What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Iraq To Who Will Ever Listen

David2004

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
227
Reaction score
25
Points
16
At this time it is not more American military troops than are needed in Iraq. We need to broaden the mix of players in the reconstruction in Iraq. The United States must down size their military role and increase their diplomatic and humanitarian role. This can only happen if IraqÂ’s neighboring nations can play a larger diplomatic role in this effort. A consensus plan must be reach on a multilateral level with the recently displaced international Iraqi refugees taking a leading role.

Since the United States-Britain military victory in Iraq in the very beginning of the war, the living conditions for the Iraqi people has been steadily going down hill. This trend must be revised before there will be any peace or security in Iraq. Only by broadening the diplomatic and humanitarian channels will things improve on the ground in Iraq. The organizing and training of the displaced international Iraqi refugees with the support of the international community of nations will create new channels of opportunities for Iraq. Iraq needs the recently displace Iraqi refugees (over one million new Iraq refugees have left Iraq since the beginning of the war) to return home in an organized manor to help rebuild Iraq.

Only the Iraqi people can handle and deal with any internal politic struggle and strife within Iraq. The international community nations and NGOÂ’s can only help those Iraq people that want to help in the reconstruction of Iraq. Rebuilding a nation such as Iraq can only happen starting at the bottom working your way up. As is in the case of so many of the problems in the world today, the statistics and charts are going the wrong way. Only by changing the direction of the charts and decreasing the number of unemployed Iraqi people. Including the number of Iraqi civilians that are being killed as well as the number of Iraqi people fleeing their homes and county. At this time 100,000 Iraqi people are being driven out of their homes on a mouthy basis. Then and only then will peace and security have a chance to prosper and grow in Iraq.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
At this time it is not more American military troops than are needed in Iraq. We need to broaden the mix of players in the reconstruction in Iraq.

That makes perfect sense, good point, and a plan needs to be put forth.

The United States must down size their military role and increase their diplomatic and humanitarian role.

I understand your statement, but without the military, can the diplomatic, and humanitarian aspects be expected to have a chance to work?

This can only happen if IraqÂ’s neighboring nations can play a larger diplomatic role in this effort. A consensus plan must be reach on a multilateral level with the recently displaced international Iraqi refugees taking a leading role.

I suppose, to a degree, you've addressed part of my concern, but reaching a "consensus" in the Middle East, is that realistic?

Since the United States-Britain military victory in Iraq in the very beginning of the war, the living conditions for the Iraqi people has been steadily going down hill.

I DON'T subscribe to that way of thinking, but I'll still listen

This trend must be revised before there will be any peace or security in Iraq. Only by broadening the diplomatic and humanitarian channels will things improve on the ground in Iraq. The organizing and training of the displaced international Iraqi refugees with the support of the international community of nations will create new channels of opportunities for Iraq. Iraq needs the recently displace Iraqi refugees (over one million new Iraq refugees have left Iraq since the beginning of the war) to return home in an organized manor to help rebuild Iraq.

The "refugees" that HAVE left Iraq, for the most part, are the wealthy, and yes, getting them back would be an important step in turning the heat down.

To my understanding, this very thing is taking place, not on a wide scale, but it IS happening.

Certainly a good point to bring up.

Only the Iraqi people can handle and deal with any internal politic struggle and strife within Iraq.

Your right, but yet your also wrong. Iraq is a fractured country, NOT because of the invasion by the coalition, but its just the history of the land. The Iraqi people have had centuries to work out their problems, I'm not sure they CAN work them out by themselves. But, being a Westerner, what the hell do I know about it anyway.

The international community nations and NGOÂ’s can only help those Iraq people that want to help in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Boy, you certainly said a mouth full there, and I completely agree.

Rebuilding a nation such as Iraq can only happen starting at the bottom working your way up. As is in the case of so many of the problems in the world today, the statistics and charts are going the wrong way. Only by changing the direction of the charts and decreasing the number of unemployed Iraqi people. Including the number of Iraqi civilians that are being killed as well as the number of Iraqi people fleeing their homes and county. At this time 100,000 Iraqi people are being driven out of their homes on a mouthy basis. Then and only then will peace and security have a chance to prosper and grow in Iraq.

Don't you think this is exactly what is being attempted in Iraq TODAY?

Thoughtful post.:eusa_think:
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,128
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
What we need to do is to cut the Iranian regime off from supporting any more "insurgents". Ideally without going to war with Iran, but whatever is necessary.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
What we need to do is to cut the Iranian regime off from supporting any more "insurgents". Ideally without going to war with Iran, but whatever is necessary.

How? I'm not being facetious, just really don't see a way. The border is long.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
What we need to do is to cut the Iranian regime off from supporting any more "insurgents". Ideally without going to war with Iran, but whatever is necessary.

Again, its about BOARDERS, but YES, I totally agree.:clap2:
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Again, someone needs to explain to me why two rows of razor wire 400 yards apart and a free fire zone in between will NOT make a secure border.

Well that would take someone with more tactics knowledge than myself. ;)
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
Well that would take someone with more tactics knowledge than myself. ;)
One can only surmise that since this would be so easy to do, has been done in past wars when desired, and it has not been done, that it is therefore not desired. The overall strategy must therefore be to draw Iran into the war. The fact that Iran has been an enemy of the US since the Jimminy Carter days, have threatened Israel with annihilation, and are at the verge of nuclear capability, all point to this same conclusion.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,128
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
How? I'm not being facetious, just really don't see a way. The border is long.

Yeah thats the big question. Never said I knew how to do it. Just saying thats what needs to be done. However, Considering our lack of ability to protect our own border i dont see us protecting the Iraq border anytime soon.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
One can only surmise that since this would be so easy to do, has been done in past wars when desired, and it has not been done, that it is therefore not desired. The overall strategy must therefore be to draw Iran into the war. The fact that Iran has been an enemy of the US since the Jimminy Carter days, have threatened Israel with annihilation, and are at the verge of nuclear capability, all point to this same conclusion.

Some are wondering why there are 'cards' or 'dings' issued on some but not others. This is very borderline IMO, (which counts since I card/ding). What led me to respond but not card/ding, is that the 'crap' is referring to the thinking, not the poster. With that said, let's all hold the flamming words to a minimum.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
Some are wondering why there are 'cards' or 'dings' issued on some but not others. This is very borderline IMO, (which counts since I card/ding). What led me to respond but not card/ding, is that the 'crap' is referring to the thinking, not the poster. With that said, let's all hold the flamming words to a minimum.
I think you were referring to post 8, not 9.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
One can only surmise that since this would be so easy to do, has been done in past wars when desired, and it has not been done, that it is therefore not desired. The overall strategy must therefore be to draw Iran into the war. The fact that Iran has been an enemy of the US since the Jimminy Carter days, have threatened Israel with annihilation, and are at the verge of nuclear capability, all point to this same conclusion.

A strategy to draw Iran into a war is a stupid strategy, IMO, regardless how long Iran has been hostile to the US, or even what its current intentions are.

We just don't have the numbers to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, lend support even if limited in Somalia, and hover over North Korea with who knows what, AND fight a war with Iran.

Don't confuse Iranians, who are Persian, with Iraqi, who are Arabs. Iranians are every bit as nationalistic as we are and they'll close ranks with their idiot Ayatollah's in a second to fight against foreign transgression. Younger Iranians may hate their theeocratic masters, but they are still Iranians and we are not.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
A strategy to draw Iran into a war is a stupid strategy, IMO, regardless how long Iran has been hostile to the US, or even what its current intentions are.

We just don't have the numbers to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, lend support even if limited in Somalia, and hover over North Korea with who knows what, AND fight a war with Iran.

Don't confuse Iranians, who are Persian, with Iraqi, who are Arabs. Iranians are every bit as nationalistic as we are and they'll close ranks with their idiot Ayatollah's in a second to fight against foreign transgression. Younger Iranians may hate their theeocratic masters, but they are still Iranians and we are not.

I agree with your points, except I was thinking that by "drawing in" Iran, that they would attack us as we occupy Iraq.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I agree with your points, except I was thinking that by "drawing in" Iran, that they would attack us as we occupy Iraq.

It doesn't matter who attacks who, the results are the same. If Iran attacks us, we STILL have to go into Iran to defeat its forces.

There's also the fact that our troops are currently not deployed to repel an attack from Iran. They're deployed to play rent-a-cop -- widely dispersed. It would take some fancy jumping through hoops to form, face about and defend; which, would leave all of the previously held positions to the fundies and the US military caught between the fundies an Iran.

We'd win, but that's sure going about it the hard way.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
It doesn't matter who attacks who, the results are the same. If Iran attacks us, we STILL have to go into Iran to defeat its forces.

There's also the fact that our troops are currently not deployed to repel an attack from Iran. They're deployed to play rent-a-cop -- widely dispersed. It would take some fancy jumping through hoops to form, face about and defend; which, would leave all of the previously held positions to the fundies and the US military caught between the fundies an Iran.

We'd win, but that's sure going about it the hard way.

Seems a bit of good news re: Iran:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251167.stm

US forces storm Iranian consulate
Iraq map
US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six members of staff.

The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.

The US military would only confirm the detention of six people around Irbil.

Tehran said the attack violated all international conventions. It has summoned ambassadors from Switzerland, representing US interests, and Iraq...
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
It doesn't matter who attacks who, the results are the same. If Iran attacks us, we STILL have to go into Iran to defeat its forces.

There's also the fact that our troops are currently not deployed to repel an attack from Iran. They're deployed to play rent-a-cop -- widely dispersed. It would take some fancy jumping through hoops to form, face about and defend; which, would leave all of the previously held positions to the fundies and the US military caught between the fundies an Iran.

We'd win, but that's sure going about it the hard way.

I've always heard that there is a large faction in Iran that would support a revolution, and many of these are soldiering age. If IranÂ’s President expended efforts into Iraq, this faction may see an opportunity.

Anyway, the easy way is not necessarily the most politically expedient. It always helps the politics if the bad guy pushes you first.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
It doesn't matter who attacks who, the results are the same. If Iran attacks us, we STILL have to go into Iran to defeat its forces.

There's also the fact that our troops are currently not deployed to repel an attack from Iran. They're deployed to play rent-a-cop -- widely dispersed. It would take some fancy jumping through hoops to form, face about and defend; which, would leave all of the previously held positions to the fundies and the US military caught between the fundies an Iran.

We'd win, but that's sure going about it the hard way.

Then there are the additional troops being sent in, maybe in preparation of some trouble from Iran?

Who knows?:eusa_think:
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top