Wouldn't it make more sense to create a small neighborhood say at a corner of four square blocks, surround it with a wall, allow no one to enter or leave, and bring in food supplies to them, rather than allow people to head into open markets where terrorists can set off powerful bombs? The military can check out each person to make sure they are not a terrorist. Make-shift schools can be built. Mosques, too. . As they make a neighborhood 'secure' they could expand. This seems like a safer alternative versus seeing 70 to 150 innocent people killed each week. Why hasn't the U.S. military considered this? At this point, allowing people to walk around is not an option any longer. It's too dangerous. With a small compound, they might better secure it from rock and grenade attacks, too. Granted, this might smack in the face of Democracy U.S. style, but shouldn't life be more than flag-waiving politics? And can't a defense be divised against mortors? And who says it has to be a ghetto?
2007-02-18 07:26:26 · 6 answers · asked by Westbound 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
First of all, a lot of people live in Baghdad. I'm sure you know this. There is no surefire way of telling who is a terrorist and who is not, even if you detain them. It's not as if the US has a dossier on every citizen. I mean sure they know a few terrorists, but I bet you they don't know half of their names. And you do realize that the longer we are there and the more people's deaths we are responsible for, we breed more terrorists. It's a cycle. Everyone has relatives, and a lot of the youth in Iraq have nothing else right now besides Jihad, because even the walk to school is too dangerous.
2007-02-18 07:40:36 · answer #1 · answered by Special J 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where should one start with their answer?
In such an extremely unstable region, with differing interests as well, the method that you suggest would be very difficult to just get started. Then there is the issue of managing such a project and ultimately it's mission.
Right now, it's because of "flag waving politics" that our effort is too ablate rather than pointed. There is too much going on right now with our foreign policy toward this war with the recent elections, and the upcoming presidential elections on the horizon will have it's effect on how we proceed.
Your proposal makes sense, but as the world is, it would be difficult to sell any common sense to anyone when they are so deeply involved with the war.
2007-02-18 07:40:36 · answer #2 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the respond to it relatively is so politically loaded that that's confusing to grant an precise answer. The conservative estimate is around ninety,000. yet those are in basic terms deaths that have been shown via western components. lower back in 2004 a scientific magazine placed the deaths at a hundred,000 and in 2006 they mentioned 650,000, so if that grow to be everywhere close to actual we'd be observing so plenty greater now. yet through political implications the learn grow to be frequently discredited. i've got self assurance ill now.
2016-10-15 23:03:27 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think that you are completely correct on this statement! by cousin died December 19th from this same reason people coming in and out of places that are not secured by the military. and he was in the military. i think that you should e-mail this to the government and see what they have to say.
2007-02-18 07:33:16 · answer #4 · answered by utlonghorns2011 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To expensive, and who would build it wile being under fire?
2007-02-22 04:48:30 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you have some good ideas.
2007-02-18 12:54:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋