For all the people that like to bash Bush and Iraq

[freeflir29 0]

Well..........at least you answered the question directly. There has been little of that in this thread. I'm not really here to debate any of that. I just wanted to hear the ideas. However.......

Quote

we're sending in an overwhelming multinational peacekeeping force who will shoot anybody who shoots at anybody."

I can't remember one of those ever existing. All I can remember is the more recent debacles like "peacekeeping" that was done in Bosnia (Dutch soldiers handcuffed to a bridge) and Somalia and the dismal failures in Africa. Don't have much faith in "peacekeepers."

[amibovered 0]

Don't have much faith in "peacekeepers."
_____________________________________

have less faith in you !

If theirs a hell bellow,
We're all gonna go.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

we're sending in an overwhelming multinational peacekeeping force who will shoot anybody who shoots at anybody."

I can't remember one of those ever existing. All I can remember is the more recent debacles like "peacekeeping" that was done in Bosnia (Dutch soldiers handcuffed to a bridge) and Somalia and the dismal failures in Africa. Don't have much faith in "peacekeepers."

What I had in mind resembles about 100,000 Samuel Jacksons. Maybe the Jedi but I'm leaning more towards Jules and Ezekial 25:17.

[bch7773 0]

Quote

Like Viet Nam, there are no easy answers and they is plenty of blame and finger pointing to go around. When the realization finally came that Viet Nam was not going to end (like the Iraqis, the Vietnamese have been fighting for centuries) the US pulled out and let them have at it. Thirty years later it still looks like it was the right thing to do for American interest.

So, I say, pull out. Put the troops in Afghanistan, get Bin Laden, then send everyone home. Hopefully then we can learn from mistakes made in places like Korea, Viet Nam, and now Iraq.

Amen.

I think a lot of people don't want to leave Iraq because they are afraid it will make us look weak. I think that dead american soldiers and billions of dollars spent over there is not worth us looking "strong"

MB 3528, RB 1182

[Enrique 0]

Quote

So, I say, pull out. Put the troops in Afghanistan, get Bin Laden, then send everyone home. Hopefully then we can learn from mistakes made in places like Korea, Viet Nam, and now Iraq.

BTW. my son-in-law is over there now (third time) and I truly support you guys, but that is my opinion.

... what he said!
I don't see the world criticizing US soldiers, they deserve all our respect. I see a good part of the world criticizing US foreign policy. Soldiers simply follow instructions; they are not to blame (at least, not entirely)

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Well..........at least you answered the question directly. There has been little of that in this thread. I'm not really here to debate any of that. I just wanted to hear the ideas.

Here are some of the ideas from the left. I haven't read all of this yet but I thought you might like to read in detail what "cut and run" refers to
Caution! Left Click

[Amazon 7]

Gee do you think the Iranians would get on board for our redeployment.

Just think of the kewl road trip our people could take across Iran... while they are headed to Afghanistan.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Gee do you think the Iranians would get on board for our redeployment.

Just think of the kewl road trip our people could take across Iran... while they are headed to Afghanistan.

I'd suggest skipping the "Templar Tour 2006" and taking a plane.

[crotalus01 0]

Iraq is today what Somalia was 10 years ago, with religious sentiment fueling the fire instead of warlords. There is NO good solution. If Bush really wants to foment peace in the region he should concentrate on Afghanistan. The Afghans wanted us there, many of them still want us there. They had nothing, no infrastructure to speak of, no regular supply of electricity, no banks, no schools, etc. So they were not PISSED like the Iraqis are because they have been deprived of modern amenities. (this is first hand info I got from talking to people in Afghanistan. The majority want the US to help their country emerge from 30+ years of war).

My soultion would be to concentrate of Afghanistan, which in turn would put pressure on Pakistan to shut down the madrassas in the NWFP (where the Taliban started BTW). As for Iraq? No idea. Personally I dont think we can afford to pull out of a majority Shia Iraq with the problems we are having with Iran because that would just be the start of a new Caliphate, and a potentially nuclear powered one at that.

edit to add that I am not for the war in Iraq at all, but I 100% support our troops. There but for the grace of God go I (was in the Army during round 1 under GHWB)

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[wmw999 2,584]

Quote

My soultion would be to concentrate of Afghanistan, which in turn would put pressure on Pakistan to shut down the madrassas in the NWFP (where the Taliban started BTW).

Y'know, if we really wanted to protect a border and prevent all incursion, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan would be a much better one to protect.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Iraq is today what Somalia was 10 years ago, with religious sentiment fueling the fire instead of warlords. There is NO good solution. If Bush really wants to foment peace in the region he should concentrate on Afghanistan. The Afghans wanted us there, many of them still want us there. They had nothing, no infrastructure to speak of, no regular supply of electricity, no banks, no schools, etc. So they were not PISSED like the Iraqis are because they have been deprived of modern amenities. (this is first hand info I got from talking to people in Afghanistan. The majority want the US to help their country emerge from 30+ years of war).

My soultion would be to concentrate of Afghanistan, which in turn would put pressure on Pakistan to shut down the madrassas in the NWFP (where the Taliban started BTW). As for Iraq? No idea. Personally I dont think we can afford to pull out of a majority Shia Iraq with the problems we are having with Iran because that would just be the start of a new Caliphate, and a potentially nuclear powered one at that.

edit to add that I am not for the war in Iraq at all, but I 100% support our troops. There but for the grace of God go I (was in the Army during round 1 under GHWB)

Holy biosolids batman! Rational thought post alert!!!
Thanks, it's a welcome diversion

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Y'know, if we really wanted to protect a border and prevent all incursion, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan would be a much better one to protect.

Wendy W.

You mean where the terrrrrrrists are? Why would we want to fight terrrrrrsim there when we can be less effective and spend more money elsewhere?
Now where's that sarcasm emoticon when you need it?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

You mean where the terrrrrrrists are? Why would we want to fight terrrrrrsim there when we can be less effective and spend more money elsewhere?
Now where's that sarcasm emoticon when you need it?

I can tell you with authority that I fought terrorists in Iraq. They're there.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,110]

>I can tell you with authority that I fought terrorists in Iraq. They're there.

Of course.

And if we invaded Belgium, killed ten thousand innocent people, tortured some Belgian prisoners to death, opened secret prisons and slaughtered a few families - I bet we'd be fighting terrorists there too. Who woulda thunk that there were terrorists in friendly ol' Belgium?

Heck, I bet that if some foreign country invaded the US and took over a city here, those same terrorists would magically appear right here in the US. (We'd call em 'freedom fighters' of course.)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Heck, I bet that if some foreign country invaded the US and took over a city here, those same terrorists would magically appear right here in the US. (We'd call em 'freedom fighters' of course.)

WOLVERINES


I think there would be several people in SC that would be creaming their jeans at such a thing.... fondling their guns.....

[skydiverek 63]

Quote

Heck, I bet that if some foreign country invaded the US and took over a city here, those same terrorists would magically appear right here in the US. (We'd call em 'freedom fighters' of course.)

LOL, beautiful, Bill.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

One more lesson from Viet Nam.

Like Viet Nam, there are no easy answers and they is plenty of blame and finger pointing to go around. When the realization finally came that Viet Nam was not going to end (like the Iraqis, the Vietnamese have been fighting for centuries) the US pulled out and let them have at it. Thirty years later it still looks like it was the right thing to do for American interest.

So, I say, pull out. Put the troops in Afghanistan, get Bin Laden, then send everyone home. Hopefully then we can learn from mistakes made in places like Korea, Viet Nam, and now Iraq.

BTW. my son-in-law is over there now (third time) and I truly support you guys, but that is my opinion.

I'd agree with that, with one change, put the right troops into Afghanistan. Not your average infantry guys to be targets but special forces able to work in the mountains, scrublands/deserts.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[SlyFox 0]

I am guessing that you are saying that a freedom fighter also would attack their own people? The terrorist in Iraq attack the local populace more then they attack the U.S. military. I have spent two years there and they are there.

*****Why would anyone jump from a perfectly good airplane? Because it isn't much fun if it's broke.****

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

As usual, just more bashing without answering the question.

No, the question assumes a problem without admitting there is one. There is no solution to a problem that supposedly doesn't exist. To get the world to help with the Iraq situation, you first have to admit you screwed up.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I am guessing that you are saying that a freedom fighter also would attack their own people? The terrorist in Iraq attack the local populace more then they attack the U.S. military. I have spent two years there and they are there.

And the French Resistance killed Nazi collaborators in WWII, and the Norwegian Resistance killed quislings. And then there are common criminals just profiting from the chaos.

Pity some of you "patriots" don't learn more history.

We should NOT be there. We have no right to be there, and we never did. We are there because our president is a liar.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

You mean where the terrrrrrrists are? Why would we want to fight terrrrrrsim there when we can be less effective and spend more money elsewhere?
Now where's that sarcasm emoticon when you need it?

I can tell you with authority that I fought terrorists in Iraq. They're there.

I'm not disputing that they're there............now. We spent a lot of money cultivating them. But just out of curiousity, and I'm serious, how do you tell the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist?

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

We are there because our president is a liar.

Politician=Liar..................but that doesn't have any bearing on the current case.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

how do you tell the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist?

Easy...........Insurgents hit military targets. Terrorists just seem to blow up shit randomly. In certain parts of the country Insurgents take great care to NOT harm the civilian populace. The shit head terrorists in Baghdad often TARGET the civilian populace. On the street...........who cares.........shoot the ones that shoot at you.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

how do you tell the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist?

Easy...........Insurgents hit military targets. Terrorists just seem to blow up shit randomly. In certain parts of the country Insurgents take great care to NOT harm the civilian populace. The shit head terrorists in Baghdad often TARGET the civilian populace. On the street...........who cares.........shoot the ones that shoot at you.

So all the killing being done between Sunni and Shia is done by terrorists? Or is there a third group of civil warriors that we should categorize?

[juanesky 0]

You are matter of factly stating that shiites only kill Sunnies, and vicecersa, how on earth do you think this apply when they bomb an open market, don't you think they target all those people regardless of affiliation?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon