Skyrad 0
Recommended Posts
JohnRich 4
QuoteAsk the UN to take over administration of Iraq. Offer to put US troops under UN control if other countries will match our soldiers troop for troop.
First of all, the UN is gutless - they already pulled out because they considered it "too dangerous". They don't have the necessary commitment.
And I would never, ever, want to see U.S. troops under U.N. control. If we're not going to be in charge of our own troops, then they don't need to be there.
QuoteOffer incentives. Allow other countries to set up oil and gas contracts with Iraq. Countries with a financial stake in Iraq will also have a vested interest in seeing a stable government set up.
Well that's why France wants back in so badly. They had a special deal with Iraq for cheap oil, which circumvented the U.N. oil guidelines. They want their special favor back, and aren't willing to go by U.N. guidelines. All of you who are complaining about the way contracts are handed out, seem to forget about that deal, and now want to reward France by letting them back in so they can do it again. I wish you would make up your mind.
JohnRich 4
QuoteI would internationalize the efforts in Iraq, I'd involve the UN and whatever Muslim nation who were willing in order that it wouldn't look to the people of Iraq like a "white man's invasion".
The U.N. doesn't want the job - they already pulled out because someone bombed their offices - they consider it "too dangerous". So what does that say for the U.N. degree of commitment?
And if you put Muslim nations in charge, they'll just rape it for their own benefit, and you'll be right back where you started from, with tyranny.
QuoteAgain, international force, international peace-keeping efforts. Not just us and a few nations
It's more than just a "few" nations - it's already an international effort.
What additional countries do you think are necessary, and what will they bring to the situation that isn't already there? What is so special about France and Germany that would suddenly turn things around?
Quotewe can't just give contracts to whomever we please?
Ah, we're back to contracts again. Who gets the contracts has zero bearing on solving the religious strife and terrorism there.
Did you see the home movies of Oduy Hussein on "60 Minutes" last night? Wonderful stuff. If we take your approach, that kind of stuff will become the norm once again in Iraq.
QuoteThe U.N. doesn't want the job - they already pulled out because someone bombed their offices - they consider it "too dangerous". So what does that say for the U.N. degree of commitment?
It says that they don't want their beauracrats and aide workers blown up because they're in the middle of a war zone. Those weren't UN troops. Slight difference.
piisfish 140
too bad for them. I think that they will never bring peace there, and unfortunately poor guys will get killed every week. SAD
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>First of all, the UN is gutless - they already pulled out because they
> considered it "too dangerous". They don't have the necessary
> commitment.
Because we have made it clear that they will always play second fiddle to us. Why have your people killed when you have no say in what happens?
>If we're not going to be in charge of our own troops, then they don't
>need to be there.
Why do you care if the end result is a stable Iraqi government and fewer US soldiers dead? Is there an important ego issue with the US being "in charge?" Is being the big dog more important to a US soldier than being alive?
>Well that's why France wants back in so badly. They had a special
> deal with Iraq for cheap oil, which circumvented the U.N. oil
> guidelines. They want their special favor back, and aren't willing to
> go by U.N. guidelines.
Exactly. They have a strong financial incentive, as we do. Use that to our advantage. Give them a good deal (say, as good as we gave Halliburton) in return for military support of the reconstruction.
> considered it "too dangerous". They don't have the necessary
> commitment.
Because we have made it clear that they will always play second fiddle to us. Why have your people killed when you have no say in what happens?
>If we're not going to be in charge of our own troops, then they don't
>need to be there.
Why do you care if the end result is a stable Iraqi government and fewer US soldiers dead? Is there an important ego issue with the US being "in charge?" Is being the big dog more important to a US soldier than being alive?
>Well that's why France wants back in so badly. They had a special
> deal with Iraq for cheap oil, which circumvented the U.N. oil
> guidelines. They want their special favor back, and aren't willing to
> go by U.N. guidelines.
Exactly. They have a strong financial incentive, as we do. Use that to our advantage. Give them a good deal (say, as good as we gave Halliburton) in return for military support of the reconstruction.
JohnRich 4
QuoteIt says that they don't want their beauracrats and aide workers blown up because they're in the middle of a war zone. Those weren't UN troops. Slight difference.
The U.N. doesn't have any troops of their own. All they have is the use of someone else's troops.
And they can't manage the country, if they don't have their bureaucrats and aid workers there on-location.
JohnRich 4
QuoteWhy do you care if the end result is a stable Iraqi government and fewer US soldiers dead? Is there an important ego issue with the US being "in charge?"
If the U.N. wants the job, that's fine by me. But they need to get their chicken butts back into the country if they want to do that.
U.S. soldiers should never be put under U.N. commanders. If you do that, we will likely have even more of our soldiers being killed, as those U.N. commanders won't be as sensitive to the safety of our own troops, as we are. And they're likely to be far less competent too.
QuoteIs being the big dog more important to a US soldier than being alive?
Please do not offend me with these kinds of statements.
Quote20-20 hindsight is wonderful. But no one has a crystal ball in advance to predict what will happen. The question is what to do [now]. Not what we should have done based upon perfect 20-20 hindsight.
No one needed a crystal ball to see that invading Iraq would result in a huge mess. Just look at the facts. Country under rule by a dictator for over 30 years, no infrastructure what so ever, hardly any decent education, suppressed religious majority. I could go on and on. Just add these things up.
billvon 3,120
>If the U.N. wants the job, that's fine by me. But they need to get
>their chicken butts back into the country if they want to do that.
Like you said, there are no such things as UN troops. There are various countries who send troops, who are then put under UN command. The "chicken butts" you refer to would be US, UK, French, Italian, German etc soldiers.
>U.S. soldiers should never be put under U.N. commanders. If you do
> that, we will likely have even more of our soldiers being killed, as
> those U.N. commanders won't be as sensitive to the safety of our
> own troops, as we are.
That's nonsense. Do our commanders care less about british troops, and so get them killed more often? Keep in mind that UN commanders will _be_ US, UK, Australian, French, Russian etc commanders; the UN is run by the member countries.
>Please do not offend me with these kinds of statements.
Glad you agree that it's not important to be "in charge" for the sake of being in charge. Once that's out of the way we can consider options that will result in a stable government in Iraq and fewer US casualties.
>their chicken butts back into the country if they want to do that.
Like you said, there are no such things as UN troops. There are various countries who send troops, who are then put under UN command. The "chicken butts" you refer to would be US, UK, French, Italian, German etc soldiers.
>U.S. soldiers should never be put under U.N. commanders. If you do
> that, we will likely have even more of our soldiers being killed, as
> those U.N. commanders won't be as sensitive to the safety of our
> own troops, as we are.
That's nonsense. Do our commanders care less about british troops, and so get them killed more often? Keep in mind that UN commanders will _be_ US, UK, Australian, French, Russian etc commanders; the UN is run by the member countries.
>Please do not offend me with these kinds of statements.
Glad you agree that it's not important to be "in charge" for the sake of being in charge. Once that's out of the way we can consider options that will result in a stable government in Iraq and fewer US casualties.
kallend 2,150
Quote> Do our commanders care less about british troops, and so get them killed more often? .
Sensitive topic in the UK and Canada, what with the fratricide incidents.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quoteno infrastructure what so ever, hardly any decent education,
Actually, Iraq was pretty advanced as far as infrastructure and education goes for that area. Except we destroyed the infrastructure and schools when we invaded.
Amazon 7
Here Benny you need one of these
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3175680372&category=2622
Be quick its closing soon
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3175680372&category=2622
Be quick its closing soon
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites