No military solution to Iraq!!!??

Question

I repeat this from what I read in an Indian newspaper....
The US invades a country claiming it has WMD's, finds none, hangs its ruler, commits mass murder of innocent civilians, rapes the people, ensuring it's in a worse state than before & then
General David Petraeus of US Army states "No military solution to Iraq".......Smacks of idiocy, bigotry, dishonesty...you name it !!

Answer 1

Yea there is first ''Nuke em'' pave it and build a wal-mart

Answer 2

Hard to find the question in your statement.
Did you know there are 1000s of sites with discussion boards to debate the issue, this site is not a politcal forum. Oh and much more credible news sources are available, than an unnamed rag Indian newspaper,did the story elaborate just how many rapes, and what American hung him, mass murder? The worlds a better place without Sadam, his brother and henchmen. You also took the Generals statement a bit out of context, here is what he actually said on March 7th 2007

Hard to findBAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The new commander of U.S. troops in Iraq has warned that military force alone will not be enough to quell the country's violent insurgency.
Speaking publicly Thursday for the first time since taking charge in Baghdad last month, Gen. David Petraeus said military action was necessary to improve security in Iraq but "not sufficient" to end violence altogether.
"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus told a news conference, adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace.
Petraeus said talks should include "some of those who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them," and said a key challenge facing Iraq's government was to identify "reconcilable" militant groups and bring them inside the political process.
Petraeus took charge of the 140,000-strong U.S. force in Iraq last month. Since a successful invasion in 2003, which quickly overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime, U.S. forces have become bogged down by a combination of attacks by terrorist groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq and bloody sectarian fighting between Sunni and Shiite Iraqis.
On Thursday Petraeus said he saw no need to bolster troop numbers beyond reinforcements announced by the White House for a renewed effort to improve security in Baghdad and Anbar province. But he warned those troops committed to the campaign would likely remain in place "beyond the summer."
"This endeavor will take months -- not days or weeks to implement," he said.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday announced plans to send almost 5,000 additional troops to Iraq to serve as military police, bringing the planned "surge" to 26,000.
"Right now we do not see other requests [for troops] looming out there. That's not to say that some emerging mission or emerging task will not require that, and if it does then we will ask for that," Petraeus said.
Democrats in the House and Senate pushed legislation Thursday that would have U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by August 2008, or sooner if certain benchmarks of progress aren't met. But the White House said the president would veto any such proposal. (Full story)
Iraqi civilian safety would be a top priority during the security crackdown, Petraeus said, warning that militants had sought to intensify sectarian violence in anticipation of the U.S.-led security crackdown.
"As citizens feel safer, conditions will be set for the resumption and improvement of basic services," Petraeus said.
Petraeus' concerns about civilian safety come amidst a week filled with bloody attacks meted against Shiite pilgrims by militants he called "thugs with no soul."
More than 170 have been killed and nearly 300 wounded while making a religious journey -- many by foot -- to the holy city of Karbala to celebrate the holy day of Arbayeen, which falls on Saturday.
a question in your statement only opions, why did you omit the context of the statement.heres the whole story.

Answer 3

Sounds just like it, it would be like the United States to randomly charge into a country and take over, like Cuba or the Philippines.

Answer 4

nicely at first Saddam taken care of teh Shii's badly and and that they concern the Sunni's coming lower back to ability will start up the discomfort as quickly as extra, however the Sunni's say the Shii's handle them undesirable. In the two cases its authentic and thats why Iraq isnt going everywhere. So what do u do???? Have the people choose a appropriate government with out interference from warlords and silence them by some ability. decrease the roots surprising out and u have been given no chief, with no longer chief then the people will start to think of on their very own. This warlords the so noted as heros homicide people, kidnap youngsters and stress tehm to connect their team and worst of all they plan on kicking the individuals out and having a tribal conflict only like in Afghanistan after Soviets left. Now ur answer u ask??simplee each and every gun u produce, sign in it and make certain the bullets you employ might desire to be a particular sort. on the tip of the day infantrymen return their weapons yet needless to say ur night shift infantrymen gave distinctive weapons. Now whilst a solider doesnt return your weapon, you presently understand who has it and whos a factor of the warlords or opposition. in case your fortunate u might have their address lol bypass to their abode and get them out, ask them questions see what you will get out of them PEACEFULLY THOU. next individuals might desire to end treating the Iraqis like shyt needless to say THERES NO weapons of mass destruction which you will locate, no might desire to launch your anger. Thirdly, prepare as plenty infantrymen as you could, police stress despite protection adult men a probability, DONT deliver all of them OUT a million/2 of them only get away and take up palms. finally, start up at one section at a time, have snitches and supply them rewards. and PLZ team the individuals UP WITH THE IRAQIS a minimum of u you already know they aint working away lol for a million american soldier there ought to b a minimum of three different officers

Answer 5

This may not be an exclusively political forum, but it does have sections for politics.
Ya -no american hung saddam, they deposed him & facilitated his execution.
Also, I suppose the world IS a better place without saddam, but I'm certain iraq is not a better place with US forces in it ?

Answer 6

Consider the source of your so called "news"....
If you believe those reports, then I've got some great beach front property in the Himalayas to sell!

Answer 7

I think your Daffy Duck name says it all.

Answer 8

US did not hang their ruler

Answer 9

IT all good!
do not worry just be happy ;-)

Answer 10

thats correct.