If I was President or Commander of Armed Forces of the United States I would do the following to end the bloodshed:
Declare martial law and put a lock on every town in Iraq, primarily Bagdad. While being heavily armed, our soldiers would take a cencus and find out how many good people live in each town and how many terorists. Weed out the terrorists and put them in prison camps so they are of no harm to any one anymore. Once that is done, our troops would have to then take a census in the countryside which may be the hardest job. Work with the present Iraqi government so they can provide the troops for the initial census takers.
It should be that simple. Do you think it would work? Please be serious and share your thoughts. Thank you.
2007-03-20 04:21:55 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Thank you for your sincere answers. Anyone except for a Geico Caveman should be able to tell just by appearance who is a terrorist and who is not. Also, the other GOOD people who have lived in each community all their lives, would, I'm sure be more than happy to name out any suspected terrorist in their neighborhood.
2007-03-20 04:38:17 · update #1
VICKIE B. FOR VICE-PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-03-20 05:05:58 · update #2
Agree to a point. As soon as they went into Iraq 4 years ago they should have declared martial law and confiscated all weapons. When you invade a country you have to BECOME the law, and they dropped the ball on that for sure. Apparently they forgot that these folks have never enjoyed the freedoms we have and take for granted. And maybe they should have done more research on the Sunni-Shiite Islam split which goes back about a thousand years. Should have never gone in there to begin with. Iraq's only WMD was Saddam himself. Bad for the Iraqi people (Shiites and Kurds, anyway) but not exactly plutonium.
2007-03-20 04:59:29 · answer #1 · answered by Vicki B 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
So, not only would you illegally invade and occupy the country, you would impose martial law and expect the Iraqi people to like it. They would roll over and let you take people at random for you to imprison at will, and incarcerate indefinitely without trial. And how would you 'weed out' the terrorists from 'good people'? They don't wear 'I'm a terrorist' T-shirts y'know.
I'm sorry, there are so many human rights violations in what you propose that no, I can't take it seriously. And what do you mean about being heavily armed? Our troops are already armed to the teeth. That hasn't prevented over 3000 heroic lives being lost. They're not just soldiers, they need to be diplomats, and gain the trust and co-operation of the Iraqi people. Not easy when you are the aggressor, and your occupation is deeply unpopular.
If you really wanted to upset them and let them know the real reason for the invasion, you would create a law that allowed you to let companies from your own country come in an exploit the oil industry, allowing very little of the revenue from Iraqi oil to go to the Iraqis. They will thank you for exploiting them and won't mind that $125 billion dollars in oil revenue has 'gone missing' since you invaded.
Oh oops, that's already happening.
2007-03-20 04:57:50 · answer #2 · answered by Heralda 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
nevertheless i'm an American i'm ninety p.c. English in my genes. I have been given to declare this British thought desires some revamping - i might prefer to agree because of the fact i prefer the troops abode better than maximum. i think Britain has talked of a timetable for withdraw. This conflict would have been a scam and pointless for no another than Exxon Oil/the Oil companies and traders (Iraq holds 40% of the international oil - Chevron/Exxon already has authorization for the Oil Fields in north and south Iraq) yet now that it occured the so called al Queta has felt abliged to fulfill us there so it incredibly is now risky for Iraqis if there is instantaneous withdraw even with how undesirable we prefer it. On genuine of that, vast company has interest interior the Oil and we've been warned by ability of Senators that no longer in basic terms do we've this decitful conflict occuring there is interest in scuffling with Iran. i'm no longer able to communicate on the subject of the immigrant area of it - even nevertheless which would be a factor of a answer - because of the fact the u . s . a . became based on the inspiration of imigration and all have been welcome with the form preserving that correct so - i'm extremely shaky on that one. I say windpower and conservation in all aspects of the planet for international warming - we would desire to wean off of Oil or we will not in basic terms be determining of it, we can be thoroughly controled international huge by ability of the Profiters of Oil on a similar time as we are decressing the planets ablility to proceed to exist.
2016-10-01 05:34:43 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What a simple solution...from a simple person?
And YES, I'll tell you why.
A census of who?? Are you asking the terrorist to identify themselves?? Or are you asking others to turn terrorists in?
If they are terrorist...well, do I need to go on.
As for others turning in the terrorist. Isn't that how we ended up arresting thousands of innocent people when we invaded afghanistan. Didn't the Northern Alliance turn people in simply to get good with america and for the money.
Arm strategists and a bunch of sheep. Sheesh.....
2007-03-20 22:50:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Jim K. Who's going to write that they're a terrorist on their census form? The problem is the troops aren't allowed to occupy territory. We go in there, blow up everything, and then leave. The terrorists just come right back. And even if we did do your plan; terrorists normally hide until they're ready to blow themselves up.
2007-03-20 04:38:20 · answer #5 · answered by Jacob 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Are you been sarcastic? I mean for using the word brilliant for your plan? If you planed it as a joke you got a 10! Please!!! What gives you the right to go to someones country and kill people, and tell them how they should live. This attitude only increases the bad perception the rest of the world has of the people from the united states. Well, as Rome, big empires rotten from within.
2007-03-20 05:09:59 · answer #6 · answered by Cali 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
don't you suppose you would find a few people that would lie? and say, I am a good guy and then turn around and shoot you?
These people will not tell the truth and they are not honorable. If they die a martyr, to them that is a good thing. Their minds are wired differently than ours. We believe in truth and honesty, and life and liberty ane the pursuit of happiness- they believe in killing and more killing and taking over the world.
2007-03-20 04:31:11 · answer #7 · answered by northville 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It would work beautifully if we only had a machine like an X-Ray or SCAT SCAN machine to determine who the Good People were as opposed to the Bad people!
But since we don't and people constantly change their minds - it would be impossible over the long run.
Unfortunately we have to depend on if they are shooting at the Enemy - they are our friends! And if they are shooting at Us - they are out Enemy!
2007-03-20 04:32:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Isn't that what they're trying to do now? And who's going to fill out "Occupation: Terrorist" on his census form?
2007-03-20 04:29:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
You cannot tell who is a terrorist just by appearance any more than you can distinguish who is a child molestor or rapist or murderer in your own community!
Pray tell - what exactly does a terrorist look like anyhow???
2007-03-20 04:41:48 · answer #10 · answered by J M 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋