My Iraq Solution
THC
Posts: 525
Alright...so here it is.
There should be a coalition UN force formed and moved to Iraq to supplement the armed forces from the U.S.
Before the war...Iraq had broken numerous U.N. weapen Inspections. The U.S. couldn't wait for diplomacy...so we invaded. Before we pissed everyone else off...it was conceded world wide that Iraq was breaking U.N. resolutions. We now have a new secretary of defense who has said, "we are losing in Iraq". We also no longer have Bolton as U.N. representative (thank God). The world wants the U.S. to say..."I'm sorry". Well....here is the chance. Say we screwed up...and ask for U.N. coalition forces. I'm sure the countries of the world would be willing to stabilize the middle east...and prevent a civil war in a country? (at least i hope they would). If we could increase the troop level there to say...twice of what it is now....we could actually help to stabilize it...and protect its citizens.
Each country could send say...10,000 or so troops...and it could be run through the U.N. On the ground...U.N....and U.S. troop leaders could help form a more comprehensive strategy...and deploy more troops to the needed areas.
What do people think?
There should be a coalition UN force formed and moved to Iraq to supplement the armed forces from the U.S.
Before the war...Iraq had broken numerous U.N. weapen Inspections. The U.S. couldn't wait for diplomacy...so we invaded. Before we pissed everyone else off...it was conceded world wide that Iraq was breaking U.N. resolutions. We now have a new secretary of defense who has said, "we are losing in Iraq". We also no longer have Bolton as U.N. representative (thank God). The world wants the U.S. to say..."I'm sorry". Well....here is the chance. Say we screwed up...and ask for U.N. coalition forces. I'm sure the countries of the world would be willing to stabilize the middle east...and prevent a civil war in a country? (at least i hope they would). If we could increase the troop level there to say...twice of what it is now....we could actually help to stabilize it...and protect its citizens.
Each country could send say...10,000 or so troops...and it could be run through the U.N. On the ground...U.N....and U.S. troop leaders could help form a more comprehensive strategy...and deploy more troops to the needed areas.
What do people think?
“Kept in a small bowl, the goldfish will remain small. With more space, the fish can grow double, triple, or quadruple its size.”
-Big Fish
-Big Fish
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
And also because no one in the Bush administration is gonna admit they were wrong.
Bridge School '06 Night 1 & 2
Venice '07 pummeled by the sleet!
Nijmegen '07
Werchter '07
April Fools ~ LA1
Meh. They seem to have come as close as any politicain does recently.
WMDS
LOL!
not even a war plane!
lol
go stand by that cargo van!
No amount of troops is going to stop a guy filling his car up with explosives and killing people with it. For me a classic example of this is Northern Ireland in the 70's and 80's. Before the Bristish Troops were brought in there was a level of violence which to most people's standards would be as scarey as all hell, but that paled in comparision to violence that erupted when the British troop were sent in. Iraq is a land locked country you can't seal it's boarders, its like trying to stop the Mexicans getting into Texas.
The one underliying fact is that there are two extreme, armed elements in the country(remember it's because of these that a mental case like Saddam was able to gain and maintain power for as long as he did) plus the insurgents who's sole mission is to kill American's, It makes for an ungly cocktail. I said stated this before that there are 600,000 Iraqi security forces trained go to the Us's 130,00 personnel. Some people on the boards here tried to make the point of that we couldn't trust the Iraqi forces. That not our decision to make, it's their country, give it back and at least see what happens.
Guarantee the death toll falls and they can try to make a plan for their own futures. Then who know's the UN could be back it there before you know with a plan of their own if things don't go well.
Wrong!
The U.S invaded because they had decided to invade 2 years before. The WMD business was simply a ruse, and a bad and transparent one at that. Why should the U.N send troops in to risk their lives to fight your governments bullshit war. You started the war based on a bunch of obvious lies. It's now a fucking mess. So deal with it yourselves! If it wasn't for the spineless wanker Tony Blair dragging us in on your coat-tails then you would be completely alone over there. The U.K should pull out it's troops immediately. The U.S should be left there to sort out it's own shit out.
that was a major point of mine. There is a difference in recent political developments in the U.S.
I mean...Bush has even brought in a panel to talk about what's going wrong. I mean this concept...was laughable only a year ago.
we just swore in a new secretary of defense that has said we are "losing" a war. That's probably never happened in U.S. history.
-Big Fish
very blameless position of you. esp. considering its also your country who is over there as well. I could just as easily say..."oh..Bush isn't my guy either...so...". (which he is not)
Your point is Blair is not your guy....so the U.S. should deal w/ its own mess. Well...England's got its hand in the cookie jar moreso then ANYONE else besides the U.S.
We can all play the blame game until the cows come home.....People need to start thinking of ways we can be proactive on this for the sake of the FUTURE. Focusing on the future and not how it got that way is the only way to help in Iraq.
-Big Fish