Lets face it: the Iraq war is a disaster and it's not getting any better. It's safe to say that it has deteriated into a civil war.
The Iraq military will not be capable of controlling the violence for at least 5 years.
Here's the plan: Work out a deal with Saddam and let him broker a deal with the Sunnis. If he agrees to this then let him live out his life in some remote Iraq region. Of course it will be under certain conditions.
Split the country into however many regions as necessary with the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in their own regions.
Simplistic? Absolutely. But Rumsfield and the President haven't come up with anything better and I'm tired of Americans dying over there for no good reason. It's time to end the war.
2006-10-19 09:27:41 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Here's mine. We and all our NATO allies stop recruiting people into our militaries for one year. During that year, we use our training facilities to train and arm 200,000 Iraqis from all parts of the nation. Then we drop them back into Iraq and pull our people out.
Now it's up to them, sink or swim.
2006-10-19 09:30:11 · answer #1 · answered by Chredon 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would be better then nothin but if they r trying to develop a democratic system then shouldnt serrogation be baned,that is similar to the system putting so many low income people into the same complexs,isnt that serrogation?????????? In Canada it is called housing. Think about it Canadians,I dont know how it is in the States. Good work at least ur concerned enough to be trying to develop ideas and u r right there is to much loss of life on all sides Good luck Curious 2006 The Doobie Brothers (Taking it to the street)
2006-10-19 09:41:34 · answer #2 · answered by Curious 2006 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Letting Saddam live is absolutely ridiculous. He is a mass murderer. Splitting the country may have it's merits, but if you think that doing that would solve the violence, you are just being silly. The muslim religion is not one that will ever be able to be at peace with itself, let alone the rest of the world. Nearly all the violence in the muslim nations that you read (and don't read) is muslim on muslim.
The option that I would like to see is America grow a set and get the job done. We freaking nuked Japan, rebuilt them with no one else's help, and now they rock. We need to stop pussy-footing around.
2006-10-19 09:33:13 · answer #3 · answered by Justin 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well watching at ancient examples and the present main issue I do not see how we will be able to. I imply after we depart Iraq all hecks gonna holiday out. That's why no person attempted to take out Saddam earlier than. Yeah he used to be evil and everybody hated him however he dominated with an iron fist and the entire nation obeyed him and the buddies did not attempt to invade. I believe if and after we depart there will probably be combating inside the nation among the entire corporations and I believe a few buddies could attempt to "loot". Then Afghanistan,geeze. The simplest option to get out of Afghanistan is to depart like Russia did, and of direction that simply gave extra vigour to the nuts. But quite no wherein in historical past did anybody get out of struggle with Afghanistan with a "win" they have been caught there for years and years then simply gave up. I imply quite there isn't sufficient residents of the ones nations that desire peace to make it paintings after we depart. If there used to be we would not be there within the first position. I hate to be sch a buzz kill however I can't believe of something for the duration of historical past that might make me think something might be specific now. And I am going way back to biblical occasions.
2016-08-31 23:33:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is that this plan won't solve the problems, the different factions will still fight each other because of differences in philosophy and some will always feel that they got the short end of the stick. The answer is to try to get them as a nation to form some kind of central government where they all benefit equally. And no, I don't know how to do this.
2006-10-19 09:38:09 · answer #5 · answered by smoothie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Splitting it up into multiple countries may be the only solution that ever will work. As long as we can keep those countries from getting large amounts of arms, and each one has a viable economic model, it could work.
I'd leave out Saddam, though -- no need to bring him back into things.
2006-10-19 09:40:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think exit is more of a suggestion, and it is gonna take a while. Until more troops are on the ground, we are going to be unable to walk away. My husband is serving, but that has only increased my uneasiness about the situation. We have and are still providing shoddy equipment and under the current commander that will continue.
2006-10-19 09:31:53 · answer #7 · answered by R B 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here is mine. Victory! There is no civil war it is all smoke and mirrors the insurgency is trying to start a civil war. They do not want a working democracy in the territory Iran and Syria are dictatorships and it may cause there people to want freedom too!
2006-10-19 09:55:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
And while we're at it let's put a building right next to the UN for Bin Laden and his group so they can plot our destruction. We'd have to give him billions in "aid" money to help his cause because we'd be giving Saddam the same. Sounds like a good idea eh? Not!
2006-10-19 09:30:31 · answer #9 · answered by Cambion Chadeauwaulker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First you are wrong, it is not a disaster. If you want civil discourse don't use hyperbole to start. Letting Saddam free is the stupidest thing we could do and negates everything we have done and the sacrifice of our fighting men and women.
Are you a Sunni shrill? SOund like one.
2006-10-19 09:30:27 · answer #10 · answered by Meow the cat 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋