NationStates Jolt Archive

We had an interesting discussion in my Government class the other day about the 'best' solution for getting out of Iraq. The general view was that if we dont leave Iraq in the near future, were going to be there for a loooong time.
To me, there were a few main solutions along with a number of ones that were simply dumb (Oh, oh, lets nuke Iran and let Israel sort out the mess!), and some pretty decent ones.
The 'best' solution was basically to get the Iraqi government a bit more active somehow, gradually remove US troops (except for a few military bases, seeing as (IMO) the PURPOSE we're in Iraq was to establish a staging area of this sort), and transfer the remaining troops to training roles for the Iraqi army. Occasionaly drop a few crates of military equipment off for the Iraqi army to discourage Iran from taking Iraq (which, again IMO, would be a disaster equal to letting Germany take the Rhineland). This seems like the ideal solution, and it requires a good deal of cooperation from all parties. Thankfully the Iraqi's themselves have figured out that they arent going to get anywhere without some cooperation.
Next up was simply ditching Iraq and dropping occasional shipments of supplies and money in Baghdad.
The WORST I heard was a weird plot to play off Saudi Arabia and Iran by getting them both to invade Iraq. This naturally results in a perfect excuse for the moderatly profecient Iranian army to trounce the rather poor Saudi army.
However, even the people who proposed downright stupid solutions had a good laugh at the old suggestion of splitting the country into three sections. As was pointed out, that worked REALLY well with India, Israel, Germany, and Korea.

Anyway, what are your opinions on this?

I would say - "make a really, really big boat and sail it away, whilist leaving vast amounts of building materials and money, as well as giving a huge apology to the Iraqi people for what the US, UK and other coalition forces have done to the country".

damn right! More Iraqi citezens died in this "war" than did people in the WTCs on 9/11.:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :mad:

damn right! More Iraqi citezens died in this "war" than did people in the WTCs on 9/11.:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :mad:

Well, it wasn't post #1 with all the guns... but still someone to be ignored in the future, as I bet post #1 had guns involved too. :p

how to get out of iraq?

head north and take a sharp left at turkey?


we need to drop the idea of permanent bases in iraq. we should drop the plans to have an embassy on the tigris that is as big as vatican city.

we arent wanted there. we wont be needed there. it was all a huge mistake built on george bush's ego.

i have no idea how to get out without the vaccuum destabilizing what little stablilty there is. but it has to be done and the sooner the better. we arent making things better.

We had an interesting discussion in my Government class the other day about the 'best' solution for getting out of Iraq. The general view was that if we dont leave Iraq in the near future, were going to be there for a loooong time.
To me, there were a few main solutions along with a number of ones that were simply dumb (Oh, oh, lets nuke Iran and let Israel sort out the mess!), and some pretty decent ones.
The 'best' solution was basically to get the Iraqi government a bit more active somehow, gradually remove US troops (except for a few military bases, seeing as (IMO) the PURPOSE we're in Iraq was to establish a staging area of this sort), and transfer the remaining troops to training roles for the Iraqi army. Occasionaly drop a few crates of military equipment off for the Iraqi army to discourage Iran from taking Iraq (which, again IMO, would be a disaster equal to letting Germany take the Rhineland). This seems like the ideal solution, and it requires a good deal of cooperation from all parties. Thankfully the Iraqi's themselves have figured out that they arent going to get anywhere without some cooperation.
Next up was simply ditching Iraq and dropping occasional shipments of supplies and money in Baghdad.
The WORST I heard was a weird plot to play off Saudi Arabia and Iran by getting them both to invade Iraq. This naturally results in a perfect excuse for the moderatly profecient Iranian army to trounce the rather poor Saudi army.
However, even the people who proposed downright stupid solutions had a good laugh at the old suggestion of splitting the country into three sections. As was pointed out, that worked REALLY well with India, Israel, Germany, and Korea.

Anyway, what are your opinions on this?
Your last point was good. Someone should point that out to Senator who recently said we should divide Iraq into 3 parts.

Thats a completely unfounded and ignorant post! I used all the guns to show irony. Perhaps you are familliar with the concept.:rolleyes:

damn right! More Iraqi citezens died in this "war" than did people in the WTCs on 9/11

Indeed. About 50 times more people. And that utterly digusts me, but that's another thread entirely.

how to get out of iraq?

head north and take a sharp left at turkey?


we need to drop the idea of permanent bases in iraq. we should drop the plans to have an embassy on the tigris that is as big as vatican city.

we arent wanted there. we wont be needed there. it was all a huge mistake built on george bush's ego.

i have no idea how to get out without the vaccuum destabilizing what little stablilty there is. but it has to be done and the sooner the better. we arent making things better.
Who wants permanent bases in Iraq? The US Congress has banned the administration from negotiating for permanent bases in Iraq, saying they won't fund them.

No money=no bases

Actually it did work with Germany and Korea.

I think we give the Shias to Iran, the Sunnis stay as Iraq and the Kurds become Kurdistan. Quite simple and the only logical solution. You can't have people who aht each other in the same country and think all will be fine.

Actually it did work with Germany and Korea.

I think we give the Shias to Iran, the Sunnis stay as Iraq and the Kurds become Kurdistan. Quite simple and the only logical solution. You can't have people who aht each other in the same country and think all will be fine.
I think they didn't work.
Even to this day, North Korea not only continues to threaten to invade South Korea, but has secret agents in the South trying to discredit and oust the South Korean's democratic government.

Not to mention the problem, that always results, of families being seperated and not being allowed to see each other every again.

Yeah, Germany and Korea are great examples to support your point. :rolleyes:

Actually it did work with Germany and Korea.

Oh yes. It worked beautifully if you forget the Berlin Wall and families being split up, as well as the incidents like the Berlin Blockade.

And North Korea is now possibly the most heavily fortified place in the world, with vast areas of minefields and checkpoints every hundred metres in the cities. And what's so great about South Korea, too?

I think we give the Shias to Iran, the Sunnis stay as Iraq and the Kurds become Kurdistan. Quite simple and the only logical solution. You can't have people who aht each other in the same country and think all will be fine.

There already is a country called Kurdistan!

And why are you forcing people away from a land that's not yours to force people away from?

That's exactly the kind of thing that makes the Middle East (and the world at large, really) pissed off with the West. Just let them fight it out, they clearly don't mind if they've been doing it for hundreds of years.

There already is a country called Kurdistan!


A quick web search reveals that there is, in fact, no nation called Kurdistan, and that "Kurdistan" is a proposed nation consisting of territory from Turkey and Iraq (and maybe Armenia or some other nation, I couldn't tell on that), giving the Kurds a nation of their own.

A seperated Iraq would see a drop in tensions, the only problem is that giving the Shia to Iran would be highly unwise. Turkey would be angry, because they don't want Kurdish people within their borders to get any ideas. The Sunni part of the nation would become the poorest, as it has the least oil.

All in all, it wouldn't be a pretty picture.

A quick web search reveals that there is, in fact, no nation called Kurdistan, and that "Kurdistan" is a proposed nation consisting of territory from Turkey and Iraq (and maybe Armenia or some other nation, I couldn't tell on that), giving the Kurds a nation of their own.

A seperated Iraq would see a drop in tensions, the only problem is that giving the Shia to Iran would be highly unwise. Turkey would be angry, because they don't want Kurdish people within their borders to get any ideas. The Sunni part of the nation would become the poorest, as it has the least oil.

All in all, it wouldn't be a pretty picture.
I can see it now.
Kurdistan becomes independant, leaving Turkey free to massacre its particular hated-minority, Iran uses its new chunk of Iraq as a staging point to sieze the other Shia countries and pwn the non-Shia ones. Kuwait goes bye-bye 'cause the if the US or Israel intervenes, you end up with a bunch of crazed quantum-left wing (theyre so far right they end up on the left) Muslims blowing themselves up everywhere.
Meanwhile, as a random tangent, Russia decides to flex its recovering economic muscles and take back Kazakhistan and maybe a few other Stans besides.
What do we get?
World War Three!
Yay!
Oh, and China would probobly invade something to so they wouldnt feel left out. Maybe Mongolia.

For now, the Kurds seem content with being part of Iraq, just as the Shia's and Sunni's are. They have figured out that, while they dislike the others, being seperate is not worth it. They dont like the US either, but the US isnt as bad as some of the alternatives, IE: Ethnic cleansing.

And whoever said that seperating Korea was a good idea needs to take a look at the country's history since this thing called the Korean War.

I can see it now.
Kurdistan becomes independant, leaving Turkey free to massacre its particular hated-minority, Iran uses its new chunk of Iraq as a staging point to sieze the other Shia countries and pwn the non-Shia ones. Kuwait goes bye-bye 'cause the if the US or Israel intervenes, you end up with a bunch of crazed quantum-left wing (theyre so far right they end up on the left) Muslims blowing themselves up everywhere.
Meanwhile, as a random tangent, Russia decides to flex its recovering economic muscles and take back Kazakhistan and maybe a few other Stans besides.
What do we get?
World War Three!
Yay!
Oh, and China would probobly invade something to so they wouldnt feel left out. Maybe Mongolia.

For now, the Kurds seem content with being part of Iraq, just as the Shia's and Sunni's are. They have figured out that, while they dislike the others, being seperate is not worth it. They dont like the US either, but the US isnt as bad as some of the alternatives, IE: Ethnic cleansing.

And whoever said that seperating Korea was a good idea needs to take a look at the country's history since this thing called the Korean War.

Sounds like a fairly accurate depiction of what would happen. My only concern is the part where China invades Mongolia. Why would they need to do that? Either the Soviets or the Chinese have controlled Mongolia in everything but name since the rise of the USSR.

South East Asia and/or Japan (or maybe even India) perhaps, but Mongolia?

Just a random thought.
I can see China getting concerned about Russia retaking the Stans, that would give them quite a bit of Chinese border to attack should they want a war.
SE Asia is a bit of a maybe, I think. If they invaded that way, they would have to deal with India and THAT would NOT be a pleasant war.
According to the CIA World Factbook:

India:
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 219,471,999
females age 16-49: 209,917,553 (2005 est.)
Manpower reaching military service age annually:
males age 18-49: 11,446,452
females age 16-49: 10,665,877 (2005 est.)

China:
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 281,240,272
females age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)
Manpower reaching military service age annually:
males age 18-49: 13,186,433
females age 18-49: 12,298,149 (2005 est.)

That would be carnage on a scale not seen since World War One.
India's army isnt very well equipped from what I know, but its bigger than the Chinese one and you can bet the US would send some form of support to India, and Europe might step in as well, since if India goes away, China basically controlls the worlds cheap labour market.
Plus, both of them have nukes.
A nuke on New Delhi or Bejing would be horrible, I cant recall the population of either of those cities, but even so. Urgh.
If Russia gets involved, that just makes things worse, now youve got THREE nuclear powers launching huge armies at each other. At least with Russia their main cities are somewhat safe from nuclear attack by China.

We had an interesting discussion in my Government class the other day about the 'best' solution for getting out of Iraq. The general view was that if we dont leave Iraq in the near future, were going to be there for a loooong time.

And the prize for best tautology of the year goes to...

Who wants permanent bases in Iraq? The US Congress has banned the administration from negotiating for permanent bases in Iraq, saying they won't fund them.

No money=no bases

So they just build "temporary" bases with steel-reinforced concrete and don't take the troops out of them.

As for not funding them. Have they found those missing 9 billion dollars Halliburton had yet?

Just get out. Now. The US has no business controlling other countries.

Just get out. Now. The US has no business controlling other countries.
So you would rather Iran controlled them?
Iraq is the center of the Middle East. If Iran takes Iraq, everything aside from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt will go get snapped up pretty quickly.

How to get out of Iraq?

You don't.

Staying there IS the plan.

Just get out. Now. The US has no business controlling other countries.

Yep. As I said, it's not the West's business, and everyone should leave now, giving vast sums of money and materials as reparations, and an enormous apology to Iraq, as well as apologies to the rest of the Middle East.

*sigh*
'Get out Now' does not work.
'Get out Now' makes the situation worse.
The BEST result of 'Get out Now' is 'massive civil war'.
M'kay?

*sigh*
'Get out Now' does not work.
'Get out Now' makes the situation worse.
The BEST result of 'Get out Now' is 'massive civil war'.
M'kay?
well no, get out now doesnt work

but while we are staying we are working hard to train the iraqi army. its a bit silly to think that these soldiers will be loyal to the puppet government set up by the united states rather than to their own group. especially since im pretty sure they are being trained not in mixed units but in units made up of all sunnis or all shias or all kurds.

my point being that we are training the troops of the coming civil war that will start in earnest as soon as we leave. the longer we stay, the better they will be at killing each other.

the shiites will get support from iran, their cultural allies. the kurds will declare independance which may well cause turkey to invade. the sunnis are a small minority whom the rest of the country hates because of the abuses of saddam hussein.

we screwed the pooch. now the question is "what solution leads to the smallest disaster when we leave?" there is no good answer.

*sigh*
The BEST result of 'Get out Now' is 'massive civil war'.
M'kay?

Ditto the sigh. But the best result for staying there is looking like 'equally massive civil war.'

is there something about civil wars that america just can't get enough of?

there's no out.

So you would rather Iran controlled them?
Iraq is the center of the Middle East. If Iran takes Iraq, everything aside from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt will go get snapped up pretty quickly.
The US and UK together can't control Iraq. Iran would do a better job of the whole region? Not likely!

The US and UK together can't control Iraq. Iran would do a better job of the whole region? Not likely!
The US and UK are much further away than Iran, and Iran shares a culture and religion with Iraqs religious majority.

Nukes.

I now know why the Coalition hasn't left Iraq!

When they changed Saddam Hussein Airports name it got lost off all the Maps!!!
Silly Logistical nightmare that is, arrgh the maps are outdated!
*runs about in circles*