Iraq - what do we do now?

[Flying Titan]

Delldude -
My plan has been posted in this thread several times. It's not hard to find (originally post #30 - and quoted several times since). As for the leading Democratic plan, it's the Biden plan and it is remarkably similar to the plan that I have posted here (jmho). It's essentially the creation of a loose Iraqi confederation with three distinct states - Kurd, Sunni, Shi'a.

If you haven't been able to find my plan or the Biden plan then you simply haven't bothered to look. The plans are out there. Take the time to read them. I would love to actually debate the MERITS of these plans - something you and Local 12 and others seem unwilling to do (or incapable).

Again, other than stay-the-course, what is YOUR plan??? Where is Local 12's plan???

With each passing day it's more evident that you and the other right wing, neo-con types don't have a plan. Sadly for our country, it's clear that Bush doesn't have one either.

 

[Ch. 12]

Please do tell of your party's grand plan....I thought it was a major issue in the recent elections...

You're right...the major issue is that Bush wasn't willing to change his course. And in the post-election fray he fired Rummy which we all thought meant that he (Bush) was going to be receptive to changing the course. Of course we have found in the past few days through a leaked memo that Rummy had recommended-just before getting fired-that the current "stay the course" strategery wasn't working and we should seek alternatives. Guess that Bush still hasn't learned.

Many of us have posted ideas. As I mentioned in mine and others have in theirs, there is no golden egg. No solution will be easy and of course pieces and parts won't be viable as we move forward but we have to try SOMETHING. We have known for over a year that we need to approach Iraq in a different way yet Bush is not willing to change one iota. In the meantime, Iraq is in turmoil and that is bound to infect the rest of the region.

 

[delldude]

In the meantime, Iraq is in turmoil and that is bound to infect the rest of the region.

There you have it....that was the intent and purpose of the whole rigamarole....
Destabilize the Middle East through installation of a democratic government and let the people see for themselves. 😉

 

[Garfield1966]

And how is that plan working for you?

Maliki has gone to Iran for assistance and blew off Bush for a tri-lateral talk. Al-Sadr has a warrant out for his arrest that no one (including the US forces) is willing to enforce. He also has an armed security force that seem to have free reign to do as they see fit. Over 7,000 civilians have dies as a result of the civil war going on in Iraq and that was just in September and October. The current government in Iraq does not have the confidence of the Iraqi people much less that of the current white house administration. If Al-Sadr decides to pull out, Maliki will loose control of the collation.

Mean while there are protests taking place in Lebanon against the current government claiming corruption and incompetence among other things. They are claiming the elected government was doing nothing to help them during and after the Israeli invasion and the Hezbola was doing more to help them.

The bottom line is, the folks in the middle east do not want to buy what we are selling,

One of the many things that the Bush administration did not think about was that if you destabilize a country or region, you have to offer them a better way of doing something that they will be attracted to. Whether or not you agree with their religious belief or not is irrelevant. They have their beliefs and we must deal with that. They are a conservative society. They consider our society decadent. Hell, conservatives in the US think our society is decadent. They have no interest in fashioning their society after ours. They in all likely hood never will. Yet Rumsfeld was under some delusion that we would be welcomed with open arms.

Some of you seem to think a war on terrorism is winnable. Like there is a and game. We have not even won the war on drugs and that is a cake walk compared to fighting terrorism. Invading a country tends to be a bad way to make friends. Boycotting a country (Cuba?) is senseless.

As far as I am concerned, it’s about the money. If someone can figure out a way to cut off the money and arms supply to these folks, then maybe the people who want peace will come out from their hiding places and come up with a workable plan. Until that happens, it will just be more of the same.

 

[delldude]

Funny....why aren't the Israeli's doing similar radical things as their biblical brothers ? Seems to me they have democracy and stability in their land...why don't the rest of the Arabs?
Why do you think the US went down this road? Like I said...if they can induce a major Arab nation to experience democracy and learn to make their own decisions....maybe alot of things that hamper the world from the middle east will improve.These things will take time...but a taste of self government and determining their own destiny would be a start in a land that has dictated for centuries through some bizzare,perverted infatuation to their religion while the rest of the world moves on.Change is a big pill to swallow.

 

[Garfield1966]

Israel is a young country. Its ideas are different and it chose a different path. That’s like asking why the Germans chose Hitler, the Swiss chose neutrality, the Russians chose communism and England chose a monarchy with parliament. They are all next door to each other are they not? Proximity has no correlation with political choices

Yes, it would be lovely for a country in the ME to be introduced to a representative type government. The problem is the change, if it is to come and be successful must come from inside and not be forced by outside sources. It is just like when you were a kid. If someone told you not to do something, it made you want to do it more. If someone forces you to do something, you fight against it. It seems to be human nature.

If people want a representative government they will find a way to get one. I think Russia is a decent example. Yeltstin and Gorbashav (sp?) came from the people at large. They worked their way up the party hierarchy and saw an opportunity. They are having a rough time of it but the people for the most part seem to be trying to make it work. The impetus for the change came from the inside.

When Bush invaded Iraq, over threw the existing government and placed and occupation force he sealed the fait of that country and the region. There was a Ted Kopel piece on Iran a few weeks ago on the Discovery channel. If I recall correctly they, it seemed to indicate that there was a small movement gathering momentum toward having a more open society. Toward allowing more freedoms. A movement toward the things that we would have like to seen. When Bush got up and called them the Axis of Evil, that just shut it down. The government clamped down and that was the end of that. We are our own worst enemy.

You cannot force a country under gunpoint to become a democracy. It does not work. It never has and in all likely hood it never will.

I realize this may come as a strange concept to you but did you ever consider that they just do not want to be like us?

 

[delldude]

I realize this may come as a strange concept to you but did you ever consider that they just do not want to be like us?

funny....sources other than your liberal media report Iraqi citizens quite happy and pleased since US came knocking on Saddams door.
Why do we never see any good news out of Iraq...is it me or is it that bad everywhere? :unsure:

 

[Garfield1966]

funny....sources other than your liberal media report Iraqi citizens quite happy and pleased since US came knocking on Saddams door.
Why do we never see any good news out of Iraq...is it me or is it that bad everywhere? :unsure:

Sources or links would be nice.

 

[delldude]

Sources or links would be nice.

Whats the use?
You'll assail them for being from one side or the other.

 

[Ch. 12]

Whats the use?
You'll assail them for being from one side or the other.

That's b/c they are either conserva-blogs or Fox News which makes no effort in hiding their political stance.

The thing is that we can find pictures/stories of hatred and bombing or smily faces and kumbaya all over the place. One story doesn't make it so. But Iraq is in a civil war and violence is growing. I don't think that is as a result of millions of iraqis kissing our soldiers and offering them tea. I would say that the actions of the Iraqis speak volumes. They do not like occupation. I've asked it in the past...would you like Saudi tanks to be rolling through the streets of every major US city and forcing you through checkpoints all over our country...for 5 years?! I wouldn't like it for 5 minutes even if it meant that Bush was no longer in power. A little common sense and a look at what is currently going on in Iraq will tell you that we aren't being welcomed as saviors. Even Fox News reports this now.

 

[KCFlyer]

Whats the use?
You'll assail them for being from one side or the other.

You mean like this one:

funny....sources other than your liberal media report Iraqi citizens quite happy and pleased since US came knocking on Saddams door.

That's b/c they are either conserva-blogs or Fox News which makes no effort in hiding their political stance.

In all fairness, there are also "libera-blogs". And this is what kind of bothers me. Today, they are on the internet and we give them the neat-o word "blog", which to many who already believe that if it's on the internet it must be true, now feel that if it's in a "blog", it's especially valid, since all the news sources are citing "blogs" in their reporting. Back in the not too distant past, we used to call them "editorial pages" and they were in newspapers, and they were understood to be opinions. Today, too many people view blogs as "news".

 

[Flying Titan]

Whats the use?
You'll assail them for being from one side or the other.

Then how about coming up with a plan?

 

[Ch. 12]

In all fairness, there are also "libera-blogs". And this is what kind of bothers me. Today, they are on the internet and we give them the neat-o word "blog", which to many who already believe that if it's on the internet it must be true, now feel that if it's in a "blog", it's especially valid, since all the news sources are citing "blogs" in their reporting. Back in the not too distant past, we used to call them "editorial pages" and they were in newspapers, and they were understood to be opinions. Today, too many people view blogs as "news".

You're right...there are libera-blogs. But I don't post links to them and tout them as fact. The blogs of opinion (whatever opinion you can ever imagine) are here to stay in the information age. What that means is that it's up to humans to use common sense and logic to realize what is and is not fact. A blog of any kind may contain facts but none of them are 100% fact. It is somebody's opinion.

The point I was trying to get across to others on these boards is that posting a link to a blog is not posting "facts" or "factual references". To do so can be dangerous (like when local 12 touted a couple of bloggers from the WV coal miners assoc as being "real scientists" with an objective view of global warming). Again...one must use common sense when looking at blogs. They are ALL just a form of propoganda for the blog owner...Republican or Democrat. I don't get caught up in Democratic blogs either b/c they are fantasy.

Sorry if I gave the allusion that I was just pointing out the blogs. I was trying to point out the use of these blogs by individuals on these boards to "bolster" their arguments.

 

[KCFlyer]

What that means is that it's up to humans to use common sense and logic to realize what is and is not fact. A blog of any kind may contain facts but none of them are 100% fact. It is somebody's opinion.

That's just it...all that pretty much anything is posted on the internet is opinion, but far too many people feel that BECAUSE it's on the internet, it must be fact. Coining the term "blog" and the news media citing "blogs" seems to legitimize ALL blogs as being "fact".

 

[Garfield1966]

Whats the use?
You'll assail them for being from one side or the other.

So you don't have any huh?

By the way, when was the last time you saw a society that was "happy and pleased" kill over 7,000 of their own "happy and pleased" country men in 2 months? I would hate to know what happens when they are angry and pissed.

Saying that the Iraqis are "happy and pleased" has got to be one of the silliest things I have ever heard.