I have discussed this with a few people and most say something like we should leave the middle East to the middle East regardless of the consequences.
2006-11-15 09:20:03 · 12 answers · asked by Faerieeeiren 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Here's what I think:
Iraq was formed by the British after the fall of the Ottoman Empire (WW1). Prior to this, they were three separately governed provinces, Bosra (Sunnis), Bahgdad (Shiites), and Mosul (Kurds). These culturally different people have been forced into unification and to live as one people since then and have been fighting each other for control since they gained their independence in 1936.
Here's my proposal: Split Iraq back into the three separate provinces. With each of them finally able to govern themselves, there is no longer a need to fight one another.
Support: The Iraqi congress already voted to allow self rule of these separate groups so Iraq is a country in name only. Also, we already have allowed Germany to reunite to it's pre-WW2 borders. Why not get over aritificially imposed WW1 borders and allow this separation? Worked for Bosnia and Yugoslavia.
2006-11-15 09:21:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Leaving the middle east to the middle east doesn't fix the problem. We can't stick our head in the sand and ignore the problem. The Iraqi government doesn't want us to abandon them now. We've got to work with the Iraqis to find a solution.
2006-11-15 09:28:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
they might desire to start a media marketing campaign resembling the only used to start the conflict in Iraq. It became into began on Fox information and that's ended on Al Jazeera. they might desire to stay out of Iraqis' lives, make their presence much less conspicuous, stop development bases, promise to pass away while peace is reached or while the Iraqi government asks, and maximum critically serve basically in a protective line... all offensive techniques and arrests might desire to be carried out by the Iraqi government, no longer by the U.S., and that they might't be in contact in interrogation or in dealing with the prisons. only take care of duty, no offensive methods... and the present replace in Congress will help to cajole the Iraqi people who Bush, no longer the folk and infantrymen of the U.S., is their enemy and that contained in the U.S. he has been defeated. a reliable congressional analyze into the motives of the invasion could be effective as nicely. The U.S. needs to stop sending U.S. workers to rebuild Iraq, they might desire to pay the Iraqis to do it and have infantrymen take care of them, pay them nicely, and incredibly of turning right into a member of militias human beings will attempt to get on with their lives and help their families. militia contributors will initiate leaving, as we are already seeing, their militias in prefer of the expert police tension... some militia communities see themselves as conserving their human beings... and since the ranks initiate leaving the militias, the management, the real crazies who prefer to take administration in Iraq, would be defenseless against Iraqi secure practices forces. that's incredibly extremely hassle-free.
2016-10-04 00:18:09 · answer #3 · answered by banowski 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a. Ensure PM Maliki stops showing favor toward Shi'ite militias
b. Hold Bagdhad
c. Get the Kurds involved
d. Revise the Iraqi Constitutuion
2006-11-15 09:23:14 · answer #4 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Go back to a military solution, our Government allowed politics to enter the war before it was secured. There are areas in Iraq like SADAR city that we need to bomb into submission and we need to send people to kill Al Sadar himself. if we are not going to get tough with the Terrorists then we should get our people on bases where they can guard oil installations and their own bases and let the Iraqi military stand on their own.
2006-11-15 09:27:19 · answer #5 · answered by daydoom 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Like Blair said we must end the Israeli occupation to have a sound Iraq policy
2006-11-15 09:30:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
They have been fighting over that stretch of land for the last 6,000 years. In the case of Iraq we should follow the rules you use when two dogs are fighting. You don't get in the middle cause you might get bit.
2006-11-15 09:22:43 · answer #7 · answered by jerofjungle 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
and leave the usa in the usa also or pull a bush and move to middle east?
2006-11-15 09:21:41 · answer #8 · answered by cork 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Ok, lets leave, allow the terrorist to take over, use it as a base of operations to launch attacks on U.S.
2006-11-15 09:24:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Stay the course.
2006-11-15 09:25:26 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Blowin the *** out of Iraq thats what I think.
2006-11-15 09:21:55 · answer #11 · answered by Jesus C 1 · 3⤊ 4⤋