Getting the US out of Iraq without losing.

[ProfJohn]

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

Hey tommy, we agree on something... wow who would have thought. Of course on #2 I think we will never see eye to eye. Unless Bush comes out and says "Yes I knew there were no WMD and I still decided to attack" in which case I think everyone would want him gone, but that will never happen.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: 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.

Mmm well one of the major plotters of the embassy bombings was an ex Army guy named Ali Mohammed, who stole a lot of sensitive material from Fort Bragg, and had operational knowledge of the 9/11 plot. He also taught explosives, self defense, and counter intelligence methods to Al Qaeda and OBL himself.

I've seen something on 60 minutes almost 2 years about how the military intelligence guys didn't think their translators were on the level.

here's a little bit about this guy, he IS the MAJOR figure in the path to 9/11, the real one, not the movie, yet he is only mentioned in the 9/11 report once.

Ali Mohammed

Edit: I also dispute your claim about Bush knowing the middle east, right before he went into Iraq, he didn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni muslims.

 

[eilute]

Why would the U.N. want to go into Iraq? What would they change?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: 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

1. Yes, we do live in a democracy, but it has been undermined by those who wish to hold absolute power.


2. It's amazing how pay-offs and manipulation of the system can fend off any type of reasonable assumption of justice and checks and balances. If we had had a Democrat congress 2 years ago he probably would have been removed from office after he f'd Iraq up. We have been limping along for 2 years now.

3. Completely agree with you.


To ProfJon. What more do you need? We knew before we released the Yellowcake crap that it was...crap. We knew that the Aluminum tubes were missile bodies. We knew that he had no actual means to produce a nuke. We knew that his capacity to manufacture other WMDs was minimal. We knew that his ability to invade other countries had been crushed. Yet, all of that intel was ignored. It was cherry picked to death and the justification was released on a piece-meal basis to hoodwink the population into thinking they were in immenent danger. You could say that Congress should have know, but they depend on the executive (political appointees) to get their information. Thus, the executive can further cherry pick and determine exactly what is exposed to the outside.

We *KNOW* that this has happened. We *KNOW* they intentionally manipulated the truth to make Saddam appear like an immediate thread. We *KNOW* that he had no ties to 9/11. Yet we were told all of these were a threat.

When are you going to realize that you are f'ing fooled. Are you too chicken to admit you were wrong? I voted Bush in 2000. I stuck up for him after Iraq. I did so until I found out that they were disbanding the army, ignored military advisors, humiliated Powell, and lied through their teeth. I manned up and said "I was wrong".

Do the world a favor, do the same.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
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.

Actually OBL got mad us because we had troops in Saudi Arabia. We put them there to help protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam when Saddam invaded Kuwait. OBL's hated of the house of Saud goes back farther than that. And notice that once we left Saudi Arabia as OBL wanted us to he found another reason to not like us. BTW: did you miss the Jihadist wish for a Muslim state from the Middle East to Spain or the calls for American to "convert or die"? They have never been fine with us.

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.

Please name one "war" crime Bush himself committed or authorized? All the torture and raping and killing of innocents had nothing to do with Bush.
A war crime what Hitler did when he killed 6 million Jews, what Japan did when the killed and raped their way through China and what Milosevic did when he participated in the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia to the tune of thousands of deaths.

 

[palehorse]

Dave -
I was wrong about Rumsfeld. I want him tossed out on his arse and replaced by a retired General who is willing to double the troop strengths in Iraq and Afghanistan so that we can kick the living crap out of the insurgencies, lock down their borders and cities, train their local police and military forces more quickly, and even invade NW Pakistan!

There, I feel better already!

 

[EagleKeeper]

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.

The UN will not be able to have any better control than the US would in Iraq.

Sending in Arab forces will not accomplish anything - still have the underlying religious conflict.
Sending in European troops will still be ineffective - See Lebanon and Israel/Palestinian.
They troops are ineffective unless backed up by force.

UN forces only seem to be effective when their is a strong force backing them. who will do so in Iraq; knowing the existing situation. None of the Western coutries that are already in there will committ more troops.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
To ProfJon. What more do you need? We knew before we released the Yellowcake crap that it was...crap. We knew that the Aluminum tubes were missile bodies. We knew that he had no actual means to produce a nuke. We knew that his capacity to manufacture other WMDs was minimal. We knew that his ability to invade other countries had been crushed. Yet, all of that intel was ignored. It was cherry picked to death and the justification was released on a piece-meal basis to hoodwink the population into thinking they were in immenent danger. You could say that Congress should have know, but they depend on the executive (political appointees) to get their information. Thus, the executive can further cherry pick and determine exactly what is exposed to the outside.

We *KNOW* that this has happened. We *KNOW* they intentionally manipulated the truth to make Saddam appear like an immediate thread. We *KNOW* that he had no ties to 9/11. Yet we were told all of these were a threat.

Everything you claim we "know" is based on hindsight.
Yellowcake: Read the British Buttler report

Conclusion 494. There was further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made inquiries about the purchase of uranium ore in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this case, there was some evidence that by 2002 an agreement for a sale had been reached.

Conclusion 499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government?s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush?s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded.
Conclusion 503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger?s exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British Government did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.
Although sources other than the Niger documents are mentioned, no evidence of this is advanced directly within the Butler Report itself.

Wikipedia article on yellowcake
Read this nice post on "factcheck.org"
"Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address."
Factcheck.org

BTW: No one ever said Saddam had ANYTHING to do with 9-11, stop making that false claim or else we will have to impeach you.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

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.

The UN will not be able to have any better control than the US would in Iraq.

Sending in Arab forces will not accomplish anything - still have the underlying religious conflict.
Sending in European troops will still be ineffective - See Lebanon and Israel/Palestinian.
They troops are ineffective unless backed up by force.

UN forces only seem to be effective when their is a strong force backing them. who will do so in Iraq; knowing the existing situation. None of the Western coutries that are already in there will committ more troops.

Not a lot of people know this but most of the time UN Peacekeepers aren't even issued ammo and when they are, they are not authorized to open fire.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Not a lot of people know this but most of the time UN Peacekeepers aren't even issued ammo and when they are, they are not authorized to open fire.

But they have realy pretty blue helmets and nice vest with the letter UN on them, makes them nice targets.

BTW: anyone notice that both Lefties and righties agree that the UN is worthless, woohoo something we can almost all agree on

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
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.

Actually OBL got mad us because we had troops in Saudi Arabia. We put them there to help protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam when Saddam invaded Kuwait. OBL's hated of the house of Saud goes back farther than that. And notice that once we left Saudi Arabia as OBL wanted us to he found another reason to not like us. BTW: did you miss the Jihadist wish for a Muslim state from the Middle East to Spain or the calls for American to "convert or die"? They have never been fine with us.

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.

Please name one "war" crime Bush himself committed or authorized? All the torture and raping and killing of innocents had nothing to do with Bush.
A war crime what Hitler did when he killed 6 million Jews, what Japan did when the killed and raped their way through China and what Milosevic did when he participated in the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia to the tune of thousands of deaths.

Well, lets see...


http://www.answers.com/topic/war-crime


Conventional war crimes (murder, ill-treatment or deportation of the civilian population of occupied terretories). So, he can get caught under ill-treatment and murder.

Crimes against peace

Crimes against humanity (political and religious persecurtion against a civilian population). Whoops , got a couple there.


Whoops...

"It further stated that a defendant's position as head of state would not free him from accountability, nor would having acted on orders or out of military necessity. "


Awe, but screw it. Geneva conventions = blech. International law = blech. Utter might = right = f'yeah!


lets not forget invasion under false pretenses, invading a sovereign country's soil, and then lying. But wait, he never lied under oath, they were too smart for that. Lets get Powell to lie! Or lets get political appointees to lie. That way the President can never be caught!

Wake up buckwheat.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
To ProfJon. What more do you need? We knew before we released the Yellowcake crap that it was...crap. We knew that the Aluminum tubes were missile bodies. We knew that he had no actual means to produce a nuke. We knew that his capacity to manufacture other WMDs was minimal. We knew that his ability to invade other countries had been crushed. Yet, all of that intel was ignored. It was cherry picked to death and the justification was released on a piece-meal basis to hoodwink the population into thinking they were in immenent danger. You could say that Congress should have know, but they depend on the executive (political appointees) to get their information. Thus, the executive can further cherry pick and determine exactly what is exposed to the outside.

We *KNOW* that this has happened. We *KNOW* they intentionally manipulated the truth to make Saddam appear like an immediate thread. We *KNOW* that he had no ties to 9/11. Yet we were told all of these were a threat.

Everything you claim we "know" is based on hindsight.
Yellowcake: Read the British Buttler report

Conclusion 494. There was further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made inquiries about the purchase of uranium ore in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this case, there was some evidence that by 2002 an agreement for a sale had been reached.

Conclusion 499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government?s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush?s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded.
Conclusion 503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger?s exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British Government did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.
Although sources other than the Niger documents are mentioned, no evidence of this is advanced directly within the Butler Report itself.

Wikipedia article on yellowcake
Read this nice post on "factcheck.org"
"Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address."
Factcheck.org

BTW: No one ever said Saddam had ANYTHING to do with 9-11, stop making that false claim or else we will have to impeach you.

Not only did they misrepresent the intelligence as US when in fact it was UK, but they also did not corroborate a known liar's story with other sources or known facts. They simply cherry picked something and made it fit. Bush is like a kid who wants to shove a square peg in a round hole. All he did was bust out a knife, shave off the corners and shove the sucker in.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

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.

The UN will not be able to have any better control than the US would in Iraq.

Sending in Arab forces will not accomplish anything - still have the underlying religious conflict.
Sending in European troops will still be ineffective - See Lebanon and Israel/Palestinian.
They troops are ineffective unless backed up by force.

UN forces only seem to be effective when their is a strong force backing them. who will do so in Iraq; knowing the existing situation. None of the Western coutries that are already in there will committ more troops.

The reason that we can't get any backing is that we went to war on false pretenses and basically gave the international community the finger. Apologizing and putting the responsible parties in jail would eliminate pretty much any diplomatic differences on the issue and allow countries to join in the peacekeeping forces for purely humanitarian reasons.

We need to remind the world that Iraq was an action by Bush, not by America.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

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.

The UN will not be able to have any better control than the US would in Iraq.

Sending in Arab forces will not accomplish anything - still have the underlying religious conflict.
Sending in European troops will still be ineffective - See Lebanon and Israel/Palestinian.
They troops are ineffective unless backed up by force.

UN forces only seem to be effective when their is a strong force backing them. who will do so in Iraq; knowing the existing situation. None of the Western coutries that are already in there will committ more troops.

The reason that we can't get any backing is that we went to war on false pretenses and basically gave the international community the finger. Apologizing and putting the responsible parties in jail would eliminate pretty much any diplomatic differences on the issue and allow countries to join in the peacekeeping forces for purely humanitarian reasons.

We need to remind the world that Iraq was an action by Bush, not by America.

No, you are wrong. The reality is the rest of the world is often simply too passive and tends towards complete apathy to join the cause, even if it was gold-plated in justifications.

Somalia: Nobody stepped in. The U.S. and Pakistan did some good work here, but clearly nobody was willing to stand firm.

Serbia: Nations other than the U.S., U.K. and Russia played bit parts after waiting ages to get involved with hundreds of thousands killed in the interim. Notably intervention only occurred when the U.S. gave in and took the lead.

Darfur: Nobody's stepping in.

The reason I said "if step #3 was possible" is because I know it isn't. Your entire plan is unrealistic and naive, but at least it has decent intentions.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

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.

The UN will not be able to have any better control than the US would in Iraq.

Sending in Arab forces will not accomplish anything - still have the underlying religious conflict.
Sending in European troops will still be ineffective - See Lebanon and Israel/Palestinian.
They troops are ineffective unless backed up by force.

UN forces only seem to be effective when their is a strong force backing them. who will do so in Iraq; knowing the existing situation. None of the Western coutries that are already in there will committ more troops.

The reason that we can't get any backing is that we went to war on false pretenses and basically gave the international community the finger. Apologizing and putting the responsible parties in jail would eliminate pretty much any diplomatic differences on the issue and allow countries to join in the peacekeeping forces for purely humanitarian reasons.

We need to remind the world that Iraq was an action by Bush, not by America.

No, you are wrong. The reality is the rest of the world is often simply too passive and tends towards complete apathy to join the cause, even if it was gold-plated in justifications.

Somalia: Nobody stepped in. The U.S. and Pakistan did some good work here, but clearly nobody was willing to stand firm.

Serbia: Nations other than the U.S., U.K. and Russia played bit parts after waiting ages to get involved with hundreds of thousands killed in the interim. Notably intervention only occurred when the U.S. gave in and took the lead.

Darfur: Nobody's stepping in.

The reason I said "if step #3 was possible" is because I know it isn't. Your entire plan is unrealistic and naive, but at least it has decent intentions.

I'm not saying that countries are just going to jump up and say "Let me help". I'm saying that if we can restore our diplomatic credibility it would be possible to get much more of the world to help out. It will take effort on our part to assemble this coalition of the willing (oh, the irony), but there's no other solution. The only sticking point is that the world is so used to being completely shunned by the US that they've learned to live without us. That sort of irreparable damage (Thanks, Mr. Bush) to diplomacy would be the only sticking point in this plan, but as I've said before, either this works or we straight-up lose in Iraq and crawl into our corner to face our increasing irrelevance and eventual dissolution as a country.

I think the only naive idea is that somehow, things will magically work out and Iraq will become a democracy simply by virtue of historical process. If we leave Iraq in defeat, we will leave behind a government a thousand times more destructive than Saddam's ever was, and so far I have not seen an alternative to defeat in the plans offered under the "Stay the course" schema.

The world is hardly apathetic toward Iraq. We are reviled worldwide for the conflict; if we give the world a chance to end it, I wager they'll step up. And if they don't, well, then we use whatever remaining influence we have in the world to make it worth their while. You'd be surprised what a few loosened tariffs can do; it's called diplomacy, and it's what we used to do to solve problems.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

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.

The UN will not be able to have any better control than the US would in Iraq.

Sending in Arab forces will not accomplish anything - still have the underlying religious conflict.
Sending in European troops will still be ineffective - See Lebanon and Israel/Palestinian.
They troops are ineffective unless backed up by force.

UN forces only seem to be effective when their is a strong force backing them. who will do so in Iraq; knowing the existing situation. None of the Western coutries that are already in there will committ more troops.

The reason that we can't get any backing is that we went to war on false pretenses and basically gave the international community the finger. Apologizing and putting the responsible parties in jail would eliminate pretty much any diplomatic differences on the issue and allow countries to join in the peacekeeping forces for purely humanitarian reasons.

We need to remind the world that Iraq was an action by Bush, not by America.

The world will not differeniate between Bush and America.

My explanation is not political/bush/anit-=bush.

It is how the related parties that would be involved will want to handle the situation.

Iraq is a hot potato; no one will want to fall into the same quagmire. Iraq is no longer about rebuilding the country, it has become a low grade civil /religous war. Those have to burn themselves out or cut off the situationi from outside support.

Without a political backing from the local population, a country's politicians will not support UN troops.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: yllus
No, you are wrong. The reality is the rest of the world is often simply too passive and tends towards complete apathy to join the cause, even if it was gold-plated in justifications.

Somalia: Nobody stepped in. The U.S. and Pakistan did some good work here, but clearly nobody was willing to stand firm.

Serbia: Nations other than the U.S., U.K. and Russia played bit parts after waiting ages to get involved with hundreds of thousands killed in the interim. Notably intervention only occurred when the U.S. gave in and took the lead.

Darfur: Nobody's stepping in.

The reason I said "if step #3 was possible" is because I know it isn't. Your entire plan is unrealistic and naive, but at least it has decent intentions.

I'm not saying that countries are just going to jump up and say "Let me help". I'm saying that if we can restore our diplomatic credibility it would be possible to get much more of the world to help out. It will take effort on our part to assemble this coalition of the willing (oh, the irony), but there's no other solution. The only sticking point is that the world is so used to being completely shunned by the US that they've learned to live without us. That sort of irreparable damage (Thanks, Mr. Bush) to diplomacy would be the only sticking point in this plan, but as I've said before, either this works or we straight-up lose in Iraq and crawl into our corner to face our increasing irrelevance and eventual dissolution as a country.

I think the only naive idea is that somehow, things will magically work out and Iraq will become a democracy simply by virtue of historical process. If we leave Iraq in defeat, we will leave behind a government a thousand times more destructive than Saddam's ever was, and so far I have not seen an alternative to defeat in the plans offered under the "Stay the course" schema.

The world is hardly apathetic toward Iraq. We are reviled worldwide for the conflict; if we give the world a chance to end it, I wager they'll step up. And if they don't, well, then we use whatever remaining influence we have in the world to make it worth their while. You'd be surprised what a few loosened tariffs can do; it's called diplomacy, and it's what we used to do to solve problems.

Diplomatic credibility means nothing. Words mean nothing. This is a fact of international politics. Nobody cares if the U.S. lied or not, because lying is what you hear in international politics 99% of the time anyways. Progress and agreement only comes when lives and/or profits are threatened. There is nothing useful to repair, other than to make Americans feel good about themselves.

Naivety comes from ignoring historical process. Men are the same the world over. Eventually sentiment towards pointless violence builds to the point that some party seizes the public fervour and initiates the transition to stability. Don't believe me? Then how did the Taliban conquer Afghanistan in the 90s? It sure as hell wasn't because everyone in the country shared their crackpot views of Islam.

The U.S.'s goal in Iraq is merely to make sure the right party rides that public sentiment to power. A framework, like providing assistance in drafting a constitution, is also good stuff. This is what they're doing. Waiting for the wave. Can't do much else - you've got to let that pent-up hatred exhaust itself first.

The world is completely apathetic about Iraq, and the Middle East in general. Which is why the entire region is full of dictators and otherwise undemocratic states. Even Serbia was barely a blip on the radar, despite technically belonging to Europe of all continents.

Again, while I like what your aims are here, the last part of what you wrote just screams naivety. You will not win over major players who have the military muscle to be useful in Iraq by lowering tarriffs. The cost/benefit simply doesn't exist. Running an active military campaign is expensive, as I need not explain to anyone. It'd take one hell of a drop in tarriffs to even just offset that expenditure.

It's (usually) not about ideology, it's always about dollars and cents. Even fears for security boil down to dollars and cents - you can't make a buck if the marketplace is unsafe (cue idiots squawking about Haliburton). Nobody cares for a pointless apology an U.S. President can offer.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: yllus
No, you are wrong. The reality is the rest of the world is often simply too passive and tends towards complete apathy to join the cause, even if it was gold-plated in justifications.

Somalia: Nobody stepped in. The U.S. and Pakistan did some good work here, but clearly nobody was willing to stand firm.

Serbia: Nations other than the U.S., U.K. and Russia played bit parts after waiting ages to get involved with hundreds of thousands killed in the interim. Notably intervention only occurred when the U.S. gave in and took the lead.

Darfur: Nobody's stepping in.

The reason I said "if step #3 was possible" is because I know it isn't. Your entire plan is unrealistic and naive, but at least it has decent intentions.

I'm not saying that countries are just going to jump up and say "Let me help". I'm saying that if we can restore our diplomatic credibility it would be possible to get much more of the world to help out. It will take effort on our part to assemble this coalition of the willing (oh, the irony), but there's no other solution. The only sticking point is that the world is so used to being completely shunned by the US that they've learned to live without us. That sort of irreparable damage (Thanks, Mr. Bush) to diplomacy would be the only sticking point in this plan, but as I've said before, either this works or we straight-up lose in Iraq and crawl into our corner to face our increasing irrelevance and eventual dissolution as a country.

I think the only naive idea is that somehow, things will magically work out and Iraq will become a democracy simply by virtue of historical process. If we leave Iraq in defeat, we will leave behind a government a thousand times more destructive than Saddam's ever was, and so far I have not seen an alternative to defeat in the plans offered under the "Stay the course" schema.

The world is hardly apathetic toward Iraq. We are reviled worldwide for the conflict; if we give the world a chance to end it, I wager they'll step up. And if they don't, well, then we use whatever remaining influence we have in the world to make it worth their while. You'd be surprised what a few loosened tariffs can do; it's called diplomacy, and it's what we used to do to solve problems.

Diplomatic credibility means nothing. Words mean nothing. This is a fact of international politics. Nobody cares if the U.S. lied or not, because lying is what you hear in international politics 99% of the time anyways. Progress and agreement only comes when lives and/or profits are threatened. There is nothing useful to repair, other than to make Americans feel good about themselves.

Naivety comes from ignoring historical process. Men are the same the world over. Eventually sentiment towards pointless violence builds to the point that some party seizes the public fervour and initiates the transition to stability. Don't believe me? Then how did the Taliban conquer Afghanistan in the 90s? It sure as hell wasn't because everyone in the country shared their crackpot views of Islam.

The U.S.'s goal in Iraq is merely to make sure the right party rides that public sentiment to power. A framework, like providing assistance in drafting a constitution, is also good stuff. This is what they're doing. Waiting for the wave. Can't do much else - you've got to let that pent-up hatred exhaust itself first.

The world is completely apathetic about Iraq, and the Middle East in general. Which is why the entire region is full of dictators and otherwise undemocratic states. Even Serbia was barely a blip on the radar, despite technically belonging to Europe of all continents.

Again, while I like what your aims are here, the last part of what you wrote just screams naivety. You will not win over major players who have the military muscle to be useful in Iraq by lowering tarriffs. The cost/benefit simply doesn't exist. Running an active military campaign is expensive, as I need not explain to anyone. It'd take one hell of a drop in tarriffs to even just offset that expenditure.

It's (usually) not about ideology, it's always about dollars and cents. Even fears for security boil down to dollars and cents - you can't make a buck if the marketplace is unsafe (cue idiots squawking about Haliburton). Nobody cares for a pointless apology an U.S. President can offer.

You're waiting for a wave that's never going to come. You've still got the mentality that Cheney had in '03 when he said we'd be greeted as liberators. If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that we should let everyone kill each other and then stuff the survivors into a box labeled "Democracy". I'm saying that the ethical consequences of such a humanitarian crisis are simply unacceptable, and "letting them blow off some steam" doesn't work, because they're not just blowing off steam. The kettle is getting hotter and hotter every day.

The reference to tariffs was simply a hypothetical example of diplomatic coercion. I refuse to believe that it is beyond the skill of American diplomats to ask our allies to join us in a HUMANITARIAN mission. France and Germany wouldn't back the Iraq war, not because they didn't care about Iraq but because it was a baseless power-grab by someone they saw as a dangerous radical.

And to those who say "The UN couldn't do anything, it's toothless", I say "Well then, lets give it some teeth". Maybe pay our dues once in a while? Commit troops to multinational peacekeeping forces? Instead of just blowing them off, why don't we STRENGTHEN the UN? Is there a reason besides backwards-ass isolationism?

 

[slash196]

Oh, and to answer your question: The Taliban conquered Afghanistan with the support of Pakistan and the US, who were hoping they would put an end to the terrorists operating in Afghanistan.

Maybe we shouldn't be the ones picking who goes into power, hm?

 

[Wheezer]

You know the overall theme for everyone that is against the war in Iraq, and terrorism in general is that basically if we had just left them alone, stayed out of thier busniess and turned the other cheek they would just go away and leave us alone...if that theory seems like a solid plan then why dont the libs try that on the homefront with conservatives and see exactly how well it works out.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
You know the overall theme for everyone that is against the war in Iraq, and terrorism in general is that basically if we had just left them alone, stayed out of thier busniess and turned the other cheek they would just go away and leave us alone...if that theory seems like a solid plan then why dont the libs try that on the homefront with conservatives and see exactly how well it works out.

It's not that they would go away, it's that they never would have existed in the first place.

And if I could do something to make conservatives cease to exist, let me know what it is, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: yllus
No, you are wrong. The reality is the rest of the world is often simply too passive and tends towards complete apathy to join the cause, even if it was gold-plated in justifications.

Somalia: Nobody stepped in. The U.S. and Pakistan did some good work here, but clearly nobody was willing to stand firm.

Serbia: Nations other than the U.S., U.K. and Russia played bit parts after waiting ages to get involved with hundreds of thousands killed in the interim. Notably intervention only occurred when the U.S. gave in and took the lead.

Darfur: Nobody's stepping in.

The reason I said "if step #3 was possible" is because I know it isn't. Your entire plan is unrealistic and naive, but at least it has decent intentions.

I'm not saying that countries are just going to jump up and say "Let me help". I'm saying that if we can restore our diplomatic credibility it would be possible to get much more of the world to help out. It will take effort on our part to assemble this coalition of the willing (oh, the irony), but there's no other solution. The only sticking point is that the world is so used to being completely shunned by the US that they've learned to live without us. That sort of irreparable damage (Thanks, Mr. Bush) to diplomacy would be the only sticking point in this plan, but as I've said before, either this works or we straight-up lose in Iraq and crawl into our corner to face our increasing irrelevance and eventual dissolution as a country.

I think the only naive idea is that somehow, things will magically work out and Iraq will become a democracy simply by virtue of historical process. If we leave Iraq in defeat, we will leave behind a government a thousand times more destructive than Saddam's ever was, and so far I have not seen an alternative to defeat in the plans offered under the "Stay the course" schema.

The world is hardly apathetic toward Iraq. We are reviled worldwide for the conflict; if we give the world a chance to end it, I wager they'll step up. And if they don't, well, then we use whatever remaining influence we have in the world to make it worth their while. You'd be surprised what a few loosened tariffs can do; it's called diplomacy, and it's what we used to do to solve problems.

Diplomatic credibility means nothing. Words mean nothing. This is a fact of international politics. Nobody cares if the U.S. lied or not, because lying is what you hear in international politics 99% of the time anyways. Progress and agreement only comes when lives and/or profits are threatened. There is nothing useful to repair, other than to make Americans feel good about themselves.

Naivety comes from ignoring historical process. Men are the same the world over. Eventually sentiment towards pointless violence builds to the point that some party seizes the public fervour and initiates the transition to stability. Don't believe me? Then how did the Taliban conquer Afghanistan in the 90s? It sure as hell wasn't because everyone in the country shared their crackpot views of Islam.

The U.S.'s goal in Iraq is merely to make sure the right party rides that public sentiment to power. A framework, like providing assistance in drafting a constitution, is also good stuff. This is what they're doing. Waiting for the wave. Can't do much else - you've got to let that pent-up hatred exhaust itself first.

The world is completely apathetic about Iraq, and the Middle East in general. Which is why the entire region is full of dictators and otherwise undemocratic states. Even Serbia was barely a blip on the radar, despite technically belonging to Europe of all continents.

Again, while I like what your aims are here, the last part of what you wrote just screams naivety. You will not win over major players who have the military muscle to be useful in Iraq by lowering tarriffs. The cost/benefit simply doesn't exist. Running an active military campaign is expensive, as I need not explain to anyone. It'd take one hell of a drop in tarriffs to even just offset that expenditure.

It's (usually) not about ideology, it's always about dollars and cents. Even fears for security boil down to dollars and cents - you can't make a buck if the marketplace is unsafe (cue idiots squawking about Haliburton). Nobody cares for a pointless apology an U.S. President can offer.

:thumbsup: Very well said.

And anyone who thinks Bush will be somehow impeached or indicted on war crimes, you are obscenely naive.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

And anyone who thinks Bush will be somehow impeached or indicted on war crimes, you are obscenely naive.

Thinking he will and thinking he should be are very, very different things.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Wheezer
You know the overall theme for everyone that is against the war in Iraq, and terrorism in general is that basically if we had just left them alone, stayed out of thier busniess and turned the other cheek they would just go away and leave us alone...if that theory seems like a solid plan then why dont the libs try that on the homefront with conservatives and see exactly how well it works out.

It's not that they would go away, it's that they never would have existed in the first place.

And if I could do something to make conservatives cease to exist, let me know what it is, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

They (terrorism) existed well before the current Iraq situation and even before GWI.

The situation has become more pronounced, more widely reported and more egotistic for many parties.

when a have not is conned into believing that they can take by force what the haves have, they will try. And when they can not do so, the con men will come up with another method and/or other suckers

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: blackangst1

And anyone who thinks Bush will be somehow impeached or indicted on war crimes, you are obscenely naive.

Thinking he will and thinking he should be are very, very different things.

Yep very different. So tell me...what impeachable offense has Bush commited? Hmmm? Oh thats right, none. I see. People are just arbitrarily wanting to add impeachable offenses to the list. Got it.