I know I am.... one part of me wants to flood Iraq with more than enough troops to insure innocent people aren't dying by next month.. just because it would be safer for both our troops and the Iraqi's... then another part of me says that the things we would actually have to do to bring about peace (most of which you wouldn't hear about on the news.. or at least wouldn't want to hear about) isn't ethical and isn't our business.
both sides have sound logic behind them.. paying for their freedom with our troops a bad idea... even if we shouldn't have been there we broke it and owe them some aid...it could cause much worse problems in the future if we don't act... the dictator is gone.. now it's their country and their responsiblility... the list goes on and they are all valid points.... I think we are past the part where there were good decisions and now all we are left with are different levels of bad decisions.
what are your thoughts.
2007-03-23 03:12:50 · 5 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
tell me another one: that is what I was referring to on the "you wouldn't want to know" statement... and a large part of my dilemma as well
2007-03-23 03:27:33 · update #1
The problem with the concept of preventing innocent deaths is that, given the "enemy" we're fighting - how do you know, until the bomb goes off, who is innocent and who is not? These people will use their CHILDREN to set off bombs if they think they can get away with it more easily that way. It's impossible to identify the innocent people. So I'm not convinced it's worth the investment to send more troops to be in harm's way to protect people we can't identify.
2007-03-23 03:23:23 · answer #1 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
pip, here is my post from earlier to Anthony....
The final solution is to put enough soldiers on the ground, in the streets so that we can deter violence long enough to win hearts and minds in the communities. By the time we lighten up the presence and the militias/insurgents/terrorists come back to the surface, the people will no longer want them there and prefer to live in peace. That's the solution. We have only been doing that on a small scale. Now is our chance, with this surge, to make it happen all over Baghdad. It does work. I've been able to do it in my area of Baghdad with great success.
When it's all said and done, we can complete the peace enforcing part of this war and be a complete success.
2007-03-23 10:18:25 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Personally, I think we need to establish voluntary civilian safe-zones.
Set up fortified cities (walled) and any civilian who wants to can come live there (after being searched). The only rule is that if people leave, they can't get back in. Set up businesses for people to work in, schools for children, churches and mosques for everyone, and a vigorous police force and judicial system.
Then, the religious fanatics who care more about blowing people up than about making their country safe can continue to do so, and those who just want to live in peace can do so as well.
2007-03-23 10:20:27 · answer #3 · answered by Steve 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
My thoughts are that violence is not a solution to violence. If we continue to use the methods we are currently using, the results will be more violence and bloodshed, both Iraqi and American.
2007-03-23 10:34:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Troops can't ensure peace, or convert extremists. Ask Israel...
2007-03-23 10:25:59 · answer #5 · answered by Carpe diem 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋