So liberals? What are your ideas to rectify the situations in Iraq and Iran? Really...?

Question

I'd like to know your solutions that will keep our country "safe" and "free from future terrorism".

Answer 1

First of all, I am not one of those save the whales tree hugging liberals that scream about ending imperialism. I am also not one of those "Bush says jump, I say how high!" right wingers. I am a realistic moderate (I voted for Bush in 2000, and Kerry in 2004) So, here is my answer:
Follow the Iraq Study Group recommendation to the fullest extent possible.
1) The Israeli-Palestinian crisis is related to the other problems in the region. Pressure Israel to make a settlement, and don't guarantee them unconditional aid
2) Focus on training the Iraqi troops, and scale down the combat role of American troops. However, don't withdraw completely. Keep a small contingent of special forces, a light infantry brigade, a stryker brigade, air support, and intelligence elements in country. What needs to seen by the Iraqis is us leaving a less visible footprint on Iraq that doesn't look like occupiers. However, there need to be enough forces to deal with a buildup of enemy forces when necessary. The money saved could be used for bribes and kickbacks necessary to gather intelligence from the Iraqis in country: It worked against Zarqawi.
3) Beef up forces in Afghanistan to route out the resurgent taleban forces and al-quaida. Step up pressure on Pakistan and conduct missions within the Pakistan border that are clandestine.
4) Keep the pressure on Iran by moving carriers and warships in the region to make him THINK we are going to attack, but don't do it! Saddam was willing to let weapons inspectors in before the war started, and we ignored him. This time, go to the brink but don't attack. Get them to negotiate when we are at a position of strength. If we start redeploying our forces, they won't be overstreached and the option to attack would "look" more viable.
5) Bring the national guard home and stick them on the Mexican border.
If you disagree with my intelligent well thought out answer, I invite you to explain your differences instead of attacking me and calling me a liberal coward communist terrorist whatever.

Answer 2

Here's a response I copied and pasted from a similar question---here it is:

There are parts of Iraq that aren't so bad; the Iraqi gov't/military/citizens needs to relocate away from the violent areas and then 'dig in' and fight from more 'solid ground'. This concedes the interim loss of a city or two (Bahgdad included), but I believe trying the establish Law & Order in Bahgdad is absolutley hopeless--we will be at war FAR longer than nearly everyone predicts--that's always proven to be true in cases like this.

This isn't retreat--it's tactics. In war you should hit where soft and take what the opposition 'gives you'. This allows easier victories and, in this case, greater physical separation between who's for us and who's against us. Greater separation will increase prudent opportunity for our air attacks and reduce our troops' casualties. Air attacks will also soften the opposition and allow for a greater exansion of easy victories. This can be repeated until you gain total victory.

My other option is to pull out--save our precious lives and hard-earned money and forget about their crappy lives that have gone on for centuries without us anyway. This war has cost a lot of money---money that goes to contractors (largely a company owned by the Vice-President). The war turbulance has increased the cost of a barrel of oil, but the American oil refineries still maintain their profit percentages---resulting in record profits. This war has greatly greatly benefitted certain contractors and the US oil industry--George W. & Dick C. say keep going!! I hope nobody wonders why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
New material:

As far a Iran goes--they'll quiet down when we leave Iraq--(and that doesn't mean we leave 'because' of them). The list can continue on who we fight--Afghanistan; parts of northern Africa & S. America; and N. Korea.

I believe we should bring our troops home turn our their attention towards homeland security, drug trafficking, and immigration. Foreign wars of the future can be fought with a widening gap of technology regarding un-manned reconnaissence and weaponry.

Answer 3

Have you noticed that not a single lib has given an answer?That is because they have none of their own but rather parrot what the media or the Iraq study group says. Gary quotes from the liberal playbook and gives a great answer

Edit; Apologies to Jon B who did at least answer, even if his answer isn't sound advice! I did not call anyone a liberal communist coward. Look at the above answer and see

Edit #2; I know we could surrender. What a thought!

Answer 4

i really think the best thing to do is pull troops back to kuwait. pull all american contractors from thier country, use iraqi forces to police thier streets , use our forces to play a support role. let thier contractors rebuild. iraq is not our country, if we want them to have a free society then we need to let them rebuild thier country and see a good future for thier children.not have americans profit from thier misfortune that we created. oh yeah by the way iran really isnt a problem bush is only playing it up to keep you scared was iraq really a threat? i dont think so. read A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY its a play by play on how to secure american intrestes around the world. google it and read it.

stop being afraid of every thing you hear on the news "smoke and mirrors"

Answer 5

I thought the "Decision Maker" had a plan to rectify the situation in Iraq. I mean only a completely inept fool would invade another country without a clear plan for victory and how to withdraw.

Also "liberals" do not need a plan, since "liberal" is not a political party.

Answer 6

How about:

1) Leave Iraq

2) Open talks with Iran

(Neither 1 or 2 you'll do anyway because it's not the Republican way to look for an easy exit strategy--nor do you want to talk with your "enemies", because it will make you look "weak".)

3) Stop funding your allies who will later become your enemy. (Does Osama bin Laden ring a bell?)

Answer 7

relatively i won't be able to fathom a valid reason the two. the sole place that would have in all hazard been a worse selection for them to bypass often is the the Taliban controlled aspects of Afghanistan. they had to the two be loopy or they believed Obama grow to be extraordinary that there grow to be no terrorist hazard it grow to be all purely remoted incidences.

Answer 8

It's not a "liberal" problem to fix. The idiots in office put our troops there, but it's going to take some intelligent "liberals" to get us out. We can never rectify a situation that has been going on for centuries and Bush only proved his ignorance in believing that he could. He's not playing a game of Risk here, he's playing with human lives. The day his precious little girls go over there to fight is the day he can have any of my 4 sons! I hope he burns in hell.

Answer 9

Actually going after the main person responsible for the 9/11 attacks would be a good start.

By the way, it was Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein, who was responsible for the attacks.

Answer 10

Only if the polls show it in their favor. All else blame Bush. Hold a resolution, flip flop if it goes wrong, blame Bush. No idea needed.