newest Iraq strategy by NewOldBrownCoat

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

newest Iraq strategy

POSTED BY: NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
UPDATED: Saturday, November 18, 2006 07:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1789
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:42 AM

I've seen this idea several places lately. Suggestions that we get Iran and Syria to help us stabilize Iraq.

"Now, I'm confused."

Isn't that like asking Hitler and Hirohito to help us control Mussolini? Aren't they, if not friends and allies, at least agreed in opposing us?
How can anybody expect that to work?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You'll hear a lot of BS about what to "do" with Iraq. Most of it won't make any sense and will prolly have very little to do with what's happening in the background. Murtha's plan for "phased redeployment" doesn't make any sense. Where do we re-deploy TO, and how do we keep the situation from completely deteriorating once we leave? The alternate (or companion) proposition to force milestones in return for USA w/drawal doesn't make much sense either, since w/drawing USA support is not necesarily an inducement for progress.

Baker, HW Bush's advisor, is in charge now but don't celebrate 'cause Baker is about as crooked as they get www.hereinreality.com/baker.html and unfortunately the Dems are buying into some of Baker's other proposals (Gates, for one) in order to get political cover for change in Iraq. Baker will prolly buy off several groups. WHO he buys off, exactly, will depend on who is closest to achieving power and is willing to negotiate. He may offer

IRAN: Our willingness to look away from Iran's nuclear programs in return for their tolerance of a Sunni state.

IRAQI SHIAS: Our willingness to overlook close ties with Iran in return for sharing oil revenue w/ Sunnis. Also possibly aid.

IRAQI KURDS: Our pressure on Turkey to allow a Kurdish state in return for sharing oil revenues w/ the Sunnis.

IRAQI SUNNIS: Receipt of shared oil revenues in return and aid in return for and end to insurgency.

Likely in all of this there will be plenty of oppty for the Carlyle group to sell arms in return for oil, and plenty of oppty for USA oil firms for exclusive oil contracts.

It's a complete cluster f*ck.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:32 AM

CHRISISALL

At this point, why don't we call off Saddam's rope appointment, and put him back in Iraq as the leader, this time, tell him to be good. And put an explosive charge in his head for insurance.
Then we can get out.

WHAT? I can't make as little sense as our government?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 1:05 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! I like YOUR plan best!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:27 PM

DREAMTROVE

I called this one too :) yay me. But seriously, if you look back, I said this about a year ago or more.

It's an excellent idea. It's neither dumb nor crazy. The idea that Syria and Iran are our enemies is a dumb neocon notion, fostered largely by Israel. Sure, they may be enemies of Israel, but they are not enemies of *us*, *yet*. And it would be an excellent idea to take an act of good faith to prevent them from becoming enemies of us. We don't want enemies. Enemies are bad. And, simultaneously, we can solve a real serious problem of our own.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:38 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I called this one too :) yay me. But seriously, if you look back, I said this about a year ago or more.

It's an excellent idea. It's neither dumb nor crazy. The idea that Syria and Iran are our enemies is a dumb neocon notion, fostered largely by Israel. Sure, they may be enemies of Israel, but they are not enemies of *us*, *yet*. And it would be an excellent idea to take an act of good faith to prevent them from becoming enemies of us. We don't want enemies. Enemies are bad. And, simultaneously, we can solve a real serious problem of our own.

Yup. This is what we should have done in the first place. Iraq was never a threat to the US, but it was, and still is, a problem for the other nations in the region. They should be the ones dealing with the problem.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:33 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
At this point, why don't we call off Saddam's rope appointment, and put him back in Iraq as the leader, this time, tell him to be good. And put an explosive charge in his head for insurance.
Then we can get out.

WHAT? I can't make as little sense as our government?

Chrisisall

I'm frightened. That's actually starting to sound like the good alternative.
Remember the old " son of a bitch " story? Supposedly LBJ said about some South Viet short term strongman, " He may be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch."

Seems like that might be what we're looking for in Iraq.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:38 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sure, they may be enemies of Israel, but they are not enemies of *us*, *yet*.

'Scuse me, is all of that talk out of Tehran for the last 25 years just camel farts? Hard not to be enemies of somebody you keep calling the Great Satan, and declaring holy jihads against.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:09 PM

MAZAEN

I think getting the leaders of the muslim countries to have a leadership role in Iraq is a good idea to consider.

I think when President Bush considered invading one country he forgot that it seems that in muslim countries if you invade one muslim country you are really invading them all. There were therefore many stakeholders in the Iraq war. These stakeholders included all the muslim countries.

Iran has taken a leadership role in the region and America can never be apart of that club. One has to consider all the purposes / wants of the stakeholders in the situation in order to solve problems that involve people. One of the purposes/ wants of Iraq citiizens, Iraq government, Iran citizens, Iran government may be to have a muslim/ arab leadership role in any muslim country. Giving some leadership responsibility to Iran for Iraq would be one way to forfill this purpose/want.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 12:46 PM

ANTIMASON

quite frankly any Iraq strategy that doesnt include the illegitimacy of the war in the first place is not worth our time and no help whatsover. the problem with Iraq is the way American foreign policy is handled.. bottom line

since i know our government was behind 9.11.. how am i supposed to feel about this proxy war on terror in IRaq? the same way i feel about 9.11 actually.. that it didnt have to happen and needs to be exposed for what it truly is- a western elitist orchestration and power grab

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 1:00 PM

DREAMTROVE

Antimason.,

I completely disagree. Dealing with teh future is never about justifying the mistakes of the past, if it were, the world would be caught in a perpetual cycle of amends-making while making new mistakes.

Chris

The "prop up the statue" idea is a terrible one. There *is* a govt. in Iraq right now, and though it is flawed, it's nowhere near as flawed as the Baathist govt.

What we *need* is something which will bring stability to Iraq, and prevent any or all of the following from happening:

1. an increase in sectarian violence
2. an accelleration of casualties on any or all sides
3. create a new cashflow resource for funding international terrorism.

outside of that, I'm willing to consider any options, but any replacement govt. for iraq would have to be better than the one they have. I think the one they have is fine, but there might have to be some concessions to the insurgents in order to get them the iraqi govt's side.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 1:10 PM

ANTIMASON

DT- i think recognizing the true motives for the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration can only help in building a solid foundation for the Iraqi government, based on truth and respect for national sovereignty. im not proposing we just up and leave.. but i honostly do not believe that the financeers of the war actually want to see stability, since the military industrial complex thrives off of perpetual warfare and arms trading. i dont see how we can aide in establishing a legitimate democracy in Iraq when we dont even have one here in AMerica anymore

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 3:01 PM

MAZAEN

It is nice when peace happen and it is what everyone usually wants. However sometimes too much peacefulness can end in war.

In a book called Guns Germs and Steel, there is an interesting chapter on the history of the Aztecs and the Spanish. The Spanish had developed there civilization on peace and getting along with their neighbours. They had a huge civilization and thousands of military people. The Aztecs were separated geographically from all other civilizations and had developed a culture of peace. Then, the first Spanish ship sailed by the Aztec coast for the first time and a Spanish conquistador landed on Aztec land. The Spanish conquistador saw some Aztecs. The spanish conquistdor asked the Aztecs if he and his 20 sailors could speak to the Aztec leader about trading. The Aztecs went and asked the Aztec leader what he would like to do. The Aztec leader said something like, "We should be peaceful with all the neighbour. Invite the Spanish sailors to my fortification and we will forge a new friendship with the Spanish country".

When the Spanish conquistador and his sailors arrived at the fortification, they immediately grabbed the Aztec leader and said to the Aztecs that they should give the Spanish gold or the spanish sailors would kill the Aztec leader. The Aztecs brought the spanish conquistador gold. The spanish then asked for more gold.

The capture of the leader of the aztecs went on for a few months. The spanish conquistador continued to hold the leader captive in the fortification and ask for new treasures until one day when a secret fleet of spanish ships arrived to the Aztec lands. The spanish ships had made the three month journey to the Aztec lands after the spaish conquistodor had secretly dispatched for for them shortly after arriving in the country.

As soon as the Spanish ships arrived, the Spanish conquistador killed the Aztec leader. The Aztecs were 8:1 spanish but every last Aztec were killed. The whole Aztec civilization disappeared.

The story goes something like that anyway. Maybe a good civilization is not a civilization of Aztecs (too peaceful like France) and not be Spanish conquistodors
(like Japan during their invasion of pearl habour) but somewhere in between.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 3:33 PM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by mazaen:
(too peaceful like France)

France too peaceful? Where the hell do you get that? (Yes, that was a rhetorical question) Even right-wing rag Financial Times admits:

Quote:
Contrary to their image as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", the French have the statistical distinction of being the most belligerent nation on earth. Between 1816 and 1980 they fought more wars than any other nation: 22 (compared with 19 for Britain and eight for the US) initiating conflict seven times. Long before Mr Bush devised a strategy of pre-emption, the French had been practising it in Africa - often without the explicit authorisation of the United Nations.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9cb2a240-7517-11db-bc76-0000779e2340.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 3:41 PM

CITIZEN

Yes the French. They never back down from a fight against heavilly armed natives wielding sharpened peices of mango.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 3:55 PM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Yes the French. They never back down from a fight against heavilly armed natives wielding sharpened peices of mango.

Hey, don't forget those Hovitos from Raiders of the Lost Ark. They had poison-tipped mangoes!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 11:30 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Hey, don't forget those Hovitos from Raiders of the Lost Ark. They had poison-tipped mangoes!

Yeah but that's because the French were working with them.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 18, 2006 3:41 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:

France too peaceful?

Contrary to their image as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", the French have the statistical distinction of being the most belligerent nation on earth. Between 1816 and 1980 they fought more wars than any other nation: 22 (compared with 19 for Britain and eight for the US) initiating conflict seven times.

question isn't realy how many wars they were in or started, but how many did they win? And how many, even if they came out on the winning side, did they get pounded in the middle , and how many times did they have to be bailed out?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 18, 2006 7:19 AM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

question isn't realy how many wars they were in or started, but how many did they win?

Granted, but then one could say the same about Germany (okay, Franco-Prussian war aside

). But it is uncanny, the resemblance between Bush foreign policy and historical French foreign policy.

"L'etat c'est moi!" indeed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE