• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

The Big Question Democrats Are Ducking

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Todd33
We typically don't post op-eds here, there are 3+ daily so why bother, they are just opinions. Are you going to post the other 20 that were critical to Bush this week alone?
I see your point Todd, but since almost every Iraq thread evolves into a blame Bush thread I thought this was an interesting and relevant op-ed.
Uh, didn't Bush invade Iraq? Isn't the war plan(s) a product of the Bush administration? Isn't the peace plan(s) a product of the Bush administration?

Who should be responsible aside from the 'decider'?
I also blame "righties" like ProfJohn here for supporting the idiocy of invading Iraq to begin with and supporting the notion that "staying the course" is somehow a "solution." It's not. If your pants were engulfed in flames, would you suggest "continue wearing them" as a valid solution to the problem? Of course not!
So what is your solution to this mess again?

oh...right....pull out immediately leaving the Iraqi people to frnd for themselves...lol
For the moment let's strain credulity and admit that Iraq is nothing like Kosovo, Korea, or Germany. That's sarcasm . . . people!

US forces are in a mess created by George W. Bush. Steps to extricating yourself from a mess:
1) Acknowledge that it is a mess . . . *crickets*.
2) Acknowledge who made the mess . . . *crickets*.
3) Acknowledge that past (and current) policies haven't 'fixed' the mess . . . *crickets*.
4) BEG, borrow, and if necessary . . . steal . . . help from anybody and everybody with the 'potential' to be helpful. Even if that assistance comes with strings that would normally be deal breakers. For instance, Iran and Syria agree to seal the border. Iran demands the US set a definitive time table for withdrawing ALL US forces. Syria wants Iraqi pipeplines reopened (and favorable transport rates) for Iraqi crude.

Eventually, Iraqis will have to fend for themselves. But the notion that Bush's excellent adventure is setting the stage for success is foolish at best . . . and downright dangerous in application. Iraq is in a REALLY tough neighborhood. Ultimately, success in Iraq is FAR more dependent on the behavior of its neighbors than anything the US could (or would) do.

In sum, a US 're-deployment' in the context of a REGIONAL plan for security in Iraq is indeed a potential solution to the long-term stability of Iraq. But that cannot happen until US leadership realizes that it holds little real power in the region. Accordingly, the real powerbrokers must be eliminated, appeased, or otherwise co-opted.



 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
Nobody can salvage Iraq. Nobody. It's a lawless madhouse. It most likely won't exsist in 8-10 years. The Killing Fields all over again. Thanks bushler. Mission accomplished.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
Since I think we should have just leveled the entire country and killed everyone but the kurds and let them have what is left, I see not big loss to letting the terrorists take over. Personally killing everyone in Baghdad is a viable optoin.
And you call them terrorists - you are the worst sort. Evil, uninformed, a danger to the world. You are the type who cause terrorists to thrive, to protect people from you.

You can have one brand of thugs or another.
You are the type of thug that's among the worst.
 

Kwaipie

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2005
1,326
0
0
A lot of people are offering up solutions to the issue but we still have no clear understanding of what exactly the goal(s) is/are.

Suggestion 1. To create a democracy seedling in the middle east
Suggestion 2. Provide a country where women aren't stoned to death for letting their bra be seen in public

For suggestion 2, I don't see this as ever happening. How long will it take for the Shiites to marginalize the Sunni and by doing this putting women into burkhas immediately?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Nobody can salvage Iraq. Nobody. It's a lawless madhouse. It most likely won't exsist in 8-10 years. The Killing Fields all over again. Thanks bushler. Mission accomplished.
Iraq can certainly be salvaged. You just have to . . . in The Architect's perspective . . . "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept."

Iraq is messed up. The end-goal can still be a stable, democratically-elected government that provides security and basic services throughout all regions of the country. But steps must be taken to achieve interim goals. The first being internal security. The second (although parallel) is utilities. The third being education and healthcare. The fourth being semi-open markets. The fifth being expansion of oil exploration and extraction. Obviously, a lot of this can (and should) take place in parallel but you MUST have a modicum of domestic security. Otherwise, the latter aspects are doomed to failure. For examples . . . see Iraq April 2003-present.

I didn't bother mentioning border security b/c Iraq's neighbors have to do that. Iraq might be able to secure it's Afghan border (with US help) but the others are so extensive that it requires the direct intervention of Jordan, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Jordan gets paid in oil. Syria gets paid in oil. Iran gets paid in . . . the US leaving eventually. Kuwait gets paid in the oil its already getting from diagonal drilling. Saudi Arabia gets paid by help with the wall they are already building on the border.

Heavy US forces are drawn down and replaced with light forces capable of assisting Iraqi forces in a pest eradication program. Every time they clean an area, it's then secured by US and Iraqi forces. If you put 200k US troops and 400k Iraqis on the job, Iraq might be secure in 2-3 years.

At which point, President Obama says, "Mission Accomplished we're outta here! The US Treasury takes cash, cheques, oil vouchers . . . "

 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
I voted Republican and getting out is always an option.

Since I think we should have just leveled the entire country and killed everyone but the kurds and let them have what is left, I see not big loss to letting the terrorists take over. Personally killing everyone in Baghdad is a viable optoin.

I realize that there are some who think I have the thoughts of a Madman. I see nothing the muslims do as a good thing. You can have one brand of thugs or another. The alternative is Civil War or Genocide.

How many Americans have to die?

A friend of mine says that Iraq is safer than the USA after coming back home from there. I dont see how we can let women cut a baby out of another woman and then just let them get off on an insanity plea. If a woman steals a baby at Knife Point then she deserves the death penalty.

Back to Iraq. The Iraqi's are unwilling to just kill all the terrorists. They live in constant fear.

I say just get our of Iraq now and let them destroy themselves.

Ok, now does anyone else have something to contribute?

For the rest of you republicans out there: Don't worry I'm not going to think this guy represents your views. You're republicans...not retards. :)
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,423
614
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
the longer we stay in iraq, the more terrorists we create. the more terrorists we create, the longer we stay in iraq.
and how many terrorist do we create if we pull out of iraq and afghanistan?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,133
1
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nice little Op-Ed about the Democrats tendency to attack the Bush policy without offering any solutions of thier own.
No offer of a solution needed, just don't do the crap to begin with. :confused:
rofl....you call that an answer...lol...hahahaa...rofl......hahahaaa

Yes, we do. Or admit the mistakes and move on with changes.. not the same thing again and again.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
I would like to point out AGAIN, that NO AMOUNT OF TROOPS can change morality or religious intolerance.

You all sound like Chairman Mao....a quote from the man.... "Political Power grows out of the barrel of a gun!"

You can either stay the course and minimize Coalition involvement, or begin to pull out and let them kill themselves and embroilt the ME in yet another pointless war. This can of worms cannot be resealed. You cannot escalate and expect it to get better. Think of it this way...The ME is allergic to Western ideology, and continued exposre is not going to help the patient.
 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Iraq can certainly be salvaged. You just have to . . . in The Architect's perspective . . . "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept."

Iraq is messed up. The end-goal can still be a stable, democratically-elected government that provides security and basic services throughout all regions of the country. But steps must be taken to achieve interim goals. The first being internal security. The second (although parallel) is utilities. The third being education and healthcare. The fourth being semi-open markets. The fifth being expansion of oil exploration and extraction. Obviously, a lot of this can (and should) take place in parallel but you MUST have a modicum of domestic security. Otherwise, the latter aspects are doomed to failure. For examples . . . see Iraq April 2003-present.

I didn't bother mentioning border security b/c Iraq's neighbors have to do that. Iraq might be able to secure it's Afghan border (with US help) but the others are so extensive that it requires the direct intervention of Jordan, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Jordan gets paid in oil. Syria gets paid in oil. Iran gets paid in . . . the US leaving eventually. Kuwait gets paid in the oil its already getting from diagonal drilling. Saudi Arabia gets paid by help with the wall they are already building on the border.

Heavy US forces are drawn down and replaced with light forces capable of assisting Iraqi forces in a pest eradication program. Every time they clean an area, it's then secured by US and Iraqi forces. If you put 200k US troops and 400k Iraqis on the job, Iraq might be secure in 2-3 years.

At which point, President Obama says, "Mission Accomplished we're outta here! The US Treasury takes cash, cheques, oil vouchers . . . "
I'm wrong all the time... I hope I wrong again, for the sake of the millions of people of Iraq. We set that country on fire and it's burning to nothing. I hope you're right BBD, but I've got bad vibes.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
the longer we stay in iraq, the more terrorists we create. the more terrorists we create, the longer we stay in iraq.
/thread It is a catch-22 that the neocons tickle with delight over, especially the ones who are invested in the rubuilding of Iraq. Why in Gods name would the Dems offer solutions to the problem Bush made when they control none of the 3 branches? Use your head OP and stop shilling about. Go back to freeperville where you can all converse in talking points.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Iraq can certainly be salvaged. You just have to . . . in The Architect's perspective . . . "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept."

Iraq is messed up. The end-goal can still be a stable, democratically-elected government that provides security and basic services throughout all regions of the country. But steps must be taken to achieve interim goals. The first being internal security. The second (although parallel) is utilities. The third being education and healthcare. The fourth being semi-open markets. The fifth being expansion of oil exploration and extraction. Obviously, a lot of this can (and should) take place in parallel but you MUST have a modicum of domestic security. Otherwise, the latter aspects are doomed to failure. For examples . . . see Iraq April 2003-present.

I didn't bother mentioning border security b/c Iraq's neighbors have to do that. Iraq might be able to secure it's Afghan border (with US help) but the others are so extensive that it requires the direct intervention of Jordan, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Jordan gets paid in oil. Syria gets paid in oil. Iran gets paid in . . . the US leaving eventually. Kuwait gets paid in the oil its already getting from diagonal drilling. Saudi Arabia gets paid by help with the wall they are already building on the border.

Heavy US forces are drawn down and replaced with light forces capable of assisting Iraqi forces in a pest eradication program. Every time they clean an area, it's then secured by US and Iraqi forces. If you put 200k US troops and 400k Iraqis on the job, Iraq might be secure in 2-3 years.

At which point, President Obama says, "Mission Accomplished we're outta here! The US Treasury takes cash, cheques, oil vouchers . . . "
I'm wrong all the time... I hope I wrong again, for the sake of the millions of people of Iraq. We set that country on fire and it's burning to nothing. I hope you're right BBD, but I've got bad vibes.
Wait a minute. You made the mistake of conflating a potential approach with what's actually going on. We don't have enough US troops to clean up trouble spots and then secure them afterwards. The Iraqis don't have the quantity, quality, or inclination to do so, either. Jordan is giving lip service. Saudi Arabia cares about riff-raff coming FROM Iraq. We do little talking with Syria and Iran other than John Bolton's name-calling from time to time. And Kuwait is happy with its US defense force and diagonal drilling.

My point is that it's possible to salvage Iraq . . . not that it's likely, imminent, or as Mr.Inhoffe likes to say . . .
"What's happened there is nothing short of a miracle," Senator James Inhoffe (R-OK), speaking on Bush's war in Iraq, August 21, 2006, in front of the Tulsa Chamber.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: M00T
Look what I found... and 7 wholes pages of it.

I doubt ProfJohn or any of the other blowhards will read it though. They'll just keep saying "the Dems offer no solutions."

Pathetic.

EDIT:

Here's some more
5 ways to win back Iraq

How to win in Iraq

How to win in Iraq v2

So if anyone says "no solutions have been offered" one more time, then they are nothing but a shill.
M00T, did you read any of these so-called "Democrat" solutions b4 posting?

The first and last link are the same things, i.e., duplicate. The Slate article looks to be a rehash of the first & last links.

I haven't the time now to read as thoroughly as I'd like, but I don't see any Democrat Party solutions. The authors appear to merely mention, and critisize, the "pull out " solution discussed elswhere in this thread. So, unfortunately there are no Dem solutions (other than the pull out option which I oppose).

I had hoped the trenches around Baghdad signaled the adoption of the so-called "oil spot" solution suggested by many. But am now doubtful as I haven't heard anything about its adoption in the press. I would be interested if any polititions contemplating a Presidential run have offered anything new? (e.g., oil spot, etc)

I am not as pessimistic as many here. I do believe a solution is possible, yet not likely under the conditions of mere squabbling among ourselves. Meh, it just highlights are two largest problems: a lack of leadership (someone to step forward and unify us in a good solution) and a bitter division among ourselves (I believe primarily promulgated by those in Congress).

Fern
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: M00T
Look what I found... and 7 wholes pages of it.

I doubt ProfJohn or any of the other blowhards will read it though. They'll just keep saying "the Dems offer no solutions."

Pathetic.

EDIT:

Here's some more
5 ways to win back Iraq

How to win in Iraq

How to win in Iraq v2

So if anyone says "no solutions have been offered" one more time, then they are nothing but a shill.
M00T, did you read any of these so-called "Democrat" solutions b4 posting?

The first and last link are the same things, i.e., duplicate. The Slate article looks to be a rehash of the first & last links.

I haven't the time now to read as thoroughly as I'd like, but I don't see any Democrat Party solutions. The authors appear to merely mention, and critisize, the "pull out " solution discussed elswhere in this thread. So, unfortunately there are no Dem solutions (other than the pull out option which I oppose).

I had hoped the trenches around Baghdad signaled the adoption of the so-called "oil spot" solution suggested by many. But am now doubtful as I haven't heard anything about its adoption in the press. I would be interested if any polititions contemplating a Presidential run have offered anything new? (e.g., oil spot, etc)

I am not as pessimistic as many here. I do believe a solution is possible, yet not likely under the conditions of mere squabbling among ourselves. Meh, it just highlights are two largest problems: a lack of leadership (someone to step forward and unify us in a good solution) and a bitter division among ourselves (I believe primarily promulgated by those in Congress).

Fern
What kind of point is that? You're complaining that there are no Democrat solutions, when there ARE Democrat solutions, you just don't like them. Which is fine, we can have a discussion about the good and bad points of the solutions, but complaining that none exist is just silly.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,583
430
126
Smilin: I agree with all of your plan, except for #6. That's what I want to hear out of Democrats in 2008.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Iraq might be able to secure it's Afghan border (with US help)
Ummm...

ps: i DO like you plan Smilin.. it's very similar to one I've drawn up in the past, including the draft and increasing troop levels ALOT. However, I'd add a bullet in there about simultaneously increasing research in Alternative fuels ten-fold, AND putting legislation in place to make hybrids and alt-source vehicles manadatory by 2015 or so... We also sell the alt-source technology to the rest of the world which alleviates their dependencies on oil as well. We end it all with a 100% pull-out from the ME leaving them to figure out what to do with all of their useless oil... once they realize that they have nothing we need, we then sell them alt-source technologies and make them truly independent as well..

In other words, we simultaneously lock down our oil supply, implement a secure democracy in the ME, AND make oil obsolete! woot!

but yes, it would take a decade, at least. And sadly, I do not think Americans will go for anything that lasts longer than a 30 minute sitcom or a two-part miniseries...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
We now know that we stupid to go into Iraq---nor do I see that decision to Invade Iraq as a main stream Republican decision---because a small cabal of neo-con idiots have hijacked
the national republican party---and now the republican party is vastly changed---and will go back to being the party they were after the Republicans repudiate GWB&co.

But there is no concenus about what to do now---it does not exist in the Republican party or in the democratic party---so we insist on staying until we either wear out our welcome---or until our position becomes totally untenable.----with a win for GWB extremely unlikely now.----more troops might have changed the picture if they were used in the initial invasion---now extra troops won't help the situation.

But this idea of blaming the democrats is stupid----this Iraq mess is exactly 100% the fault of Bush&co.----and no solition will be possible until GWB&co. are removed like the cancers they are and remain.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But this idea of blaming the democrats is stupid----this Iraq mess is exactly 100% the fault of Bush&co.----and no solition will be possible until GWB&co. are removed like the cancers they are and remain.
Wouldnt it be swell to also have a plan for what should happen after we remove Bush&co.?
 

imported_michaelpatrick33

Platinum Member
Jun 19, 2004
2,364
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Iraq might be able to secure it's Afghan border (with US help)
Ummm...

ps: i DO like you plan Smilin.. it's very similar to one I've drawn up in the past, including the draft and increasing troop levels ALOT. However, I'd add a bullet in there about simultaneously increasing research in Alternative fuels ten-fold, AND putting legislation in place to make hybrids and alt-source vehicles manadatory by 2015 or so... We also sell the alt-source technology to the rest of the world which alleviates their dependencies on oil as well. We end it all with a 100% pull-out from the ME leaving them to figure out what to do with all of their useless oil... once they realize that they have nothing we need, we then sell them alt-source technologies and make them truly independent as well..

In other words, we simultaneously lock down our oil supply, implement a secure democracy in the ME, AND make oil obsolete! woot!

but yes, it would take a decade, at least. And sadly, I do not think Americans will go for anything that lasts longer than a 30 minute sitcom or a two-part miniseries...
:laugh: When people don't even know the borders of a nation (and I bet a majority of Americans couldn't point out Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan on a blank map) they do lose some credibility in their armchair pontifications. (Of course I am pontificating ;) )

The only solution is the one offered by the Republicans. We must stay the course. Of course they are responsible (Bush and co) for the mess and the necessity to stay the course. The only question becomes when do we say staying the course is no longer viable (if we don't have a peaceful, stable Iraq by the time Bush leaves office?). That is the only question.

The democrat's only realistic plan is the same as the Bush plan. It doesn't change the fact the Bush plan sucks :laugh: . His mess and his backing the US into a corner doesn't change this fact. Oh well.
 

M00T

Golden Member
Mar 12, 2000
1,214
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: M00T
Look what I found... and 7 wholes pages of it.

I doubt ProfJohn or any of the other blowhards will read it though. They'll just keep saying "the Dems offer no solutions."

Pathetic.

EDIT:

Here's some more
5 ways to win back Iraq

How to win in Iraq

How to win in Iraq v2

So if anyone says "no solutions have been offered" one more time, then they are nothing but a shill.
M00T, did you read any of these so-called "Democrat" solutions b4 posting?

The first and last link are the same things, i.e., duplicate. The Slate article looks to be a rehash of the first & last links.

I haven't the time now to read as thoroughly as I'd like, but I don't see any Democrat Party solutions. The authors appear to merely mention, and critisize, the "pull out " solution discussed elswhere in this thread. So, unfortunately there are no Dem solutions (other than the pull out option which I oppose).

I had hoped the trenches around Baghdad signaled the adoption of the so-called "oil spot" solution suggested by many. But am now doubtful as I haven't heard anything about its adoption in the press. I would be interested if any polititions contemplating a Presidential run have offered anything new? (e.g., oil spot, etc)

I am not as pessimistic as many here. I do believe a solution is possible, yet not likely under the conditions of mere squabbling among ourselves. Meh, it just highlights are two largest problems: a lack of leadership (someone to step forward and unify us in a good solution) and a bitter division among ourselves (I believe primarily promulgated by those in Congress).

Fern
Obviously it was you who didn't bother to read past the first sentences.

First article: "oil-spot strategy"
Second article: "Provide enough manpower for the job"

Need I say more? No... because you don't read.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,054
0
71
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But this idea of blaming the democrats is stupid----this Iraq mess is exactly 100% the fault of Bush&co.----and no solition will be possible until GWB&co. are removed like the cancers they are and remain.
Wouldnt it be swell to also have a plan for what should happen after we remove Bush&co.?
There is no plan that CAN advance until the GOP enablers are first removed (House and Senate) -
and even then we will have 2 more years of Bush in the Executive position fighting for power on a daily basis for his agenda.

This is the same reason that the DEM's have 'NO PLAN' - everything that they atempt to advance is killed in comittee
by the GOP enablers of Bush, and then as a 'counter-plan' they re-write it into some offensive inane show of stupidity.


Lemon law

. . and will go back to being the party they were after the Republicans repudiate GWB&co.

Can't 'go-back' . . . to much damaged merchandise, those who were the Bush Enablers are forever tainted and
must wear the Albatross around their neck from now on.
They never learned from the Nixon fiasco, and some of them are the same players.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
There is no plan that CAN advance until the GOP enablers are first removed (House and Senate) -
and even then we will have 2 more years of Bush in the Executive position fighting for power on a daily basis for his agenda.
do you know why the mystical "plans" you refer to cannot advance right now, under Bush?

they need to EXIST first!

Not once have I seen the bush opposition present a clear alternative to "Staying the Course." If one of them stepped up and showed us one, -I- might even call for Bush to be taken out of office! the problem, right now, is that his plan is the best we've got! Until that changes, I have to support it... for lack of any others!
 

5to1baby1in5

Golden Member
Apr 27, 2001
1,182
40
91
<---- God Emperor Of The Earth has the solution. :sun:

All is not lost in Iraq. A simple re-use of current assets is all that is required.

The number one priority should be getting a message across to the people of Iraq 'We do not want to be in your country. It sucks for everybody involved. Our goal is to remove every last american military personell ASAP. We can't do this if you are killing eachother off with death squads and militias that are more powerfull than the official army. For the only real power in Iraq to leave now would invite genocide (you listening Sunni's?) You want us out, then knock off the stupid shiit.' That should calm things down a bit in itself.

Get the freakin' utilities working. screw trying to lock down the country with the military. Use the troops to protect power plants, refineries, water treatment plants, communication centers, and as lookouts to patrol the transmission lines. Should have been done from day one. Picture multiple Green Zones. Don't advertise this to the people, just make it happen.

This is Key! Kill Al Sadar and as many of his armed followers as possible. The man is a prick that is just biding his time for a power grab. The same for any other militias that appear to have any signs of strength. Be ruthless here, the point must be made. There can be only one power here. The American Military. We will happily, but gradually, transfer that power to the puppet government before we leave (remember, we want to leave). This brings us to the next point...

The Iraqi people do not want a pupet government when we leave. Keep a way for them to change it after we are gone. I believe the current Iraqi constitution allows for this. It really doesn't have to be a democracy even. It just has to be strong and able to control its chain of command. A military coup would even be an acceptable option here. Kind of a weak response here, but we get out of Iraq, there is no power vacuum in Iraq, and we get our ever so holy Regime Change in Iraq. Hell the oil will still flow.

As a side note, until the power change is made, the Iraqi police are to be watched like a hawk. Each police station will have a few squads of marines positioned inside, well armed with the latest weapondry to fend off attacks from insurgents (multiple Green Zone thing again). The US troops a) protect the local police from attacks, and b) keep an eye on the local police to make sure they don't go out at night and torture and kill civilians. As an incentive to the US troops, if the police sector they are watching becomes cool, they are allowed to return home. This must be a highly visible process. It shows the Iraqi people we are serious about pulling out, and that where the people of iraq peacfully coexist, Americans leave.

Disclaimer: I have never been in the military, have no clue how to run a war, and think politics is total suckage. I am just bored and providing one possible answer of how to fix the mess. I also freely admit that I am not the God Emporer Of The Earth.

Smilin,

The only point you made I agree with is No. 6.

Originally posted by: Smilin
I'm a liberal and democrat but I'm not sure if you really want to hear my ideas on this...

First though... I support our troops and I think an immediate pullout would be disasterous but do not think for a second that I "support the war" in Iraq. This crap may turn out to be the stupidest thing America has ever done.

1. Vastly increase the number of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It's starting to get that half-assed feeling like vietnam had. Force=results.
2. If we have to implement the draft to do it, so be it (more on this in a sec).
3. Get rid of the stupid tax cut. What jackass does a tax cut in wartime? Sorry folks you wanted war and war costs money. Stop putting it on the credit card for your kids to pay. Put a warbonds project back in place for those that really support the war (and not just give it lipservice).
4. Let our Generals decide a timeline for withdrawl.
5. Be clear ahead of time that the date may shift - "Make the plan fit the situation. Don't try to make the situation fit the plan." so there will be no backlash if it does. This is war, not a schoolyear.
6. Pull Iraqi army and police OUT of Iraq to complete training then send them in when they are ready and *well equiped*. Force=results, half trained clowns=casualties.
7. Suck up a bit of pride and get some help from the UN, NATO or our allies. If this mess isn't sorted out we won't be the only ones to feel it. Since our cred with them is shot right now, lopping some responsible heads off on our side as a measure of recommitment may be helpful (Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice you suck)


(now about that draft...)
In the future if Congress wants to authorize war they should also authorize the draft. It may or may not actually be used but the two must go hand in hand. They should also fund the war so we don't go in debt (within reason).

This is a gut-check people. You leaders are going to have to face the voters on this. If war is really needed the people will support you. If it is not needed you're going to be looking for a new job and fast.

You voters need a gut-check too. Think long and hard when you decide to bring the power of the US military to bear on another sovereign nation. The potential draft and tax increases that should be *required* will help you consider carfully.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY