Which side do we choose.?

Question

Now that Iraq is in a civil war (yes, by definition they are: civil war n.A war between factions or regions of the same country), which side do we choose? If we are going to stay in Iraq, we can't play both side of the tracks, we have to choose one or the other, don't we? For all of you war supporters; did you think this would happen, lots of government analysts warned of this (you know, the ones the Bushies didn't listen too, the ones whose assessments they conveniently chose not to talk about openly, or outright repudiated in public, yeah, those ones). What do we do now? Stay the course...hang on, that slogan has been retired. What's the latest slogan, "Forward to Victory"...there have been so many I can't remember them all.
Now, here's the challenge; rather than bash me for a Liberal (which I am not, just because I think this administration has made a terrible mistake doesn't make me a Liberal), what, exactly, should be done next? BTW, Clinton bashing isn't an answer.

Answer 1

I say, let us defend our own borders and country and let those folks settle that issue themselves!

Answer 2

You took up a lot of space to make a point that many already know.... What should we do?

If the answer was that clear we wouldn't have such a wide variety of questions and answers. If we blow off Iraq, what will we gain? What will the Muslims gain!

You are exactly right about not bashing Clinton but, you are exactly wrong about your slight of tongue (Bushies), bashing Bush. You give our politicians too much power in your line of thought when you indicate Bush caused all this. I was here watching the news, reading the new papers, Bush had a lot of people agreeing with him, including; the citizens of the U.S., plenty of politicians from both parties and others. When you say so many slogans that you can't remember that may have something to do with your thoughts on the beginning of this whole mess! And, you're right, it is a mess!

The best answer for those that want the war to end: Pull out now! For those that want to prevent further suicide attacks by fanatical islam: Kill them all!

Answer 3

It's good that Iraq turned into a Civil War. Most of the conflicts in which the US went into were Civil Wars, therefore US has a greater reason to be there.

If the people would fight US occupation, then the US has no valid reason to stay there, since logically it could be concluded that the removal of US troops would create peace. But in Civil War that's not the case. US now needs to stay there in order to be peace.

I really like this outcome, because US now has all the reason to stay there.

3000 soldiers dead. It's sad, 21'st century and people still dying in wars. Were their death in vain? No. Their death will create a more stable Middle East, and relatively speaking their death will bring us more good than any other death in wars.

So whatever the slogan is, the fact is the same. US needs to stay there and should never leave Iraq, until there is a truly democratic government functioning there. While the Civil War is funded by other countries like Iran and the rest of them, US will stay there. And that will not change even with a democrat president.

Answer 4

No. Choosing sides would be the worst thing we could do. Our leaders set up a parliamentary govt & needs to support it as long as we are involved over there.That means let them do their work w/o interference.

If I had my way (just as well I can't since power corrupts) I would probably split the country up into 3 areas representing the major religious factions. They could do this using the current govt as the forum for negotiation to set borders & create cooperative treaties between themselves. With such an arrangement, any militia supporting either of the other 2 denominations would automatically be illegal foreign combatants. Iraqis are used to secular rule &, like us, do not want strict theocratic rule unless they believe it is necessary for their safety. Since their other borders would generally be with people sharing the same faith, border tensions would be reduced. If people could finally get on with the business of living w/o the constant fear of being caught between opposing militias, they wouldn't feel the need to support their local, same faithed militia.

It took a few years, but the idea works in the Balkans. which has similar ethnic & religious differences. When those countries learned the rest of the world would not put up with aggression & ethnic cleansing, it stopped. Btw, both countries were formed by foreign powers as a way to retain some control over the peoples there. In both cases, oppressive dictatorships were all that kept them reasonably peaceful. Until the dictatorships died.

Since I am playing God,. I would eliminate veto power in the Security Council of the UN because that is the primary cause it is so ineffective.. Since its inception, both the US & USSR used the veto repeatedly to get their own way. It almost made sense when the Security Council numbered only 5 nations; now it numbers 15 & doesn't make sense anymore. Requiring an 80% supermajority vote would require 3 votes, not just one, to block sanctions or with hold peacekeeping forces. Under those conditions, both Iran & North Korea would be under severe sanctions now, instead of the slap on the wrist ones they now have. Under those conditions, we would not be carrying almost all the load in Iraq.

Answer 5

Unfortunately it is a mess in Iraq, but it is somewhat understood. The iraqi's have been told their entire life what they can/can't do. So now they are lost. They are like kids from a super strict family who go out on their own. They don't know how to take care of themselves so it is complete chaos. I don't think "staying the course" is an option.
We have an obligation to the Iraqi people however to fix the mess we created. Pulling out would just make things worse. Right now it is an insurgency problem, with the entire US force pulling out, it would cause even greater problems that even Saddam couldn't control. The Iraqi people are going to have to get their heads out of their rears and take control. They have got to be the ones to fix things. They have got to rise up against the insurgency themselves, then we can slowly back out. But right now they don't have the manpower, training or know how to do so. They are a greater risk to themselves then the insurgents.
If you have a child, is it better to cut them loose on their own and say go for it. Or is it better to wean them off slowly and give them the necessary "equipment" to take care of themselves?

Answer 6

I agree the current administration has already flip-flopped inviting clerics to the white house, and that backfired last week, that sends a message to the Iraq's that Bush cannot be trusted due to switching sides...Thats already happened one time with Bush's Daddy, the Kurds backed him, but that admin left the Kurds hanginn in the wind......By now when The name Bush is mentioned they automatically do not trust it.

Answer 7

Big Pickle, WTF does that answer mean??

Iraq is going to have to go through its own form of blood letting. The current Iraqie government is very weak. This country is going to erupt sooner or later. Get our troops out, get it over with, then let them rebuild. This administration really has screwed the U.S. on this one.

Answer 8

PUNK!!!!! Emo's are *******. they RUN from something, and that they stay interior the suburbs, they have not something to concern. Punks combat daily of thier lives, and that i'm talking long drawnout bloody fights.... we've greater scares from punches than the Emo's will EVER have from reducing thierselves for no reason

Answer 9

do what we said we would do, by training the iraqi forces so that we can give the government its power and then get the hell outa there. the iraqis killing each other is something that i will never understand, i mean after all they have to live amoung the bombings!

Answer 10

In a majority rule situation, we should always support the majority, Break out the "BIG" bombs and let the carnage begin.....