If you were president how would you fix Iraq

[sharpstick]

you know rixxo you are right and you bring up a very good point.........I have one simple solution...we ask the people in Iraq what they want.


Yes I belive Israel is part of the problem , but by far not the only one. Our problems at the root were laid out by a fine patriot in a speech called shall liberty or empire be sought.


I would fund no nation, allow no government to steal enough money from me to have such a surplus they could fund other nations.

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by sharpstick

you know rixxo you are right and you bring up a very good point.........I have one simple solution...we ask the people in Iraq what they want.


Yes I belive Israel is part of the problem , but by far not the only one. Our problems at the root were laid out by a fine patriot in a speech called shall liberty or empire be sought.


I would fund no nation, allow no government to steal enough money from me to have such a surplus they could fund other nations.

That is the problem, they don't see themselves as Iraquis, at least not enough of them do. They still have a tribal mentality, and service to the nation is a concept that escapes many of them, including many of the ones in goverment.

Say Iran, and most Middle Eastern folks have their dreams come true, and Israel disapears in a puff of smoke. How does that solve the tribal disputes in Arabia, in Iraq, or in Afghanistan?

We are involved because the energy that has powered our economy comes from there, this goes back a long time, before WW2 for sure. Originaly it was the UK doing it (they were the superpower then), but since WW2 it has been us. We (UK and USA) backed some tribes with $$ and power, and this tribes won out, and became the royal families of this countries. These tribes/goverments are our so called allies. Rival tribes that lost out, resent this, and though they might be doing good with so much $$ to go around, they old tribal hatreds are still there. They look around and see why can't they kick the tribe in charge's butt. The reason is of course the infidels are giving them $$ and nice weapons. To add insult to injury, when Hussein attacked one such tribe, the Al Saud family/tribe used it as an excuse to invite infidel soldiers to their holy land, because the Al Saud was already feeling the heat. To the rival tribes, this clinched it, and saw the USA as the reason their enemies had so much power. The Bin Laden family is one such bunch, in particular Osama. None of this would be any different if the vicitms of the Holocaust had moved to say, South America, and had never mistreated a single Palestinian. Those in power blame Israel for every ailment, the way Argentinian dictators blamed all the country's ills on the UK occupying an isolated penguin colony.
the Israelis are not saints, but I don't see a connection between them, 9/11, or Iraq. At best they can be blamed for troubles in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.

[DanTheEldest]

We have three distinct groups over there who really don't like each other: the Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis. As long as we're brainstorming, I'm wondering about simply breaking the country up into three smaller ones and letting them set up their own nation-states on the condition that they respect each other's boundaries.

Have representatives elected by their respective constituents meet to hammer out the regional specifics (ensure oil and water resources are evenly divided, etc), and let them do their thing, with one caveat: we keep a permanent military presence similar to post WW2 Germany in the Kurdish nation-state (since they love us anyway) to a) defend the Kurds, who will need it, and b) give us permanent influence and rapid response time to anywhere in the region. Give them one shot at self-governance--if something like a genocide breaks out, send our forces back in and level the offending state (none of this half-war we're fighting now.) Otherwise, just let them do their thing.

This all assumes that historic rivalries can be overcome, and probably wouldn't work, but in a really screwed-up situation, it seems like it would have a shot. Just a thought from a guy who played too much RISK growing up.

[sharpstick]

I dont care if they battle each other for 100 years just leave my country the hell alone. If they want tribal rule who am I to say that they cant have it? It seems to me that we as Americans need to mind our own home, and truly focus on Liberty and not the Empire we have become.



An old man is walking down the side walk when he sees a young boy shoveing candy in his mouth by the handfull............He say "son dont you know its awfull bad to eat candy like that".............Boy replies "my grand dad lived to be 98 years old"...............Man replies"and did he eat candy like that to?"....................Boy says "NO he minded his own damn buisness.

[einheit 13]

I'd buy them all a coca cola.......

[KP Ling]

+1 to sharpstick

Our current adventure is the attempt to correct the side effects of past interventionism in the region. Though we have never intervened in such a dramatic manner as this one, even the Gulf War. This attempt will likely have worse affects down the road, whether we stay or leave and so we will justify to ourselves more interventionism.

FrankRizzoXD40

I thank you for your compliment but I still disagree with your logic. If we leave then 3 million people might die; they also might die if we stay but some of them will be Americans. The government of the USA owes no allegiances or services to anyone but Americans but sadly this has been forgotten. Also, I would assert that Iraq has already become a training base for al-Qa'ida and that there really is nothing to keep them there. Over 1 million Iraqis have fled Iraq and they are the rich or middle-class, educated, professional, pro-west Iraqis who would have been our best allies in making over Iraq in our image.

If they can leave surely one terrorist can walk out to. I will grant that to a terrorist it is easier to get into Iraq and try to kill an American troop than to make it into the US itself. But, soldiers are volunteers who know that they may be put in harm's way and are equipped to defend themselves; soldiers are not the optimal target for terrorists to produce their desired effect. They will always try and kill civilians or produce massive, high-profile casualties. Killing a soldier is an act of war and expected in war; killing civilians is an act of murder and always shocking and terror inducing. Intel already notes that most of the violence in Iraq is homegrown. The majority of fighters are Iraqis who see themselves as freedom fighters trying to eject a foreign power. They do have outside help in the way of training, supplies, money, media, and logistical support. But still the Iraqis who are fighting would continue to fight without these things.

Foreign fighters simply drift in and out of Iraq to "cut their teeth" against Americans or be "martyred" and then go back to their home countries oppressive regimes to try and cause trouble. Why do you think the Syrians, Jordanians, and especially Saudis encourage their restless young zealots to go to Iraq and allow travel by the same types from north Africa and Europe (there have also been people from Asia, Australia, and the US transit through those countries to Iraq)? They want them to either get killed so they can't come back and cause trouble or to appease the religious strain in their countries so that they will not be the next target of insurgencies. In short, all these oppressive regimes in the middle east see the US being in Iraq as godsend, since like Cuba and Castro with his "undesirables" in the 70s and 80s shipped to America, they can offload their simmering insurgencies to Iraq.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by KP Ling

I thank you for your compliment but I still disagree with your logic. If we leave then 3 million people might die; they also might die if we stay but some of them will be Americans. The government of the USA owes no allegiances or services to anyone but Americans but sadly this has been forgotten. Also, I would assert that Iraq has already become a training base for al-Qa'ida and that there really is nothing to keep them there.

You are right; we do owe allegiance to Americans. We are paying it by trying to keep Americans safe by not allowing al qaeda to fill the void in Iraq that would be left if we pulled out immediately. Sure, Iraq has become a training ground to a certain extend for al qaeda, but does that make it ok to just leave? It would only get worse if we leave. I am advocating destroying al qaeda forces in Iraq so that it is NOT and won't EVER be a training ground at all.

The enemy steps up, we fall back. They engage us in another country, we fall back. Where do we make our stand? Where do we show the world that we are not going to fall back anymore in regards to Islamic extremists and terrorism. al qaeda has stated their their goal is to remove us from Iraq and establish an Islamic republic. Do you really want that? I understand the arguement that it is none of our business, but my fear is that Iraq will become "the Islamic republic of al qaeda" and we will not be able to do anything about it. Face it, they aren't going to negotiate with us. They want us dead. I just can't see folding and giving them a victory. There is too much at stake. Now, don't get me wrong, continuing down the destructive path that we are going in Iraq is not acceptable either. This is why I have a lot of problems with the way the administration has handled the war.

Dan, I like the idea you suggested. I've heard several people talk about it, most notably Michael Savage. I haven't thought enough about it to decide what I think. It's a possibility though. The Kurds sure do deserve a working democracy where they won't be oppressed as they have been throughout middle-eastern history.

Leaving Iraq prematurely is unacceptable. Continuing with the "stay the course" strategy is also unacceptable. We need to eradicate the militas with overwhelming force and step up our efforts to train the Iraqi police. One thing that is worth mentioning--and that gives me hope--is that every time a whole bunch of Iraq police are killed and/or a police barracks is bombed, the next day there is still a long line of Iraqis lined up to join. There are those there who want (and are) standing up. We just have to overcome the fear instilled in them by the militias. Like I said, they are being told that if they sign-up, their entire families will be killed.

It is not easy for a country to overcome tyranny--especially when all these people have known for the last 50 years is oppression. I am sure that they have doubts that we will actually help them prevail this time. I remember how mad many of the tribes were at us when we left Iraq in the first gulf war without toppling Saddam. Once we left, Saddam rounded up and killed off those tribes who helped us. When we went in this time, many of them were skeptical and too timid to help us because they were afraid the same thing would happen again. The desire to be a peaceful democracy is there, it just needs to overcome the tyranny and the terror.

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Frank

[KP Ling]

Frank,

Have you read the new, American-approved, 2005 Iraqi constituion? http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files...itution_en.pdf

The second article of the constitution says: "Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation..." This is after the first article which is a rambling quotation of the Quran and relating the history of Babylon, the Baghdad Calihpate and presently how central Iraq is to Shi'ite Islam. So, did we fight to establish an Islamic Republic or to prevent establishing one?

I find it hard to believe that invading Iraq is defensive or protecting Americans. Actually, no, it is impossible to believe invading Iraq is defensive because it wasn't, how many hijackers were from Iraq?

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by KP Ling

Frank,

Have you read the new, American-approved, 2005 Iraqi constituion? http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files...itution_en.pdf

The second article of the constitution says: "Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation..." This is after the first article which is a rambling quotation of the Quran and relating the history of Babylon, the Baghdad Calihpate and presently how central Iraq is to Shi'ite Islam. So, did we fight to establish an Islamic Republic or to prevent establishing one?

There is a difference between an peaceful Islamic Republic and an extremist, non-peaceful Islamic Republic. Not all muslims are terrorists. Just ask nikon777. What should we have done? Forced them to write a Christian constitution? Let them keep their faith. It just needs to be peaceful. When I have mentioned an "Islamic Republic" I have been referring to an Iran-type set up. Maybe I should have been more clear.

Nobody is talking about anything to do with the justifications for invading Iraq. There is no sense to re-hash that debate. It had already been debated from every possible angle. This thread is about what to do now. I haven't heard you argue that Iraq won't turn into a VERY dangerous Islamic Republic that is run by al-qaeda. Do you think the world would be safer if we left Iraq now? Do you think that al-qaeda would be satisfied with thier victory and stop their crusade against the US? They have said they will not stop until we die in our own streets. Do we pull out now and let them control and entire country?

Frank

[beardman2]

alright here is my "15 minute reply".

First we get together with Israel and Palestine and commit to the 67 border. In return hamas has to recognize Israels right to exist. Palestine becomes a state with set borders.

We got to Russia and Iran. Russia supplies Iran with nuclear fuel rods and receives the waste material when its done. In return Iran gives up funding for hezbollah etc and must crack down on any violence committed by its members. In return we would probably have to help with some technology of some kind. They are going to get it from somewhere we might as well be the ones to help them and hopefully earn some good will. We have to apologize for some mistakes we've made in the past as far as Iran/Iraq war goes. Iran must stop supporting insurgents in Iraq or they get nothing.

this should also help out in lebanon etc as well.

We initially increase troop levels in Iraq to launch a major offensive against any insurgents and sectarian violence.

Major push to train up troops. the idea of putting our troops with the Iraqi units instead of the other way around might not be a bad idea. Once the the major offensive has succeeded, violence is reduced, and more of their troops etc come on line we start reducing our numbers. The Iraqis must start taking more responsibility.

that's the basic idea.