NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, first off, I am new to this forum but I have been looking back and have not seen any posts on this so I decided to make one. Please only serious suggestions.

Seeing as most people on here disagree with the war in Iraq, how about we start making suggestions of what should be done instead of just saying the war is stupid; that gets us nowhere.

I say that a quick full withdrawal of troops would be the worst thing possible. It would plunge Iraq and the Middle East into more chaos than it is already in. I support more of a phased out withdrawal with Iraqi Troops replacing American troops.

Umm...how about...


NUKE 'EM FROM ORBIT! IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE!

Way to stick with being serious.

Ok, first off, I am new to this forum but I have been looking back and have not seen any posts on this so I decided to make one. Please only serious suggestions.

Seeing as most people on here disagree with the war in Iraq, how about we start making suggestions of what should be done instead of just saying the war is stupid; that gets us nowhere.

I say that a quick full withdrawal of troops would be the worst thing possible. It would plunge Iraq and the Middle East into more chaos than it is already in. I support more of a phased out withdrawal with Iraqi Troops replacing American troops.

I'd open diologue with all of the Middle eastern countires. A pan Arab summit, if you will, including the major groups in Iraq - Sunnis and Shiites. Also, Iran and Syria would have to be included. I'd take most of the really contentious problems off the table - Isreal/Palestinian conflict, etc... and just concentrate on what we could all agree on - stability in Iraq is important for the entire region and it will require political solutions that will require compromise. Often, if you find you can work together on common goals you later find you can work better on more contentious issues.

Ok, first off, I am new to this forum but I have been looking back and have not seen any posts on this so I decided to make one. Please only serious suggestions.

Seeing as most people on here disagree with the war in Iraq, how about we start making suggestions of what should be done instead of just saying the war is stupid; that gets us nowhere.

I say that a quick full withdrawal of troops would be the worst thing possible. It would plunge Iraq and the Middle East into more chaos than it is already in. I support more of a phased out withdrawal with Iraqi Troops replacing American troops.
Exit stage left........

http://animationusa.safeserver.com/picts/hbpict/hp02/2_Exit-Left.jpg

Immediately, if not sooner!!

Umm...how about...


NUKE 'EM FROM ORBIT! IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE!

And then we get http://www.endofworld.net/

Pull out and let the U.N takeover hopefully get other middle eastern nations involved

We needs to tell that shit Iraq government something along the lines of, "All of our armed forces will leave your country by the end of 2009/2010/whatever. If you don't get your act together, your country will fall to pieces and never recover."

They need to get the message that we can't keep baby feeding them. They can't keep relying on us for all their aid. I'd like to say that we should give them weapons, training, vehicles, etc. But these will inevitably be tossed over the local "radical groups" because of all the corruption within the military.

It's quite simple: Without aid from the rest of the world, and with the way our shitty government is "running" things. Iraq is inevitably doomed.

Seriously, from what the Americans can do at this point, there is no solution.

Pull out and let the U.N takeover hopefully get other middle eastern nations involved

You're joking right?

You're joking right?

because Iraq isn't actually trying to sort itself out is it, I bet there having the time of there lives with American's running around there country :rolleyes:

Ok, first off, I am new to this forum but I have been looking back and have not seen any posts on this so I decided to make one. Please only serious suggestions.

Seeing as most people on here disagree with the war in Iraq, how about we start making suggestions of what should be done instead of just saying the war is stupid; that gets us nowhere.

I say that a quick full withdrawal of troops would be the worst thing possible. It would plunge Iraq and the Middle East into more chaos than it is already in. I support more of a phased out withdrawal with Iraqi Troops replacing American troops.

This always annoys me,
how on earth do you think the problem can be resolved while the cause
of the problem remains there causing more problems.

The US and UK and their ragtag hangers on invaded Iraq to rid the world of the threat of Iraqi wmd and support for terrorism.
No WMD and no terrorism were there.
Still no WMD but now there is plenty of terrorism.

Then they stayed to help Iraq onto its feet,
after all there was now no effective government and
electricity, water and sanitation were in a terrible state.
Still no effective government and all 3 of the above worse now than they
were before the invasion, actually even worse than they were under Saddam
after more than 10 years of sanctions.

Then they stayed because them pulling out could lead to civil war.

Surely it is reasonable at this stage to grasp that anything they intend to achieve will turn out exactly the opposite.

The problems Iraq now has cannot even begin to be addressed with any
hope of success until the invaders are out of that devastated country.


NB
Please note I have only been stating the claimed reasons for invading and then for continuing the occupation. As with everyone else sane, I knew they were lies when they were first stated.

If we pull all of the troops out now, what do you think will happen to the Iraqi people?

And the UN running the show, talk about chaos.

If we pull all of the troops out now, what do you think will happen to the Iraqi people?

And the UN running the show, talk about chaos.

Define chaos. Cause its already happenning.

And the UN running the show, talk about chaos.

Can't really be any worse of a shot than what the Americans and British are doing at the moment, can it?

We pull 95000 out of Iraq and send the other 50000 to Israel and have a joint USA-ISRAELI army ....

We pull 95000 out of Iraq and send the other 50000 to Israel and have a joint USA-ISRAELI army ....

Yeah, that'd go down real well. :rolleyes:

I'm sure Israel would be delighted at gutting it's armed forces at home... because I'm sure Hamas et al wouldn't take advantage...

By the UN running the show being chaos I mean the UN wouldn't go in there at all. (Sorry should have clarified that.) France in particular would not send troops. Then there would end up being mainly American and British troops there. How does that change anything?

because Iraq isn't actually trying to sort itself out is it, I bet there having the time of there lives with American's running around there country :rolleyes:

The UN is useless!! When have they ever done anything effective with lasting results?

By the UN running the show being chaos I mean the UN wouldn't go in there at all. (Sorry should have clarified that.) France in particular would not send troops. Then there would end up being mainly American and British troops there. How does that change anything?

what makes you think France wouldn't send troops and what about Germany who has enormous commitments in Afghanistan? also if its under the U.N it can claim to be for policing instead of foreign flags flying everywhere

what makes you think France wouldn't send troops and what about Germany who has enormous commitments in Afghanistan? also if its under the U.N it can claim to be for policing instead of foreign flags flying everywhere

Because France hasn't done squat ever since they got their asses handed to them in Vietnam.

More recently, they said they were going to put troops in Lebanon, and then they decided not to.

By the UN running the show being chaos I mean the UN wouldn't go in there at all. (Sorry should have clarified that.)
If you remember, the UN was in there - until their chief de mission was killed in the massive truck bomb that took out the entire compound.

France in particular would not send troops. Why not? What are you basing that on? France is highly active in deploying troops aroundthe world at the moment.

Then there would end up being mainly American and British troops there. How does that change anything?

The fact that maybe, just maybe people see blue helmets and don't think 'occupiers'. That is a better situation.

The UN is useless!! When have they ever done anything effective with lasting results?

The UN is an entity made up of its member nations, the security council
hold the greatest power, due to the whole veto thing.
The member nation of the UN that has most frequently used its veto is the United States.

Any criticism you have of the United Nations is mostly a criticism of the most powerful member nations, the most powerful of those is the US.

Stop criticising the US for stupid stuff like what the UN has not achieved
and start criticising the US for the criminal acts it has perpetrated.

Because France hasn't done squat ever since they got their asses handed to them in Vietnam.

More recently, they said they were going to put troops in Lebanon, and then they decided not to.

Wow. You fail. At a lot.

France has troops in Lebanon.

France has troops throughout Africa too. France is also deploying troops to help with NATO forces.

By the UN running the show being chaos I mean the UN wouldn't go in there at all. (Sorry should have clarified that.) France in particular would not send troops. Then there would end up being mainly American and British troops there. How does that change anything?

The UN cannot take over in Iraq as the factions in Iraq are nearly
as mad at the UN for not stopping the invasion and occupation,
the killing, the torture and the theft as they
are at the UK and US for committing said crimes.

The UN is useless!! When have they ever done anything effective with lasting results?

law of the sea?

Wow. You fail. At a lot.

France has troops in Lebanon.

France has troops throughout Africa too. France is also deploying troops to help with NATO forces.

Link?

The UN is useless!! When have they ever done anything effective with lasting results?

Kosovo.

Link?

Are you serious?

The UN cannot take over in Iraq as the factions in Iraq are nearly as mad at the UN for not stopping the invasion and occupation,

what makes you say that?

Are you serious?

I'm being very serious.

what makes you say that?

They blew up the UN headquarters in Baghdad back in 2003.

France has troops throughout Africa too. France is also deploying troops to help with NATO forces.

Yes, propping up dictators of their former colonies and training genocidaires (sp?).

Although, it's not like Americans don't do the same thing. :(

Kosovo.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo

After the Dayton Agreement in 1995, some Albanians organized into the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), employing guerilla-style tactics against the Serbian police forces. Violence escalated in a series of KLA attacks and Serbian reprisals into the year 1999, with increasing numbers of civilian victims. In 1998 western interest increased and the Serbian authorities were forced to sign a unilateral cease-fire and partial retreat. Under an agreement led by Richard Holbrooke, OSCE observers moved into Kosovo to monitor the ceasefire, while Yugoslav military forces partly pulled out of Kosovo. However, the ceasefire was systematically broken shortly thereafter by KLA forces, which again provoked harsh counterattacks by the Serbs. On 16 January 1999, the bodies of 45 Albanian civilians were found in the town of Racak. The victims had been executed by Serb forces.[17][18] The Racak Massacre was instrumental in increasing the pressure on Serbia in the following conference at Rambouillet. After more than a month of negotations Yugoslavia refused to sign the prepared agreement, primarily, it has been argued, because of a clause giving NATO forces access rights to not only Kosovo but to all of Yugoslavia (which the Yugoslav side saw as tantamount to military occupation).

This triggered a 78-day NATO campaign in 1999. At first limited to military targets in Kosovo proper, the bombing campaign was soon extended to cover targets all over Yugoslavia, including bridges, power stations, factories, broadcasting stations, hospitals, post offices, and various government buildings.

During the conflict roughly a million ethnic Albanians fled Kosovo, several thousand were killed, the numbers and the ethnic distribution of the casualties are uncertain and highly disputed. An estimated 10,000-12,000 ethnic Albanians and 3,000 Serbs are believed to have been killed during the conflict, including military personnel and civilians, primarily as a result of the ground war in Kosovo between the KLA and the Yugoslav military, Serbian police and Serbian paramilitary forces. Some 3000 people are still missing, of which 2,500 are Albanian, 400 Serbs and 100 Roma.[19] According to OSCE numbers and Kosovar Albanian sources on population size and distribution, an estimated 45.7% of the Albanian population and 59.5% of the Serb population had fled Kosovo during the bombings and ethnic cleansing (i.e. from 23 March to 9 June 1999). Albanian refugees accused the Serbian forces of ethnic cleansing and only returned after NATO secured the area.

Funny, no mention of the UN.

With the arrival of NATO, a large number of refugees, mostly Serbs fled the region. The number of registered refugees is around 250,000.[20][21][22] Around 120,000 remain in Kosovo. Many Serbs fear to return to their homes since they perceive not to be safe for them, even with UNMIK protection, notably the unrest in 2004, when 900 Serbian houses were burned and other property destroyed[23] while the Serbian populace was closed into enclaves and had to concentrate to the north of Kosovo until today, causing a wave of 3,500 Serbian refugees.

Looks like the UN doesn't do such a bang up job after all.

I'm being very serious.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5283660.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6131458.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6133920.stm

The head of UNIFIL at the moment is French too.

Anything else?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo


Funny, no mention of the UN.

Didn't search very hard though did you?

Try searching for UNMIK. Good lad.

Edit: Actually, it's even in the very link you gave

The province is governed by the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the local Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, with security provided by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR).

I don't know why you liberals bitch about this war in Iraq. Have you forgoten? This is a WAR key word WAR. Which means our army is going to have casualties and they are expected. And anyone who says there weren't WMDs in Iraq is an idiot or they just watch the liberal bias media. We have found plenty of chemical weapons in Iraq that are capible of killing 1,000s of people. Now if those chemical weapons are not weapons of mass distruction, i don't know what is. Also we found proof that saddam was trying to make nuclear weapons. And besides saddam needed to go anyways he killed 200,000 of his own people invaded Kuwait and threatened to kill the President George Bush the first.
I think we need to just topple the governments of Syria and Iran to end all the insurgents from causing problems. After that we need to convert them to christainity so that will end all the suicide bombings. Do i sound like a radical?

Yes, propping up dictators of their former colonies and training genocidaires (sp?).

Although, it's not like Americans don't do the same thing. :(

Well, they're still doing better than the bloody incompetant AU. Not giving the ex-colonials a clean slate in any way, shape or form, but I was looking at Cote d'Ivoire for a more pro-active role. (again, not perfect but you know how complex dealing with African states is)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5283660.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6131458.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6133920.stm

The head of UNIFIL at the moment is French too.

Anything else?

So after they attempt to send the bare minimum (200 whole troops), they are criticized and up it to 1200.

1200 is less than 1/3 of the population at my high school, and this is supposed to what, help stabalize an entire country?

Also, all three links are relating to Lebanon. I was asking more along the lines of UN aid around the world.

Do i sound like a radical?

Radical? No.

Ignorant of the facts? Well....

what makes you say that?

So after they attempt to send the bare minimum (200 whole troops), they are criticized and up it to 1200.

1200 is less than 1/3 of the population at my high school, and this is supposed to what, help stabalize an entire country?

Also, all three links are relating to Lebanon. I was asking more along the lines of UN aid around the world.

the us contributes 9 trainers to unmik
is that better or worse?

We have found plenty of chemical weapons in Iraq that are capible of killing 1,000s of people.

source?

"Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.

Pssst . . by the way, we only gave Saddam several months warning, that we were going to invade Iraq. I don't know, but mayber, just maybe he had enough time to drive his chemical weapons to Iran

Anyway.
The US has no choice, but to stay there.
We should take a more aggressive role in Iraq.
We need to increase forces, wipe out problems, and then we can bring the troops home.

Not really many other choices.

You can start reducing troops . . . and more troops will get killed, as well as more religous persecution.
You can pull out entirely . . . and begin an all middle-eastern war
You can stay the course . . . and let our soldiers die

source?

Well if they had found any the source would have been the U.S.

What the Iraq Survey Group had to say about chemical weapons was

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm

Speaking is a Brit, I'd never have got involved in the first place. It's another of those foreign wars we get involved in which should really be of no concern to us. Naturally we can't turn the clock back now and what we did. So I just think we should cut our losses and get the hell out. No messing around begging to the UN or anything like that, just immediate unconditional withdrawal.

So after they attempt to send the bare minimum (200 whole troops), they are criticized and up it to 1200.

Em, do you remember anything about why there was delay in deployment from everyone?


Also, all three links are relating to Lebanon. I was asking more along the lines of UN aid around the world.

You whined that they haven't done anything since Vietnam. I gave you two examples (Lebanon and Cote d'ivoire). Do you want more?

Ok, first off, I am new to this forum but I have been looking back and have not seen any posts on this so I decided to make one. Please only serious suggestions.

Seeing as most people on here disagree with the war in Iraq, how about we start making suggestions of what should be done instead of just saying the war is stupid; that gets us nowhere.

I say that a quick full withdrawal of troops would be the worst thing possible. It would plunge Iraq and the Middle East into more chaos than it is already in. I support more of a phased out withdrawal with Iraqi Troops replacing American troops.
I say you split Iraq. The Sunni's, shi'ites and other factions live in seperate areas. no one traverses between those areas. Bahgdad is also split. and walled off ala Berlin. the only common ground is the Government buildings which is the only place each faction will meet to voice concerns and govern Iraq as a whole.

each faction determines their own standards of what they allow INTO their areas, the others obey those rules. Keep em seperate and then, after a while, let em slowly intergrate.

The UN forces first keep the peace and enforce the bounderies, then you allow each faction to slowly take over their own area. bascially Post WWII Germany.

then maybe one day, we'll have another celebration when those walls come a tumbling down.

Pssst . . by the way, we only gave Saddam several months warning, that we were going to invade Iraq. I don't know, but mayber, just maybe he had enough time to drive his chemical weapons to Iran

Iran and Iraq are bitter enemies what makes you think Saddam would or even could give chemical weapons to the Iranian government

No messing around begging to the UN or anything like that, just immediate unconditional withdrawal.

the plus side is Iran would move in which would probably be good for southern Iraq the North however...not so good

France has 36,000 troops overseas. Some of which are in:
Haiti, Afghanistan, Cote d'Ivoire, Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Djibouti, Senegal, Chad, Gabon, Congo, Cameroon, Togo.

Is that ok for you?

I don't know why you liberals bitch about this war in Iraq. Have you forgoten? This is a WAR key word WAR. Which means our army is going to have casualties and they are expected. And anyone who says there weren't WMDs in Iraq is an idiot or they just watch the liberal bias media. We have found plenty of chemical weapons in Iraq that are capible of killing 1,000s of people. Now if those chemical weapons are not weapons of mass distruction, i don't know what is. Also we found proof that saddam was trying to make nuclear weapons. And besides saddam needed to go anyways he killed 200,000 of his own people invaded Kuwait and threatened to kill the President George Bush the first.
I think we need to just topple the governments of Syria and Iran to end all the insurgents from causing problems. After that we need to convert them to christainity so that will end all the suicide bombings. Do i sound like a radical?

Your claims are not in accordance with the findings of the Iraq Survey Group and lack credibility.

Saddam may well have disgracefully killed 200,000 of the people under his control which isnt a million miles (although it may be lower) from the number of Iraqis killed as a result of
the US invasion of Iraq.

You neglected to mention the millions of lives lost on both sides in his war
with Iran... why would you not mention that ... is it because the US supported and assisted with it?

If you toppled the governments of Iran and Syria leading to the same situation you have in Iraq now, then that would be what sane people
call a BAD thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Areana
We have found plenty of chemical weapons in Iraq that are capible of killing 1,000s of people.

source?

Areana's source would the the director of Intelligence
John Negroponte
[Actually I have to correct this as Areana never gave enough to even suggest any real source
Timothy123242 was the one who quoted it whether he got it from a news site or direct from John
himself we may never know]

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

You may remember him from such scandals as supporting terrorism in
Nicaragua and covering up abuses in Honduras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte

-snip-

Ooohhh. I like you. And after only 34 posts.

Well, they're still doing better than the bloody incompetant AU. Not giving the ex-colonials a clean slate in any way, shape or form, but I was looking at Cote d'Ivoire for a more pro-active role. (again, not perfect but you know how complex dealing with African states is)

True.

France has 36,000 troops overseas. Some of which are in:
Haiti, Afghanistan, Cote d'Ivoire, Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Djibouti, Senegal, Chad, Gabon, Congo, Cameroon, Togo.

Is that ok for you?

And I'm sure that they're making a huge difference in these great places on the planet. :rolleyes:

And I'm sure that they're making a huge difference in these great places on the planet. :rolleyes:

Wow. Your ignorance of current international events is startling - especially given the fact you knew sweet f all about the Lebanon situation, and also the Cote d'Ivoire situation, and the Congo, and Chad, and Senegal, and Bosnia.

*shrug*

Not my problem I guess. I feel a bit sorry for you to be honest.

Wow. Your ignorance of current international events is startling - especially given the fact you knew sweet f all about the Lebanon situation, and also the Cote d'Ivoire situation, and the Congo, and Chad, and Senegal, and Bosnia.

*shrug*

Not my problem I guess. I feel a bit sorry for you to be honest.

Do you honestly believe that the French are making a difference?

I say you split Iraq. The Sunni's, shi'ites and other factions live in seperate areas. no one traverses between those areas. Bahgdad is also split. and walled off ala Berlin. the only common ground is the Government buildings which is the only place each faction will meet to voice concerns and govern Iraq as a whole.

each faction determines their own standards of what they allow INTO their areas, the others obey those rules. Keep em seperate and then, after a while, let em slowly intergrate.

The UN forces first keep the peace and enforce the bounderies, then you allow each faction to slowly take over their own area. bascially Post WWII Germany.

then maybe one day, we'll have another celebration when those walls come a tumbling down.

I am not sure we should split Iraq to that degree but giving the Kurds their own country seems like a good idea. I know Turkey would be pissed but I do think it would stabilize the north.

Umm...how about...


NUKE 'EM FROM ORBIT! IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE!

They can bill you.

Do you honestly believe that the French are making a difference?

I hate you for French bashing. It's so old.

France has 36,000 troops overseas. Some of which are in:
Haiti, Afghanistan, Cote d'Ivoire, Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Djibouti, Senegal, Chad, Gabon, Congo, Cameroon, Togo.

Is that ok for you?

Wait...which Congo? :confused:

Let the Iraqis decide if they want American troops in. They'll vote us out, we'll leave and then the world can't blame us for the ensuing civil war.

BOOYAH

(please note that I am against the war and think we never should have invaded it, or Afghanistan.)

The concept of limited war is bunk, and only drags a conflict out longer. Total war works, as was seen in WWII and the American Civil War. WWI was just a big mess.

Economy: Find out where the enemy is getting their funding. Cut it off, completely. Deny them the ability of trading anything for more money or weapons. Deny them the opportunity to purchase any new equipment with what funds they currently have. Force them to use the scrip in their possession as toilet paper, and all specie as paperweights.

Industry: Experience has proven that guerrillas have the ingenuity to manufacture their own weapons, however crude. Find those places and level them. Leave not a single stone standing. Prevent them from having anything to fight with.

Morale: Destroy the enemy's will to fight. Does a town support the enemy? Evacuate the civilians and burn the city to the ground. Does a building of cultural significance inspire them? Seize it. Drive the enemy from the area, and prevent them from ever retaking it.

Military: Find the enemy's bases of operation and either capture it or destroy it. Capture their generals and soldiers, if possible.

With the military back broken and will to fight dissolved, the enemy will surrender. When that happens, help the people rebuild.

People will denounce me as uncaring or going to extremes. But you know what? War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.

Complete immediate withdrawl of all US forces... for 5 days. Followed by re-invasion and a real occupation to quell the sectarian violence that is sure to erupt full scale upon our departure.

I'd put in another 200,000 troops, 50,000 of which would start out in baghdad - it'd be ugly, but its what we have to do if we want to win

we have to secure the cities, above all else

1. Complete pull-out. About 30-40 thousand of the troops get sent to Afghanistan...the rest come home or are redeployed to bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

2. Arm the shit out of the Kurds. I'm talking Israel levels here. Then give them their own country.

3. Watch Iran deal with a Kurdish revolutionary movement, while Saudi Arabia and Syria shit themselves over the prospect of a Shi'a dominated Iraq aligned with Iran.

I think an Iraqi civil war just might be the best thing possible for the Middle East. It will force Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to concentrate on the power struggle in Iraq, preventing finance and support of wider ranging terrorist operations.

Whoever comes out on top will have an enemy on one border or the other...with luck the two sides will find a new balance to replace the old. Iraq will suffer, but the long-term effects might offset that.

1. Complete pull-out. About 30-40 thousand of the troops get sent to Afghanistan...the rest come home or are redeployed to bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Then who would protect the oil or stay in the permanent military bases?
Your plan would also leave the 3000 strong US embassy almost
entirely unprotected.


2. Arm the shit out of the Kurds. I'm talking Israel levels here. Then give them their own country.

They do want their own country, Turkey doesn't want them to have it
and the US certainly doesn't want them having control of any
of Iraqs oil.


3. Watch Iran deal with a Kurdish revolutionary movement, while Saudi Arabia and Syria shit themselves over the prospect of a Shi'a dominated Iraq aligned with Iran.

There is not now and never has been any intention of letting the Kurds have
their own homeland so thats not going to happen.


I think an Iraqi civil war just might be the best thing possible for the Middle East. It will force Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to concentrate on the power struggle in Iraq, preventing finance and support of wider ranging terrorist operations.

A potential wider struggle in the Middle East would put the price of oil
much much higher but as for a civil war in Iraq most people acknowledge
it began a while ago.


Whoever comes out on top will have an enemy on one border or the other...with luck the two sides will find a new balance to replace the old. Iraq will suffer, but the long-term effects might offset that.

What could the arab world come up with if needing to put their differences
aside, who could they possibly all unite in hatred against?

can't think of anyone myself....


Don't get me wrong though, the aggressor nations withdrawing would be a good thing,
it's just the nations guilty of invading Iraq in the first place have no right
to do anything in terms of dividing the country up or determining its government
nor can anything they attempt to do along those lines lead to stability.
Leaving, apologising and paying reparations is the only option open to people
with respect for law.
For the United States and United Kingdom, leaving is the only option open to them.
The apologies and reparations would only ever come from them if they came to be governed
by people with respect for law or some other grouping in the world became vastly more
powerful than the US (probably never).

Ok, first off, I am new to this forum but I have been looking back and have not seen any posts on this so I decided to make one. Please only serious suggestions.

Seeing as most people on here disagree with the war in Iraq, how about we start making suggestions of what should be done instead of just saying the war is stupid; that gets us nowhere.

I say that a quick full withdrawal of troops would be the worst thing possible. It would plunge Iraq and the Middle East into more chaos than it is already in. I support more of a phased out withdrawal with Iraqi Troops replacing American troops.
Hand it over to the UN, and let New Zealand teach them Rugby, it would put all that aggression to good use.

before an objective can be achieved it must be defined, and defined in concrete and objective terms.

randomly rounding up every able bodied male of fighting age and holding them incomunicado indeffinately is certainly not a logical way to win hearts and minds.

while it is not impossible for a nation to ultimately bennifit from having been occupied, all terms of engaugement and objectives, military and otherwise, need to be subjected to serious and RATIONAL review.

at this stage of the game. with what the u.s. has established a track record on the ground of actualy doing, the only honorable thing to do would be to cut and run.

that is one option. the other would be to actualy earn ligitimate honor and respect on the ground by ACTUALY building local infrastructure FOR THE PEOPLE THERE, employing them, at fair and living wages at all levels in doing so, using and deploying armed force ONLY to protect and assist in doing so.

never mind trying to tell them what kind of country they should have or how to run it. politicly sabotaging any regime that doesn't kiss our economic ass however popularly it my come to power and imposing dictatorships that will, is NOT "bringing democracy" to anyone!

and on that level the whole of u.s. forign policy needs to be reviewed and reconsidered, not just the actions in one 'war' or another.

in short, even militarily, anyone other then a retarded punk who thinks he's god, could have done better then what we have, simply by being honest with ourselves and establishing reasonable and achievable objectives to begin with, BEFORE killing 300,000 or so civilians who couldn't very many if any, have had a heck of a lot to do with 20 guys ripping off four airplains and knocking down two and a half buildings with them, which if you will recall, is the only reason it was possible to get congress and the public to go along the virtualy transparent pretentions doing so was supposedly based upon.

unless our policy on the ground, can be revised with a greater finnesse then anyone currently in power has demonstrated, really the only honorable and rational thing left to do, is to get our buts the effing ell out of there.

yesterday, not later.

=^^=
.../\...

I am not sure we should split Iraq to that degree but giving the Kurds their own country seems like a good idea. I know Turkey would be pissed but I do think it would stabilize the north.

the problem is that the Sunni's are killing anyone not Sunni, the Shi'ites are killing anyone not Shi'ites, etc... so if they cannot play nicely together, then put them all in "Time Out" if they like it so much that they actually form three or four seperate nations... would that really be a bad thing?

I don't see a problem with splitting them as long as it was there decision, not ours.
So the majority of the people here seem to be for cutting and running. Well what do you think will happen to the people of Iraq?

I don't see a problem with splitting them as long as it was there decision, not ours.
So the majority of the people here seem to be for cutting and running. Well what do you think will happen to the people of Iraq?

Whatever the Iraqi people decide

I don't see a problem with splitting them as long as it was there decision, not ours.
Frankly, I don't see at the minute how Iraq will be able to function without doing so. Most seem to identify with their particular sect than wit hIraq as a whole.

So the majority of the people here seem to be for cutting and running. Well what do you think will happen to the people of Iraq?
Well, probably no different to what is happening now, I expect.

Ok, first off, I am new to this forum but I have been looking back and have not seen any posts on this so I decided to make one. Please only serious suggestions.

Seeing as most people on here disagree with the war in Iraq, how about we start making suggestions of what should be done instead of just saying the war is stupid; that gets us nowhere.

I say that a quick full withdrawal of troops would be the worst thing possible. It would plunge Iraq and the Middle East into more chaos than it is already in. I support more of a phased out withdrawal with Iraqi Troops replacing American troops.

I would:

Get on national television to announce the following, without giving any warning to anyone in the current Iraqi government:

My fellow Americans. Because so many of you expressed your displeasure with the way the war in Iraq started, was carried out, or is heading, I am announcing the complete, rapid, and utter withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. And I thought I would tell you first, since you should be the first to know that all of our troops are coming home.

Additionally, since many others of you believe that the mere presence of US troops in the Middle East is the primary cause of terrorism, I am withdrawing all US forces from all Middle Eastern countries, and all US warships from all Middle Eastern waters. This will include all of our troops in Afghanistan, whom many of you are saying are fighting to no good end.

And since many of you believe that Israel is teh evil, and is the other cause of our terrorism problem, I am withdrawing any and all support of any kind from Israel.

And because I am doing this your way, if there are any further terrorist attacks after this, please do not blame me - I am only doing what you asked me to do.

I would:

Get on national television to announce the following, without giving any warning to anyone in the current Iraqi government:

My fellow Americans. Because so many of you expressed your displeasure with the way the war in Iraq started, was carried out, or is heading, I am announcing the complete, rapid, and utter withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. And I thought I would tell you first, since you should be the first to know that all of our troops are coming home.

Additionally, since many others of you believe that the mere presence of US troops in the Middle East is the primary cause of terrorism, I am withdrawing all US forces from all Middle Eastern countries, and all US warships from all Middle Eastern waters. This will include all of our troops in Afghanistan, whom many of you are saying are fighting to no good end.

And since many of you believe that Israel is teh evil, and is the other cause of our terrorism problem, I am withdrawing any and all support of any kind from Israel.

Ohohohoh... you forgot...

we are releasing all prisioners from Gitmo and giving them reparations because you, as a people wanted Gitmo closed and the people released.

we are also repealing the MCA 2006 and the Patriot Act. thus we are abolishing the TSA and other security measures that you, as a people, felt were unneccessary. no more spying on anyone SUSPECTED of terroist activity, now we will only spy on those we have irrifutable proof of being a terrorist. we will also, at your wish, make that proof and knowledge public so that you know who we're looking at and why.

And because I am doing this your way, if there are any further terrorist attacks after this, please do not blame me - I am only doing what you asked me to do. and that we, as your government, did our best with what you're allowing us to do.

Ohohohoh... you forgot...

we are releasing all prisioners from Gitmo and giving them reparations because you, as a people wanted Gitmo closed and the people released.

we are also repealing the MCA 2006 and the Patriot Act. thus we are abolishing the TSA and other security measures that you, as a people, felt were unneccessary. no more spying on anyone SUSPECTED of terroist activity, now we will only spy on those we have irrifutable proof of being a terrorist. we will also, at your wish, make that proof and knowledge public so that you know who we're looking at and why.

and that we, as your government, did our best with what you're allowing us to do.

Yeah, I forgot that too.

I would go back to the same airline security we had pre-911.

I love it when the US regime uses the cut and run phrase
to imply they are doing difficult but good and generous thing
and only a selfish coward would consider leaving.
Oh what nobility and self sacrifice.

I want to see the same wording used for bank robbers,
keeping all the staff and customers on the ground with their hands on their
heads rather than just cutting and running as the police seem to
want them to do.

I want to see the same wording used for abusive parents
bravely staying on in the house and continuing with their
physical sexual and emotional abuse in an effort to keep the family
together rather than cutting and running.
Blaming perhaps the teenagers who seem to have no concern
about having a happy family life who will not stop fighting
both with the parents and amongst themselves.

I want to see the same wording used for Enron executives
who only did what they did to keep profits coming in and keeping
the company afloat rather than cutting and running.

Yeah, I forgot that too.

I would go back to the same airline security we had pre-911.

Well perhaps just ensure that theres no access to the cabin.
I'd been wondering since the 70's why that was never sorted.

Let the Iraqis decide if they want American troops in. They'll vote us out, we'll leave and then the world can't blame us for the ensuing civil war.

BOOYAH
I'm quite sure they never wanted you "in" to begin with.

Hooyabooyaboo. :rolleyes:

Wait...which Congo? :confused:

DRC. About 700 since July 2006.

Here's a link (http://ambafrance-us.org/atoz/defense.asp) with a detailed break down of their deployments. (May I add they are the third largest member state contributer to NATO)