and clear out the insurgents. Then they act as a police force until the area has been stabilized. This strategy was implemented from 1968 to 1972 in Vietnam, and it was successful in the places it was tried. The problem then, as now, is that we don't have enough boots on the ground to use this strategy.

wtf? I sure am glad I don't use your logic. Maybe you should read up on history so you can better understand why Muslims may be pissed off at us, and why his post is somewhat credible, though of course those four steps should each be done over a long period of time.
Kid, trust me, I know the history far better than you'll probably ever learn about it in school. The post I responded to was in no way credible, and showed a complete lack of knowledge of the issues. What you are probably trying to talk about is the U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, however, this is a null point as the U.S. has effectively erased it's presence therein, and no longer has a significant force in that nation. In reality, the only problem Muslims had originally with U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia (in Desert Shield), was the fact that it meant infidel military forces would be occupying part of the Holy Land, potentially defiling it. That has since been blown up by both national propoganda and extremist groups, however it is no longer a valid issue with the U.S. gone from the Kingdom of Saud. Although it is techically correct to say #1 is something that should be done over a long period of time, #2-#4 are all questionable, especially #3 which shows a clear lack of knowledge of regional dynamics.


Then again, you also disagreed with someone who said Americans need plastics and gasoline, so you may not have the ability to read what I just wrote.

Well there's that...


Along with the fact that they will use the nukes we can't be sure they have or not.

It's a game of Russian roulette on scale even Dubya isn't stupid enough to play...
Not really. Dubya could be that stupid and get away with it merely by virtue fo the fact that the North Koreans may not have missiles capable of striking the West Coast. They may have them, but we aren't sure. As it is, if Dubya really felt like being stupid, he could in fact start a conflict with them...it'd just result in South Korea, Japan, and Hawaii being very uncomfortable for a long, long time.

How about: no. Drafting is a morally reprehensible tactic that is never justified, even as a means of last resort. If a country can't convince it's citizens to defend it, then it doesn't deserve to exist.
The best way to "win" is to just leave Iraq and Afghanistan. We shouldn't be in the business of rebuilding other nations, but if we must play at being pigs, then we should just bomb them and run leave. If they rebuild themselves in a way that we don't like, we just bomb them back to the ground again.

With this reasoning, it's quite likely that the Union would have lost the American Civil War, thus dividing America in two hostile camps and preserving slavery for the next 50 years or so. Or that the Allies would have lost WW2. If the Russians hadn't gotten their soldiers from the ranks of draftees, then they would have collapsed, and let's face it, of all the Allies, the Russians did most of the fighting. And dying.

I don't mean to sound like a neocon, but if there is a draft, I'll be the first to go.

No, there is a way to win without bombing a country to hell. It's called "clear and hold" which is when your soldiers come in to a hamlet, town, village, etc, and clear out the insurgents. Then they act as a police force until the area has been stabilized. This strategy was implemented from 1968 to 1972 in Vietnam, and it was successful in the places it was tried. The problem then, as now, is that we don't have enough boots on the ground to use this strategy.

As I recall, the problem wasn't boots, it was incompetent generals and moronic Presidents. The latter tried to micromanage and the former somehow thought we could win a war with out actually taking away land from our enemy.

Not really. Dubya could be that stupid and get away with it merely by virtue fo the fact that the North Koreans may not have missiles capable of striking the West Coast. They may have them, but we aren't sure. As it is, if Dubya really felt like being stupid, he could in fact start a conflict with them...it'd just result in South Korea, Japan, and Hawaii being very uncomfortable for a long, long time.Uh, if we invade then they won't have to strike the west coast to hit us. Kim Jong Il is crazy enough to blow nukes on or near his own territory. He'll just try to do as much damage to opposing forces as possible.

It's one of the major flaws with Bush's policy of US intrevention. Many of the countries who see themselves on the 'short list' of possible next targets for US invasion see the development of nuclear weapons as the best defense against such.


Bush has actually made the world a more dangerous place to live in by inciting nuclear proliferation.

Here's an even better way to win the Iraq War:
1. Get the hell out of Iraq
2. Get the hell out of the Middle East
3. Stop sending money to everyone in the Middle East (especially Israel)
4. Stop using oil
Problem solved.

It's not that simple. Especially the oil thing. You make it seem as if we could change in a day, or even a year. But it would take decades to recreate the ENTIRE GLOBAL ECONOMY. If there was no oil, and entirely new system of EVERYTHING would have to created. EVERYTHING runs on oil in one way or another. And that won't change for decades. Get that in your head.

As I recall, the problem wasn't boots, it was incompetent generals and moronic Presidents. The latter tried to micromanage and the former somehow thought we could win a war with out actually taking away land from our enemy.

The leadership was part of the problem. But apparently you don't realize that "clear and hold" is taking land away from the enemy. You're clearing the land of the enemy and then you're holding it. And you gotta have enough soldiers to do it.

The leadership was part of the problem. But apparently you don't realize that "clear and hold" is taking land away from the enemy. You're clearing the land of the enemy and then you're holding it. And you gotta have enough soldiers to do it.

You know, you'd think that I'd have heard that troop numbers were a problem, if they had been....

come on, you can't really be that dumb, can you?
explain....

You know, you'd think that I'd have heard that troop numbers were a problem, if they had been....

They were a big part of the problem. When Westmoreland asked for 250,000 more soldiers in 1969 (at the time there were 550,000) public opinion turned even more strongly against the war. There was a reason why he asked for more soldiers, and it was because he didn't have enough. You should read up on the Vietnam War history.

Kid, trust me, I know the history far better than you'll probably ever learn about it in school.

bullshit, if you know so much about it and still don't see any reason for them to be pissed off at us, then there really is no hope for you.

The post I responded to was in no way credible, and showed a complete lack of knowledge of the issues. What you are probably trying to talk about is the U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, however, this is a null point as the U.S. has effectively erased it's presence therein, and no longer has a significant force in that nation. In reality, the only problem Muslims had originally with U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia (in Desert Shield), was the fact that it meant infidel military forces would be occupying part of the Holy Land, potentially defiling it.
exactly, so why don't we leave them the fuck alone?
That has since been blown up by both national propoganda and extremist groups, however it is no longer a valid issue with the U.S. gone from the Kingdom of Saud. Although it is techically correct to say #1 is something that should be done over a long period of time, #2-#4 are all questionable, especially #3 which shows a clear lack of knowledge of regional dynamics.
#4 has to be done at some point unless you truly are retarded and can't see the peak oil crisis that will come in, say 20-30 years.


Then again, you also disagreed with someone who said Americans need plastics and gasoline, so you may not have the ability to read what I just wrote.
perhaps it would enlighten you to know I was trying to say we should find some alternative to oil pronto, but whatever. I'm not going to bother with you. If you can't treat me with respect, then I won't show you any and you can go to hell. I need a forumban for a bit anyways.

There is one primary reason why the suggestion of bringing back the draft will never happen: Political suicide. If the draft were reinstated today, the Republicans would lose the Congress in 06 and the Presidency in 08. Of course, the fact that few Republicans and no Democrats would support the draft is another problem. And with a war as unpopular as this one, the dodging of the draft would be worse than during Vietnam. The Draft will not happen, so the suggestion is idiotic at best.

We need to finish what we started in Iraq, even if we kind of screwed stuff up in the process. But the Draft would neither help, nor occur.

How about we just kill everyone over there, tell them they have to come vote or something and when they come to the polling places, gas them. Then send out the army to round up survivors. After they're all dead we'll have no problem, and maybe we can even start colonizing it over there. Of course that would be extremely evil, but it would work.

They were a big part of the problem. When Westmoreland asked for 250,000 more soldiers in 1969 (at the time there were 550,000) public opinion turned even more strongly against the war. There was a reason why he asked for more soldiers, and it was because he didn't have enough. You should read up on the Vietnam War history.

Westmoreland was one of the idiots running the show, remember? If we can't pacify a tiny little nation with half a million soldiers, then there's something wrong.

Oh, and maybe public opinion wouldn't have turned against the War, if THE WAR WAS BEING RUN PROPERLY!

bullshit, if you know so much about it and still don't see any reason for them to be pissed off at us, then there really is no hope for you.

Are you able to read? I explained the recent history of why they were originally angry regarding bases...an issue which no longer exists. Again, the rights to bases does not equate to a military presence.


exactly, so why don't we leave them the fuck alone?

Well...because in the original case their government invited us in. Invited us. The reason the extremists, especially Bin Laden, got angry is because they felt they were capable of defending Saudia Arabia themselves (which of course they couldn't. Then again, these are the same morons who thought that it was they who defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan, instead of the Afghan Mujahedeen who outnumbered them a hundred (or perhaps a thousand) to one. You don't ignore an area that can undermine the world economy just because a group of psychopaths are going to get pissed at you for getting involved.


#4 has to be done at some point unless you truly are retarded and can't see the peak oil crisis that will come in, say 20-30 years.

And is simply eliminating oil consumption going to do anything in the near future? Not at all. Sure you can power a car through hydrogen fuel...but you sure can't make engine fluids out of water, you still need oil there. Sure you invent more conservative production processes...but you still need oil in the products themselves. What we need is a technological break-out, and one doesn't appear to be forthcoming. Reduced dependancy is good, but it won't go far enough.

perhaps it would enlighten you to know I was trying to say we should find some alternative to oil pronto, but whatever. I'm not going to bother with you. If you can't treat me with respect, then I won't show you any and you can go to hell. I need a forumban for a bit anyways.
Really, what alternative do we use immediately? As of now, we have no way besides oil to properly run our cars (not just to power them, but to make the engines work), to manufacture our goods (oil is an ingredient in most consumer products, like plastics), and to perform a bevy of other tasks. You want something done about, go make the biggest technological breakthrough of the new millenia, otherwise we are still stuck with what we've got.

No, there is a way to win without bombing a country to hell. It's called "clear and hold" which is when your soldiers come in to a hamlet, town, village, etc, and clear out the insurgents. Then they act as a police force until the area has been stabilized. This strategy was implemented from 1968 to 1972 in Vietnam, and it was successful in the places it was tried. The problem then, as now, is that we don't have enough boots on the ground to use this strategy.The problem is when you "clear" an area of a country that doesn't want you there, it means killing off the locals who oppose you. With every death you make another enemy. The problem with the term insurgent is you ignore the fact that you're usually refering to a citizen of the very country you're occupying.

You bring in troops and those troops biggest concern is to go home alive. Discerning friendly from hostile locals becomes secondary. A draft will only escerbate this. You have enough 'friendlies' killed by accident or negligence and pretty soon there are no real 'friendlies'. They are only freindly to your face because they want to stay alive. In the end, to 'win', you end up with the residents of the country you're trying to save either dead or secretly hating you.

If this is how we spread freedom, we should stay at home.

Here's an even better way to win the Iraq War:
1. Get the hell out of Iraq
2. Get the hell out of the Middle East
3. Stop sending money to everyone in the Middle East (especially Israel)
4. Stop using oil
Problem solved.

1. Suicide for our security concerns and every innocent Iraqi civilian there
2. So terrorism can floursih at 10 times the pace it is now ? and leave Israel to die ?
3. Too true, billions wasted yearly on many countries who dont even properly support us.
4. Well.. we'd all love to live in a perfect world.. but until viable alternatives exist (solar inefficent, fuel cells inefficent, wind power (maybe), biodiesel.. same as oil, neculear (try selling that to citizens HA!)

Mind you.. the middle east has been fighting over their resources for thousands of years... Even if we left tomorrow the fighting and bloodshed would only increase in my opinion. And whose fault would that ultimately fall on.. US of course, because America (the infidels) is the easiest target... even when we DONT print offensive cartoons... protests march to Danish emabiese screaming DEATH TO AMERICA. The radicals that exist in the middle east will not simply be satisfied with US leaving their territory.. our very existance is an insult to them and their demented faith.

I just read a book saying that one of the reasons we lost the Vietnam War was because of the misapplication of airpower. We dropped approximately NINE MILLION TONS of bombs on Vietnam(as a whole).... 8.3 million of which was dropped on SOUTH Vietnam :( . The B-52 would scare the beejesus out of anybody who was on the ground and witnessed the bombing raid(even from a altitude of 30,000 feet the explosions look impressive), but they were mostly used in the TACTICAL role, and thanks to the Vietnamese Warning and Information System, they mostly bombed empty jungle.

It gets worse, up until the latter part of the Nixon Administration the air campaign was based on a tit-for-tat strategy(officialy known as 'Flexible Response'). Defense Minister MacNamera(is that how you spell the guys name?) decided he would not go for an all-out bombing campaign. Instead, in a incredibly bizarre fashion, he and Johnson would meet after lunch and discuss the targets that should be bombed, sometimes even including the actual PAYLOAD to be delivered!

It was insanity! SAMs being constructed were taken off the target list, for fear of hurting Soviet/Chinese Advisors, even fully operational SAMs could not be targetted if they were deployed in certain places(like near dams and such), which they were, predictably enough, eventually often placed. Bombers could not target things in major cities, nor could they target harbors(for fear of sinking Soviet/Chinese ships) even though doing so would halt the supplies the Soviets were sending to the North Vietnemese, which would find themselves being sent down the Ho-Chi-Minh Trail and into Vietcong hands. And every time they stopped bombing North Vietnam(which was OFTEN), the North Vietnamese took it as a sign of weakness and began to rebuild whatever damage had been done.

It wasnt until Linebacker-1 that the Vietnamese SERIOUSLY considered going to the peace table. And when they did, Nixon(who had replaced Johnson) made a mistake, he stopped the bombing. The Vietnamese saw this as weakness, re-built their strength(by now, American Combat Troops had mostly been removed from Vietnam), and became troublesome at the peacetalks. When the peactalks broke down, they launched an offensive, which seized a good portion of South Vietnams territory, but ran out of steam.

Then Nixon initiated Linebacker-2... and the Vietnamese were hit so HARD that they nearly ran out of SAMs! And the harbors and major cities and all the other 'off-limit' areas were taken off so they could not re-supply by the sea! Their harbors had been bombed and mined! Even that bridge which was blown up by relatively early smart bombs put a dent in their ability to supply the Vietcong! The NVs were so impressed and hit so hard they returned to the peace table, concluded and concluded a peace settlement. Then they waited TWO YEARS to be sure that America would not start bombing them again if they invaded SV... which they did, and successfully conquered.

Given this information, I have no doubt in my mind that the war could have been won by 67(assuming the accepted start date of 65) had this kind of bombing campaign had begun and continued extensively.

EDIT:But thats off-topic... Ill get an on-topic post ASAP.

One of the conveniences of being invaded is that the cost for survival is worth pain in blood.

One of the inconveniences of being the invader is that even the slightest cost for success is tainted with the blood of the guilty and the innocent.

If we were so content on abandoning every single war that didn't seem worth it or simply lacked the resolve to complete, we wouldn't exist as a nation. And as a rule of thumb, war sucks...period. So it does no good to complain about lives being lost and the astronomical costs to sustain it. We leave now, and the situation will be a lot worse, because we now face an enemy - not only willing to stirke back but ready - who has proved their resolve against the wester powers, and it simply gets a bad name on us. Well, the bad name alone doesn't harm anything except for a reputation. But giving encouragement to an enemy, in any way, hurts the morale of our troops worse than fighting against an enemy.

And quite seriously, if you want your soldiers to return home, go out there and help them.

You don't get it. Your logic is along the lines of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it". The more soldiers there, the more collateral damage, the more you turn the populace against you.


In the end we'd "win", but the result would be an American force sitting in a wasteland devoid of life, with the rest of the world hating and condemning us, with good reason.



Not everything can be solved by force.

aint that the point...everyone in the world hates us anyway..and of coarse we are there for the oil...so a wasteland devoid of people would be perfect..no?

we got the oil..they are dead..aint got to pay or rebuild...everyone is happy

except the dead folk...but they seem to want to die.or at least their leaders have no compunction to killing them willy nilly...so does it really matter who kills em?

as long as we get the oil...and maintain the hatred that warms us so..all are happy..the world gets to hate us..which they seem to enjoy so much..whether warrented or not..we get the oil..and everyone knows thats all we care about...and the arabs..oh well..the brits.fucked them,the french screwed em..and the russians even got to play..now it's just americas turn..with the added benefit of all the hate..for doing the exact same shit..but all the hate keeps us warm.

sarcasm is on

"Not everything can be solved by force."

Thats a good slogan......

"Not everything can be solved by force."

Thats a good slogan......

ummm...nice to see you aint blowing blood vessels...harric..and oddly enough,i agree with you..oddly enough;)

Well it seems like plenty of you have taken a shot at my plan so here comes the defense:

I agree with everything except #1. If we get out now, Iraq will be more chaotic than it already is, and there is a very good chance that it will be taken over by extremists who support terrorism. I don't know about you, but I for one, would lose some sleep over that.
You can't actually agree with #2 if you disagree with #1, because as far as I'm aware, Iraq is in the Middle East. And um, even if your "doom's day" scenerio happens and Iraq is ruled by Islamic terrorists, then what? They attack us in the United States? Ha, fat chance.
This is one of two things: Either a poor joke, or blind stupidity.

1) Would just create an even more ferocious civil war, and one that could potentially expand to include Iran (due to the Shi'a majority) and Turkey (due to Kurds fighting for independance, including the oil rich regions of south eastern Turkey)

2) Again, this is the same as #1. The U.S. doesn't station troops in large numbers anywhere else in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. Bases do not equate to a military presence.

3) Again, this makes no sense. So you stop giving money to Egypt and allow them to crumble under the sway of extreme Islamists? The same is true of other nations in the region.

4) Earth to hollow-skull, that's a nice thought but not exactly feasible. Unless you want to stop using: Automobiles, electricity, mass produced goods, etc, then you'd better get used to oil.

Then again, there's really no reason to bother explaining a decent solution to the problems in Iraq because most people here are either too ignorant of the real problems (such as the Sunni tribal culture, and Kurdish demands, especially in Kirkuk), or too young to understand the economic and political forces at work.
1) Tough cookies for Iraq, personally I think we should start minding our own business. We can blame the civil war in Iraq on our good buddies the UK for being so retarded when making political boundaries when they freed Iraq, putting three ethnic groups that have not, do not, and will not ever get along. If the fighting expands to other nations maybe they'll finally have a reason to help in Iraq. Even if the fighting expands to other adjacent nations, it isn't our problem. We are still on the other side of the world.
2) ANYTHING American in the Islamic holy lands is bad. No claims, no bases, no people, no everything. We don't need to give the terrorists a reason to hate us, make them fabricate their own.
3) Because we shouldn't be supporting governments just because they might be kinda friendly to us. It isn't our place or our responsiblity to maintain every country's government to keep them how we want them. If Islamic terrorists are popular political parties shouldn't we give the people the right to choose them as leaders? That's kinda what democracy is.
4) I'm sorry, I have misspoken and obviously caused a lot of confusion. My bad. I meant to say: "Cut our need for oil down to levels that allow us to stop using foreign oil." Sorry about that.
I'm going to take the time to explain my opinion to you even though you have decided to be an ass and just cast off everything I say as inferior to your way of thinking.
Kid, trust me, I know the history far better than you'll probably ever learn about it in school. The post I responded to was in no way credible, and showed a complete lack of knowledge of the issues. What you are probably trying to talk about is the U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, however, this is a null point as the U.S. has effectively erased it's presence therein, and no longer has a significant force in that nation. In reality, the only problem Muslims had originally with U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia (in Desert Shield), was the fact that it meant infidel military forces would be occupying part of the Holy Land, potentially defiling it. That has since been blown up by both national propoganda and extremist groups, however it is no longer a valid issue with the U.S. gone from the Kingdom of Saud. Although it is techically correct to say #1 is something that should be done over a long period of time, #2-#4 are all questionable, especially #3 which shows a clear lack of knowledge of regional dynamics.
It doesn't matter how much presence there is, the fact that there is any presence is enough for some people. And last time I checked, we are fighting the extremist groups, not the moderate ones. So we might want to consider what they think on the issue. #3 shows an understanding of what happens to us when we get involved in the world. What is one of the major complaints of almost every Arab nation, and every Islamic extremist group for the US? We fund their #1 enemy, Israel. My plan is to stop funding Israel, but at the same time stop funding everyone else in the region to be fair to Israel, our longtime ally. Every nation is then free from our control and not help nor hurt by us. It is a fair and easily defensible position.
It's not that simple. Especially the oil thing. You make it seem as if we could change in a day, or even a year. But it would take decades to recreate the ENTIRE GLOBAL ECONOMY. If there was no oil, and entirely new system of EVERYTHING would have to created. EVERYTHING runs on oil in one way or another. And that won't change for decades. Get that in your head.
*Sniff Sniff*
What's that smell? An inference that wasn't implied? I never said these would be carried out in three days or even three years. I realize that the oil one will take a while. Overall my basic timescale is:
1) 3 months max.
2) wait until 4 is almost finished (after started it should be no more than 2 months to complete)
3) wait until 4 is almost finished, but slowly begin removing funding right away (should be done completely as soon as 4 is finished)
4) 7-12 years max. [start right away and shift a large portion of gov't money to research and development + offer tax incentives to companies that help + mandate that all cars made or imported in the US are hybrids or fully alternate resource run]
I explained the recent history of why they were originally angry regarding bases...an issue which no longer exists. Again, the rights to bases does not equate to a military presence
As you pointed out the very people we are fighting (the extremists) still are mad about the few soldiers and the bases we have. So uh, we should fix that so they will have one less thing to bitch about.
Well...because in the original case their government invited us in. Invited us. The reason the extremists, especially Bin Laden, got angry is because they felt they were capable of defending Saudia Arabia themselves (which of course they couldn't. Then again, these are the same morons who thought that it was they who defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan, instead of the Afghan Mujahedeen who outnumbered them a hundred (or perhaps a thousand) to one. You don't ignore an area that can undermine the world economy just because a group of psychopaths are going to get pissed at you for getting involved.
Well...we say "we're not gonna be here anymore" to the gov'ts of the middle east. You can ignore an area for plenty of reasons, this happens to be a pretty good one. I agree with the extremist psychopaths, we shouldn't have gotten involved.
1. Suicide for our security concerns and every innocent Iraqi civilian there
2. So terrorism can floursih at 10 times the pace it is now ? and leave Israel to die ?
3. Too true, billions wasted yearly on many countries who dont even properly support us.
4. Well.. we'd all love to live in a perfect world.. but until viable alternatives exist (solar inefficent, fuel cells inefficent, wind power (maybe), biodiesel.. same as oil, neculear (try selling that to citizens HA!)

Mind you.. the middle east has been fighting over their resources for thousands of years... Even if we left tomorrow the fighting and bloodshed would only increase in my opinion. And whose fault would that ultimately fall on.. US of course, because America (the infidels) is the easiest target... even when we DONT print offensive cartoons... protests march to Danish emabiese screaming DEATH TO AMERICA. The radicals that exist in the middle east will not simply be satisfied with US leaving their territory.. our very existance is an insult to them and their demented faith.
1. Oh I see. So we should stay in a war that we can't possibly win without killing everyone in the nation we occupy; meanwhile our economy goes to hell because of the massive military budget; during which thousands of US soldiers die; as we are there more and more people learn to hate America; as part of our venture we piss off more and more muslims who then turn to extremism to fight and kill us; in order to build a government that will end up hating our guts, and one that will probably become a dictatorship within a decade of our soldiers leaving and all that is good for our security?
2. Well, I think terrorism might slow down if we stop sticking our noses where they don't belong and mind our own god damn business. Also if Israel can't defend itself by now, with the nuclear weapons, the advanced equipment, and the conviction of their population maybe they don't deserve to exist.
3. Thank you.
4. We should probably get working then, because if we don't all will go to hell in a few decades when the world basically runs out of oil and it is at like $1 million a barrel because demand is so high and supply is so low.
No kidding, I know it has been doing that. Which is a major reason we should get the hell out of there because we won't solve anything, any progress is just artifical and temporary.
You are part of the problem the terrorists hate us so much: "their demented faith" and also I think it definitely has to do with our being there and not our existance. If not, tell me how many terrorist attacks Sweden has suffered. How about Mexico, are they cowering in fear there? Is Norway having almost daily threats to their security? No I don't think so. But they all have cultures very different than Arab nations. Difference is they didn't try to spread there ideals and values to the mid east.

Here's my opinion on how the war should be won. It's probably not realistic politically, but I would support any politician who advocates this.

1. Bring back the draft. Get like a million guys in there for a couple of years, rebuild their infrastructure and security forces, and then execute a rapid withdrawal. If they still can't take care of themselves after that, then nothing will work, and we can only look on this as a regrettable chapter of American history.

2. Maintain a small contingent of special forces for logistics, technical support.
know how you win, blow them to hell in the name of Jesus

Here's an even better way to win the Iraq War:
1. Get the hell out of Iraq
2. Get the hell out of the Middle East
3. Stop sending money to everyone in the Middle East (especially Israel)
4. Stop using oil
Problem solved.
1. Ok
2. Ok
3. NEVER! Well ISrael doesnt need the US anyway and that is loaned to Israel.
4. It won't happen.

3. NEVER! Well ISrael doesnt need the US anyway and that is loaned to Israel.
4. It won't happen.
3. What country in the history of ever has paid a large loan from the USA back? Besides Finland (which is the only one)
4. It will have to eventually, unless someone uncovers the biggest oil reserve ever that is untouched. And that continues to happen. Over and over. Because face it, we are quickly running out of black gold.

Westmoreland was one of the idiots running the show, remember? If we can't pacify a tiny little nation with half a million soldiers, then there's something wrong.

Oh, and maybe public opinion wouldn't have turned against the War, if THE WAR WAS BEING RUN PROPERLY!

At any time during the war, the Vietnamese had more than twice the number of soldiers we had, so half a million wasn't nearly enough to win. The only reason we managed to keep the country from being run over by communists was because of our superior firepower and mobility.

There is one primary reason why the suggestion of bringing back the draft will never happen: Political suicide. If the draft were reinstated today, the Republicans would lose the Congress in 06 and the Presidency in 08. Of course, the fact that few Republicans and no Democrats would support the draft is another problem. And with a war as unpopular as this one, the dodging of the draft would be worse than during Vietnam. The Draft will not happen, so the suggestion is idiotic at best.

We need to finish what we started in Iraq, even if we kind of screwed stuff up in the process. But the Draft would neither help, nor occur.

I know it will be political suicide. The only way it will work is if there is a change of conscience in the U.S. I don't appreciate you calling my suggestion stupid, asshole.

I am personally really fed up with the entire middle east issue. If the people want to help themselves we should let them, no involvement. My father's friend came back from Iraq where he was serving with the army corp of engineers. What he would do pretty much every day for his tour of duty was: He would go to work building schools, not bunkers, not military facilities, SCHOOLS for the Iraqi people, then he would leave when he was done. That night the insurgents would burn the school down. The next day he would rebuild the school and the process would start again. Also an aquaintence of mine has been toying with an idea for awhile. He says that if we are to stay in Iraq we should pull out of the cities and simply control the oil fields, and restrict the supply to the Iraqi's thus cutting thier primary income. Then, the oil would only be returned when the country had stabilized. I think that plan is flawed but I'm interested other's opinions.

I am personally really fed up with the entire middle east issue. If the people want to help themselves we should let them, no involvement. My father's friend came back from Iraq where he was serving with the army corp of engineers. What he would do pretty much every day for his tour of duty was: He would go to work building schools, not bunkers, not military facilities, SCHOOLS for the Iraqi people, then he would leave when he was done. That night the insurgents would burn the school down. The next day he would rebuild the school and the process would start again. Also an aquaintence of mine has been toying with an idea for awhile. He says that if we are to stay in Iraq we should pull out of the cities and simply control the oil fields, and restrict the supply to the Iraqi's thus cutting thier primary income. Then, the oil would only be returned when the country had stabilized. I think that plan is flawed but I'm interested other's opinions.
So in order to stablize a nation you are going to make everyone in it poor? Interesting theory, we'll see how that pans out on the Youhavegottobefuckingkiddingme episode of the hit show, Iraq: A Plan

Well we could:
1. Set up a puppet government.
2. Train an army.
3. Arm them to the teeth.
4. Declare victory.
5. Pull out.
6. Leave our carriers handy to pickup the refugees.
7...............................Oh I'm sorry that was VIETNAMIZATION wasn't it.

Let's see we could follow the Bush Plan:
1. Set up a puppet government.
2. Train an army.
3. Arm them to the teeth.
4. Declare victory.
5. Pull out.
6. ..............................OOPS!

Really the way out is to put a dictator in place and close our eyes. It will work for another 20-30 years. Then it's our kid's problem. This plan has worked for 100 years, why not continue it.

How to win the war:

I believe I already mentioned this in another thread, but I cannot remember the exact one. Basically, the premise is to let the iraqi's(and afghani's) to vote for whether they want us to stay or not. We will do this be each region of the nations. Majority will choose if we stay or go.

This way, no one can get on our asses about being where we aren't wanted.

Also, cut funding to israel. We've given them so much already. They have nukes now, they can defend themselves.

Start building nuclear plants. Lots of them. Try to acheive 80% or better electrical generation from nuclear plants, like france.

Finally, develop a machine that can instantly kill anybody I don't like. This machine must cost a one time fee of two dollars, and not be available to anybody but me.

Bring back the draft.
Hey something like that might just people thinking about useless shit like Super Bowls and bad movie sequels. Of course, it could lead to widespread civil unrest but hey, it beats apathy.

I say we just get a few special ops teams, have them use guerilla warfare on the terrorists. We show them what true fear is, they stop shooting, and then we stay there for long enough for the Iraqis to get their feet.

The WORST thing we can do is pull out. Then the terrorists will take over, will harbor EXTREMELY anti-Western feelings, and then screw us over with nukes.

I say we just get a few special ops teams, have them use guerilla warfare on the terrorists. We show them what true fear is, they stop shooting, and then we stay there for long enough for the Iraqis to get their feet.

So, what does people who are willing to blow themselves up fear from special ops teams fighting guerilla-style?

Or are you referring to the insurgents, not the terrorists?

I stiopped reading after the words 'Bring bak the Draft'. It didn't work in NAm and it won't work ehre.

Here's an even better way to win the Iraq War:
1. Get the hell out of Iraq
2. Get the hell out of the Middle East
3. Stop sending money to everyone in the Middle East (especially Israel)
4. Stop using oil
Problem solved.
And by "stop using oil" I assume you mean "good luck, suckers", eh? :p

You cannot win the war in Iraq, as you cannot win an invasion war. Invaded people always, always fight back until they can free themselves. You can try as hard as you want, you can slaughter hundred of thousands of people, sacrifice as many soldiers as you want, you'll never manage to win.

If your question is how can we leave Iraq to Iraqi without having turned into a civil war or into an Iran-like islamist country, I've no idea. What's happening now is what we (the anti-war) predicted before you started your insane war, and now, I don't know any solution. You created chaos, and there is no easy way to fix that... next time, I hope you'll think BEFORE acting.

(the "you" means the US governement, not any particular poster here)

Here's an even better way to win the Iraq War:
1. Get the hell out of Iraq
2. Get the hell out of the Middle East
3. Stop sending money to everyone in the Middle East (especially Israel)
4. Stop using oil
Problem solved.

I mostly agree with you :)

But I'm afraid of what will happen now in Iraq if all US troops leave... I still think it's the less worse, but now that US created a mess, it'll take long, long for Iraqi to recover... and I'm afraid of them becoming another Iran :/

This is one of two things: Either a poor joke, or blind stupidity.

1) Would just create an even more ferocious civil war, and one that could potentially expand to include Iran (due to the Shi'a majority) and Turkey (due to Kurds fighting for independance, including the oil rich regions of south eastern Turkey)

The longer you stay in Iraq, the more risk of civil war or conversion into an Iran-like state there is.

2) Again, this is the same as #1. The U.S. doesn't station troops in large numbers anywhere else in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. Bases do not equate to a military presence.

Well, I guess he meant it in a more general way than just troops. US is supporting actively some very brutal regimes in Middle East, those who act mostly as puppets.

3) Again, this makes no sense. So you stop giving money to Egypt and allow them to crumble under the sway of extreme Islamists? The same is true of other nations in the region.

On this one, I think he mostly meant stop supporting Israel who is violating all international laws and treaties, and several UN resolution. You want to put conditions on the help to palestinian now that the Hamas is in power ? Fine, put conditions to Israel too. First, ask them to destroy the wall, since it was ruled illegal by La Haye's court.

4) Earth to hollow-skull, that's a nice thought but not exactly feasible. Unless you want to stop using: Automobiles, electricity, mass produced goods, etc, then you'd better get used to oil.

You can have electricity without oil, we do here (80% is nuclear, most of the rest is hydro-electric, but there are many other solutions too).

For cars, you can live without. Anyway, the planet will not whistand the broad abuses we are doing it right now much longer, if you don't want the future to be very gloom, you should find a way to live without cars. Public transports are all fine, and biking/walking is very healthy. For mass producing, it's electricity which is required, more than oil.

The only thing for which we really need oil is for plastics, but we can recycle plastics, so if we stop wasting so much, we can do without low oil supply for long.

Then again, there's really no reason to bother explaining a decent solution to the problems in Iraq because most people here are either too ignorant of the real problems (such as the Sunni tribal culture, and Kurdish demands, especially in Kirkuk), or too young to understand the economic and political forces at work.

Judging people on their age is not fair at all. People can know a lot about politics and economics during their teens, while many adult don't have a clue. Like you seem to be, when you say that no oil means no electricity ;)

3. What country in the history of ever has paid a large loan from the USA back? Besides Finland (which is the only one)

Well, actually, most of the third-world countries (including south america) paid their debt back more than once. But with the high interest rates they are charged, the only pay in the interests... so they keep paying and paying, forever, never being able to legally pay back. And there we have an unlimited supply of cash for the wealthiest countries (repayment of debt is 350 billions/year, help to poor countries is 50 billions/year, net gain of 300 billions/year for rich countries...)

Here's an even better way to win the Iraq War:
1. Get the hell out of Iraq
2. Get the hell out of the Middle East
3. Stop sending money to everyone in the Middle East (especially Israel)
4. Stop using oil
Problem solved.
Yes, that's the only sane way.
You already see the first serious consequences of the US being in the Iraq (and the Middle East in general) - they are starting to use flimsy excuses (like the cartoons) to start rallying against the west.
Things will still become much more srious if the US doesn't retreat *really* soon.
Point 4) is also really important. If they would put more research into alternative energy sources, they would decrease their huge dependance on oil. If they don't need that much oil anymore, they don't need to go invading other countries to get it.

The WORST thing we can do is pull out. Then the terrorists will take over, will harbor EXTREMELY anti-Western feelings, and then screw us over with nukes.

Ermm, no.

If we stay, the insurgents/terrorists/radical religious leaders/whatever you wish to group them as will take over. It might take longer, but when we pull out, it will happen. Just like vietnam, we can only keep them there as long as our hand is physically propping them up. Its best to leave now, so they can get it done quicker, and everybody results in less net loss.

The Iraqi's, particularly the insurgents, already harbor extremely anti-western feelings. We only facilitate these by staying there, resulting in death and unrest. We can cut this off by leaving, just think about it: Lets say russia somehow successfully invaded us. Our conventional forces are destroyed, and now only civilians are fighting against the occupationary forces.

Which would you prefer, as an american: The russians getting the hell out, and letting us rebuild ourselves, or the russians interfering with out daily lives, rebuilding us in their way, with their companies, with a government that has the odd feel of a puppet government. Which would you like?

As for nukes, err, what? Saddam couldn't manage it before, with strong power over his country... you think radicals will be able to make one, during or just after a civil war, after their infrastructure has been repetedly obliterated, and they are being watched by the world?

Get out of the dream world.

The best way to "win" is to just leave Iraq and Afghanistan.

That wouldn't solve anything but appease the Liberals.

It can be even simpler than all your suggestions. Stop foreign contractors, stop pumping huge sums of money into halliburton and let give the funds to Iraqi companies to rebuild. The money then is being channeled though to the Iraqi people who would be happier with jobs and a regular income. The US should pull out and UN peacekeepers go in, preferably from Muslim countries. Stop funding Israel. Stop bleating about democracy and then refusing to recognise elections when you don't like the outcome.

Here's my opinion on how the war should be won. It's probably not realistic politically, but I would support any politician who advocates this.

1. Bring back the draft. Get like a million guys in there for a couple of years, rebuild their infrastructure and security forces, and then execute a rapid withdrawal. If they still can't take care of themselves after that, then nothing will work, and we can only look on this as a regrettable chapter of American history.

2. Maintain a small contingent of special forces for logistics, technical support.

how bout we just keep what we are doing it is not easy but it will work

How to win the war in Iraq? Not possible. We already lost the moment we decided to participate.

Exactly. But there are reasons why:

1.) Nobody, or hardly anyone, understands the complex tribal and very volatile culture of either the Sunnis or the Shiites.

2.) Nor does anyone understand the very important role that the Kurds play in this.

3.) This sort of on/off violence thing has been going on at least 2,000 years before the U.S. even came into being; I could be mistaken, but a lot of their early conflict is mentioned in the bible. We cannot simply leave a "war" we're involved in; you can't just kill people and take off like in a western movie. We went into this "war" completely impetuously, and now we'll just have to pay the consequences. There's just no way around it. Sorry.

I pesonally think we can't win the war in Iraq. The terroists are gonna keep killing people and themselfs with suiside attacks because they are stupid. But a person who i think is even stupider than them is President Bush. I think he is one of the worst presidents in history because he is so stuborn. We should have NEVER gone to war with Iraq.

how bout we just keep what we are doing it is not easy but it will work
it'll work after like 4000 years, but by that time humanity will have already perished

We all knew this was going to happen. We said as much, too. But noooo, does anyone listen? Of course not, "we'll be greeted like in Paris in WWII" they said.

I personally don't know how to get out of Iraq. I really don't think it can be won, at least not in a manner that we could seriously consider. This is one of the reasons I was against it from the start.

Firstly, I agree with Beetalia in that we should tell Halliburton to go fuck themselves, and contract Iraqi companies to do the rebuilding work. After all, it is their country.

However, so many mistakes have been made (the first one being the decision to invade) that I don't know if anything except just pulling out would help now.

We should also completely pull out of the middle east. There is no reason for us to be there. If they want to destroy each other, fine. Us interfering isn't going to help, and will just make them hate us even more.

We should either give money equally or not give any money at all. Some people will be like "But we can't abandon Israel." I say fuck Israel, if they can't defend themselves on their own (they have nukes for crying out loud!) by now, then maybe that nation just wasn't meant to be. They arguably have the most powerful military in the region now, they don't need our help.

Eventually, we'll have to stop using oil, because it is a finite resource that will run out. We may as well start getting off it now.

I agree with you completely. But I think that even at this point pulling out of the region is not a possibility. If we did, American forces on the ground would most likely be isolated and destroyed. People say this is like Vietnam, but I think that all of this will soon prove them wrong; this situation is much worse than Vietnam.

Keep Cheney the hell away from Iraq or let himk join the insurgents.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/cheney.ap/index.html
:sniper:
nice shooting Dick.

Okay since it is an global conflict (the opposition comes from multiple countries)
And I am looking at the war on terror the war on Iraq is not limited by borders.
I am not going to start on what was justified or not I have heard enough bickering by both parties.

1 tip though.

Western countries need to aid the victems of the earthquake in Pakistan.
Want to know who are aiding them now? Handing out food and building homes.
(all for the nice price of beeing sent to Iraq) the opposition is.
This is not a war on equipment like the beginning of Iraq was.
(and that was only a short race to baghdad)
This is a war for the hearths and minds of the people, intelligence and aid from civilians protects you better then kavlar.