Ok, there are many differing views, but what would you do?

[Rmcky]

This will probably propagate more of the mess that's been going on here, but I hope not. If you don't have anything constructive to say, please keep your opinions to yourself or in another appropriate thread.

But, if you were in charge, what would you do now? I'm a lifelong card-holding republican, but before and beyond that I love this country. When we got into this Iraq mess, I was convinced it was the right thing to do. Now, I find I've been lied to and decieved, along with the rest of the world. That turns me off to President Bush and his advisors, however it still hasn't changed my core political beliefs enough to desert my party. I really don't think Kerry is the answer, but that's absolutely opinion and I'd love to be proven wrong. At any rate, that'll shake out in November, so I'm not really interested in any more opinions on that matter.

What I am interested in is reasonable and viable solutions to this mess we find ourselves in. I see an awful lot of highly partisan discussions here concerning what each of the candidates should and might do, but if you were in charge what would you attempt to do?

My feelings are that we're already in too deep to even think we can pull out and desert things at this point. Besides, no matter what happens, I'm gonna continue to support our troops, irregardless of anything else that happens. I really think that, even as weak as the UN appears to be, it's time to let by gones be by gones and get them involved in the solution. A few months ago, I felt totally different, but after the revelations we've seen lately, I'm not so sure that the folks that didn't support our efforts were as off base as I originally thought. Actually, I'm not really sure they weren't absolutely right. I am most certainly disenchanted with Mr. Bush and his advisors. Not sure exactly what he was thinking, because that's vague, at best, but we there now and a solution of some sort has to be found.

At any rate, what do you think the right answer is from either party that might find themselves in power? Personally, I'd hate to have to deal with it.

Rick

[Pexster]

I have to admit, I don't have a clue. A few days ago, I said that we needed reinforcements. But now, even our own provisional council guys are turning against us and quitting or threatening to quit if we ratchet things up. It seems they expect us to do nothing when we're ambushed and killed by Iraqis. Clearly, that is unacceptable.

One thing that comes to mind is a massive publicity campaign, including those Iraqi leaders who want a stable country. Have them tell their people that the sooner they stop the violence, the sooner we leave. And tell influential Iraqis that if it doesn't stop, we're outta there and they can all kill each other. And then if it doesn't stop or slow down, leave as promised.

[Chuckiechan]

It's too bad we have created such a "now" culture. In two weeks or so this problem will have faded into the back ground. Battles take time. Speed increases casualties.

Each uprising allows the US forces to rid the country of a significant number of ememy that dwell in it's midst. We have killed off nearly 1000 of thier militamen, thier very best and best equipped. They are (were) fine, motivated soldiers fighting for the wrong cause, at the wrong time, against the wrong army. We are bringing the fight to the enemy, we are ridding the earth of them and sending them to Allah. We have lost men and equipment, but we are going to win - for keeps.

No, there won't be an endless stream into the pipeline. Iraq's government is in control of the educational system, not the Imam's. (Madrassas). As more of these groups throw themselves into the blender, there will be fewer and fewer to create havok. The death of these people will insure that the new government of Iraq will survive.

Mark the date on your calendar. By then, we'll have found a new crisis to wring our hands over.

[Gomer]

What should we do now?

Very interesting question. Bad times in Iraq if you ask me. BAD!

It is a lose, lose situation. What can America do to save face? What can America do to stench the flow of blood? What can we do that isn't going to cost HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS (a trillion?) OF DOLLARS?

Hard questions... no answers. I wasn't too thrilled about the outlay of my tax dollars for this fiasco from the get go, and any answer is going to cost way more then I ever cared to pay. The ends don't justify the means. I never gave a crap about the poor repressed Iraqi's. We have too many problems here in America that we need to give a damn about that. Iraq never was a "war on terrorism" either if you ask me.

One thing I am sure of... this could have been avoided. An idiot got us into this mess, I won't support him hoping he gets bright all of a sudden. I could very well select another idiot in his place... but at least it is a different idiot. It's gonna be a tough row to hoe no matter who gets the job.

[pickel]

Being since we're dealing with irrational entities, whose purpose is to destory their own country , along with the help of the Saudi's
Iranians and any other Arab based country, I'd do what should have been done as the war progressed....that is..whatever force it takes disarm the insurgents, return the criminals to prison and sort out the those who want to have a life from those who want to create instability and chaos, no matter how many have to bit the bullet. Those running the show have screwed the situation that if the reins aren't pulled in now, the future of our country and it's relationships in the world community, as damaged as they are now, will rapidly decay and lead to a decadance that will irreversably change our daily lives. ( You think $ 2.00 a gallon gas is bad now, just wait til this summer )


Rick , Give me a holler in the morning.

[John Prophet]

There are no solutions to the present problems of the world....it is headed toward a certain definite 'conclusion'...I know it is very hard for people to see that.....but as I have tried to explain and show before....all of these various and sundry problems are narrowing down to religious issues......as we ALL should be able to see at this point if we look with open eyes

the stance taken by the "world" (the EU and the UN) will be that religion and various political systems are the root of all these issues and wars and tensions.....so what will their answer be??

Their answer will be to get rid of all different religions and bring all the countries of the world under one govt and one "state" religion.....all these things you see in the news everyday are just preliminary struggles leading to that end. The soon to be launched EU constitution, the "Earth Charter", RFID technology, even the patriot act...all of these things are headed to that one end. Once you know that much....watching the news everyday is like watching a movie play out when someone has already told you the ending.


So dont strain yourself trying to find a solution to Iraq...or "China/Taiwan/North-South Korea" or "Muslim/Christian" or "rich/poor" or "left/right" or gay/straight.

JP

edit..oh yeah..especially dont strain the brain trying to "fix" the Israeli/Jewish/Palestinian/Muslim issues...although they are nearer the heart of the true issue

[capybara]

"It's too bad we have created such a "now" culture. In two weeks or so this problem will have faded into the back ground. Battles take time."
ChuckieChan calls it 100% right, once again.
=======================================
yeah watch and see, june 30 transfer of power to the new iraqi government, we declare victory and withdraw to our new,
permanent, military bases in iraq, one of which is now being built in the Sunni Triangle.
after that, if the people of iraq with to riot/ civil war
against each other, its no longer our problem.

[Knothead]

[RANT] Here's what I would do as President: Recognise that we are sick to death of the festering, barbaric sore that is Iran and Iraq, and build a freakin' WALL around this particular armpit of the world, and station our military forces in comfy emcampments that would see to it that Nothing goes in, and NOTHING comes out!

I mean, screw 'em! Why must the whole world have to deal with their 4,000 year-old nonsense? If they haven't had the sense to sort out their own idiocy (as every OTHER civilized country on planet Earth has.) then let's staunch the flow of insanity and create a sort of "mental ward" in that part of the world.

What have we got to lose? Yeesh, the actual cultured and intelligent-types are already living in London, or Austria, or the USA!

They had the sense to get the hell out!

Why are we so slow to catch on to what's happening over there? Anybody that would masacre and mutilate the bodies of U.S. forces is not a people worth our so-called consideration. SCREW 'EM!

Let's ABANDON the place, and BUILD A FREAKIN' WALL around it!


[rant off]

Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest.

[Atomic Rooster]

Let's say we just dump a couple of nukes on their heads and turn the place into a giant sand pit.

[uncle_jimbo]

what would i do...

now im not trying to sound crazy, i would try to start fighting in the vietnam style... sorta, with the same sort of numbers or more (650,000 - 890,000), some quick reaction teams, and what vietnam didnt really have, permanent occupation forces outside cities in captured areas. a week ago i wouldnt have had this idea, but now it seems we have an organized militia as an enemy thats trying to, and has succeded a few times, capture cities/areas. make it very difficult for the enemy to operate efficiently. also, though it sounds REALLY bad to do, you probably dont want and iraqi residents leaving the country, who knows, one may be affiliated with a militia, of course diplomatic officials could leave on business. and then we prepare for the long haul ahead of us. all IMO. this isnt really that much of a solution, but the way i figure it, its the best shot we've got.

[Rmcky]

Interesting ideas, for sure. I wonder if we actually have 650 to 850K troops to send if we were so inclined. I've seen posts in other threads that sparked my imagination, too. I equate this to a similar senario as helping a drug addict, you can do it until their willing to help themselves. For what is perceived as such a tough group of people, they certainly don't seem to have the stomach for getting involved in their own fight for freedom. I think that until that happens, we're probaly just stuck in a big mess. Seems we need a real motivator on the ground over there. I feel certain that most of them, being a virtual 3rd world country, don't even have a concept of what freedom would mean to them. Add to that all the fear and disappointment they've suffered over time, they probably wouldn't have the resolve to maintain it afterwards anyway. Lost cause? I don't know, myself.

I sincerely hope and pray that Chuckiechan is right and that this is nothing more than a minor bump in the road, however it's beginning to look like no one told the other side we already won this war.

Rick

[MTAtech]

I think any rational person would agree that the decision to rush into optional war with Iraq was not a wise one.

We can’t go back in time, so, assuming that the electorate punishes the leaders that caused this problem, the debate should shift to what to do now?

The problem that I see with Iraq and why the Iraqis are rebelling is three main things, TRUST, CONTROL and LEGITIMACY. The Iraqis do not trust that democracy is really our motive. They see a U.S. government that supported Saddam for most of his reign in power. They think that the U.S. is interested only in controlling the Iraqi oil fields. Seeing that the U.S. is greedily reserving contracts for only U.S. or British companies helps prove that suspicion.

The U.S. want s to control the destiny of Iraq. We say we want democracy but only a democracy that is a pro-western, pro-American democracy. To Iraqis, that is not democracy. The U.S. has installed exiles, some of who have shady backgrounds, to rule the country in prior to elections. These leaders have no legitimacy.

What we need to do is truly internationalize Iraq, bring in Moslem nations as part of peacekeeping, share decision making with local leaders and put to sleep the notion of ‘privatization’ – selling off Iraq oil assets to private companies.

This is a brief of something complex.

[Theophylact]

We desperately need help from our real allies (not Bulgaria and Uzbekistan, for example). And we need the active participation of the UN. We're not going to get either until and unless someone in this administration can admit we were wrong, heedless and pigheaded.

One of the commentators I read (can't remember which) said that asking those who opposed the war what they would do now in Iraq is a little unfair. He said (roughly), "It's like you're the passenger in a car that the driver is driving recklessly. You keep telling him to ease up, but he won't listen. And as the car careens over a cliff, he turns to you and says, 'Okay, Mr. Smartypants, what would you do now?'"

[capybara]

"I'm a lifelong card-holding republican, but before and beyond that I love this country. When we got into this Iraq mess, I was convinced it was the right thing to do. Now, I find I've been lied to and decieved, along with the rest of the world."
====================================
OK, NO WMDS WERE IN IRAQ. BUT SADDAM WAS A FRIEND OF AL QUEDA AND WOULDVE BUILT wmds given enuf time. so we're all better off without him. and we're all better off with new, permanent USA military bases in iraq and afghanistan, keeping an eye
on that critical part of the world. that part of the world has most of the worlds oil, and most of the worlds terrorists. what would i do?
stay the course. june 30 turn over power to new iraqi govt, which has neither saddam nor wmds. declare victory. hold victory parades. keep as many permanent military bases there as we feel
useful.

[RayH]

Get a United Nations referendum and pull out. I said before the invasion, like it or not Saddam Hussein was the better of the choices that was in Iraq.

[MTAtech]

Originally posted by capybara
OK, NO WMDS WERE IN IRAQ. BUT SADDAM WAS A FRIEND OF AL QUEDA AND WOULDVE BUILT wmds given enuf time.

INCORRECT Al-Qaeda and Saddam were not friends, they were idiological opposites. Although the Bush administration made that assertion, they have now backed away from the claim. Both Pres. Bush and Sec'y Powell admitted that there was no connection between the Saddam and al Qaeda.

Chief U.N. inspector Blix said that there were no active WMD programs for the last 10 years.

SOURCES:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1022724/posts
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05...ort/index.html

[TOAD6147]

INCORRECT Al-Qaeda and Saddam were not friends, they were idiological opposites.

Give it up MTAtech. Some, many just can't get past that belief no matter how many truthful reports to the contrary you show them.

[Patrick]

There is no stronger bond of friendship than a mutual enemy. •Frankfort Moore Okay, I had to look up Frankfort Moore. He wrote "Phyllis of Philistia". I think there is plenty of evidence that politicians have no ideology other than maintaining power.