A solution for Iraq?

[bascule]

So the situation is basically this: most Democrats and a small number of Republicans want out of Iraq. Senator Dick Lugar ® wants out now but doesn't want to force Bush to do it. Harry Reid wants out now and wants to force Bush to do it. What just happened in the Senate is just a continuation of the extremely polarized political climate in this country.

 

I said Reid and Lugar should cosponsor a bill, but it'd have to be one everyone can agree on. So how about this:

 

The bill would sponsor an international summit between the U.S., Iraq, and the surrounding nations (Iran, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia). At this international summit America would put a phased withdrawal on the table and ask delegates from these nations to come up with a plan for how it will be carried out. The American delegates would be responsible for coming up with a plan they actually think could fly in Congress.

 

After that, they come back with a plan, submit it to Congress, and let them vote on it.

 

How about that?

 

(... *awaits the first "But, but, those people are terrorists!"* ...)

[the tree]

Hows about the Iraqi government decide how many foreign military forces they want on thier soil, and the coalition moves out if and when they're asked? Seems simpler to me.

[ParanoiA]

Hows about the Iraqi government decide how many foreign military forces they want on thier soil, and the coalition moves out if and when they're asked? Seems simpler to me.

 

Yeah, I agree. We created the mess and it has to do with Iraq's future, so why should anyone else have a say anyway? Iraq has to take care of Iraq. So their input is the most important.

 

Iran and Syria would love to participate to make it easier to take over Iraq. If I was Iran, and I was an irrational tyrant named Ahmadinejad, I'd just agree to whatever everyone says and then when the americans leave, invade and take over Iraq.

 

What are the americans going to do? Come back? Nah, they're going to run back home with their tails between their legs just like vietnam and shake their heads at themselves when they watch the news of our plundering. Propaganda works both ways and the middle east is much better at it since it's across the ocean and 99% of all americans have no idea what the truth is one way or another and their media is in love with our "noble savage" status.

[geoguy]

So the situation is basically this: most Democrats and a small number of Republicans want out of Iraq. Senator Dick Lugar ® wants out now but doesn't want to force Bush to do it. Harry Reid wants out now and wants to force Bush to do it. What just happened in the Senate is just a continuation of the extremely polarized political climate in this country.

 

You don't see the irony that the topic is a solution for Iraq and not a solution for the mess the USA had gotten itself into. That's why it is no solution at all. You recognize internal American issues but don't mention the factions and names of leaders of factions in Iraq....where the ACTUAL issue is. 'Iraq' is not an American domestic problem between Demos and Reps. It is a problem for Iraqis in Iraq. Real people with real power stuggles, factions, killing, fear to walk the streets. 'Iraq' is not twisting some fat-assed senator's arm in the USA to vote one way or the other.

 

Mention the 'vietnam' war and most americans think of demonstrations, the draft and so on....not vietnam, but the USA. It's the same with Iraq. 'The Iraq War' on Foxnews and CNN is now 90% about internal US politicas and not about Iraq.

 

Your solution is 'how to get the USA out of Iraq'. Not a solution to Iraq.

[Realitycheck]

Iraq will work it out, somehow. Nobody really wants to fight wars. They have been through this. The people making problems for Iraq are anti-America, anti-American involvement, the starving, anti-American snake religious fanatics, the starving anti-American religious fanatics - you kind of have the same 3 themes running through here - starving, religious, and fanatics - many of these have nothing left to live for other than their faith, or they would be happy campers.

 

The more cooperative Iran becomes, the happier everybody will be. I don't buy that they are just totally money-hungry to take over Iraqi oil at the disastrous cost that it would take when they could just buy it at the friendly neighbor discount like anyone would after their oil runs out. I really believe that they are just being conservative and wanting to build their nuclear program to provide energy, at the most core level. Ahmanejad's outburst probably had more to deal with his knowledge of the impending barrage than anything. He knew that the rockets were there and it was just a matter of time. Any nuke sent to Israel would kill and sicken a lot of Moslems and would prompt immediate destruction of Iran by everybody.

 

The thing is that Moslems are religiously centered around their emotions. Islam literally means "submission to God", and since they believe that everything in their life is fated, as long as they are following their rules, they believe that everything they do is within God's will. In this context, if he says Israel will be destroyed publicly, that is ok with his faith, but definitely premature. Much of Israel has become so acceptant of homosexuality (in Tel Aviv they call themselves the Gay Capitol of the World), that the Moslems are completely furious, as that goes against everything they believe in and they amended their religion to agree with Judaism and Christianity after they fought the Christians.

 

I really went off on a tangent there. Maybe it's because it's Friday. Anyways, I really believe that everybody will work it out, especially since Hamas declared that Israel is a reality. Hamas has lost, Hezbollah has lost, Hussein has lost. The only one that is still alive is Al Qaeda, which has kind of disappeared out of our scope, as far as I can tell. Anybody up for some cross country skiing? Geez, nobody else will let them in, but they just keep saying to leave the Middle East alone. Even in the Koran, they say, " ... and one will come." Only thing is, according to their rules, anybody can be The One, they don't have to do any miracles or anything.

[lucaspa]

Hows about the Iraqi government decide how many foreign military forces they want on thier soil, and the coalition moves out if and when they're asked? Seems simpler to me.

 

That simply keeps us in the meatgrinder. What you need to ask is: Will keeping foreign troops on Iraqi soil lead to a stable, peaceful Iraqi democratic government that views the West as a friend? After all, wasn't that the goal to begin with?

 

The point I'm trying to make is that we are in a conflict that we can't win. Any solution that involves some political cover to keeping troops in Iraq has as its premise that the presence of those troops will cause the defeat of the people fighting against us and the Iraqi government. I'm saying that premise is wrong.

 

No matter how long we stay in Iraq, the political and military situation is such that we can't provide a secure democratic secular government there. I think the best we can hope for is Iraq to break up into 3 states and perhaps the Kurdish state can be stable and friendly with us.

 

Iraq will work it out, somehow. Nobody really wants to fight wars.

 

You need to read some history. At several times in history one side or both have really wanted to fight a war. Look at the enthusiasm for the American Civil War on both sides. They get sick of it after a while, but only after LOTS of people are dead. Yes, Iraq will "work it out". It's not going to be pretty.

 

you kind of have the same 3 themes running through here - starving, religious, and fanatics - many of these have nothing left to live for other than their faith, or they would be happy campers.

 

I disagree. I think the victims are starving, but not the fighters.

 

The more cooperative Iran becomes, the happier everybody will be. ... I really believe that they are just being conservative and wanting to build their nuclear program to provide energy, at the most core level.... Any nuke sent to Israel would kill and sicken a lot of Moslems and would prompt immediate destruction of Iran by everybody.

 

I disagree. I think the Iranians really want to become a nuclear power. All they have to do is look at the different ways the West dealt with Iraq and N. Korea. Iraq got invaded because they did NOT have nuclear weapons. N. Korea gets economic aid because it DOES have nuclear weapons. Iran views nuclear weapons as essential to its defense. They are probably correct.

 

The thing is that Moslems are religiously centered around their emotions.

 

That's a foolish generalization. "Anyone who judges by the group is a peawit". Sergeant Kilrain in The Killer Angels. I think you need to read history to see just how worldly and rational Muslims can be. I suggest you start with Saladim.

 

Much of Israel has become so acceptant of homosexuality (in Tel Aviv they call themselves the Gay Capitol of the World), that the Moslems are completely furious, as that goes against everything they believe in and they amended their religion to agree with Judaism and Christianity after they fought the Christians.

 

Where did you get such nonsense? Have you ever heard of what happened in 1948 when Israel was established? Of the forceful eviction of Palestinians in order to have a Jewish state? How about 1967, where Israel conqueored land belonging to other countries and has stayed as an occupying power?

 

And no, Islam was NOT altered after the Crusades. Islam has always accepted the Torah and viewed Jesus as a prophet. The Quran is available online. Perhaps you should try reading it.

 

especially since Hamas declared that Israel is a reality. Hamas has lost, Hezbollah has lost,

 

Say what? Since when has Hamas recognized the state of Israel? And when exactly did Hezbollah lose? Right now they are working to replace Lebanon's government.

 

The only one that is still alive is Al Qaeda, which has kind of disappeared out of our scope, as far as I can tell.

 

Tell that to the troops in Iraq who are fighting al-Qaeda. Haven't you read the latest National Intelligence Estimate? It's at http://www.npr.org.

 

This is like listening to Rush Limbaugh.

[bascule]

...a solution for the mess the USA had gotten itself into... internal American issues but don't mention the factions and names of leaders of factions in Iraq.... It is a problem for Iraqis in Iraq. Your solution is 'how to get the USA out of Iraq'. Not a solution to Iraq.

 

Your entire post seems to omit the fact they don't want us there. Withdrawal is all about giving Iraqis what they want: control of their own country and the absence of an occupying power.

 

The question is: how to do that without plunging the entire country into chaos?

 

We created the mess and it has to do with Iraq's future, so why should anyone else have a say anyway?

 

Because the Iraq insurgency is a regional problem that needs a regional solution.

 

Iran and Syria would love to participate to make it easier to take over Iraq.

 

Huh? Make it easier for who to take over? Iran is dominated by Shia Persians and Syria by Sunni Arabs. Iraq has a Shia Arab majority. Syria and Iran certainly aren't going to work together to conquer Iraq. The Sunni Arabs in Iraq are a minority... even if they worked with Syria they don't have the manpower to conquer the country. The Shia government may have ties to Iran but there are major cultural differences between the Arab and Persian communities. Are you suggesting they'd independently launch invasions, and may the best country win? You're making nonspecific propagandist claims with absolutely no factual backing whatsoever.

 

If I was Iran, and I was an irrational tyrant named Ahmadinejad, I'd just agree to whatever everyone says and then when the americans leave, invade and take over Iraq.

 

If I were an irrational tyrant like Bush, I'd go around raping babies then spitting in their mom's faces. Yeah, baseless speculative ad hominems are fun.

 

What are the americans going to do? Come back?

 

Operate according to a withdrawal timetable that can react to the situation.

 

Nah, they're going to run back home with their tails between their legs just like vietnam and shake their heads at themselves when they watch the news of our plundering. Propaganda works both ways and the middle east is much better at it since it's across the ocean and 99% of all americans have no idea what the truth is one way or another and their media is in love with our "noble savage" status.

 

Are you aware of this thing called reality or do you get your facts exclusively from Fox News?

[Realitycheck]

And no, Islam was NOT altered after the Crusades. Islam has always accepted the Torah and viewed Jesus as a prophet. The Quran is available online. Perhaps you should try reading it.

Thank you for your insight.

 

However, I have read one book which supports my statement, long ago. I have a tendency to say that most of what you hear today is propaganda.

 

The crusaders were reacting to over four centuries of relentless Islamic Jihad, which had wiped out over 50% of all the Christians in the world and conquered over 60% of all the Christian lands on earth – before the crusades even began. Many of the towns liberated by the crusaders were still over 90% Christian when the crusaders arrived. The Middle East was the birthplace of the Christian Church. It was the Christians who had been conquered and oppressed by the Seljuk Turks. So many of the towns in the Middle East welcomed the crusaders as liberators.

http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/crusades_all_about.htm

 

 

 

Much of Israel has become so acceptant of homosexuality (in Tel Aviv they call themselves the Gay Capitol of the World), that the Moslems are completely furious, as that goes against everything they believe in and they amended their religion to agree with Judaism and Christianity after they fought the Christians.

 

Where did you get such nonsense? Have you ever heard of what happened in 1948 when Israel was established? Of the forceful eviction of Palestinians in order to have a Jewish state? How about 1967, where Israel conqueored land belonging to other countries and has stayed as an occupying power?

 

"Tel Aviv to be Gay Capital of the World"

 

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=2&PostID=4675

 

http://www.anu.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=523&PN=1

[ParanoiA]

Huh? Make it easier for who to take over? Iran is ....

 

I didn't mean work together. I mean that I don't trust either of their intentions.

 

If I were an irrational tyrant like Bush, I'd go around raping babies then spitting in their mom's faces. Yeah, baseless speculative ad hominems are fun.

 

It's not ad-hom, it's satire. His character is fair game in the political arena, as is Bush's or any other politician. Your character is not. And I didn't attack your character to avoid any argument.

 

Yes, that was a speculative opinion seeing as how it's in reference to a future event. I believe Ahmadinejad is an irrational tyrant. I also believe he will say one thing and do another concerning Iraq. I also believe that it's puzzling that we, americans, don't see the obvious similarities to the pull-out in vietnam, particularly since that's the war we've been told, repeatedly, this is a rehash of...

 

Operate according to a withdrawal timetable that can react to the situation.

 

This sentence makes no sense. Are you sure you understand my post? I'm talking about after "having left Iraq, and Iran invades, are the americans coming back"...I'm not sure what a timetable, a previous event, would have to do with it?

 

Are you aware of this thing called reality or do you get your facts exclusively from Fox News?

 

Are you aware of this thing called an argument? Or do you rely solely on shallow ad-homs? See, that's what an ad-hom is...attacking the character to avoid the argument.

 

Fox news is the only means by which anyone could come to the conclusion that most of the corporate media is romanticized by terrorist plight? No sir. I heard it on Rush Limbaugh during our mind conditioning session and he told me what to think so I wouldn't have to.

[bascule]

I didn't mean work together. I mean that I don't trust either of their intentions.

 

Funny, I don't trust the Administration's attentions

 

It's not ad-hom, it's satire.

 

Perhaps you should make that clearer...

 

His character is fair game in the political arena, as is Bush's or any other politician. Your character is not. And I didn't attack your character to avoid any argument.

 

An ad hominem can be lodged against anyone, including Ahmadinejad.

 

Yes, that was a speculative opinion seeing as how it's in reference to a future event. I believe Ahmadinejad is an irrational tyrant.

 

I believe Bush is an irrational tyrant

 

I also believe he will say one thing and do another concerning Iraq.

 

I believe Bush will say one thing and do another concerning Iraq. And he actually has a track record we can scrutinize. Yours speculation is baseless.

 

I also believe that it's puzzling that we, americans, don't see the obvious similarities to the pull-out in vietnam, particularly since that's the war we've been told, repeatedly, this is a rehash of...

 

You mean that even Nixon realized that a withdrawal was the best option, and Bush absolutely refuses? So... Bush is stupider than Nixon, more corrupt, or both?

 

This sentence makes no sense. Are you sure you understand my post? I'm talking about after "having left Iraq, and Iran invades, are the americans coming back"...I'm not sure what a timetable, a previous event, would have to do with it?

 

If that's the case, the situation would deserve international attention... the kind America was unable to muster for the original invasion, which was ostensibly unwarranted.

 

Are you aware of this thing called an argument? Or do you rely solely on shallow ad-homs? See, that's what an ad-hom is...attacking the character to avoid the argument.

 

You want me to rehash that paragraph?

 

Nah, they're going to run back home with their tails between their legs just like vietnam and shake their heads at themselves when they watch the news of our plundering.

 

You mean how we lingered in Vietnam even after Nixon declared the withdrawal, which eventually lead to the fall of Saigon?

 

What do you want us to do, wait until the fall of Baghdad before withdrawing from Iraq?

 

Propaganda works both ways and the middle east is much better at it since it's across the ocean and 99% of all americans have no idea what the truth is one way or another and their media is in love with our "noble savage" status.

 

So are you saying that Fox News is a more reliable source of information than Al Jazeera? That's quite a tossup.

 

That said Americans are directly exposed to American media outlets. I don't know what elaborate fantasy you've constructed in your head, but spin doctoring of American news takes place primarily in America.

 

Fox news is the only means by which anyone could come to the conclusion that most of the corporate media is romanticized by terrorist plight? No sir. I heard it on Rush Limbaugh during our mind conditioning session and he told me what to think so I wouldn't have to.

 

Fox News is a tool by which Rupert Murdoch frames the political landscape. Considering their reach, there's no way they can (even facetiously) be compared to a single pundit. They have a pundit army following a centrally dictated script.

 

Al Jazeera practices journalism. CNN practices journalism. CBS practices journalism. Fox News is destroying journalism.

[ParanoiA]

Perhaps you should make that clearer...

 

It was very clear. What isn't clear is whether or not you understand what an ad-hominem is.

 

An ad hominem can be lodged against anyone, including Ahmadinejad.

 

It's not an ad hominem when their character has relevance to the argument - not a red herring to stear away from it. An appraisal of his character is relevant to discussions about international political negotiations.

 

I believe Bush is an irrational tyrant

 

Noted.

 

I believe Bush will say one thing and do another concerning Iraq. And he actually has a track record we can scrutinize. Yours speculation is baseless.

 

Actually Bush's track record has been pretty consistent - as we've all also been reminded over and over again - stay the course. He seems to have done what he said.

 

Ahmadinejad has called for Israel's destruction, in no uncertain terms, when speaking to his people, while changing his tune for the american audience. He has a reputation already. He's also quite violent in his rhetoric about Israel and the west. Where Bush stops short of calls for destruction, blood, and infadels, Ahmadinejad charges full speed ahead.

 

I just don't think very many governments over there share any kind of rationale with us. We need to get out of Iraq, and then out of the whole region.

 

You mean that even Nixon realized that a withdrawal was the best option, and Bush absolutely refuses? So... Bush is stupider than Nixon, more corrupt, or both?

 

I would say both. Nixon at least cared about his country. And the aftermath of the withdrawal should have taught us a lesson. Iraqi security forces, in all of their various forms, need to be prepared for us to go rather than us americans, eternally selfish, pulling out as soon as possible.

 

I think that's the deeper point geoguy was trying to make. We went in for selfish reasons, and now you want to leave for selfish reasons. The adminstration you speak out against so much are guilty for those selfish reasons going in, now you want to emulate them going out?

 

You mean how we lingered in Vietnam even after Nixon declared the withdrawal' date=' which eventually lead to the fall of Saigon?

 

What do you want us to do, wait until the fall of Baghdad before withdrawing from Iraq?[/quote']

 

Oh now that's completely disingenuous. Like the american soldiers had anything to do with the motivation behind taking Saigon. Please...

 

But, you are right about Baghdad though. These are different kinds of peope, and I thought lucaspa's question is the most potent:

 

[b']Will keeping foreign troops on Iraqi soil lead to a stable, peaceful Iraqi democratic government that views the West as a friend?[/b]

 

And I believe the answer is unquestionably, no.

 

That said Americans are directly exposed to American media outlets. I don't know what elaborate fantasy you've constructed in your head, but spin doctoring of American news takes place primarily in America.

 

Well so much for my career in satire... Remember I said "If I was an irrational tryant named Ahmadinejad I would..." So, the media I'm talking about there is the american media. Glad we agree.

 

Sounds like you've just misunderstood my post. Many of us are smart asses by trade, including yourself, I read your posts. It's cool. But sometimes we miss each other. No harm, no foul.

[Pangloss]

K, that's enough of that. Y'all know better than to stoop to that kind of nonsense. Choose again.