Solution to Iraq

[Hoot]

I don't consider myself a liberal. When I took that political bias test
(that was posted in these forums) I came out leaning only slightly to the left. However I consider myself far left of the Bushies.

Conservatives, and especially those in these forums, love to say that the liberals have no solutions, only criticism, so I would like to suggest a couple of solutions to Iraq...

I've already outlined one solution to terrorism in these forums...

Put pressure on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to stop financing these fanatic religious schools throughout the Middle East. These are hate schools, that only serve to bring up a continual never-ending pool of young terrorists, anxious to commit murder on the West.

The U.S. needs to become more involved in establishing our own propaganda in the Middle East, to teach the young that the United States is not the Evil Satan. Why can't the U.S. finance their own schools throughout the Middle East? We could get 10 times the results with 1/10th the money we are currently spending fighting terrorism. Granted, this is a long range solution, but we have to stop the indoctrination of young terrorists in the early stages to have a hope of winning this war on terror.

Finally, on to Iraq...

The Bushies have flip-flopped so many times on the reasons for this war, and now it appears that the new popular reason is to establish a democracy in Iraq.

A recent poll by the British Defense Ministry shows that 82% of Iraqi's are "strongly opposed to foreign troops on Iraqi soil."

So, why not put it to a referendum?

Let the Iraqi's decide if they still want U.S. troops in Iraq?

If they vote yes, then we stay until the Iraqi government is firmly in place, and able to defend itself.

If they vote no, then we pull our forces out of Iraq and leave the Iraqi government to its own means. That's democracy, isn't it? Isn't that the new reason why we are in Iraq? Democracy?

Why should we allow Bush to decide when to withdraw U.S. troops? He's bungled this whole affair anyway. The decision should not be Bush's, it should be the decision of the Iraqi people...that's the true definition of democracy.

If the Iraqi people want us out, then we can withdraw troops and save face by showing the world that the United States is truely the defender of freedom and democracy...otherwise, we're all just a bunch of hypocrites.

What say you conservatives and Bush supporters? You want democracy in Iraq? Then prove it!

 

[KCConservative]

There was a vote a couple of days ago much like the one you propose. It was 403-3. :2wave:

 

[AK_Conservative]

The Bushies have flip-flopped so many times on the reasons for this war, and now it appears that the new popular reason is to establish a democracy in Iraq.

Now this pisses me off becuase its purely false. The two MAIN reasons why we went into iraq is WMD's (which are unaccounted for) and to liberate the iraqi people, hense the name Operation Iraqi freedom. The connection to the terrorists was made later as intel and apparent suicide bombings/al zaquawi (spelling)/ and al qaida has there presence there heavily. To say they flipped flopped is a ridiculous suggestion!

 

[cnredd]

I don't consider myself a liberal. When I took that political bias test
(that was posted in these forums) I came out leaning only slightly to the left. However I consider myself far left of the Bushies.

Conservatives, and especially those in these forums, love to say that the liberals have no solutions, only criticism, so I would like to suggest a couple of solutions to Iraq...

Sounds like plan...

I've already outlined one solution to terrorism in these forums...

Put pressure on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to stop financing these fanatic religious schools throughout the Middle East. These are hate schools, that only serve to bring up a continual never-ending pool of young terrorists, anxious to commit murder on the West.

Excellent point...

The U.S. needs to become more involved in establishing our own propaganda in the Middle East, to teach the young that the United States is not the Evil Satan. Why can't the U.S. finance their own schools throughout the Middle East? We could get 10 times the results with 1/10th the money we are currently spending fighting terrorism. Granted, this is a long range solution, but we have to stop the indoctrination of young terrorists in the early stages to have a hope of winning this war on terror.

Also excellent point...

Former White House counselor Karen P. Hughes will take over the Bush administration's troubled public diplomacy effort intended to burnish the U.S. image abroad, particularly in the Muslim world, where anti-Americanism has fueled extremist groups and terrorism, a senior administration official said yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25347-2005Mar10.html

So at least the point is being addressed...Has it been working?

I refer you to my own resarch from a previous thread...

Polls in the United States may show that Americans have become less supportive of our efforts in Iraq as the suicide bombings and roadside-bomb attacks continue. But the Pew polls in these Muslim countries show that those attacks have moved Muslim opinion against the terrorists and toward democracy.

For those who go through life slurping down every bias idea a slanted website has to offer(truthout.org, mediaresearch.com, etc.), Pew Research is THEE most non-partisan survey group known to man. Their objectivity is leaps and bounds above all others. As per their first statement on their homepage...

The Pew Research Center is a non-partisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. It does not take positions on policy issues.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3711&highlight=wanes

That was a KILLER thread...You know it was because it got so little attention...the "usual suspects" avoided it like it was the avian flu...

Every little nugget was researched and documented thoroughly...

Have at it...

Finally, on to Iraq...

Bring it on!...(I don't know...I heard that someplace)...

The Bushies have flip-flopped so many times on the reasons for this war, and now it appears that the new popular reason is to establish a democracy in Iraq.

Bushies?...Derogatory name-calling notwithstanding, let's take a good look at Clinton's Iraqi Liberation Act of "Some Date A Couple of Years Before the Bushies Arrived"...

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Same objectives...different President...kill the new messenger...:roll:

If I may, I'd like to refer to you the 2003 State of the Union address by, apparently, some imposter that first mentioned something about liberating the Iraqi people...cause you sure as heck can't admit it was "Bushie"...

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/

A recent poll by the British Defense Ministry shows that 82% of Iraqi's are "strongly opposed to foreign troops on Iraqi soil."

So, why not put it to a referendum?

Probably because they put in place people to make those decisions for them...Something about an election not too long ago...:shrug:

Let the Iraqi's decide if they still want U.S. troops in Iraq?

If they vote yes, then we stay until the Iraqi government is firmly in place, and able to defend itself.

If they vote no, then we pull our forces out of Iraq and leave the Iraqi government to its own means. That's democracy, isn't it? Isn't that the new reason why we are in Iraq? Democracy?

OK...

Then let's have a referendum in America where we can decide if we hit the KKK with baseball bats...I betchya if you take a poll, we'd get 82% voting "yes"...That is, after all, a democracy, isn't it?...:2wave:

Why should we allow Bush to decide when to withdraw U.S. troops?

Because we elected him through the Constitution...a funky piece of paper that says he has the authority...

He's bungled this whole affair anyway. The decision should not be Bush's, it should be the decision of the Iraqi people...that's the true definition of democracy.

The Iraqi people have already decided by placing people in positions to make those decisions...They can kick us out whenever those leaders want...Let's see if that's what they want, shall we?...

There is, however, one point on which leaders of the three main groups in Iraq agree: None of the Iraqi groups wants U.S. troops to leave precipitately. The Shiites want us to stay until Iraqi security forces are strong enough to deal with the insurgency on their own. The Kurds want us to remain for the impending future. And the Sunni Arab leaders want us to stay as a deterrent to those who might seek revenge against them for the actions of Saddam Hussein.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100900533.html

It seems these "Iraqi groups" are at odds with your British poll...Maybe you should tell them?...

If the Iraqi people want us out, then we can withdraw troops and save face by showing the world that the United States is truely the defender of freedom and democracy...otherwise, we're all just a bunch of hypocrites.

The above shows your options are lacking...

What say you conservatives and Bush supporters? You want democracy in Iraq? Then prove it!

ummmmm...did....

Don't matter...just by the way you take potshots and snide remarks toward the Administration, its clear, you just want to be heard without listening to others....This was probably futile for me to respond...

Maybe some other member's of the forum will appreciate it...:shrug:

 

[KCConservative]

:dito:

Excellent post, Redd! Bravo.

 

[Hoot]

Don't matter...just by the way you take potshots and snide remarks toward the Administration, its clear, you just want to be heard without listening to others....This was probably futile for me to respond...

I don't have time tonight to properly respond...what with the holiday, but I assure you I will properly read and respond to your post by the weekend, and my use of the term "Bushies," is in no way meant to be derogatory.

I use that term to distinguish actions by the Bush administration, as a whole, rather then simply blaming Bush, all by his lonesome.

If I make a statement like....

Bush made mistakes in Iraq....

I may have been referring to actions by other members of the Bush administration, such as Rumsfield...etc, therefore, the term "Bushies" to clarify.

In the past, when I was arguing about the Bush V Gore decision in Florida 2000...I got tired of typing out "Bush's lawyers"...etc... so I made it clear that all future use of the term Bush would refer to Bush's legal representation in Florida, and not specifically Bush alone.

I was often accused of lying when I said Bush said...blah blah blah, when in fact, I was refering to someone else in the Bush administration, hence the term "Bushies," which covers everyone connected to Bush.

Of course, I still believe the buck stops at that desk in the Oval Office.

Happy thanksgiving to one and all!

 

[Comrade Brian]

Now this pisses me off becuase its purely false. The two MAIN reasons why we went into iraq is WMD's (which are unaccounted for) and to liberate the iraqi people, hense the name Operation Iraqi freedom.

Don't look really free, they still have that large occupation force sittin' in their contry.

 

[Hoot]

So at least the point is being addressed...Has it been working?

I'm not sure Ms. Hughes has what it takes, but if she can improve our image abroad, more power to her.

Bushies?...Derogatory name-calling notwithstanding, let's take a good look at Clinton's Iraqi Liberation Act of "Some Date A Couple of Years Before the Bushies Arrived"...

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.


Maybe I missed it, but where in Clinton's speech does he propose marching our sons and daughters into downtown Baghdad and spending 6 billion a month, more money per capita then we spend on our own U.S. citizens?

Same objectives...different President...kill the new messenger...:roll:

Well, you're right about the different president, that's for sure. Neither Clinton, nor Bush senior would've been so foolish and careless with American lifes. Even Reagan, after the terrorist bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut, in which we lost 242 soldiers...what was his decision?

Did Reagan attack Lebanon? No, he pulled the marines out of Lebanon...something today that those on the right accuse the left of as "cut and run." In hindsight, Reagan made the correct decision...but let's face it, Bush Jr is no Reagan.

If I may, I'd like to refer to you the 2003 State of the Union address by, apparently, some imposter that first mentioned something about liberating the Iraqi people...cause you sure as heck can't admit it was "Bushie"...

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

No one ever said Saddam wasn't a bad dude....the argument is what was the best way to wrest power from him?

Probably because they put in place people to make those decisions for them...Something about an election not too long ago...:shrug:

They can still have referendum votes...especially important for "those in place" to determine the will of the people that they are supposed to be representing.

Then let's have a referendum in America where we can decide if we hit the KKK with baseball bats...I betchya if you take a poll, we'd get 82% voting "yes"...That is, after all, a democracy, isn't it?...:2wave:

C'mon, cnredd...you can do better. What you're proposing is against the law of the land. What I'm proposing is simply a vote by the Iraqi people on whether they continue to want U.S. troops on Iraqi soil...big difference.

Because we elected him through the Constitution...a funky piece of paper that says he has the authority...

Well...that's debatable, too..but that's another story.

The Iraqi people have already decided by placing people in positions to make those decisions...They can kick us out whenever those leaders want...Let's see if that's what they want, shall we?...

You're dreaming...President Karzai, of Afghanistan, the elected president, by the people, has gone on record saying he wants U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. Tell me when you see U.S. troops withdrawing...I must have missed it?

There is, however, one point on which leaders of the three main groups in Iraq agree: None of the Iraqi groups wants U.S. troops to leave precipitately. The Shiites want us to stay until Iraqi security forces are strong enough to deal with the insurgency on their own. The Kurds want us to remain for the impending future. And the Sunni Arab leaders want us to stay as a deterrent to those who might seek revenge against them for the actions of Saddam Hussein.

One man's opinion, and nothing in that above paragraph can be substantiated. Put it to a vote and let the truth be known. I'll support the decision of the Iraqi people.

It seems these "Iraqi groups" are at odds with your British poll...Maybe you should tell them?...

Again...one man's opinion...a man who in no way speaks for all the different groups of people in Iraq. Why are you afraid of allowing the Iraqi people to vote on continued U.S. prescence?

Don't matter...just by the way you take potshots and snide remarks toward the Administration, its clear, you just want to be heard without listening to others....This was probably futile for me to respond...

Not at all...I appreciate your opinions and your taking the time to respond. No matter how thin I make my pancakes, there are always two sides.

 

[AK_Conservative]

Don't look really free, they still have that large occupation force sittin' in their contry.

It does not happen overnight.

 

[Comrade Brian]

It does not happen overnight.

Well, sitting there, killing them, taking their oil, building a few buildings, doesn't tend to help very much. And of course not even listening to the majority of them don't help either.

 

[TwoPops4Sure]

Well, speaking of plans it would seem that the Republicans will buy into "cut and run" too. Why would it make sense to draw down an already inadequate force and leave the rest there to still be Qaeda bait? Once we get past the monumentally stupid decision to invade, we have to resign ourselves to do it right. The Republicans ran the show. They had every resource at their disposal and had no democratic interference in their war planning. What did they do: cast aside recommendations from the military about force size and threw away a carefully planned post occupation plan put together by Colin Powell's State Department in favor of invasion on the cheap and a "they will be showering us with flowers" plan from Rumsfeld, etal.

The mission is not accomplished. If that mission is to stabilize the country and eradicate insurgency, force levels will have to be increased 2 to 3 times their current size. Of course we know this plan isn't viable. We have enough trouble sustaining the manpower at current force size. A sizeable percentage of the force is National Guard. Fact is we can't build a force that size for this purpose. And given that, it demonstrates that we've got no business there. IF YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DO WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN, THEN THE WAR IS NOT WORTH OUR CONTINUED EXPENDITURE OF BLOOD AND TREASURE.

So we're reduced to nothing but plans that call for withdrawal. The Republicans have a problem here. They've already denounced any plan that calls for withdrawal of troops as a "cut and run" strategy. So I guess I'll be looking for them to come up with a way to get more troops in country so that we can "win". It is delusional to think that no matter how long we stay at current force levels that we'll accomplish anything more than losing more troops and further lose whatever real or imaginary support we may have for US presence in the country. As pissed as these people may be about terrorism, the longer that terrorism continues unchecked in our presence, the more it becomes obvious that our presence is not only not solving the problem but in fact the casus belli of the terrorism. The civil war has already started. Terrorist are not bombing Iraqis in their mosques. Various factions of Iraqis are retalliating against one another. Yes, I can see where the civil war action gets hotter if we withdraw. But what makes anybody think that a weak central government will be able to maintain the loyalty of a force that is first and foremost loyal to their tribal and religious interests?

The Murtha plan makes perfect sense. I think the Democrats are nuts for not jumping all over it. The first lie the Republicans told was that his plan called for a withdrawal. What it calls for as we all know is a redeployment to the periphery. We'll still be in the area to take care of business as needed. The difference will be that our troops will be better protected in this plan as opposed to being made the subject of live fire excercise at Al Qaeda Terrorism University, which is now offerring advanced OJT on how to kill Americans and graduate degrees on how to successfully wage jihad.

TwoPops

 

[kal-el]

Well, speaking of plans it would seem that the Republicans will buy into "cut and run" too. Why would it make sense to draw down an already inadequate force and leave the rest there to still be Qaeda bait? Once we get past the monumentally stupid decision to invade, we have to resign ourselves to do it right. The Republicans ran the show. They had every resource at their disposal and had no democratic interference in their war planning. What did they do: cast aside recommendations from the military about force size and threw away a carefully planned post occupation plan put together by Colin Powell's State Department in favor of invasion on the cheap and a "they will be showering us with flowers" plan from Rumsfeld, etal.

The mission is not accomplished. If that mission is to stabilize the country and eradicate insurgency, force levels will have to be increased 2 to 3 times their current size. Of course we know this plan isn't viable. We have enough trouble sustaining the manpower at current force size. A sizeable percentage of the force is National Guard. Fact is we can't build a force that size for this purpose. And given that, it demonstrates that we've got no business there. IF YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DO WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN, THEN THE WAR IS NOT WORTH OUR CONTINUED EXPENDITURE OF BLOOD AND TREASURE.

So we're reduced to nothing but plans that call for withdrawal. The Republicans have a problem here. They've already denounced any plan that calls for withdrawal of troops as a "cut and run" strategy. So I guess I'll be looking for them to come up with a way to get more troops in country so that we can "win". It is delusional to think that no matter how long we stay at current force levels that we'll accomplish anything more than losing more troops and further lose whatever real or imaginary support we may have for US presence in the country. As pissed as these people may be about terrorism, the longer that terrorism continues unchecked in our presence, the more it becomes obvious that our presence is not only not solving the problem but in fact the casus belli of the terrorism. The civil war has already started. Terrorist are not bombing Iraqis in their mosques. Various factions of Iraqis are retalliating against one another. Yes, I can see where the civil war action gets hotter if we withdraw. But what makes anybody think that a weak central government will be able to maintain the loyalty of a force that is first and foremost loyal to their tribal and religious interests?

The Murtha plan makes perfect sense. I think the Democrats are nuts for not jumping all over it. The first lie the Republicans told was that his plan called for a withdrawal. What it calls for as we all know is a redeployment to the periphery. We'll still be in the area to take care of business as needed. The difference will be that our troops will be better protected in this plan as opposed to being made the subject of live fire excercise at Al Qaeda Terrorism University, which is now offerring advanced OJT on how to kill Americans and graduate degrees on how to successfully wage jihad.

TwoPops

Right, however I'm not for an immediate withdraw of all our forces at once, as that would shock the Iraqi's, and leave them vulnerable to the insurgents. I believe we should start withrawing slowly, and by 6 months, we should have no Americans on Iraqi soil. We must get them some security, after all it's the least we can do, because we are responsible for causing this chaos. Of course, it's infinitly smarter not to invade, fighting violence with even more violence and sending bombs over the populations.

Yea, I don't see anything positive coming about by staying the course, just more casulties. I think it's rather impossible to eradicate terrorism with the use of violence.