Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Middle East


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 16th, 2007, 03:34 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3
Solution for Iraq

Hey guys. I was thinking about Iraq Study Group Report, which was welcomed by Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and John Howard, however was rejected by the Bush Administration. Bush chose to enlarge US troops rather than withdraw them like Baker-Hamilton commission suggested. I would personally tend to the strategy of withdrawal, however by securing that Iran, which is extremely hostile against the West and Israel, would not take over the control of the Middle Eastern matters. There would be nothing worse than that. By the way, the solution Obama promotes is clearly wrong. The U.S. cannot just withdraw the troops and leave a big black hole behind them. It would harm U.S. interest in the Middle East and worldwide, (and generally the interests of the Western civilization as a whole). I think that the immediate result of a sudden withdrawal would be another terrorist attack on the U.S. soil, this time with weapons of mass destruction (see recent reports by EastWest Institute: http://www.ewi.info/tempPDF/tn7.pdf and Chatham House http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/niis/CBRN0207.pdf) In my opinion the solution would be a withdrawal (eventually we will have to unless McCain becomes the next President) however through strengthening the position in the region of Turkey, which is US ally and which presently endeavors to join the European Union. It can be done in the way it is described in this extensive study: http://www.europeancourier.org/27.htm Put briefly: Iraq should be partitioned in two parts: Iraqi Kurdistan and the rest. Then the Iraqi Kurdistan should be joined to Turkey which would expand to include that territory. Turkey would be transformed into a federal state (like the United States) and would contain the heartland Turkey and the Kurdistan. The Kurdistan would be a part of the federation. It would have enormous impact on Iran and Syria (the biggest terrorist supporters), because they have huge Kurdish minorities within their territories. As a result of the creation of Kurdistan within federal Turkey, Iranian and Syrian Kurds would demand the same thing within Iran or Syria or might start secessionist movements. That would cause Iran and Syria to focus on their internal affairs rather than on disturbing situation in Iraq. Turkey would become regional superpower and would overshadow Iran; moreover because the Kurdish issue would be resolved satisfactory, Turkey would meet human rights requirements of the Council of Europe and would be able to join the European Union. Turkey would become the role model of democracy in the Middle East (Iraq will never be such a one even if Bush remained in power for the next two terms) and would gain control over the Kurdistan within their borders. Therefore there would be no new Kurdish-Turkish conflict.
TitoGrey is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 18th, 2007, 08:15 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
policy chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,101
Interesting proposition. Obviously it appears to be a cut-and-dry solution. This seems like a good answer, from the "big brother" point of view especially. The only question I have right now is how do you think they would feel about this? It seems like a fair compromise, but how rational have they proven themselves to be? Is it feasible that this plan could be carried out without major repercussions?
policy chick is offline  
Old February 18th, 2007, 01:25 PM   #3
Retired
 
hevusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,705
To divide the country up like that is only asking for misery and disaster down the road.



Unfortunately the answer was to never start this insane war in the first place. Since we created this mess I feel like it is our responsibility to help the Iraqi people stabilize their country but this doesn't seem like it can be achieved. The troop increase Bush wants is not nearly enough and our military is stretched too thing as it is...



It seems like Bush has painted us into a corner where we must call a draft or simply withdraw immediately and deal with the consequences as alertly as possible.



I'm torn but lean towards the latter.

hevusa is offline  
Old February 19th, 2007, 08:15 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
policy chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevusa
To divide the country up like that is only asking for misery and disaster down the road.



Unfortunately the answer was to never start this insane war in the first place. Since we created this mess I feel like it is our responsibility to help the Iraqi people stabilize their country but this doesn't seem like it can be achieved. The troop increase Bush wants is not nearly enough and our military is stretched too thing as it is...



It seems like Bush has painted us into a corner where we must call a draft or simply withdraw immediately and deal with the consequences as alertly as possible.



I'm torn but lean towards the latter.



So you don't think that withdrawal will allow the country to fall under another totalitarian regime and suffer severe sectarian strife?
policy chick is offline  
Old February 19th, 2007, 01:40 PM   #5
Retired
 
hevusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by policy chick
So you don't think that withdrawal will allow the country to fall under another totalitarian regime and suffer severe sectarian strife?


It could very well lead to another totalitarian regime, complete civil war, ethnic cleansing, and other misery. But we may not have much else of a choice. This is definitely Bush's and our modern era's "Vietnam". I think we will have to withdraw from Iraq just like we did there.



The other alternative would be to call a draft and see this thing through. But I really don't think it was the intention of our government to help the Iraqi people in the first place. First it was a connection to 9/11, then a connection to Al Queda, then WMD's... lies. There were many countries with people in more dire need than Iraq but they lack a certain natural resource.
hevusa is offline  
Old February 19th, 2007, 01:43 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
policy chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevusa
It could very well lead to another totalitarian regime, complete civil war, ethnic cleansing, and other misery. But we may not have much else of a choice. This is definitely Bush's and our modern era's "Vietnam". I think we will have to withdraw from Iraq just like we did there.



The other alternative would be to call a draft and see this thing through. But I really don't think it was the intention of our government to help the Iraqi people in the first place. First it was a connection to 9/11, then a connection to Al Queda, then WMD's... lies. There were many countries with people in more dire need than Iraq but they lack a certain natural resource.


So despite those things you STILL think that's the best option? Get out while the getting's good?
policy chick is offline  
Old February 19th, 2007, 01:54 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
patrickkuny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9
Rather withdraw now, and save as many American and Iraqi lives, than let the troops stay there and get killed. Don't you agree?





EDIT: Of course, if you think staying there is a good idea, please, do tell your reasons for thinking that.
patrickkuny is offline  
Old February 19th, 2007, 02:10 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
policy chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickkuny
Rather withdraw now, and save as many American and Iraqi lives, than let the troops stay there and get killed. Don't you agree?





EDIT: Of course, if you think staying there is a good idea, please, do tell your reasons for thinking that.


We're over there. We might as well try to stabilize the country now rather than later when it becomes an even bigger problem.
policy chick is offline  
Old February 19th, 2007, 02:34 PM   #9
Retired
 
hevusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by policy chick
So despite those things you STILL think that's the best option? Get out while the getting's good?


I don't think we have the resources or support to draft.

I don't think we can stabilize the country with our current troop level.



I think that only leaves us with withdrawing and hoping they can sort it out themselves over time. We can still support them with food, medicine and rebuilding (start with schools and hospitals) when the time comes.



If we do withdraw we have to be really alert to the fact that this war probably created more enemies of America than ever before. Invest more in defending the homeland.
hevusa is offline  
Old February 19th, 2007, 02:35 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
policy chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevusa
I don't think we have the resources or support to draft.

I don't think we can stabilize the country with our current troop level.



I think that only leaves us with withdrawing and hoping they can sort it out themselves over time. We can still support them with food, medicine and rebuilding (start with schools) when the time comes.



If we do withdraw we have to be really alert to the fact that this war probably created more enemies of America than ever before. Invest more in defending the homeland.


Makes sense. I just wish there was a way we could leave it in better shape.
policy chick is offline  
Old February 19th, 2007, 03:03 PM   #11
Retired
 
hevusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by policy chick
Makes sense. I just wish there was a way we could leave it in better shape.


Me too.

I think too many mistakes have been made... it might not be possible at this point. Poor Iraqi citizens. This will take generations of hardship to sort out.
hevusa is offline  
Old February 19th, 2007, 09:49 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
policy chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevusa
Me too.

I think too many mistakes have been made... it might not be possible at this point. Poor Iraqi citizens. This will take generations of hardship to sort out.


You really don't think there's a way to stabilize them before we leave?
policy chick is offline  
Old February 19th, 2007, 11:24 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
hkbajwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Islamabad
Posts: 1,056
I sincerely doubt that the proposed plan will work. The Kurds of Turkey have HUGE issues with turkish rule. they have been agitating for a homeland for decades now. I sincerely doubt that they will accept Turkish dominion over Iraqi kurdistan. In fact i consider it an impossibility. Given the chance they would probably declare independence which may mire Turkey into it's own conflict effectively nullifying any usefulness to the US. ( besides it is highly likely that turkey will be extremely hard handed on the Kurds in such a situatiojn.. they have a history of doing so)



Turkey will not become a super power of the same order as Iran, no matter how much they receive from the US. Iran still has a better military, stronger conviction, more resources, more backing (most of the muslim world plus Russia) and it has a larger population more geared for conflict. US patronage means nothing in terms of EU membership ( in fact i think it may work against them since the US really isn't too popular in europe these days.. What with the stupid war, the CIA kidnappings of european citizens and the secret prisons).



The key to ME peace lies in negotiations with Iran and Syria. I mean i still consider it ridiculous that prerequisites are demanded by the US prior to negotiations. That simply CONTRADICTS the basic principle of negotiations. NO party ever concedes ANYTHING prior to negotiation. However i think the US may stand with a good chance of stopping Iran's nuclear aspirations, but not before they meet at the negotiating table.



Iraq is now a certified hellhole and has become so because of the war. This war has split the muslim world along sectarian lines.



Unfortunately i see no other solution other than getting the hell out and installing a UN peacekeeping force. The US should provide the bulk of troops for this action, but it must be under UN control ( the UN may not be well liked int he area, but it is certainly LESS prone to attacks than is the US).



THe Saudi's, Iranis, Iraqis and the turks should be brought to the negotiating table under EU auspices. This may provide some basis for peaceful resolution of sectarian violence.



ALL CONTROL OF OIL should be turned over to OPEC. This will provide stability to oil prices AS WELL AS give the Iraqis the feeling of control over their resources ( OPEC is mainly arab nations and with little liking for the US).



REBUILDING should take place under EU supervision. I say this because EU business relies on provision of service and knowledge which gives them a profit AND transfers knowledge and skill to the indigenous population.



ELECTIONS should be held in 5 years after sustained recovery programs. This will include schools and educational institutions as a priority. Elections are no good unless the population is educated enough to understand how to deal with them.
hkbajwa is offline  
Old February 20th, 2007, 03:06 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
policy chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa
I sincerely doubt that the proposed plan will work. The Kurds of Turkey have HUGE issues with turkish rule. they have been agitating for a homeland for decades now. I sincerely doubt that they will accept Turkish dominion over Iraqi kurdistan. In fact i consider it an impossibility. Given the chance they would probably declare independence which may mire Turkey into it's own conflict effectively nullifying any usefulness to the US. ( besides it is highly likely that turkey will be extremely hard handed on the Kurds in such a situatiojn.. they have a history of doing so)



Turkey will not become a super power of the same order as Iran, no matter how much they receive from the US. Iran still has a better military, stronger conviction, more resources, more backing (most of the muslim world plus Russia) and it has a larger population more geared for conflict. US patronage means nothing in terms of EU membership ( in fact i think it may work against them since the US really isn't too popular in europe these days.. What with the stupid war, the CIA kidnappings of european citizens and the secret prisons).



The key to ME peace lies in negotiations with Iran and Syria. I mean i still consider it ridiculous that prerequisites are demanded by the US prior to negotiations. That simply CONTRADICTS the basic principle of negotiations. NO party ever concedes ANYTHING prior to negotiation. However i think the US may stand with a good chance of stopping Iran's nuclear aspirations, but not before they meet at the negotiating table.



Iraq is now a certified hellhole and has become so because of the war. This war has split the muslim world along sectarian lines.



Unfortunately i see no other solution other than getting the hell out and installing a UN peacekeeping force. The US should provide the bulk of troops for this action, but it must be under UN control ( the UN may not be well liked int he area, but it is certainly LESS prone to attacks than is the US).



THe Saudi's, Iranis, Iraqis and the turks should be brought to the negotiating table under EU auspices. This may provide some basis for peaceful resolution of sectarian violence.



ALL CONTROL OF OIL should be turned over to OPEC. This will provide stability to oil prices AS WELL AS give the Iraqis the feeling of control over their resources ( OPEC is mainly arab nations and with little liking for the US).



REBUILDING should take place under EU supervision. I say this because EU business relies on provision of service and knowledge which gives them a profit AND transfers knowledge and skill to the indigenous population.



ELECTIONS should be held in 5 years after sustained recovery programs. This will include schools and educational institutions as a priority. Elections are no good unless the population is educated enough to understand how to deal with them.


Wow. That's quite the plan, but a viable option?
policy chick is offline  
Old February 20th, 2007, 11:06 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
hkbajwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Islamabad
Posts: 1,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by policy chick
Wow. That's quite the plan, but a viable option?


Well whether it is viable or not may ultimately be irrelevant. All involved parties in this conflict are so mired in their own internal politics that it seems highly unlikely that a sensible solution will be arrived at. They will be more concerned about how their actions are perceived at home rather than the actual viability of their solutions.



Anyhow i do think my proposal has some merit, though exceedingly difficult to implement.



The point is that the EU is infinitely more liked than the US simply because most EU member states were against the Iraq war from the beginning. It makes it more possible for them to broker a deal than the US. Secondly the US has a very phallic foreign policy that prevents them from compromising where compromise is needed for a solution. I mean take the situation in Iran. Don't get me wrong i am as worried about a nutjob having nuclear capability, but at present the nuclear program continues unabated, ahmedinejad is drumming up support the world over because US demands for a halt PRIOR to talks is plain unreasonable, and the US is doing nothing but sulking in a corner because it refuses to accept that a demand for concessions prior to talks is contradictory to basic negotiation protocol.



Essentially the US has painted itself into a corner. it cannot engage Iran militarily, it cannot drum up support against Iran ( since the US is refusing to try diplomacy - preconditions for negotiation is not diplomacy, it is a tantrum and the world knows it) and it is not engaging the problem of nuclear proliferation AT ALL simply because it is too stubborn to accept that Iran has as much of a right to develop a nuclear arsenal as does the US, owing to the fact that it is a sovereign nation.



OPEC should be involved because it is the body with the most interest in oil supply stability. It is also considered to be a good counterbalance to US hegemony.



Anyhow the Iraq situation is going to get WORSE before it will get any better so Bush is in for a rough ride. Good luck to him. And even MORE good luck to the soldiers and civilians stuck in a warzone because Mr. Bush donned the "war president" cape.
hkbajwa is offline  
Old February 21st, 2007, 03:23 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
policy chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa
Well whether it is viable or not may ultimately be irrelevant. All involved parties in this conflict are so mired in their own internal politics that it seems highly unlikely that a sensible solution will be arrived at. They will be more concerned about how their actions are perceived at home rather than the actual viability of their solutions.



Anyhow i do think my proposal has some merit, though exceedingly difficult to implement.



The point is that the EU is infinitely more liked than the US simply because most EU member states were against the Iraq war from the beginning. It makes it more possible for them to broker a deal than the US. Secondly the US has a very phallic foreign policy that prevents them from compromising where compromise is needed for a solution. I mean take the situation in Iran. Don't get me wrong i am as worried about a nutjob having nuclear capability, but at present the nuclear program continues unabated, ahmedinejad is drumming up support the world over because US demands for a halt PRIOR to talks is plain unreasonable, and the US is doing nothing but sulking in a corner because it refuses to accept that a demand for concessions prior to talks is contradictory to basic negotiation protocol.



Essentially the US has painted itself into a corner. it cannot engage Iran militarily, it cannot drum up support against Iran ( since the US is refusing to try diplomacy - preconditions for negotiation is not diplomacy, it is a tantrum and the world knows it) and it is not engaging the problem of nuclear proliferation AT ALL simply because it is too stubborn to accept that Iran has as much of a right to develop a nuclear arsenal as does the US, owing to the fact that it is a sovereign nation.



OPEC should be involved because it is the body with the most interest in oil supply stability. It is also considered to be a good counterbalance to US hegemony.



Anyhow the Iraq situation is going to get WORSE before it will get any better so Bush is in for a rough ride. Good luck to him. And even MORE good luck to the soldiers and civilians stuck in a warzone because Mr. Bush donned the "war president" cape.


It has quite a bit of merit. I think that's a great idea. It just appears to be an option we can't carry out.
policy chick is offline  
Old February 21st, 2007, 04:16 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Sally Numor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by policy chick
We're over there. We might as well try to stabilize the country now rather than later when it becomes an even bigger problem.


How do we stabilize a country that has had tribal wars for thousands of years? I'd like to hear the plan to do that.
Sally Numor is offline  
Old February 21st, 2007, 04:46 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
KnightOfSappho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sally Numor
How do we stabilize a country that has had tribal wars for thousands of years? I'd like to hear the plan to do that.


Unfortunately you are dead on.



We can't stablize the region because any agreements or truces that are made will be broken by individuals that will take advantage. That will lead to retaliations and then your right back where you started.



Basically what we have to decide is if we are going to let them kill each other while trying to sort things out or of they are going to kill each other and US while they try to sort things out.
KnightOfSappho is offline  
Old February 21st, 2007, 12:44 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
policy chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho
Unfortunately you are dead on.



We can't stablize the region because any agreements or truces that are made will be broken by individuals that will take advantage. That will lead to retaliations and then your right back where you started.



Basically what we have to decide is if we are going to let them kill each other while trying to sort things out or of they are going to kill each other and US while they try to sort things out.


You think there's no possible way to help?
policy chick is offline  
Old February 21st, 2007, 01:00 PM   #20
Banned
 
Jefferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sally Numor
How do we stabilize a country that has had tribal wars for thousands of years? I'd like to hear the plan to do that.


On this I agree.



You can't force peace on people who don't want peace, and can think of nothing but revenge.
Jefferson is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Middle East

Tags
iraq, solution


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One State Solution? Freedom_42 Warfare 2 December 22nd, 2011 04:45 AM
Yes, I Think Government is the Solution tyrone_det Big Government 0 April 7th, 2009 06:51 AM
Iraq Solution? hkbajwa Warfare 3 August 31st, 2007 03:42 AM
Solution for big oil: Iraq tyreay Middle East 3 March 22nd, 2007 02:42 PM
Mid-East Solution hkbajwa Warfare 10 August 15th, 2006 09:30 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.