My brilliant solution for Iraq - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-05-2006, 12:11 PM   #31
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 12:32 PM
Here is a proponent of 'go-big', meaning that US should commit 50,000 more troops to Iraq to stabilize the country.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8a848c2e-727...0779e2340.html

Bush must call for reinforcements in Iraq
By Robert Kagan and William Kristol

Published: November 12 2006 18:41 | Last updated: November 12 2006 18:41

President George W. Bush has just over two years left in office. The central question facing him is: what kind of Iraq will he bequeath to his successor? Will it be a metastasising mess dumped on the doorstep of the next president, or an Iraq on the path to stability and success? The answer will determine how this president should be remembered by future generations.

There are, of course, other grave issues that will consume the Bush administration over the next two years: the continuing need to defend Americans from terrorist threats; Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons; containment and weakening of a nuclear-armed North Korea; an increasingly belligerent Russia; and manifold challenges presented by a rising China. But the fact remains that Mr Bush (correctly, in our view) took the nation to war to remove Saddam Hussein, and the success or failure of that war will be central to his legacy.


ADVERTISEMENT
The trajectory is downward towards failure. Indeed, this has been the case for more than three years, ever since Pentagon officials decided to put far too few troops in Iraq to bring stability after Hussein’s ousting. The result has been not only a consistently inadequate level of forces. The endless cycle of promised draw-downs, deteriorating security and cancellation of the proposed draw-downs has been politically disastrous in both Iraq and the US.

In Iraq, US policies have steadily undermined public confidence that America has either the will or capacity to provide the security Iraqis need. So they have turned to their own sectarian armed groups for protection. That, and not historical inevitability or the alleged failings of the Iraqi people, has brought Iraq closer to civil war.

These policies have been equally damaging in the US. The American people have rightly judged that the administration is floundering in Iraq and, worse, is not committed to doing what is necessary to succeed. This perception undoubtedly played a large part in last week’s mid-term election. Now, many Americans are looking to the Iraq Study Group, the commission headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, for a face-saving, bipartisan way to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible. The great irony is that with nothing new to offer, the Baker commission’s forthcoming report – if it takes the shape most observers predict – will probably suffer the same fate as similar past efforts.

There is a popular theory that the prospect of US withdrawal will force Iraqis to reach an accommodation with one another. This would be more plausible had it not been disproved by three years of painful experience. Instead of looking for a face-saving way to lose in Iraq, President Bush could finally demand of his top advisers a strategy to succeed: provide the US force levels necessary to achieve even minimal political objectives. This could begin by increasing US troops in Iraq by at least 50,000 in order to clear and hold Baghdad without shifting troops from other parts of Iraq. These operations could then be expanded into areas of insurgency. This strategy would not stabilise the country right away but could secure Iraq’s vital centre and provide real hope for progress.

Those who claim that 50,000 more troops do not exist to send to Iraq are wrong. But it is true that US ground forces are stretched, and that steps are needed to increase their overall size.

If the president undertook to send the necessary troops, we have no doubt many likely recommendations from the Baker commission would make sense and could be supported. We share the commission’s belief that the administration should actively seek bipartisan support for its approach to Iraq. Democratic hopefuls for the 2008 presidential elections should welcome any effort to ensure they are not left to deal with a collapsing country. There is much easy talk of how a victory strategy in Iraq has been rendered impossible by Tuesday’s elections. This is nonsense. First, victory in Iraq is a national priority, and to abandon it because of a loss of House and Senate seats would be irresponsible. The Republican loss was largely due to lack of confidence that Mr Bush had a victory strategy for Iraq, not a belief that he was not exiting fast enough. If the president makes clear he has such a strategy, he will have the support to do what is necessary.

As for the Baker commission’s likely recommendation that the US should engage Syria and Iran in the search for solutions in Iraq, we are sceptical these countries want to help. But it is one thing to seek their help while the US is losing and its negotiating position is weakest, and quite another to engage in such diplomacy while increasing US force levels to try to improve the security situation.

Finally, as others have noted, if the Iraqis choose to organise their country in a less “unified” and more “federated” way, that is fine – as long as it is peaceful and stable. A peaceful, federated Iraq will, however, require no less of a commitment of US troops to provide security than a unitary one.

The president has two years to turn things around and leave a viable Iraq to the next president. It should be obvious that “staying the course” is a recipe for failure. So are politically driven exit strategies. The president is left with the choice: quit, or do what is necessary to succeed. We trust he understands that the task before him in Iraq is to find a strategy for success.


Robert Kagan is author of “Dangerous Nation” (Alfred A. Knopf) and a contributing editor at The Weekly Standard. William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard. This article is based on a longer essay in this week’s Standard.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
__________________

__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 12:15 PM   #32
New Yorker
 
U2 Beginner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Luton, England
Posts: 3,123
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Re: My brilliant solution for Iraq

Quote:
Originally posted by Butterscotch
I don't know why no one has thought of it. There is NO way this country can exist as one entity when it is comprised of factions who all hate each other. Just as with Yugoslavia, Iraq is nothing more than a creation of those post WWI political heads who thought they were doing the right thing in divvying up the world after the collapse of the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottman empires. They often, for convenience's sake, drew lines around places that should never have been lumped into one country in the first place. There has been lots of trouble ever since.

The only real solution to stopping the factional violence is to separate the country of Iraq into regions- one for the Kurds, one for the Shiites, one for each type of Sunnis. Then no one would feel they had to fight the other for control of the government! Separate automous regions, or even countries, would settle these unsolvable differences. For a few years, UN sanctioned peacekeepers could guard the borders and see how it goes.

What do you think?
__________________

__________________
U2 Beginner is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 12:49 PM   #33
War Child
 
menelaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hellas, and God knows where else you 've got your tape recorders turned on...
Posts: 652
Local Time: 11:32 AM
NATO forces may be a kind of solution but since E.U. (except Britain) is strictly against the war in Iraq, especially Germany and France, I don't see how US will convict these powers to get involveed in the civil war.
NATO forces already face tremendous difficulties in Afganistan wich -imo- is "easier" than Iraq
Also the willing of the common people in Europe is against any involvement in Iraq...They know the war was based in fake documents -Have they found any WoMD already..?- and they don't want to fight for Bush's oil companies...Any goverment that will sent troops in Iraq is sentenced to fall...
__________________
menelaos is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 01:57 PM   #34
War Child
 
Butterscotch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 716
Local Time: 09:32 AM
I didn't know it had been suggested by others, good idea they have

I still see it as the most viable option, nothing else is working, and the LAST thing that's ever going to work is ONE of those factions controlling the whole country and everyone being happy with that.

The second to last thing that's never going to happen is a western style democracy where everyone in Iraq happily lives in particleboard suburban houses with tan siding and drive expensive cars to Yuppie jobs and shop at malls. That may be Bush's dream, but it is not realistic considering the culture and inhabitants of the area!

As far as some people having to move, well, the way things are going, everyone's home and business are going to be destroyed by the infighting anyway, might as well start over somewhere else. The person who mentioned that the Kurds and Shiites would be happy with their regions but the Sunnis wouldn't because they got the wasteland, good point, but I'm sure something could be worked out to give them a share of the oil? I mean, if people really want peace and not to take the oil for themselves? (US included!)

The thing about Turkey and the Kurds, that is true, but again, the borders (in my plan) would be secured (at least for a few years) by UN peacekeepers- borders between regions and with possibly volatile neighbors.

On the common sense side, WHY can't the Turks just let their Kurds go too? What do you achieve by continually attacking people and holding them down just to say you are over them? Do you really want to be? Maybe something needs to be done about this too. (not a war, but some kind of negotiation) It's terrible how the Kurds have been treated through time. It should be considered unacceptable by the civilized world!
__________________
Butterscotch is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 02:20 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by menelaos
NATO forces may be a kind of solution but since E.U. (except Britain) is strictly against the war in Iraq, especially Germany and France, I don't see how US will convict these powers to get involveed in the civil war.
It's not the E.U. with the exception of Britain.

Politically, Denmark, Poland, Italy, Spain (until government changed), Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czech Rebublic, Slovenia, and Hungary support the war or even sent troops.

The public was in nearly every country against the war.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 03:17 PM   #36
War Child
 
menelaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hellas, and God knows where else you 've got your tape recorders turned on...
Posts: 652
Local Time: 11:32 AM
I can't talk about Netherlands or Denmark but Spain was ruled at that time by right-wing Prime-Minister, Poland tends to be America's second close ally in E.U. after England and is now ruled by twins -more like caricatures- with extreme right policies, Italy was uder Berlusconi's presidency -we all know what this mean-.
Moreover, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Hungary were all under the Soviet Union umbrella, they joined E.U. in 2004 officially but their goverments follow U.S. policies because they are "new" and weak...
Slovenia is a 10-15 years country that is also weak...
So the goverments that support U.S. are either too weak either follow the famous moto "divide and conquer"-aka Britain-...

With the exception of Britain and Italy, all the other countries especially the smaller ones where the puppets, that were needed to legalise the war in the eyes of world...
__________________
menelaos is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 03:29 PM   #37
War Child
 
menelaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hellas, and God knows where else you 've got your tape recorders turned on...
Posts: 652
Local Time: 11:32 AM
off-topic:

Quote:
Originally posted by Butterscotch
On the common sense side, WHY can't the Turks just let their Kurds go too? What do you achieve by continually attacking people and holding them down just to say you are over them? Do you really want to be? Maybe something needs to be done about this too. (not a war, but some kind of negotiation) It's terrible how the Kurds have been treated through time. It should be considered unacceptable by the civilized world!
In this country 1 year ago one author was accused for offending the "Turkishness" because one fictional character in one of his books said something bad about Turkey...

Also they have invaded in E.U. territories (they hold illegaly 40% of Cyprus island and don't recognize the rest), are responsinble for the Armenian Genocide -wich also don't recognize as a fact and break the relations with countries they do (France)-, have white cells, about 30 prisoners have died during the last years due to hunger strike, don't recognize the right for someone to be Kurd and deny the teaching of his native language in school, and constantly violate the human rights....

have I answered your question..?
__________________
menelaos is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 04:17 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Butterscotch
On the common sense side, WHY can't the Turks just let their Kurds go too? What do you achieve by continually attacking people and holding them down just to say you are over them? Do you really want to be? Maybe something needs to be done about this too. (not a war, but some kind of negotiation) It's terrible how the Kurds have been treated through time. It should be considered unacceptable by the civilized world!
The Kurds have really had a time of it.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 04:24 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by menelaos
I can't talk about Netherlands or Denmark but Spain was ruled at that time by right-wing Prime-Minister, Poland tends to be America's second close ally in E.U. after England and is now ruled by twins -more like caricatures- with extreme right policies, Italy was uder Berlusconi's presidency -we all know what this mean-.
Moreover, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Hungary were all under the Soviet Union umbrella, they joined E.U. in 2004 officially but their goverments follow U.S. policies because they are "new" and weak...
Slovenia is a 10-15 years country that is also weak...
So the goverments that support U.S. are either too weak either follow the famous moto "divide and conquer"-aka Britain-...

With the exception of Britain and Italy, all the other countries especially the smaller ones where the puppets, that were needed to legalise the war in the eyes of world...
I know these countries had different reasons for participating or just bad politicians, like Berlusconi and Aznar.
Just wanted to make clear that it'S not the entire EU with the exception of Great Britain that's participating.
Denmark and the Netherlands participate. Denmark even wants to increase their military forces in Iraq.

But their is no public majority in any of these countries, and the EU is speaking with everything but one voice in this situation.

Even though most of the states only joined in May 2004, they alread knew when the Iraq war broke out that they will become a member of the EU.

Kvasnievsky, the former president of Poland, recently gave an interview saying that he only participated for the reasons you stated, that his country was too weak to say no.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 05:24 PM   #40
War Child
 
menelaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hellas, and God knows where else you 've got your tape recorders turned on...
Posts: 652
Local Time: 11:32 AM
Unfortunately you 're right about E.U. multi voice...
__________________
menelaos is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 07:24 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 10:32 AM
No worries. Think about the way we argued in the last century. We've made so much progress, and we will come to one voice in the future.
Before that we will have to go through some fire tests.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 12-06-2006, 06:57 AM   #42
War Child
 
menelaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hellas, and God knows where else you 've got your tape recorders turned on...
Posts: 652
Local Time: 11:32 AM
Off topic:

opinion: If we want to become a "united states of europe" kind of country we must kick out England...
__________________
menelaos is offline  
Old 12-06-2006, 09:51 AM   #43
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by menelaos
off-topic:



In this country 1 year ago one author was accused for offending the "Turkishness" because one fictional character in one of his books said something bad about Turkey...

Also they have invaded in E.U. territories (they hold illegaly 40% of Cyprus island and don't recognize the rest), are responsinble for the Armenian Genocide -wich also don't recognize as a fact and break the relations with countries they do (France)-, have white cells, about 30 prisoners have died during the last years due to hunger strike, don't recognize the right for someone to be Kurd and deny the teaching of his native language in school, and constantly violate the human rights....

have I answered your question..?
I am not even going to go into these barrage of allegations.

Shortly: Solution in Cyprus is of course desirable but apparently not by the Greek Cypriots. The so called genocide is just 'alleged' and whatever the French parliament says, for that matter, will not change this. Kurds do have the right to learn Kurdish, they are allowed to open Kurdish courses if they like by law, but no one is apparently interested. The prisoners who died demanded to be placed in the same barracks, so that they can have a good time with the stuff they smuggled in instead of living the prison life.

Anyway, please don't spout the Greek national agenda at every single chance you get, cause it is not relevant here.
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 12-06-2006, 09:57 AM   #44
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Butterscotch
I didn't know it had been suggested by others, good idea they have

I still see it as the most viable option, nothing else is working, and the LAST thing that's ever going to work is ONE of those factions controlling the whole country and everyone being happy with that.

The second to last thing that's never going to happen is a western style democracy where everyone in Iraq happily lives in particleboard suburban houses with tan siding and drive expensive cars to Yuppie jobs and shop at malls. That may be Bush's dream, but it is not realistic considering the culture and inhabitants of the area!

As far as some people having to move, well, the way things are going, everyone's home and business are going to be destroyed by the infighting anyway, might as well start over somewhere else. The person who mentioned that the Kurds and Shiites would be happy with their regions but the Sunnis wouldn't because they got the wasteland, good point, but I'm sure something could be worked out to give them a share of the oil? I mean, if people really want peace and not to take the oil for themselves? (US included!)

The thing about Turkey and the Kurds, that is true, but again, the borders (in my plan) would be secured (at least for a few years) by UN peacekeepers- borders between regions and with possibly volatile neighbors.

On the common sense side, WHY can't the Turks just let their Kurds go too? What do you achieve by continually attacking people and holding them down just to say you are over them? Do you really want to be? Maybe something needs to be done about this too. (not a war, but some kind of negotiation) It's terrible how the Kurds have been treated through time. It should be considered unacceptable by the civilized world!
You don't really have a clue how they were treated and why, so I'll spare that for another time. UN peacekeepers will not work out because, well, lets face it, they will not be able to stop the wave of terrorism Turkey is afraid of.

On the common sense side, which country would surrender its territory to some random minority? If they want to go and live in Northern Iraq, no one is stopping them. But if they are going to live within our borders, they are bound by our laws and their duties as citizens. No one is 'attacking them' or 'keeping them down' either, you shouldn't make things up, especially if you don't know what youre talking about.
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 12-06-2006, 10:40 AM   #45
War Child
 
menelaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hellas, and God knows where else you 've got your tape recorders turned on...
Posts: 652
Local Time: 11:32 AM
all_i_want:
Firstly: I marked this particular post as off-topic,
Secondly, during the -you said- "so called genocide" a number of 800.000 to 1.000.000 people were killed,
Thirdly, I never mentioned anything about a solution in Cyprus the matter is very complicated and if you want you can create a separate topic to discuss it, it could be interesting,
Moreover if something that I mentioned is lie, point it, to discuss it as well.

Now let's go back to the main topic...
__________________

__________________
menelaos is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com