San Welu
25-04-2006, 16:40
These questions go out to all you political science students and any body else. Recently these things have circled around my head. I know this is something that would've never happened but just imagine.
I'm putting this very simply because I'm writing a article about it: I'm not a know it all- I'm not a war general. I only study politics so bare with me.
ON March 19th, 2003 we invade Iraq. Baghdad falls quickly. Saddam is found dead. Instead of disbanding the Republican Guard we keep them confined. We capture or kill the "administration" of Saddam, including those sons of his. (At first we were getting it right) The troop levels are above the level Don Rumsfeld wanted because we needed a massive presence. The pretense to all this is that the US has already informed most iraqi ambassadors of the invasion- it's okay Saddam doesn't have an army, air force, navy or marines, if you will- he doesn't even have WMDs. We provide protection on the streets and social services where ever this is lacking. With a large troop level US troops can secure the borders with Iran, Kuwait, syria, turkey, jordan and Saudi Arabia. Protect the oil fields while keeping aerial views of the area with spy-planes. HAve the troops stay on the border with these countries, ie, Hadrian. If legal=Campaign through newspapers and television what our intention is and explain what Iraqi's need to do. No outside suicide bombers will be coming in. Stay in Iraq until parliment and a constitution is implemented. Twist arms until it's done. In the style of Afganistan.
Meanwhile, Afganistan's economy is still mostly opiium trafficing- offer incentives to local farmers to change...Rumsfeld talk about this the other day.
Within the year. Us troops join UN troops in the Darfur region. This HUmanitarian effort is just what President Bush needs as the first anti- Iraq war politicians start to talk. President Bush says, it's part of the war on terror and a horrible genocide US troops must supplement the "bogged down" UN troops. This is a gesture of good will even through the UN did not what to be the main support in Iraq . It shows that the President doesn't think that UN is irrellevent. Afganistan is at this moment the stage for anti-al-qaida strategy- Iraq is the stage of nation-building and Darfur is the stage of humanitarian efforts while at the same time investigation into Bin ladens much talked about support in this region. Iran's president is all talk when he comes to power in the next few months. USA and UN use aggressive diplomacy to try to dis-arm him by reinstating the fact that his country can build nuclear power plants but no nuclear weapons, they are a democracy and as long as they comply with the UN rules and international laws, Human rights, etc they shouldn't feel threatened. Daggle carrots. BUt remind them of the fact that US has troops and air support less than a hour away from the capital. Use Russia here diplomatically. Be strict with them about their intervening in these operations. No more trades with Iran or India or Pakistan if they were thinking about it.
I'm not the "decider" think about this scenario.
the question is:
HAve we intervened to much in the past concerning international affairs?
Was the Iraq war only carried out to suit a few hawks, for economic reasons, for retailation for the Gulf war 15 years ago, what was it all about?
Why don't we respond to genocides until it's too late? We cite the fact Sadddam killed thousands of his people in the 1980's but the in Sudan it's happening right now! What do we need to do to become better informed about international diplomacy?
most important!
Is the USA supposed to be the only country to topple regimes that we feel as dangerous to world peace? And remain a power player in world politics? HOw many wars does it take for the American citizen to realize the repercussions?
I'm putting this very simply because I'm writing a article about it: I'm not a know it all- I'm not a war general. I only study politics so bare with me.
ON March 19th, 2003 we invade Iraq. Baghdad falls quickly. Saddam is found dead. Instead of disbanding the Republican Guard we keep them confined. We capture or kill the "administration" of Saddam, including those sons of his. (At first we were getting it right) The troop levels are above the level Don Rumsfeld wanted because we needed a massive presence. The pretense to all this is that the US has already informed most iraqi ambassadors of the invasion- it's okay Saddam doesn't have an army, air force, navy or marines, if you will- he doesn't even have WMDs. We provide protection on the streets and social services where ever this is lacking. With a large troop level US troops can secure the borders with Iran, Kuwait, syria, turkey, jordan and Saudi Arabia. Protect the oil fields while keeping aerial views of the area with spy-planes. HAve the troops stay on the border with these countries, ie, Hadrian. If legal=Campaign through newspapers and television what our intention is and explain what Iraqi's need to do. No outside suicide bombers will be coming in. Stay in Iraq until parliment and a constitution is implemented. Twist arms until it's done. In the style of Afganistan.
Meanwhile, Afganistan's economy is still mostly opiium trafficing- offer incentives to local farmers to change...Rumsfeld talk about this the other day.
Within the year. Us troops join UN troops in the Darfur region. This HUmanitarian effort is just what President Bush needs as the first anti- Iraq war politicians start to talk. President Bush says, it's part of the war on terror and a horrible genocide US troops must supplement the "bogged down" UN troops. This is a gesture of good will even through the UN did not what to be the main support in Iraq . It shows that the President doesn't think that UN is irrellevent. Afganistan is at this moment the stage for anti-al-qaida strategy- Iraq is the stage of nation-building and Darfur is the stage of humanitarian efforts while at the same time investigation into Bin ladens much talked about support in this region. Iran's president is all talk when he comes to power in the next few months. USA and UN use aggressive diplomacy to try to dis-arm him by reinstating the fact that his country can build nuclear power plants but no nuclear weapons, they are a democracy and as long as they comply with the UN rules and international laws, Human rights, etc they shouldn't feel threatened. Daggle carrots. BUt remind them of the fact that US has troops and air support less than a hour away from the capital. Use Russia here diplomatically. Be strict with them about their intervening in these operations. No more trades with Iran or India or Pakistan if they were thinking about it.
I'm not the "decider" think about this scenario.
the question is:
HAve we intervened to much in the past concerning international affairs?
Was the Iraq war only carried out to suit a few hawks, for economic reasons, for retailation for the Gulf war 15 years ago, what was it all about?
Why don't we respond to genocides until it's too late? We cite the fact Sadddam killed thousands of his people in the 1980's but the in Sudan it's happening right now! What do we need to do to become better informed about international diplomacy?
most important!
Is the USA supposed to be the only country to topple regimes that we feel as dangerous to world peace? And remain a power player in world politics? HOw many wars does it take for the American citizen to realize the repercussions?