Your HOP Plan for Iraq

[USMC the Almighty]

So if I can assume, you are suggesting we will lose this war...and if we do, whose fault would you lay blame one just as a matter of curiousity?

Obviously, it's the fault of whichever President withdraws the troops but I think it would be unfair to lay the blame solely on his shoulders. You could rightly put a lot of blame on the Bush Administration for its dreadful handling of the war in its earlier stages in its reluctance to use enough troops early on.

In addition, some blame deserves to be placed on the Democrats and the media for their eternal pessimism at the first signs of struggle in Iraq and for their premature clamoring for withdrawl.

And lastly, the American people. They have largely made it a political impossibility to continue to support this war. Maybe Lincoln was right -- you can't win a war with significant public dissent.

I also wonder if the level of violence might actually go down if US troops are pulled. I say this because it appears to me that a fair amount of the violence between Iraqis has to do with retaliation for working with the coalition forces. Sure they are drawn on sectarian differences, but what has triggered the latest round of it, is that the Shia in a very loose general term are working with the coalition and the Sunni's dont like that.

Although Iran is a concern no doubt, I think(or hope) similar to the Iran-Iraq war that Iraqis will largely put aside thier sectarian differences and fight against the Iranians.

Violence might go down after the ensuing genocide and will only be kept down with large-scale oppression and brutality.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

Ok Folks, we spend a lot of time talking about and criticizing one side or the other on the Iraq issue. Your task is to hash out and come up with a plan to make Iraq a peaceful democracy by the Presidential election in 2008.

A few things I would do.
Remove any elected official with ties to terror groups

Immediatly institute a local hire policy only for reconstruction jobs.
No more western contractors doing jobs that Iraqis can do themselves and for much cheaper and safely. By giving them meaningful jobs especially the ones being taken by westerners will encourage the military aged men to lay down thier arms and pick up shovels.

Create a dividend fund from oil revenues that will go to every Iraqi regardless of thier ethnic make up. This would be similar to the system in Alaska. Where for arguments sake, the first five years of the program %25 of petroleum revenues are set aside and invested in safe ventures, especially Iraqi ones. After 5 years, pay equal dividends to Iraqis. This gives them all a share in the oil wealth that belongs to them.

Institute strict gun laws.
This stems from every Iraqi home having an allowable AK-47. Now I am not a fan of gun control, but this will make it easy to identify those still wanting to engage in military action against Iraqis and Americans. If you have a gun, you are going to be arrested.

This is a start for me, I will add more later. I am curious as to hear anyone elses thoughts on what would really make a difference in making Iraq viable.

There is no possibility of peace in Iraq in 2008 or any time in the foreseable future. Not under the current conditions. Not with 160,000 US troops. At best we can sustain a stalemate. Clearly the Bush administration policies have failed to meet expectation.
We have two choices. We could go all out in Iraq. Reinstitute the draft. Send in three or four times the number of troops we have there now. That might do the job. But since there is no domestic political incentive to do so, it won't happen.
Other choice. Begin a gradual withdrawal of US troops now. That should provide some incentive for Iraqi politicians to come to a reasonable accomodation with each other. The Iraqi government will have to stand on it's own sooner or later. If it doesn't it will end up like the government of South Vietnam.

 

[SW85]

The vapid ranting of a relativist.

I wish you knew what that word meant.

Just goes to show that you have no idea what this country is supposed to be about.

Oh, for god's sake. This country is not "about" anything. It is not a proposition; propositions don't issue passports. It's a country, with a real history and a real culture and a real quality of life. The only concern of the government is promoting those things, not whatever it is you think this country is about.

It pretty well defines your concept of this country's strategic international and military policies.

I haven't yet defined what I consider to be in our national interests, and I've only argued that it ought to be priority and not some half-assed obsession with "moral credibility" that enables us to feel better about ourselves while we grovel for help from the people whose help we don't actually need and who aren't willing to give it, anyway.

Morality becomes more relative every day.

Wait, you acknowledge this, knowing that your position favors "moral credibility" above concrete things like national interest, but then you say that I'm a moral relativist?

The fact that you don't get the concept of "moral credibility" is not at all surprising. People often choose not to understand something when it suites their purpose.

There's no understanding it. It's a meaningless buzzword liberals use to derail any effort to protect our national interest. I have seen no indication otherwise, especially as the closest thing liberals come to an explanation of it is that it's something you "just wouldn't understand" if you're not a liberal.

 

[Bunz]

Obviously, it's the fault of whichever President withdraws the troops

I dont see how much blame can be put on them considering what the situation on the ground to work with potentially will be. With costs exponentially more than was protrayed by the Bush administration, a rising death toll and little progress in security. Not to mention the fact the iraqi government doesnt seem interested in stopping the violence. They appear to be warehoused in the green zone due to the serious and constant threat of assasination, they have lost touch with the people they attempt to govern.

You could rightly put a lot of blame on the Bush Administration for its dreadful handling of the war in its earlier stages in its reluctance to use enough troops early on.

I think the Bush admin. deserves much more blame that what your placing on them.

In addition, some blame deserves to be placed on the Democrats

A little, but as the opposition party in an unfavorable war, it is thier responsibility to ask questions and demand results.

the media for their eternal pessimism at the first signs of struggle in Iraq and for their premature clamoring for withdrawl.

The media a bit maybe, but I dont like to blame them for much. It is ultimately the consumer of the media who interprets the message.

And lastly, the American people. They have largely made it a political impossibility to continue to support this war. Maybe Lincoln was right -- you can't win a war with significant public dissent.

Lincoln probably was right, but how do you blame the people? We continue to fund this endeavor through our taxes among many other things.

Interesting that none of the blame you mention is directed at the military. I am not suggesting one bit that the soldiers and marines on the ground arent doing the best they can. But certainly leadership failures have happened in the military, from the fresh LT to the JCS.

Violence might go down after the ensuing genocide and will only be kept down with large-scale oppression and brutality.

I simply have a sinking feeling that there wouldnt be a great genocide as has been thrown around by many, mostly in my eyes as a scare tactic to add to another reason of already misleading ones on why we are there. I think there will surely be some violence, and maybe more violent than today is, but the secular violence in Baghdad from a year ago in the aftermath of the Samarra bombing as gone down. One could attribute this to the surge, but there are surely other factors as well.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I simply have a sinking feeling that there wouldnt be a great genocide as has been thrown around by many, mostly in my eyes as a scare tactic to add to another reason of already misleading ones on why we are there. I think there will surely be some violence, and maybe more violent than today is, but the secular violence in Baghdad from a year ago in the aftermath of the Samarra bombing as gone down. One could attribute this to the surge, but there are surely other factors as well.

If we leave Iraq, then Iran (primarily Shia) will come in to squash the Sunnis, then you will have Saudi Arabia (primarily Sunni) move in to Iraq in order to help their Sunni brethren. What you get is an all out civil war.

Ahmadenijad has said that he will go to Iran and his actions indicate this. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Perhaps if we had taken other dictators like Hitler or Stalin at their word, thousands of lives could've been saved.

 

[Bunz]

I mentioned earlier, that the same thought process you laid down was apparent in the Iran-Iraq war. The Shia would side with the Iranians and being the majority population. But the fact of the matter is nationalism won the day and the Iraqi Shia remained loyal to the Iraq side. That may be chalked up to the grip Saddam had, but I am unsure.
This all might be wishful thinking on my part, I will readily admit that. I guess my questions are these, how much of the sectarian killings are due to one side working with coalition forces(Shia) and the Sunni's launching attacks against them, and then it becomes a tit-for-tat situation. And, how much violence are the American troops actually preventing vs. how much they might be the general cause of. I dont think this is done on purpose, but Id like to hear anyones thoughts on those.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

I wish you knew what that word meant.



Oh, for god's sake. This country is not "about" anything. It is not a proposition; propositions don't issue passports. It's a country, with a real history and a real culture and a real quality of life. The only concern of the government is promoting those things, not whatever it is you think this country is about.



I haven't yet defined what I consider to be in our national interests, and I've only argued that it ought to be priority and not some half-assed obsession with "moral credibility" that enables us to feel better about ourselves while we grovel for help from the people whose help we don't actually need and who aren't willing to give it, anyway.



Wait, you acknowledge this, knowing that your position favors "moral credibility" above concrete things like national interest, but then you say that I'm a moral relativist?



There's no understanding it. It's a meaningless buzzword liberals use to derail any effort to protect our national interest. I have seen no indication otherwise, especially as the closest thing liberals come to an explanation of it is that it's something you "just wouldn't understand" if you're not a liberal.

Relativism: The theory that all truth is relative to the individual and to the time or place in which he acts.
Your statements exemplify that definition. Your complete lack of coherent argument combined with feeble rationalizations laced with obvious agenda only serves to make my point for me. Your professed ignorance of morality reveals a deeper problem.
Pretty funny though. I'll bet so called "conservatives" would be surprised to learn that moral credibility doesn't really mean anything. Really just something for liberals to worry about. Hilarious. Also, I like the way you just completely ignore history. This country is not about anything? Where have you been? I see now why you are so uncomfortable with questions of morality.

 

[Chip]

The sole reason we invaded Iraq was to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights.

We acted thusly as murderous thieves.

We did so because Saddam was threatening to stop selling Iraqi special, light, sweet crude to us, crude we had been receiving for decades, as soon as the sanctions against him choosing new trading partners ended ... and those sanctions were about to end ... when we invaded.

We did not invade Iraq as the Bush and Senate Security Commision lies presented: WMDs, terrorism, "evil" dictator, stop Jihad of radical Muslims, etc. These were all lies told the rank and file of Congress and the public for the sake of using unjustified fear to garner support. Had they told the truth, the real reason for the invasion, we would have impeached them all to prevent the predicted slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, a slaughter that indeed came to pass, a slaughter wherein nearly half of those massacred were children, with a median age of eight years-old.

Nor did we invade for the cynical excuses told by the opposition: jobs for Halliburton, profits for the oil industry, revenge for "Daddy" Bush, further Christian ministry, etc. These were just easy ways of keeping the opposition placated ... without having to face the truth.

The hard economic fact is that if we had lost the special light, sweet Iraqi crude oil, for which there is no alternative supply anywhere in the world, Iraqi crude that accounts for nearly 20% of the foreign crude refined in California alone, that loss would have plunged America into a devastating domino-chain depression, taking our allies with us.

So we spent many billions of dollars ... to save many trillions of dollars in loss.

It was the economically "prudent" thing to do.

But ... it was still wrong.

Now we face the spectre of having to pay for our crimes against humanity ... and as more and more GOP Congress members are learning the truth of why we invaded Iraq, they are distancing themselves from Bush in the hope of not getting singed by the fire of impeachment that is headed his way.

The truth I tell here is criculating in many e-mails that are deluging Congress and the White House.

The public is learning the truth, the truth it previously couldn't handle.

The right thing to do now is to turn Iraq over to the U.N., minus U.S. assistance, so that Iraq can call on the U.N. for help if it wants to. And the right thing to do is for America to leave Iraq and let Iraqis use the U.N. to help them put their country back together again. And the right thing to do is for us to pay trillions in crimes-against-humanity reparations to Iraq, and to apologize to everyone for the crimes of Bush and the Senate Security Committe, a committe which also includes Ted Kennedy.

We will likely lose our Iraqi crude after all ... and it will be difficult to endure the depression we merely forestalled.

But if we get creative, and find that greatly needed energy alternative ... or change the way we live to be more healthy ... we will not only courageously weather the storm, but we will feel so much better about ourselves than we do now.

Our self-respect, as well as our respect for the very lives of others, demands that we do this, the right thing, now.

 

[OPGhostdog]

The sole reason we invaded Iraq was to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights.

We acted thusly as murderous thieves.

We did so because Saddam was threatening to stop selling Iraqi special, light, sweet crude to us, crude we had been receiving for decades, as soon as the sanctions against him choosing new trading partners ended ... and those sanctions were about to end ... when we invaded.

We did not invade Iraq as the Bush and Senate Security Commision lies presented: WMDs, terrorism, "evil" dictator, stop Jihad of radical Muslims, etc. These were all lies told the rank and file of Congress and the public for the sake of using unjustified fear to garner support. Had they told the truth, the real reason for the invasion, we would have impeached them all to prevent the predicted slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, a slaughter that indeed came to pass, a slaughter wherein nearly half of those massacred were children, with a median age of eight years-old.

Nor did we invade for the cynical excuses told by the opposition: jobs for Halliburton, profits for the oil industry, revenge for "Daddy" Bush, further Christian ministry, etc. These were just easy ways of keeping the opposition placated ... without having to face the truth.

The hard economic fact is that if we had lost the special light, sweet Iraqi crude oil, for which there is no alternative supply anywhere in the world, Iraqi crude that accounts for nearly 20% of the foreign crude refined in California alone, that loss would have plunged America into a devastating domino-chain depression, taking our allies with us.

So we spent many billions of dollars ... to save many trillions of dollars in loss.

It was the economically "prudent" thing to do.

But ... it was still wrong.

Now we face the spectre of having to pay for our crimes against humanity ... and as more and more GOP Congress members are learning the truth of why we invaded Iraq, they are distancing themselves from Bush in the hope of not getting singed by the fire of impeachment that is headed his way.

The truth I tell here is criculating in many e-mails that are deluging Congress and the White House.

The public is learning the truth, the truth it previously couldn't handle.

The right thing to do now is to turn Iraq over to the U.N., minus U.S. assistance, so that Iraq can call on the U.N. for help if it wants to. And the right thing to do is for America to leave Iraq and let Iraqis use the U.N. to help them put their country back together again. And the right thing to do is for us to pay trillions in crimes-against-humanity reparations to Iraq, and to apologize to everyone for the crimes of Bush and the Senate Security Committe, a committe which also includes Ted Kennedy.

We will likely lose our Iraqi crude after all ... and it will be difficult to endure the depression we merely forestalled.

But if we get creative, and find that greatly needed energy alternative ... or change the way we live to be more healthy ... we will not only courageously weather the storm, but we will feel so much better about ourselves than we do now.

Our self-respect, as well as our respect for the very lives of others, demands that we do this, the right thing, now.

CHIP, I applause your Post. Because its the first for real post that I
have ever read here on the HOP.

My plans here on H.O.P is to continue to support my Muslim Brothers
and Sisters in the Middle East who is suffering because of Bush's bs.
As a Muslim myself, I feel that our government (USA) is meddling in
countries that did not invite them.

I can't understand why is the American public is so blinded to the
bs paragenda that's being used by this Administration. Troopers is
losing their lifes more and more each day, and killing Muslims who
are innocent by-standers for nothing.

Again, As a member of this forum I will continue to do battle
in reality, and here online for humanitarian reasons. This war
isn't right, and the people in Washington DC knows it. So this
is one of the many message boards where opinions can be
posted, and of course...people won't agree because of political
blindness.

 

[rmbarron]

The vapid ranting of a relativist. Just goes to show that you have no idea what this country is supposed to be about. Clearly only a superficial comprehension of history. And talk about philisophical abstraction. It pretty well defines your concept of this country's strategic international and military policies. Morality becomes more relative every day. The fact that you don't get the concept of "moral credibility" is not at all surprising. People often choose not to understand something when it suites their purpose.

Morality is for the thoughtless. Just thought you'd like to know.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

Morality is for the thoughtless. Just thought you'd like to know.

That is so deep. This must be what pearls of wisdom look like when they get pulled straight from this guy's ass.