USA vs Iraq...solutions?

[taz_rocks_miami]

Ok guys,

We've talked to death the entire "why did the US invade Iraq" thing. Lets talk about solutions to the entire thing. What do you guys think is needed for the US and the other countries to pull out of Iraq? Do you think Iraq will be able to sustain it's flegeling democracy on it's own?

I'll give my own oppinions later. Ready, set, GO!!!

[ScionDriver]

The short awnser is there is no way out. At least not in the short term. It will be years before its completely stable and good. Separtists and insurrengenants will keep coming and more will be willing to blow themselves up so until it all calms down enough it will be a long time indeed.

[Wolf03]

Ok, US originally went to Iraq because in the 90s, they had no enemy and therefore didn't get any new taxes from the taxpayers. What I'm trying to say is that the politicians weren't getting the amount of money they wanted. So, they had to look for a new enemy and turned to Middle East, now that there was a war, politicians had a reason to suck the money from the taxpayers and of course they were supported. And of course, who could forget the oil, they want free oil or get it as cheaply as possible.
The solution? The dumbass Bush should get his ass off and away from Iraq. If he wouldn't have went there in the first place the whole 911 thing could have easily been avoided.
The thing is that it's already too late. Iraq had a democracy there but Bush f***ed it up and wanted to place in their own leader that the Iraqi people hate so they rebelled against the US.
I wish I could go in more detail but it's late here...11:30 pm, maybe someone else could go more indepth.

[NAZCA C2]

If the US wanted it could get everything in Iraq under control in no time. The government is just too afraid of what everybody else in the world thinks. What the US needs to do is seriously crack down on the people that are trying to destabalize Iraq. The government doesnt want to do this because innocents will be accidentally killed and all the a-hole liberals in the world will accuse the US of targeting civillians.

The US needs to start training Iraqis to fend for themselves. The US is doing a pretty bad job of getting an Iraqi military in place. The US needs to use the special forces (Green Berets and Navy Seals) to train Iraqis and not use the regular army/marines. If the US could get a couple hundred good Iraqi fighters it would be a lot easier to root out the terrorists. The US special forces are the best in the world, if the govt. would let them do what they do best then things would be a lot better in Iraq.

If Iran and Syria want to F*** around in Iraq and cause trouble then they should be next on the list to go down.

[taz_rocks_miami]

If the US wanted it could get everything in Iraq under control in no time. The government is just too afraid of what everybody else in the world thinks. What the US needs to do is seriously crack down on the people that are trying to destabalize Iraq. The government doesnt want to do this because innocents will be accidentally killed and all the a-hole liberals in the world will accuse the US of targeting civillians.

The US needs to start training Iraqis to fend for themselves. The US is doing a pretty bad job of getting an Iraqi military in place. The US needs to use the special forces (Green Berets and Navy Seals) to train Iraqis and not use the regular army/marines. If the US could get a couple hundred good Iraqi fighters it would be a lot easier to root out the terrorists. The US special forces are the best in the world, if the govt. would let them do what they do best then things would be a lot better in Iraq.

So what are you proposing? Let the special forces go in guns ablizing anywhere they suspect insugents to be? Regardless of the consequenses? Boy, and you wonder why some countries call us cowboys.

If Iran and Syria want to F*** around in Iraq and cause trouble then they should be next on the list to go down.

And where are we gonna get the troops for that?

[Fleet 500]

Ok, US originally went to Iraq because in the 90s, they had no enemy and therefore didn't get any new taxes from the taxpayers. What I'm trying to say is that the politicians weren't getting the amount of money they wanted. So, they had to look for a new enemy and turned to Middle East, now that there was a war, politicians had a reason to suck the money from the taxpayers and of course they were supported. And of course, who could forget the oil, they want free oil or get it as cheaply as possible.
The solution? The dumbass Bush should get his ass off and away from Iraq.
The thing is that it's already too late. Iraq had a democracy there but Bush f***ed it up and wanted to place in their own leader that the Iraqi people hate so they rebelled against the US.
I wish I could go in more detail but it's late here...11:30 pm, maybe someone else could go more indepth.

The U.S. (actually, the U.S. and other coalition nations) went into Iraq in the '90s because Iraq invaded Kuwait.

If the U.S. is getting oil "as cheaply as possible," why did I pay $2.51/gallon today?

What? "Iraq had a democracy." It had the exact opposite of a democracy, a dictatorship. Where have you been?

Going by what you wrote, I think you were up later than you should have been!

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The U.S. (actually, the U.S. and other coalition nations) went into Iraq in the '90s because Iraq invaded Kuwait.

If the U.S. is getting oil "as cheaply as possible," why did I pay $2.51/gallon today?

What? "Iraq had a democracy." It had the exact opposite of a democracy, a dictatorship. Where have you been?

Going by what you wrote, I think you were up later than you should have been!

Trust me, $2.51/gallon is nothing.

We pay, in australia, $1.04 a LITRE.

it's still cheaper than water, in some places.

[Fleet 500]

Trust me, $2.51/gallon is nothing.

We pay, in australia, $1.04 a LITRE.

it's still cheaper than water, in some places.

$2.51 is something in the U.S.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I suppose, but i get annoyed when people bitch about somethng being so expensive when in reality they have it really, really good.

[whiteballz]

So what are you proposing? Let the special forces go in guns ablizing anywhere they suspect insugents to be? Regardless of the consequenses? Boy, and you wonder why some countries call us cowboys.

god forbid no! we wouldnt want any more american forces to die in friendly fire accidents!

americans should never go in first, they should learn from their mistakes. i want to know how well the first insurgency would have worked without the australian SPEC opps goin in first...

[Wolf03]

The U.S. (actually, the U.S. and other coalition nations) went into Iraq in the '90s because Iraq invaded Kuwait.

If the U.S. is getting oil "as cheaply as possible," why did I pay $2.51/gallon today?

What? "Iraq had a democracy." It had the exact opposite of a democracy, a dictatorship. Where have you been?

Going by what you wrote, I think you were up later than you should have been!

But the thing the Iraqis didn't mind it!!! And then US had "to make everything all good" by going there and "setting a democracy" and screwed up everything. And US should NOT bug and try to "help".

Fleet 500, man shut the f*** up, apparently you got no clue what's happening in the world. That's the lowest price for gas in this world. Man, I wish the oil prices will really be jacked up in the US, maybe to European prices and then maybe then stupid Americans will realize what other people had to be living through. Apparently you (most Americans) have nothing better to do than complain and think only of yourselves. And that's in relation to that Americans didn't go to the Iraq to take care of the Iraqis but to get their precious oil to keep the prices low.

[Matra et Alpine]

If the US wanted it could get everything in Iraq under control in no time.

What the world history has shown for the last 5000 years is that no matter WHO it was, invasion and control ultimately loses out to self-determination by locals.
With the modern access to weapons and the willingness of suicide bombers there is NO WAY the US coudl control it.
I always ask folks to look back to Norrthern Ireland as a recent case. It coudl NOT be cobntrolled by law and dictate, then it coudlnt be controlled by force - and THAT was with half the population WANTING them there !!
HAD to come back to allowign locasl self-determination as they are doign with Iraq.

The government is just too afraid of what everybody else in the world thinks. What the US needs to do is seriously crack down on the people that are trying to destabalize Iraq.

Try finding them. Anarchists don't wear uniforms. So there is no viable way to control parts of the population and attempts to control ALL of it will just create more "freedom fighters"
The US woudl end up looking worse than Saddam and the scary picture they create of him is now the ONLY justification presented for the war.
HOW coudl the US then act worse ?

If the US could get a couple hundred good Iraqi fighters it would be a lot easier to root out the terrorists. The US special forces are the best in the world, if the govt. would let them do what they do best then things would be a lot better in Iraq.

As there is no formal state of war then the armed forces cannot act as vigilanties and "special forces" are legaly frowned on, there woudl be Internationl Law court cases for decades ( oh that woudl be if the US woudl agree to obey those laws )

If Iran and Syria want to F*** around in Iraq and cause trouble then they should be next on the list to go down.

hmm, replace "Iran and Syria" with "USA and Britain" and you can see the mess we're in trying to suggest we're better

[Matra et Alpine]

If the U.S. is getting oil "as cheaply as possible," why did I pay $2.51/gallon today?

Because GWB is ensuring the employment and profits fo an arms and oil industry largest in the world. YOU are paying for those fat-cats to make MONEY out of a so-called "peace action"

[NAZCA C2]

So what are you proposing? Let the special forces go in guns ablizing anywhere they suspect insugents to be? Regardless of the consequenses? Boy, and you wonder why some countries call us cowboys.



And where are we gonna get the troops for that?

Special Forces would be able to get human intelligence which is something the US has none of right now which is why were in this mess. The US special forces are doing a great job in Afghanistan, you dont hear of roadside bombs going off everyday over there do ya. Regular army troops can't fight a guerilla war. If the govt would let our spec. forces train a couple hundred or so Iraqis and make them into effective soldiers we wouldnt need so many regular army/marine soldiers.

[Matra et Alpine]

Special Forces would be able to get human intelligence which is something the US has none of right now which is why were in this mess. The US special forces are doing a great job in Afghanistan, you dont hear of roadside bombs going off everyday over there do ya. Regular army troops can't fight a guerilla war.

Vietnam and Afhanistan proved to the US and Russia that NOONE can fight a guerilla war and shoudl not try !!

If the govt would let our spec. forces train a couple hundred or so Iraqis and make them into effective soldiers we wouldnt need so many regular army/marine soldiers.

You need to read more about international situations before making such sweeping statements

There are still death squads out there - http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...432901,00.html

US "Special Forces" had to ask for help on the first foray into Afghanistan, Not sure how many other "advisers" are still there doign the hard stuff !!
2001 -- "Troops from the Special Air Service are almost certainly to be used in any operation, both to emphasise that retaliation will not be carried out by the US acting alone, and because the British elite force is highly regarded by its American counterparts,"
march 2004 -- "British SAS rushed to Afghanistan"