Someone in court today asked me what I thought of having our troops stationed on all the borders of Iraq. No one comes in and no one goes out. Until Iraq has settled her conflict.
What think you?
2006-12-04 04:16:02 · 19 answers · asked by ? 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why would the UN not go with such a plan? And help with troops?
2006-12-04 04:23:48 · update #1
Or is the UN trustworthy?
What about France?
Germany?
Etc.?
2006-12-04 04:24:59 · update #2
Heidi, this could be good training for that.
2006-12-04 04:26:16 · update #3
Wouldn't closing off economic growth provide an incentive for Iraq to end their conflict quickly?
2006-12-04 04:28:38 · update #4
Too non-partisan for some of you, right? Yeah, that's what I told the lawyer.
2006-12-04 04:52:08 · update #5
Not bad. Redeploying the miitary to secure the Syrian and Iranian borders with Iraq and leaving Iraqis to sort out their own houses is wise.
2006-12-04 04:19:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Isn't that basically what we're doing now?
If not, that's what we should be doing, it has a simple brilliancy to it and seems better than anything I've heard or read so far.
Of course the one problem with that plan is that while our forces are gathering on the borders of the country, the insurgents and militias from both Islamic groups could realize this and unite again like they were united against us when we initially went in there to destroy Baghdad.
Then as our troops would be drawn back in, Syria, Iran, Al-Quaeda and maybe Hezbollah would funnel in their own troops, finances, arms, etc., which would draw our troops back out to the borders and allow the civil war to ignite again.
If that would happen, I don't see any way out of that cycle.
The key to my argument is that there are more enemies of our troops in Iraq other than just the ones that are killing each other.
2006-12-04 19:11:11 · answer #2 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Judging by the answers, it seems like Ruth the meanie head is developing her own cult following. :-)
I think you know that plan you mentioned wouldn't work any better than what they are doing now. What would you think of a crowd of people standing around a swimming pool watching someone drown without taking action? It would be the same scenario.
Bush missed his golden opportunity early on to end the Middle-East problems for all times. After toppling Saddam, he should have split Iraq into three territories. Those territories, the spoils of wars, should have been divided between Iran, Syria, and Turkey. Those three countries could have been obligated to eliminate the Islamic terror threat in exchange for these newly acquired provinces. If they failed in this agreement, we could have reserved the right to nuke their capital cities.
2006-12-04 14:26:17 · answer #3 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I understand the plan and why but I think even at the borders American soldiers would still be targets and maybe not even from the Iraqi side alone,see what happens at Israeli checkpoints and the Israeli army has much experience.
The yihadi's would have more opportunity to regroup deep inside the country and do hit and run attacks and hide when the attack is done among civilians.
Think the conditions would also be worse for the civil population
In my opinion the fighting in Iraq would soon stop,the mob would rule,guess somewhat taliban like and try to make life hell for the US troops at the border.
2006-12-04 12:32:49 · answer #4 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe it is a fairly feasible plan. Also, I don't agree with those above. Yes, the region is very mountainous, but you could close down a large majority of the arms shipments just by sitting on major highways. Add to that frequent patrols in the not-as-traveled regions, and you have effectively enclosed the country.
The problem is that there is much intercountry commerce that would also be severely slowed, hampering economic growth.
2006-12-04 12:26:07 · answer #5 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1) The UN is as useless as udders on a bull. I trust them about 1/2 as far as I can throw a fire by its smoke.
2) That would take an enormous force. Iraq has long borders with 6 different countries. These countries aren't our friends.
3) We would have to stray there for centuries.
2006-12-04 12:42:57 · answer #6 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
We simply cannot pull out and allow the civil war that may have started, to go unchecked. Too many innocents are still there. I say speed up dramatically the arming and responsibility of the Iraqi Police. If we do pull back to the borders, do you think Iran will be content to allow Iraq to work out it's own conflict?
2006-12-04 12:22:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The democrat plan is to get the troops out today. That is according to what at least 42% of the American public voted for. Never mind that it would destabilize the middle east, disrupt the supply of oil, sky rocket the price of gas exponentially, cause economic disaster across the globe and provide a safe haven for terrorist to launch attacks against us. The American public is so wise aren't they?
2006-12-04 12:28:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
That is an excellant Idea. That way we will only be fighting the handful of insurgents and not Syria, Iran, Al Qaeda, Hammas and the rest of the Muslim terrorists that are flooding into Iraq.
2006-12-04 12:21:41 · answer #9 · answered by Robert L 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm for a JTF base in Basrah.
The borders already have Predator Drones patrolling them.
Go big Red Go
2006-12-04 12:22:16 · answer #10 · answered by 43 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋