So, how would you stop the War?

[righthand]

[center]
So, how would you stop the War?[/center]

Often asked with the addition of 'as*hole', with the expectation that you don't have an answer. Usually they are not really interested if you did. Where do you go to get the answer to any question? What keeps repeating itself. HISTORY. So what lesson are there from history.

Well, it couldn't be simpler. We only have to go back to Gulf War One. Only a blip in historical terms. After the very successful Allied over running of Iraqi forces, it all came to a halt. The expected thing after the success was for the Allies to continue to Baghdad. Now, if it was the TV images of the burnt corpses on that killing road that caused the halt, we may never know. I do remember the very reasoned discussions about who could replace Saddam. Then and now, I believe that George Senior got it right.

Now all would have been well with the world, but what happens. George junior replaces dad as US president and unfortunately he ain't no chip off the old block. He has a big chip, but it's on his shoulder. In fact, his chip is so big that he has a peculiar strut. It looks faintly military, but he never was in the forces. He flew off in a US plane to some bar in the South for the war. He does talk a good war. He fancies himself as a war leader, a big-time commander. He speaks like a faulty machine gun. You never know when he's going to splutter to a stop .

Now whether it just to beat his dad or Juniors notion to put a perceived 'wrong' to right, neither have any meaning in the lives lost daily. So no matter how this pans out, George Sr has proved beyond doubt that Sr was right and Jr never will get it right. That probably causes Jr more loss of sleep than the blood of his young men. What would they say to George if they could get within an asses roar of him. Certainly they will not be seeing him at their funerals. Junior doesn't do funerals.

So taking George Sr as our lead, what is the solution to the Iraqi problem? The solution in the past always has been a 'strong man' and native. Only one candidate, right. You've got it in one. Ask Saddam if he would help out as a puppet leader in return for not stretching his neck. This would fit in more with the old style US solution to it's banana republics. Let's forget all this democracy guff and get back to real US style democracy - hire the biggest crook in town. I would guarantee peace in a week. Set a crook to catch a crook.

Will it happen? No chance. Yet I would love to here the administration answer against the simple logic of George Sr. Of course, Senior would have to back it. Imagine, "now junior, this is how it is. I'm going to save your hide. Bend over. You need a good lashing. Daddy knows best and never forget it. And send that Rummy up to me next. He needs a good scre*ing. Barbara, grab a stick."

Think of the advantages for George Jr. First he gets back on Daddy's Christmas list. Then he gets off the 'badboy' list. That's the same list as Hitler and Stalin. Stalin got off it when he let his generals fight. It's the 'Worst Military Leaders in History' list. Nowadays it's called the 'Slam Dunk' or the 'Bring it on' list.

[center]righthand [/center]

[dotcoma]

I would stop the war by getting all in the UN pressured into helping the cleanup and I would fund the Iraqi soldiers until they can seal their borders.

[Caduceus]

One should be careful about praising the first Bush's handling of the war, since his last-minute withdrawal (politically motivated by the posturing of other Arab nations) enabled Hussein to ruthlessly slaughter all the Iraqi allies in the south that had helped us at great personal peril.

[RickSp]

Declare victory and go home. The first would be a lie, of course, though in this war that would make it official policy.

We need to give up the position still held still by delusional neocons who think that killing people will somehow remake the world in our own glorious image. Whatever we do, the outcome is not likely to be positive. The longer we stay, however, the worse things are likely to become.

Iraq Exit Strategy

[monty of ll]

righthand- That may not be a bad idea enlisting Saddam to help bring the Iraqi people together and end the war. Some say that he would win an election even now against any other alternative in Iraq. If it's not true then I would like to know who could beat him.

But the first Gulf War was a complete setup by the U.S. to destroy Iraq's military might because Iraq would have soon regained it's strength that it lost during the Iran/Iraq war, which of course was also according to U.S. plans to keep Iraq down. They sure did do that when the U.S. murdered up to 100,000 Iraqi soldiers as they retreated from Kuwait waving flags of surrender.

The only problem is that Saddam refused to fall from power and that necessitated the next war. Had Saddam been sympathetic to the U.S. then the mess that was Iraq could have continued along indefinitely the way it had for the 12 years since Gulf War 1. No way the U.S. could just sit back and see Russia, France, Germany and others reap the spoils.

Unfortunately the situation is now a good chance of Iran and Iraq forming their own coalition, due to the Shiite majorities being sympathetic with each other's cause. Not good and the obvious preventative action that Saddam was taking to prevent a huge Shiite majority from coming to power was the solution. Hold the country together with a little necessary brutality, so to speak. The planned Iran/Iraq coalition could lead to a M.E. power that would make the former Iraq look like a small player in the M.E. Of course this wouldn't be all that bad if the U.S. could muster up a coalition to go after Iran and destroy it too before it becomes too powerful. Say get some French, German, Russian U.N. force to stand in there and get whacked by Iran. LOL That may not be possible , due to the fact that Iran has the capability now of doing some serious damage to U.S. forces if attacked. And getting Israel to do the dirty work for the U.S. is not going to work either because everybody, Iran included, knows that the Israelis are the U.S.' proxy in the M.E.

So maybe Saddam could help out if he was released from jail. Sadly that would necessitate the U.S. eating some crow and therefore won't happen. But one thing is for sure, Iran must be destroyed before it can gain enough strength to prevent itself from suffering the same fate as Iraq at the hands of the U.S. war machine. That coming conflagration is going to make Saddam's war look like the 'chicken of all wars' compared to the forces that will meet in this one.

Doesn't any country have a spare nuke or two that they can lend to Iran just until they get their own. N.Korea? China? Russia? Pakistan? Hell, China has the motive to prevent the U.S. from gaining complete control over the M.E. doesn't it?

[righthand]

Quote by: Caduceus One should be careful about praising the first Bush's handling of the war, since his last-minute withdrawal (politically motivated by the posturing of other Arab nations) enabled Hussein to ruthlessly slaughter all the Iraqi allies in the south that had helped us at great personal peril.

You are speaking of the Marsh Arabs, I believe, but you are very selective in the bits you remember. Most remember that their rebellion was based on the clear signals given by the Bush Sr. administration that they could expect aid if they rebelled. Your recollection is like remembering only the soldier who pulled the trigger and not the officer who commanded him. So any blood shed is due equally to the US. In this case, there was no direct connection between Bush's stopping, and the Marsh Arabs rising. I can see it would suit now to rewrite this.

I remember still those Kurds in the north. Whole mountains covered with starving families in the snow. Yes, thousands were saved from certain death by food airlifts. Even more were saved by the 'no fly zone'. Abuse of this initial good measure lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi kids.

[righthand]

monty of ll Righthand - That may not be a bad idea enlisting Saddam to help bring the Iraqi people together and end the war. Some say that he would win an election even now against any other alternative in Iraq. If it's not true then I would like to know who could beat him.

When I started this it was in response to another thread. I've very happy how it has developed from what I expected would end in miscellaneous like Threat to Divest, so I'm happy for your input. I didn't expect to be in anyway taken serious with my 'Saddam is Back' scheme. So I dressed it up as a bit of a skit to avoid the barbs. Maybe there's a lesson here.

Monty But the first Gulf War was a complete setup by the U.S. to destroy Iraq's military might because Iraq would have soon regained it's strength that it lost during the Iran/Iraq war, which of course was also according to U.S. plans to keep Iraq down. They sure did do that when the U.S. murdered up to 100,000 Iraqi soldiers as they retreated from Kuwait waving flags of surrender.

The US has not and may not ever forgive Iran for the embassy siege. Century long enmity is the norm. Cuba and - until recently - Vietnam are favourite hate-countries. China was a week ago. While reasonably loyal to compliant friends, it always stubbornly 'loyal' to its enemies. So to stack up you need to explain why the US would swap around friend for enemy, unless you mean that both would be now enemies. The danger would be that they work together which would be much much worse from a US point of view.

Monty The only problem is that Saddam refused to fall from power and that necessitated the next war. Had Saddam been sympathetic to the U.S. then the mess that was Iraq could have continued along indefinitely the way it had for the 12 years since Gulf War 1. No way the U.S. could just sit back and see Russia, France, Germany and others reap the spoils.

My next point is now very PC. Dead is dead Nothing brings them back. All you can hope for is to catch and punish the guilty so its not repeated. Mainly you hope not to elect bad leaders, You've elect yours twice in 'free and fair' elections at least by US standards. The media 'sacred cow' dead were in the shallow graves and earlier the Kurd towns. Where now are the images of Sabra and Shatila or of Rwanda or of Bosnia? Are they not longer valid dead. So when the media harps on about Saddam's dead then I think of the other dead. I know of your collateral dead.

I'm also thinking of the stadia upon stadia full of Latin American dead that the US is responsible for even if you didn't directly do the torture or execute Latin America's finest young people. You specially trained the killers on your own soil.

Monty Unfortunately the situation is now a good chance of Iran and Iraq forming their own coalition, due to the Shiite majorities being sympathetic with each others cause. Not good and the obvious preventative action that Saddam was taking to prevent a huge Shiite majority from coming to power was the solution. Hold the country together with a little necessary brutality, so to speak.

You're right. 1. On the strong man point, I have asked the question aready about after the capture of Baghdad. US soldiers in the main stood about while Iraqis looted their hospital, schools, museums, anything. Why. Under Martial Law it is perfectly acceptable to shoot looters. It's one of the few times that summary execution is OK with me. Five, ten dead looters would have indicated to all that the US was in charge. Iraqis would have understood too. As it was it was downhill all the way thereafter. It was never explained why. It's clear Rumsfeld didn't send enough to do the job - yet he kept his - but it doesn't explain the inactivity of those there. Now I know that's off this thread but Saddam is reasonably justified in putting down a rebellion using reasonable force. Reasonable force is a very heavy instrument in US interpretation when the force is US, even against its own citizens. So while all the belated bleating about Saddam's excesses. What were countries doing when it was happening. That's about the only time that it matters. Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia to save them from Pol Pot is one occasion that there was purpose. Who had the strength and means to do something then?

Monty The planned Iran/Iraq coalition could lead to a M.E. power that would make the former Iraq look like a small player in the M.E. Of course this wouldn't be all that bad if the U.S. could muster up a coalition to go after Iran and destroy it too before it becomes too powerful. Say get some French, German, Russian U.N. force to stand in there and get whacked by Iran. LOL That may not be possible , due to the fact that Iran has the capability now of doing some serious damage to U.S. forces if attacked. And getting Israel to do the dirty work for the U.S. is not going to work either because everybody, Iran included, knows that the Israelis are the U.S.' proxy in the M.E'. So maybe Saddam could help out if he was released from jail. Sadly that would necessitate the U.S. eating some crow and therefore won't happen.

Spot on!

Monty But one thing is for sure, Iran must be destroyed before it can gain enough strength to prevent itself from suffering the same fate as Iraq at the hands of the U.S. war machine. That coming conflagration is going to make Saddam's war look like the 'chicken of all wars' compared to the forces that will meet in this one.

I'm not sure if I understand this.

Monty Doesn't any country have a spare nuke or two that they can lend to Iran just until they get their own. N.Korea? China? Russia? Pakistan? Hell, China has the motive to prevent the U.S. from gaining complete control over the M.E. doesn't it?

Boy, can you think outside the box.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Righthand So, how would you stop the War?

We can't. That's why I was screaming at the top of my lungs that we shouldn't go in there in the first place. Once you smack the tarbaby, you're stuck.

Quote by: RickSp Declare victory and go home.

That may get us out of Iraq... it won't stop the war.

.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Sonart We can't. That's why I was screaming at the top of my lungs that we shouldn't go in there in the first place. Once you smack the tarbaby, you're stuck. That may get us out of Iraq... it won't stop the war. .

Better than sinking deeper into the mire. Better than spending more blood.

Oh, I know. We can't pull out until things are stable. Can anyone please explain to me how an an infidel invader can possibly act as a stablizing force?

[icu]

Foreign policy is determined by ‘national self interest’ – so to change foreign policy would be to change either the concept of ‘national self interest’ (which I personally think is the root cause of world misery) or to convince the policy makers (which isn’t you and me unfortunately) that war is NOT in their interests. However war not being in 'their' interests would be to lie due to the very fact that 'their' are Mr self interest, Mr big business and Mr media giants who unforunately are all blood brothers and happen to have a very healthy relationship.

[Sonart]

Quote by: RickSp Oh, I know. We can't pull out until things are stable. Can anyone please explain to me how an an infidel invader can possibly act as a stablizing force?

Y'got me, Rick. I just think that since we broke it, we should at least try to fix it.

And no, I have about zero faith that we'll be able to.

.

[icu]

Quote by: Sonart I just think that since we broke it, we should at least try to fix it.

Would you apply the same logic to the British in Philadelphia 1776?

If one wouldnt apply the reasoning and logic to ones own nation in similar circumstance then they shouldnt apply it to others.

[monty of ll]

righthand, I said: "But one thing is for sure, Iran must be destroyed before it can gain enough strength to prevent itself from suffering the same fate as Iraq at the hands of the U.S. war machine. That coming conflagration is going to make Saddam's war look like the 'chicken of all wars' compared to the forces that will meet in this one."

And you replied: "I'm not sure if I understand this."

I simply mean that the U.S. is not going to allow Iran to get too powerful. I'm convinced that Iran is intent on getting it's own nukes which would put an end to any ideas that the U.S. ever had of gaining complete control over the M.E. and the resulting control over M.E. oil resources. Iraq's war against the U.S. turned out to be a turkey shoot and ended quiickly regardless of Saddam predicting that it would be the mother of all wars. From what I know of Iran and it's war machine, it won't be so easy this time and in fact may call for the U.S. use of nukes to end it quickly. But regardless, the U.S. is not in a hurry to resort to nukes and would obviously rather not. That wouldn't be a good choice because I think we can safely say that further actions of the U.S. and Britain are going to result in more chickens coming home to roost in the U.S. and Britain. The chances of Iran getting in some serious licks against the U.S. is probably what has prevented a war so far. Or a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities by Israel on behalf of the U.S. or the U.S. itself, would have happened by now.

Sonart, you said: " We can't. That's why I was screaming at the top of my lungs that we shouldn't go in there in the first place. Once you smack the tarbaby, you're stuck."

Nice analogy there! No doubt the U.S. is stuck but we shouldn't be under any illusions that the U.S. is ever going to pull out of Iraq. That would require the installation of a U.S. sympathetic government in Iraq and that's just not going to happen. Therefore, I personally just scoff at suggestions of the U.S. leaving Iraq.

[Logjam]

Quote by: dotcoma I would stop the war by getting all in the UN pressured into helping the cleanup and I would fund the Iraqi soldiers until they can seal their borders.

The UN would do nothing. It hasn't done anything meaningful for years. If they fight a war they lose.

You want our forces to surrender in Iraq; fine.

What do you think would happen?

[Logjam]

Quote by: Sonart Y'got me, Rick. I just think that since we broke it, we should at least try to fix it. And no, I have about zero faith that we'll be able to. .

By killing terrorists, their leaders and challenging countries who help them.

You have "zero" faith in our forces, eh? Who do you have faith in? The Iranians? The terrorists leaders?

[Logjam]

Quote by: righthand [center] So, how would you stop the War?[/center] Often asked with the addition of 'as*hole', with the expectation that you don't have an answer. Usually they are not really interested if you did. Where do you go to get the answer to any question? What keeps repeating itself. HISTORY. So what lesson are there from history. Well, it couldn't be simpler. We only have to go back to Gulf War One. Only a blip in historical terms. After the very successful Allied over running of Iraqi forces, it all came to a halt. The expected thing after the success was for the Allies to continue to Baghdad. [center]righthand [/center]

And your source is?

Do you remember the event? If not let me enlighten you.

We fought in Kuwait to run Saddam's forces out of Kuwait. We had the support of most, or all (can't recall) of the Arab states.

The agreement that we had with the Arabs was when the Iraqi forces were removed from Kuwait and were on the run, then the War would be over.

When the Iraqi forces were on the road back to Iraq, we bombed them. We got about 100,000 thousand of them. Pres, Bush said that at the time no one, not a single person, not a general, or political advisor or a national leader suggest that we continue on to Bagdad. (Hindsight being what it is, it would probably have been a good idea.)

Then we signed a treaty with the Iraqi regime. They made certain promises, which they immediately broke.

There was no, absolutely NO pressure put on us at the time to continue on after the enemy was driven from Kuwait. That was the definition of victory.

Bush was only acting in accordance with our agreement with the Arab powers in the region.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Logjam By killing terrorists, their leaders and challenging countries who help them. You have "zero" faith in our forces, eh? Who do you have faith in? The Iranians? The terrorists leaders?

As we seem to be creating terrorists faster than we are killing them, we may be the biggest problem.

[belverron]

I think setting a deadline for when we're leaving is necessary. If this new government is actually going to be able to sustain itself, it should be able to do it soon. If it can't, we're just wasting time and lives.

[belverron]

Quote by: Logjam Bush was only acting in accordance with our agreement with the Arab powers in the region.

And Heaven forbid we respect other countries's wishes.

[RickSp]

Quote by: belverron I think setting a deadline for when we're leaving is necessary. If this new government is actually going to be able to sustain itself, it should be able to do it soon. If it can't, we're just wasting time and lives.

I agree. We should set a date certain by which we will withdraw. We should commit funds for reconconstruction to help rebuild what we indeed did break. With a firm commitment to withdraw we should be able to attract peackeeping troops to assist in the transition.

We have many options other than to just keep being stupid, providing a rallying point for the terrorists and keep getting good Americans killed.