Jump to content

War in Iraq


Giselle
 Share

What should the US do now?  

58 members have voted

  1. 1. What should the US do now?

    • withdraw immediately
    • gradual withdrawal
    • increase troops to defeat insurgency
    • let the Iraqi leaders decide what to do
    • other (suggestions welcomed)


Recommended Posts

Bearing in mind the war has been a disaster and that civil war will happen once America leaves (if it isn't taking place already), what should the US do right now?

 

PS - Yes Gem, this is another one of those 'snoozefests' ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for gradual withdrawal btw. Iraq just needs to start all over again. However, immediate withdrawal would mean immediate chaos descending on Baghdad and whatever other 'safe zones' are left. At least a gradual withdrawal might mean time to set up other 'safe zones' before leaving, or gives a chance for residents to move to where they'll feel safer ie. Shi'ites move to where other Shi'ites resides, same with Sunni's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

Should get out now, but Blair and Bush know that it will look like a defeat if they do, so they won't.

 

nothing at all to do with the fact the country would fall apart and the 'war' would have been for nothing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should get out now, but Blair and Bush know that it will look like a defeat if they do, so they won't.

 

Exactly. I hear Bush might be sending in more troops to defeat the 'insurgency'. It's not really an insurgency anymore, it's a civil war between groups of people who do not want to live with each other, and who do not want America there. If they leave, there will be no more 'insurgency' (imo) but obviously civil war will break out in full. Tragic scenario but Iraq has to go through this before the situation can improve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should get out now, but Blair and Bush know that it will look like a defeat if they do, so they won't.

 

nothing at all to do with the fact the country would fall apart and the 'war' would have been for nothing?

 

Don't think America gives a shit about Iraqis tbh. They care more about their 'image', that's why they're still risking the lives of their own soldiers.

 

And the war wasn't for nothing, they got Saddam out = success in the idiot's (Bush) eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was in charge I would actually advocate for a more radical solution that has not been seriously considered: Partition.

 

Split it into three countries - all of the neighboring countries would hate this, but I believe it would result (in the long-term) in the least amount of human suffering and death.

 

Turkey, the Saudis and Iran would especially throw a fit, but f*ck 'em - its not about them its about these innocent people who are dying and will endure endless suffering partly due to their own stubborn power plays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

Should get out now, but Blair and Bush know that it will look like a defeat if they do, so they won't.

 

nothing at all to do with the fact the country would fall apart and the 'war' would have been for nothing?

 

Don't think America gives a shit about Iraqis tbh. They care more about their 'image', that's why they're still risking the lives of their own soldiers.

 

And the war wasn't for nothing, they got Saddam out = success in the idiot's (Bush) eyes.

 

if they didn't give a shit they would get out now. Staying is the right thing to do, and protects their image

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should get out now, but Blair and Bush know that it will look like a defeat if they do, so they won't.

 

nothing at all to do with the fact the country would fall apart and the 'war' would have been for nothing?

It was for nothing. What rock have you been under?

 

FYI - There were no WMDs, there was no connection with Al'Qaeda and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

Just thought I'd let you know like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

If I was in charge I would actually advocate for a more radical solution that has not been seriously considered: Partition.

 

Split it into three countries - all of the neighboring countries would hate this, but I believe it would result (in the long-term) in the least amount of human suffering and death.

 

Turkey, the Saudis and Iran would especially throw a fit, but f*ck 'em - its not about them its about these innocent people who are dying and will endure endless suffering partly due to their own stubborn power plays.

 

hmmm partition. where have I heard that word before as a solution to sectarian conflict?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for gradual withdrawal btw. Iraq just needs to start all over again. However, immediate withdrawal would mean immediate chaos descending on Baghdad and whatever other 'safe zones' are left. At least a gradual withdrawal might mean time to set up other 'safe zones' before leaving, or gives a chance for residents to move to where they'll feel safer ie. Shi'ites move to where other Shi'ites resides, same with Sunni's.

 

And therein lies the whole crux of the problem, imo. Don't think it can be solved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should get out now, but Blair and Bush know that it will look like a defeat if they do, so they won't.

 

nothing at all to do with the fact the country would fall apart and the 'war' would have been for nothing?

 

Don't think America gives a shit about Iraqis tbh. They care more about their 'image', that's why they're still risking the lives of their own soldiers.

 

And the war wasn't for nothing, they got Saddam out = success in the idiot's (Bush) eyes.

 

if they didn't give a shit they would get out now. Staying is the right thing to do, and protects their image

 

Protecting what image? Bush is more unpopular then ever in both the US and internationally. Please elaborate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

Should get out now, but Blair and Bush know that it will look like a defeat if they do, so they won't.

 

nothing at all to do with the fact the country would fall apart and the 'war' would have been for nothing?

It was for nothing. What rock have you been under?

 

FYI - There were no WMDs, there was no connection with Al'Qaeda and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

Just thought I'd let you know like.

 

the war was to remove Saddam and install a western friendly regime, to believe anything else is ridiculous

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

Should get out now, but Blair and Bush know that it will look like a defeat if they do, so they won't.

 

nothing at all to do with the fact the country would fall apart and the 'war' would have been for nothing?

 

Don't think America gives a shit about Iraqis tbh. They care more about their 'image', that's why they're still risking the lives of their own soldiers.

 

And the war wasn't for nothing, they got Saddam out = success in the idiot's (Bush) eyes.

 

if they didn't give a shit they would get out now. Staying is the right thing to do, and protects their image

 

Protecting what image? Bush is more unpopular then ever in both the US and internationally. Please elaborate.

 

so leaving a civil war would look better than a semi-stable government?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was in charge I would actually advocate for a more radical solution that has not been seriously considered: Partition.

 

Split it into three countries - all of the neighboring countries would hate this, but I believe it would result (in the long-term) in the least amount of human suffering and death.

 

Turkey, the Saudis and Iran would especially throw a fit, but f*ck 'em - its not about them its about these innocent people who are dying and will endure endless suffering partly due to their own stubborn power plays.

 

It's not a bad idea but don't you think it would only be a matter of time before the 'strongest' partition started trying to take over the others, resulting in more mass murders etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should get out now, but Blair and Bush know that it will look like a defeat if they do, so they won't.

 

nothing at all to do with the fact the country would fall apart and the 'war' would have been for nothing?

 

Don't think America gives a shit about Iraqis tbh. They care more about their 'image', that's why they're still risking the lives of their own soldiers.

 

And the war wasn't for nothing, they got Saddam out = success in the idiot's (Bush) eyes.

 

if they didn't give a shit they would get out now. Staying is the right thing to do, and protects their image

 

They don't give a shit about Iraqis. Of course they care about their image, that's the only reason they're staying in atm.

 

It's not like it's going to affect their image though, it's shit and will be for a while. America should just gradually withdraw and say 'never again'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was in charge I would actually advocate for a more radical solution that has not been seriously considered: Partition.

 

Split it into three countries - all of the neighboring countries would hate this, but I believe it would result (in the long-term) in the least amount of human suffering and death.

 

Turkey, the Saudis and Iran would especially throw a fit, but f*ck 'em - its not about them its about these innocent people who are dying and will endure endless suffering partly due to their own stubborn power plays.

 

hmmm partition. where have I heard that word before as a solution to sectarian conflict?

 

Iraq is in worse shape than Ireland in 1916 - no question.

 

Partition has stopped teh endless killing and concentration camps in Yugoslavia... possibly a more germain comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

Should get out now, but Blair and Bush know that it will look like a defeat if they do, so they won't.

 

nothing at all to do with the fact the country would fall apart and the 'war' would have been for nothing?

 

Don't think America gives a shit about Iraqis tbh. They care more about their 'image', that's why they're still risking the lives of their own soldiers.

 

And the war wasn't for nothing, they got Saddam out = success in the idiot's (Bush) eyes.

 

if they didn't give a shit they would get out now. Staying is the right thing to do, and protects their image

 

They don't give a shit about Iraqis. Of course they care about their image, that's the only reason they're staying in atm.

 

It's not like it's going to affect their image though, it's shit and will be for a while. America should just gradually withdraw and say 'never again'.

 

so our troops are dying for our 'image' and nothing at all to do with improving the situation for Iraqis? What planet are you living on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

If I was in charge I would actually advocate for a more radical solution that has not been seriously considered: Partition.

 

Split it into three countries - all of the neighboring countries would hate this, but I believe it would result (in the long-term) in the least amount of human suffering and death.

 

Turkey, the Saudis and Iran would especially throw a fit, but f*ck 'em - its not about them its about these innocent people who are dying and will endure endless suffering partly due to their own stubborn power plays.

 

hmmm partition. where have I heard that word before as a solution to sectarian conflict?

 

Iraq is in worse shape than Ireland in 1916 - no question.

 

Partition has stopped teh endless killing and concentration camps in Yugoslavia... possibly a more germain comparison.

 

I was thinking Israel actually....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should get out now, but Blair and Bush know that it will look like a defeat if they do, so they won't.

 

nothing at all to do with the fact the country would fall apart and the 'war' would have been for nothing?

 

Don't think America gives a shit about Iraqis tbh. They care more about their 'image', that's why they're still risking the lives of their own soldiers.

 

And the war wasn't for nothing, they got Saddam out = success in the idiot's (Bush) eyes.

 

if they didn't give a shit they would get out now. Staying is the right thing to do, and protects their image

 

They don't give a shit about Iraqis. Of course they care about their image, that's the only reason they're staying in atm.

 

It's not like it's going to affect their image though, it's shit and will be for a while. America should just gradually withdraw and say 'never again'.

 

so our troops are dying for our 'image' and nothing at all to do with improving the situation for Iraqis? What planet are you living on?

 

Your troops, not mine.

 

Individually, the soldiers may feel like what they're doing is improving the situation for Iraqis but it's not. It's worsening it. The insurgency will grow as long as there are troops there. The more troops = bigger insurgency.

 

On a whole, do you really think Bush cares about the troops? Blair might be different, but Bush couldn't give a flying fuck. He's acheived what his daddy couldn't and that'll be his legacy as far as he is concerned.

 

And yes, atm, the main priority seems to be the 'image' of America. That's why Bush has been saying 'we're not winning the war' but he's never once said 'we're losing it'. And that is why he'll probably send more troops.

 

Edit - If Bush actually cared about the Iraqis, he would have considered the consequences (which were obvious to many btw) of an invasion and realized that an invasion would lead to a civil war = more people dying. Staying out would have saved a lot of innocent lives no doubt. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though and I realize this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was in charge I would actually advocate for a more radical solution that has not been seriously considered: Partition.

 

Split it into three countries - all of the neighboring countries would hate this, but I believe it would result (in the long-term) in the least amount of human suffering and death.

 

Turkey, the Saudis and Iran would especially throw a fit, but f*ck 'em - its not about them its about these innocent people who are dying and will endure endless suffering partly due to their own stubborn power plays.

 

It's not a bad idea but don't you think it would only be a matter of time before the 'strongest' partition started trying to take over the others, resulting in more mass murders etc?

A problem no doubt.

In yugoslavia this was prevented by offering assistance to teh weaker parties (K-4 for Kosovo for example). The weaker party in this case would be the Sunnis since they are the minority. They would also have the largest number of neighboring supporting them however - so I think through diplomacy you could have some sort of international Arab assistance for defence. At that point expansion from any partition group could start a war between the Saudis and Iran which would be a detrrent. Also from a Machiavellian pont of vieww not necessarily a bad thing for the West.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...