Getting the US out of Iraq without losing.

[slash196]

Step 1: Throw Republicans out of office.

Step 2: Congress declares the war in Iraq illegal, impeaches Bush and sends him to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.

Step 3: Transfer control to multinational UN peacekeeping force (which by the way would not be hard at all to get with Bush out of office and an official apology for the war).

Step 4: Crack that champagne.


This is pretty much the only scenario I can see that doesn't end in abject defeat for the US and the utter failure of the Iraqi state. If you have an alternative, I'd be glad to hear it, but frankly I don't think one exists. The only way this is ever going to get solved is if we admit we're wrong and punish the people who forced us into this mistake in the first place.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: slash196
Step 1: Throw Republicans out of office.

Step 2: Congress declares the war in Iraq illegal, impeaches Bush and sends him to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.

Step 3: Transfer control to multinational UN peacekeeping force (which by the way would not be hard at all to get with Bush out of office and an official apology for the war).

Step 4: Crack that champagne.


This is pretty much the only scenario I can see that doesn't end in abject defeat for the US and the utter failure of the Iraqi state. If you have an alternative, I'd be glad to hear it, but frankly I don't think one exists. The only way this is ever going to get solved is if we admit we're wrong and punish the people who forced us into this mistake in the first place.

5. All the terrorist decide that they no longer want to kill us for being infidels.

6. Cats and dogs start living together peacefully.

BTW: asking the UN to do anything is a waste of time? Darfur= 400,000 dead. Rwandan = 800,000+ dead. Kosovo = 10,000+ dead. UN invovlement in any of these during the killings = 0!!!!!!

Ps. How many UN troops are now in Lebanon?

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: slash196
Step 1: Throw Republicans out of office.

Step 2: Congress declares the war in Iraq illegal, impeaches Bush and sends him to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.

Step 3: Transfer control to multinational UN peacekeeping force (which by the way would not be hard at all to get with Bush out of office and an official apology for the war).

Step 4: Crack that champagne.


This is pretty much the only scenario I can see that doesn't end in abject defeat for the US and the utter failure of the Iraqi state. If you have an alternative, I'd be glad to hear it, but frankly I don't think one exists. The only way this is ever going to get solved is if we admit we're wrong and punish the people who forced us into this mistake in the first place.

5. All the terrorist decide that they no longer want to kill us for being infidels.

6. Cats and dogs start living together peacefully.

BTW: asking the UN to do anything is a waste of time? Darfur= 400,000 dead. Rwandan = 800,000+ dead. Kosovo = 10,000+ dead. UN invovlement in any of these during the killings = 0!!!!!!

Ps. How many UN troops are now in Lebanon?

Ugh, your response is such a waste of time...but I guess I am obligated to respond.

OK, you've completely dismissed my points about a withdrawal from Iraq (no, my plan won't end terrorism...but that's like saying the recipe for a cake is worthless because it won't give you a pie) without providing a single instance of reasoning that would render any of my ideas unworkable. Furthermore, you somehow managed to promote MY point on UN involvement. That's so dumb it's impressive.

You are an intellectual wasteland, a hodgepodge of contradictory beliefs with no connection to reality or substantive backing. For the sake of this board, just close your account.

 

[yllus]

If step #3 was possible, I would fully go along with the rest of your plan. (I do disagree with the idea that he committed war crimes, but this is all about moving forward and not navel-gazing.)

 

[Genx87]

Whenever you hear the word "easy" in regards to a complex problem, you know a simpleton is about open their mouth. Lets see what the OP has to offer us.

Step 1. So easy, the democrats havent figured it out. Truely easy.


Step 2. Oh yes simply declares Iraq illegal now, even without any laws that can deem it illegal. Then imppeches a sitting president for breaking a law that doesnt exist.
This is simply a great idea.

Step 3. Yes, the UN that got a bomb blownup nears it office and bolted out of Iraq will happily send in their inept forces to become targets for IEDs. You can count on them happily doing this.

Step 4. About the only thing that is simple and judging by your previous 3 steps. I think you may have skipped them and went right to this before writing.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: slash196
Step 1: Throw Republicans out of office.

Step 2: Congress declares the war in Iraq illegal, impeaches Bush and sends him to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.

Step 3: Transfer control to multinational UN peacekeeping force (which by the way would not be hard at all to get with Bush out of office and an official apology for the war).

Step 4: Crack that champagne.


This is pretty much the only scenario I can see that doesn't end in abject defeat for the US and the utter failure of the Iraqi state. If you have an alternative, I'd be glad to hear it, but frankly I don't think one exists. The only way this is ever going to get solved is if we admit we're wrong and punish the people who forced us into this mistake in the first place.

5. All the terrorist decide that they no longer want to kill us for being infidels.

6. Cats and dogs start living together peacefully.

BTW: asking the UN to do anything is a waste of time? Darfur= 400,000 dead. Rwandan = 800,000+ dead. Kosovo = 10,000+ dead. UN invovlement in any of these during the killings = 0!!!!!!

Ps. How many UN troops are now in Lebanon?

Hey dont forget Sierre Leone. Where mercs had the insurgents trapped and the country secure until the UN forced them out. Spent 100x more money, used 50X more troops, and lost control of the country faster than flies on shite.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: slash196
Step 1: Throw Republicans out of office.

Step 2: Congress declares the war in Iraq illegal, impeaches Bush and sends him to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.

Step 3: Transfer control to multinational UN peacekeeping force (which by the way would not be hard at all to get with Bush out of office and an official apology for the war).

Step 4: Crack that champagne.


This is pretty much the only scenario I can see that doesn't end in abject defeat for the US and the utter failure of the Iraqi state. If you have an alternative, I'd be glad to hear it, but frankly I don't think one exists. The only way this is ever going to get solved is if we admit we're wrong and punish the people who forced us into this mistake in the first place.

5. All the terrorist decide that they no longer want to kill us for being infidels.

6. Cats and dogs start living together peacefully.

BTW: asking the UN to do anything is a waste of time? Darfur= 400,000 dead. Rwandan = 800,000+ dead. Kosovo = 10,000+ dead. UN invovlement in any of these during the killings = 0!!!!!!

Ps. How many UN troops are now in Lebanon?

Ugh, your response is such a waste of time...but I guess I am obligated to respond.

OK, you've completely dismissed my points about a withdrawal from Iraq (no, my plan won't end terrorism...but that's like saying the recipe for a cake is worthless because it won't give you a pie) without providing a single instance of reasoning that would render any of my ideas unworkable. Furthermore, you somehow managed to promote MY point on UN involvement. That's so dumb it's impressive.

You are an intellectual wasteland, a hodgepodge of contradictory beliefs with no connection to reality or substantive backing. For the sake of this board, just close your account.

You say your plan won't stop terrorism, yet you expect us to win the war on terror with your plan? Interesting concept.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: yllus
If step #3 was possible, I would fully go along with the rest of your plan. (I do disagree with the idea that he committed war crimes, but this is all about moving forward and not navel-gazing.)

Step 3 is not only possible, it's inevitable. Iraq is NEVER going to be stable as long as there is an occupying US force. Right now sectarian violence is taking thousands of lives a month: if there was ever a situation made for UN peacekeepers, this is it. It will take a global effort to subdue this violence, and the US will never gain support for these efforts as long as the Iraq war is perceived by the world as an imperialistic action by the US. If we throw the perpetrators in jail, and then say to the world "We didn't want this, but like it or not this is how it is, will you help up make Iraq safe for its citizens" i have a feeling we'd get a strong response.

Or we can just be defeated outright, go home with our tail between our legs, be the laughingstock of the international community, and have Iraq tear itself apart.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: TravisT

You say your plan won't stop terrorism, yet you expect us to win the war on terror with your plan? Interesting concept.

Your brainwashing by the government is showing. I never used the phrase war on terror once. I said Iraq. You've been so conditioned to equate the two that you can no longer see a difference. Your brain automatically exchanges one for the other, assuming (as you've been told) that they mean the same thing, when in fact they are orders of magnitude different and require different approaches to achieve success.

 

[TravisT]

So you are saying that we are not fighting terrorism in Iraq? I would agree, Iraq is no longer the issue, it just happens to be where many terrorists are now. So are we to ignore terrorism now or what is your plan to actually counter terrorism? Or are you involved in the conspiracy of thinking we're over there for alternative reasons?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: TravisT
So you are saying that we are not fighting terrorism in Iraq? I would agree, Iraq is no longer the issue, it just happens to be where many terrorists are now. So are we to ignore terrorism now or what is your plan to actually counter terrorism? Or are you involved in the conspiracy of thinking we're over there for alternative reasons?

There is no way to militarily defeat terrorism. Unless you are willing to exterminate large swaths of the population. That is why our approach has been wrong from the start.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: yllus
If step #3 was possible, I would fully go along with the rest of your plan. (I do disagree with the idea that he committed war crimes, but this is all about moving forward and not navel-gazing.)

Step 3 is not only possible, it's inevitable. Iraq is NEVER going to be stable as long as there is an occupying US force. Right now sectarian violence is taking thousands of lives a month: if there was ever a situation made for UN peacekeepers, this is it. It will take a global effort to subdue this violence, and the US will never gain support for these efforts as long as the Iraq war is perceived by the world as an imperialistic action by the US. If we throw the perpetrators in jail, and then say to the world "We didn't want this, but like it or not this is how it is, will you help up make Iraq safe for its citizens" i have a feeling we'd get a strong response.

Or we can just be defeated outright, go home with our tail between our legs, be the laughingstock of the international community, and have Iraq tear itself apart.

While I would consider the additional help from other nations than those that are currently involved in Iraq useful, the truth of the matter is no matter how many soldiers you station on every street corner, the sectarian violence would keep on truckin'.

No, Iraq needs to bleed itself out. I still consider it a highly respectable thing for the U.S. to have gone in and rid Iraq of its dictator - no matter its own self-interests in the campaign and the wretched post-war planning. That was a good thing and nobody can take that away from President Bush's legacy. But those old hatreds would unleash themselves sooner or later anyways, and (extremely) slowly Iraq is building up a resistance to those acts. It's silly to think things would work in any other way. People here say that Iraqis should be dying for their own country instead of Americans - and they are. It takes a ballsy man to be a police officer in Iraq, and yet thousands there take up that role. Give them some credit.

You guys are nuts for declaring failure after just a few years, though I empathize that it's your soldiers caught in the middle. But at least give them a decade, sheesh.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: TravisT
So you are saying that we are not fighting terrorism in Iraq? I would agree, Iraq is no longer the issue, it just happens to be where many terrorists are now. So are we to ignore terrorism now or what is your plan to actually counter terrorism? Or are you involved in the conspiracy of thinking we're over there for alternative reasons?

There is no way to militarily defeat terrorism. Unless you are willing to exterminate large swaths of the population. That is why our approach has been wrong from the start.

That wasn't the question, the question was what was YOUR plan to counter terrorism? A simple answer of "I don't know, but what we're doing now isn't working" isn't the answer I am looking for. We obviously know for a fact that sitting on our thumb doesn't either. So i'm curious on what a good resolution would be, and I am legitimately curious, trying to respond without a snide remark this time.

 

[tommywishbone]

As noted, step #3 is not possible. Nobody will touch Iraq. Absolutely nobody. Step #2 has a nice ring to it.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: TravisT
So you are saying that we are not fighting terrorism in Iraq? I would agree, Iraq is no longer the issue, it just happens to be where many terrorists are now. So are we to ignore terrorism now or what is your plan to actually counter terrorism? Or are you involved in the conspiracy of thinking we're over there for alternative reasons?

The war on fear will never be won with the way we are carrying out the current war. Trying to hit flies with sledge hammers is stupid. The war on fear is nothing more than a power grab by politicians utilizing fearmongering to hoodwink the population. it was then used as justification for further powergrabbing in Iraq. The only reason why terrorists are then now is because we brought them there or raised them.

Iraq is a complete and utter failure. The war on fear is a complete crock. 40,000+ iraqis have died because 3,000 americans died. Last time I checked, an Iraqi live was owrth just as much as an American one, not one American is worth 13 iraqis, especially when it wasn't even Iraqis who perpetrated 9/11. We are now letting those guys get back control of Afghanistan because we wanted to screw around in Iraq.

Terrorism has been around since before the Roman Empire. It will never be eliminated, it can only be coerced into sleeping while disaffected people are wooed by knowing that they have other options in life rather than suicide bombings and that we will not perpetuate a war against their territory.

However, that takes stronger wills than idiots who want to bomb and shoot everything. If you want to get rid of flies, you put flypaper up and you close your doors and be nice. If you want to get rid of terrorists, you be nice to other people, stay the hell out of their business, and prosecute those that actually deserve prosecution. You marginalize those people's power by showing that you are benevolent while they are evil.

You don't show that by mindlessly invading countries and acting like a bully, all that does is embolden your enemies.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TravisT
So you are saying that we are not fighting terrorism in Iraq? I would agree, Iraq is no longer the issue, it just happens to be where many terrorists are now. So are we to ignore terrorism now or what is your plan to actually counter terrorism? Or are you involved in the conspiracy of thinking we're over there for alternative reasons?

The war on fear will never be won with the way we are carrying out the current war. Trying to hit flies with sledge hammers is stupid. The war on fear is nothing more than a power grab by politicians utilizing fearmongering to hoodwink the population. it was then used as justification for further powergrabbing in Iraq. The only reason why terrorists are then now is because we brought them there or raised them.

Iraq is a complete and utter failure. The war on fear is a complete crock. 40,000+ iraqis have died because 3,000 americans died. Last time I checked, an Iraqi live was owrth just as much as an American one, not one American is worth 13 iraqis, especially when it wasn't even Iraqis who perpetrated 9/11. We are now letting those guys get back control of Afghanistan because we wanted to screw around in Iraq.

Terrorism has been around since before the Roman Empire. It will never be eliminated, it can only be coerced into sleeping while disaffected people are wooed by knowing that they have other options in life rather than suicide bombings and that we will not perpetuate a war against their territory.

However, that takes stronger wills than idiots who want to bomb and shoot everything. If you want to get rid of flies, you put flypaper up and you close your doors and be nice. If you want to get rid of terrorists, you be nice to other people, stay the hell out of their business, and prosecute those that actually deserve prosecution. You marginalize those people's power by showing that you are benevolent while they are evil.

You don't show that by mindlessly invading countries and acting like a bully, all that does is embolden your enemies.

After reading a few sentences I could tell your post was nothing more than another "What we're doing now isn't working!!!" post. This had nothing to do with my post... The question was, what is YOUR plan? Or your opinion on what would be best? As said before, we know sitting on our thumb will only bring terrorism to our own soil. Showering terrorists with roses won't work either.

 

[SamurAchzar]

LOL @ OP. That's the most naive, downright silly suggestion I've heard in a long time. US isn't a part of the problem, the problem is that the Iraqis want to kill each other. I don't think most of the attacks are even directed at the US forces.
If the US army, with all its might, can't bring things to relaxation, an impotent UN force with 1/100th of the firepower and few thousands of troops would? Could you point to ONE place where UN intervention worked?

All you could do at your level of debate is shout "occupation" just like the pro-Palestinians do. It has nothing to do with occupation, it's 12th century mentallity that has raised its ugly head, that was kept violently in check by Saddam.

The best solution would be declaring that the Iraqis aren't mature enough for democracy, and bring another tyrrant to office, Saddam style. That's of course isn't politically correct.
So what the remaining solution is? Put more force in, suppress resistance with any military mean necessary. It's either that or:

1. A civil war that will take 20 years, and at its end the Iraqi will be much worse than they are now in terms of mentallity, education, development or economy
2. Iran gaining control over parts of Iraq, more terror cells forming
3. Taliban style goverment

Of course your post-modern thinking automatically excludes the use of force to solve problems. I can only wish for you that you remain as ignorant and won't have reality knock sense into your head.

You don't even know what the Iraqis are after and yet you have very simple solutions. Who are the Iraqis anyway? How many different religious are involved? What does each want? How is the US retreating from Iraq going to appease the Sunnis or the Shiaas who hate each other? How is it going to solve the problem of the Kurds?

I'm still in awe by the stupidity exhibited here. Funny that a Bush hating Liberal is an example for how America is obsessed with itself without understanding there is more to the world. I'd expect that from a Republican, but so far, they seem to have much better grasp of the situation.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Whenever you hear the word "easy" in regards to a complex problem, you know a simpleton is about open their mouth.

I completely agree, which makes me wonder why you're a Bush supporter. Have you forgotten the idiotic fantasies Bush and Co spun prior to the war? Mushroom clouds, WMD trailers, a quick and cheap war, a flourishing democracy etc etc? Or is it ok if the simpleton has a really good PR machine?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: TravisT

After reading a few sentences I could tell your post was nothing more than another "What we're doing now isn't working!!!" post. This had nothing to do with my post... The question was, what is YOUR plan? Or your opinion on what would be best? As said before, we know sitting on our thumb will only bring terrorism to our own soil. Showering terrorists with roses won't work either.

1. The current crop of terrorists started when we stuck our thumb into the middle east and decided to piss off OBL, who until that time had been fine with us.

2. We have never tried to shower them with roses. We have only attempted to meddle in their affairs, invade their soil, displace their people, and treat them like stone-age babies. Funny how treating people like they don't deserve respect has backfired.

3. My solution is to leave Iraq, now. Redeploy half of the troops to Afghanistan and aggressively pursue the Taliban and crush them into submission. Offer Pakistan a few billion dollars in economic aid to aggressively prosecute Taliban and A-Q operatives.

As far as Iraq. Freedom that has been given to people has always been squandered by people. You can only lead a horse to water, you cannot make it drink. They have to earn their freedom the hard way, by fighting for it themselves.

As stated above, we need to prosecute Bush for war crimes to show that even we are not above reproachment. We have done something wrong and as a result, thousands have died, it's about time we recognize and repent.

 

[Lemon law]

Get the facts right----Saddam and Iraq did not support terrorists or cause 911---but GWB---has now caused Iraq to be just one of many fronts on a war against terrorism.
And GWB is losing this war due to bad tactics and a totally unreasonable personality---no question about it and by any measure---and we would have been far better off by not invading in the first place.

But I somewhat agree with Slash 196's plan---but he may have the order wrong---when GWB's conduct of the Iraq war becomes no longer tenable or sustainable---the international
community in the form of the UN, nato, or whatever will have to come in to keep the lid from blowing off in the mid-east or risk a horrible war(s)---one of those prices for the world community coming aboard may be the US turning GWB over to the Hague---but by that time---GWB will either be forced to resign or be already impeached. Congressional control by Repubs or Dems won't matter in such a senario----but its certainly unlikely to enfold in a way anyone can predict---but that basic senario is far more likley to occur than the alternate which is Bush's plans working.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: slash196
Step 1: Throw Republicans out of office.

Step 2: Congress declares the war in Iraq illegal, impeaches Bush and sends him to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.

Step 3: Transfer control to multinational UN peacekeeping force (which by the way would not be hard at all to get with Bush out of office and an official apology for the war).

Step 4: Crack that champagne.

that is your master plan? how long did it take to brainstorm that gem of an idea? Thirty whole seconds of reading on moveon.org?

I think you might have skipped straight to the champagne...

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: TravisT
So you are saying that we are not fighting terrorism in Iraq? I would agree, Iraq is no longer the issue, it just happens to be where many terrorists are now. So are we to ignore terrorism now or what is your plan to actually counter terrorism? Or are you involved in the conspiracy of thinking we're over there for alternative reasons?

There is no way to militarily defeat terrorism. Unless you are willing to exterminate large swaths of the population. That is why our approach has been wrong from the start.

That wasn't the question, the question was what was YOUR plan to counter terrorism? A simple answer of "I don't know, but what we're doing now isn't working" isn't the answer I am looking for. We obviously know for a fact that sitting on our thumb doesn't either. So i'm curious on what a good resolution would be, and I am legitimately curious, trying to respond without a snide remark this time.

Well first of all, calling it the War on Terror was a big mistake, our "War on XXX" campaigns have all failed, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc.

My plan for fighting terrorism?

1. Stop supporting Israel nunconditionally.

2. Get serious about working on the Israel/Palestine problem.

2. Revamp our intelligence agencies per the 9/11 commissions instructions, most of which have been ignored.

3. Remove all visible troops from the Middle East, leaving surveillance teams where needed.

4. Stop supporting corrupt, despotic regimes in the region, e.g. Saudi Arabia.

5. Secure our ports.

6. Secure our borders.

7. Institute a crash program so that our intelligence agencies and military can actually translate Arabic/Farsi or whatever languages we need. Currently we are relying on mostly ex-pats, with serious loyalty issues. I don't trust them, sorry.

8. Stop torturing people, or sending them to other countries to be tortured.

9. Elect a President who actually knows something about the world and is a diplomat, nothing like what we currently have, who prior to running for President, relied on Bandar Bush to tell him what his foreign policy would be, according to Woodwards new book.



Enough to get started at least?

 

[yllus]

G.W. Bush probably understands a hell of a lot about the Middle East, ayabe. You don't see him pictured holding hands with Saudi aristocracy because they're crossing the street - the two families go back a ways.

I like your plan though, except that #7 is kind of insulting. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the U.S. military can tell you that ex-pats and immigrants are often the most zealously patriotic of all people.

 

[bpatters69]

You are very defensive. I don't think the first posters reply was that off-base. I am not saying I agree or dis-agree with it but if you truly as intellectual as you allude, you should be encouraging debate vs. spewing rhetoric. Liberal or conservative rhetoric is still rhetoric and as such is a waste of time.

Now for your points:

Step 1: Throw Republicans out of office.
Answer: We live in a democracy. We will find out if the rest of the country feels the same way in November.

Step 2: Congress declares the war in Iraq illegal, impeaches Bush and sends him to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.
A little late don't you think? If the war in iraq is a crime, shouldn't they have declared it a crime a long time ago?

Step 3: Transfer control to multinational UN peacekeeping force (which by the way would not be hard at all to get with Bush out of office and an official apology for the war).
Got to agree with the first poster you berated. The UN is basically useless. I hate to say it but as soon as we pull out of Iraq (or maybe while we are there) there is a good chance civil war will erupt. The US needs to learn that you cannot export democracy, religion, ideas, etc.

We have no business in Iraq. We found no WMDs and Iraq never represented any kind of threat to the West. Iran on the other hand does present a clear and present danger to the West. Will we invade Iran? I hope not. The cost would be high but who knows the cost of not invading might be higher. I am glad it is not my decision.

Step 4: Crack that champagne.
Start pouring

 

[mc00]

maybe some of you guy with those plan should run for office(congress?)... because really we need some young open minded people in office, because we have religion nutjob building jesus camp and there war is get as much people into office and shove there god sh!t into people mouth.
I'm 24 but I don't have balls to go for it..