Do you prefer diplomatic solution or violence?
2007-02-15 20:51:27 · 16 answers · asked by tizi ouzou 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There is absolutely NO WAY OUT OF IRAQ that doesn't involve BEATING IRAN. Iranians are the enemy Bush convinced us we were invading in 2003. Everything Saddam wasn't doing, Ahminejad not only IS doing but he's also bragging about it ahead of time much like Hitler. If you've ever seen Hitler's 2nd book or heard about it, it basically outlined the entire year of 1939. He wrote it in 1928. When Iran talks about wiping out Jews and Americans in a sea of fire hes just not giving you the specific details. It should be pretty obvious but our government is still too busy debating whether to debate a resolution debating sending more troops.
Also why do people always badmouth Tony Blair? I think Blair does an infinitely better job explaining why we have to do all this sh!t. If Blair was in charge rather then Bush I don't think so many Americans would be convinced we've already lost the war. Because he doesn't repeat vague general crap over and over again and he knows that you CAN'T APPEASE NAZIS. The rest of Europe already has forgotten that again, and once again the US and England will probably have to bail their asses out in the next 5-10 years.
2007-02-15 21:00:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The diplomatic solution that I would prefer is Partition.
The north for the Kurds, South for the Shites and the middle for the Sunnies. This will never be done however as the Kurds would then cause problems for Turkey, Syria and Iran.
This is a new Vietnam for the western forces, but the British created the borders of these countries after WW1 and they have some responsibility to try to resolve things.
2007-02-16 01:28:51 · answer #2 · answered by stephen t 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where's the evidence?
President Bush hardly has a good track record of it! Theres been a steady stream of of stories about Iraq inteligent "being handled creatively" ahem, to get to where the policy makers want it. - Not necessarily what the trurth actually states....
And in addition no-one in the military (from either US or UK) are openly pointing the finger at Iran..
I'm sure that the US can send over a few bombers and missles, but all it will do is to increase support in Iran for the govt. Also The US hasn't won the war in Iraq against a few thousand lighlty armed insurgents. Does anyone think it could actually win a war against a professionally trained and equiped army?
Diplomacy is the only thing that will work. IMO.
2007-02-15 21:20:39 · answer #3 · answered by Simon C 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who wouldn't prefer diplomatic solutions?! really! But would they work? Not likely! War sucks, loosing our soldiers in a war for a thankless country sucks, there is no easy answer, Its too bad our president won't do what past presidents have done and have talks with non allies to try to work to quicken an end to this war, we shouldn't leave it a mess, it will bite us in the **** if we do..... theres nothing simple or easy about it
2007-02-15 21:47:43 · answer #4 · answered by prettysmileygrl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The best solution is
1.To appologize from Iraqi people for the bloodshed and destruction of its infrastructure and for killing its legal presedent.
2.Bombing Iran and eliminate any power elements it possess.
3.Starting new political process and putting all the current Iraqi leaders in cusody .
4.Compansating Iraqi people morally and financially.
5.Withdrawing the troops from Iraq.
2007-02-16 01:05:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Diplomacy of course.
All Iraq needs is regional and international support. Not even the US friendly Arab states support the current Iraqi government. There must be regional dialog. I think that this requires some strong leadership from the US.
I think that the problems in Iraq are a result of weak and pathetic leadership of the Bush Administration. Leadership is not something one is born with, its a two way process. Interaction with everyone is necessary.
Bush's attitude of not talking to any of the Middle Eastern opponents simply reflects his poor leadership.
-So, you support violence huh? Well guess what, death will be around the corner. When will you war mongering yanks learn...
2007-02-15 20:57:22 · answer #6 · answered by Zabanya 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Nuke Iraq, Iran, Syria ...ach! lets just Nuke the whole Middle East ... they are causing too much trouble ...and it will get shot of the Mad Mullahs & the wound up Jews... The world would be a much safer place without them.. How many peace missions does the west have to get involved in and how many troops have to die ...only for the naughty Middle Easterners to kick off all over again..
2007-02-15 21:06:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Leave them, pull out now. By the time we need their oil there should be not be not much resistance left and we can go back in there. These trouble makers are following the western military around the world like a circus, so pull out and make sure nobody gets out!
2007-02-16 00:25:14 · answer #8 · answered by Bossie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you think nuking them will solve the problem? We all share this planet and no race could eliminate any other race no matter what might we have. It's Iraq, not Irak.
2007-02-15 21:01:10 · answer #9 · answered by Saraceno 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would go more for violence only because they are not people to accept diplomacy, but to be honest I dont think either will work. Iraq is a country that is never going to sort itself our, there are too many different groups that are fighting against each other, I dont think its ever going to get better.
2007-02-15 20:56:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋