Iraq - What would you do right now?

[Sulkdodds]

There are plenty of threads to debate this thing in. Hell, if you want you can start one yourself. But this...

Iraq - What would you do right now?

is the question that's being asked.

 

[CptStern]

that's what I'm answering


my fault ..sometimes I get ahead of myself and just assume everyone knows who the above people are or that they have extensive knowledge on foreign policy

 

[Direwolf]

Edit: Double Post

 

[Direwolf]

Stern, unfortunately the reasons why nothing changes is because the people of this country have been conditioned to focus on their Big Mac's, large trucks, and size of their genitalia. Corporatism has taken over and education is suffering. A less informed population is easier to control.

I really, really hate this mentality. I'm of the opinion that one of the greatest problems with the US is people treated the public as more stupid than they really are. You'd be amazed what people can do and understand when you give them some credit.

 

[Solaris]

I really, really hate this mentality. I'm of the opinion that one of the greatest problems with the US is people treated the public as more stupid than they really are. You'd be amazed what people can do and understand when you give them some credit.

Nope. Look at who they elected, look at who we elected look at almost every president.

 

[Vigilante]

Nuke it.

 

[ComradeBadger]

the solutions are a moot point because this is just a pattern in a repeating series of events that continally play out only to come full circle to this same point. Sooner or later the future US backed Iraqi government will tire of it's leash and will bite back ..which will once again lead to some sort of justification in removing them from power ..it's how saddam came into power in the first place ..as well as "Papa Doc" Duvalier, General Suharto, Mobutu Sese Seko, Lon Nol, Hugo Banzer, Augusto Pinochet, Jonas Savimbi, Anastasios Samoza, Manuel Noriega etc etc etc

The very definition of

moot point: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moot point

A debatable question, an issue open to argument; also, an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance. For example, Whether Shakespeare actually wrote the poem remains a moot point among critics, or It's a moot point whether the chicken or the egg came first. This term originated in British law where it described a point for discussion in a moot, or assembly, of law students. By the early 1700s it was being used more loosely in the present sense.

Taking the first definition, then yes, the solution IS an issue open to arguement, as it is the arguement at hand.
Taking the second definition, I'd disagree, surely the solution to the problem of Iraq is of great importance, especially to the Iraqis.

 

[CptStern]

yes of course it is ...on the surface ..but the fact is that there's far more at stake than the individuals rights of iraqis ..the neo-cons have been planning this for a long time they're not about to just hand iraq over to just anybody hence the need for key positioning of resources and putting the right people in power ..iraq is a springboard of almost invaluable worth


again just like the other world leaders I've listed US involvement wasnt a matter of a few months but rather many decades

 

[Cooper]

Well, I have been gone for a bit. There is my excuse for not replying.

The reason for starting this thread is pretty much on line with what was quoted here:

Its just a hypothetical though. Interesting as a mental exercise if not a political one. Its not going to solve anything or change policy, but its something worth thinking about

.

I am not trying to apologize or defer blame. I was actually hopeing to get a consensus of the general world view on how things could be handled. You see, I am part of a class, that I won't bother going into detail about, but I may very well be asked questions along the line of "What can or should be done to deal with the Iraq situation?" I was honestly, looking for answers to that very question and seeing as how their are some obviously much more knowledgeable people on this forum I figured I would ask while at the same time hopefully spark an inelligent discussion without the whole blame thing. Because, as has been noted, blame usually boils down into something that I wouldn't call constructive. Being a political science major, I need constructive and accurate debate.

If at some point Stern you think I was calling you out, then I apologize to you. However, I did not make this thread to say "I give up, the world is right and I want to be on the right side now." That was not my purpose for this thread.

Also, I had thought of the idea of withdrawing and requesting a national peacekeeping force. Except, what would I do if the request were denied? Especially since most countries who had supported the US in the beginning left, very few nations now want to deal with the Iraq situation right now.

The most feasible plan I have found at this point is to maintain the force in Iraq. However, announce that starting next year trials for all prisoners will begin and at the same time decrease the size of all prisons used by government agencies. In order to resume the support from the public I would pressure congress to pass legislation limiting the interrogation techniques of all agencies, and as a gesture of good will ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yes, we signed it, but to my knowledge we never ratified it.

The problem with this plan to regain public support is that I don't know how it will affect public safety as far as terrorism goes. This is a issue that, with the recent arrests in France show, is still at large.

However, I have not fully completed my study on the Middle Eastern culture so I don't really have anything mention worthy that would decrease the violence in Iraq except for a large police force. It would have to be made of entirely Iraqis. But I still don't believe that would really prevent anyone from outside the country wishing to do harm from doing so. Unfortunately, the only realistic way of watching the Iraqi border is with US soldiers however, any sense of US military presence will most likely be seen as a occupation force, no matter the intention of the operation. It may be a necessity though.

And, I think we really need to define neo-conservatism because it is being used on this board differently (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=neo-conservatism) then what I have been taught. Unless we are talking about the neo-conservatism shown in China, which is an entirely different ball game. So in order to address that point I am going to need to know everyone's definition in order to debate it. As far as to whether or not the neo-cons have been planning, this...thats irrelevant. According to my hypothetical thread YOU are the one in charge not some political group. If I told my teacher his question sucked because the neo-cons have been planning this all along I don't think I would hold much credit in that class anymore.

 

[CptStern]

alright fair enough ...here's my solution, posted on page 1


"what SHOULD happen but wont is the US should pull out completely and unconditionally to be replaced with an international peace keeping force that doesnt have it's own interests in the forefront"

 

[Direwolf]

Nope. Look at who they elected, look at who we elected look at almost every president.

Actually I think that looks for my point. Look at this last election: neither side believed that the public would elect anyone but a bland, pandering, talking head. Good presidents have been elected in the past, theres no reason it can't happen in the future.