it occurs to me, that the iraq is issue has been debated at length in some excellent debates here.
i want to throw in one solution to it.
i beleive that iraq should now be handed to the un, and allow the surrounding islamic countries to utilise their troops to look after it under the UN banner. that way the troops and surrounding countries under the pysche of the people.
what do others think?
Originally posted by chris stephensSounds like a great idea.
i beleive that iraq should now be handed to the un, and allow the surrounding islamic countries to utilise their troops to look after it under the UN banner. that way the troops and surrounding countries under the pysche of the people.
Initially, the invading troops were greeted as liberators, but now the people have realised that one tyrant in SH has just been replaced by another tyrant, who's under the control of foreign countries. That's why the troubles are getting worse over there, and why they will get a whole pile worse b4 they get better. By installing the UN, then at least the people could see that maybe their best interests and not the interests of the invaders are catered to. Also getting some Arabic people involved would be great.
The UN have made a balls of things in the past though. Cambodia is probably the best (worst?) example of this. UN control would have to be viewed more favourably than the present regime.
However, I don't see the u.s. handing over power after the expense they went to to install their puppet government in the Middle East.
Has anybody in power put this idea forward for debate within the UN?
D
Originally posted by chris stephens
it occurs to me, that the iraq is issue has been debated at length in some excellent debates here.
i want to throw in one solution to it.
i beleive that iraq should now be handed to the un, and allow the surrounding islamic countries to utilise their troops to look after it under the UN banner. that way the troops and surrounding countries under the pysche of the people.
what do others think?
The most important part of your proposal is: Do the neighbouring Arab countries want to participate in the way you proposed. My guess is that they will not do so.
Originally posted by chris stephensIs the UN expected to say "Gee,,Thanks!!!!!" ?
.
i beleive that iraq should now be handed to the un, and allow the surrounding islamic countries to utilise their troops to look after it under the UN banner. that way the troops and surrounding countries under the pysche of the people.
Sadly, I don't believe there is a solution other than the one the US has in mind. That solution appears to be:
Install leaders in Iraq that can "work with" the US (define that however you like). Some people call it a "puppet governement". I don't know if I'd go that far, but it will certainly be a government with close ties to the US.
And Leave as many US military bases in Iraq as possible and continue a large US military presence in Irag and the Persian Gulf. These bases and troops, combined with the bases and troops in Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Pakistan, Afgahnistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey give the US a very powerful presence in the the Middle East.
Since Iraq would be under some sort of US/Iraqi government control (eventually), the US might be able to shift troops from other areas in the Middle east to Iraq. For example, moving them from Kuwait and leaving troops permantly in Iraq, since Iraq is no longer a threat to Kuwait.
It seems that some US plans have worked, but most have not. And the time table for all of this has run way over....
Originally posted by wibOne things for sure if what you describe obtains: the risk to US from terrorist attack will not have decreased.
Sadly, I don't believe there is a solution other than the one the US has in mind. That solution appears to be:
Install leaders in Iraq that can "work with" the US (define that however you like). Some people call it a "puppet governement". I don't know if I'd go that far, but it will certainly be a government with close ties to the US.
And Leave ...[text shortened]... have worked, but most have not. And the time table for all of this has run way over....
Originally posted by wibThe puppet leader has certainly been installed. But there are plans for an election - and Allawi must gain a popular mandate to stay. Otherwise, the last shreds of legitimacy will disappear from the Bush-Blair invasion.
Sadly, I don't believe there is a solution other than the one the US has in mind. That solution appears to be:
Install leaders in Iraq that can "work with" the US (define that however you like). Some people call it a "puppet governement". I don't know if I'd go that far, but it will certainly be a government with close ties to the US.
And Leave ...[text shortened]... have worked, but most have not. And the time table for all of this has run way over....
As for close ties to the US - if a democraticaly elected Iraq government wants US troops to stay, why should we be opposed to their wishes? Equally, if they want all foreign troops to leave, that is their choice.
Surely Iraqis should decide what happens in Iraq - and since their chance to settle the matter comes up in four months, why not let them get on with it?
2 edits
Originally posted by chris stephensAgain, before I read the forum...
it occurs to me, that the iraq is issue has been debated at length in some excellent debates here.
i want to throw in one solution to it.
i beleive that iraq should now be handed to the un, and allow the surrounding islamic cou ...[text shortened]... ountries under the pysche of the people.
what do others think?
You miss the point. The UN was "on the take" for billions. They took blood money to prevent the US from "policing the world as those evil buggers tend to do."
So knowing (as you must) if you read... assuming you are not an idiot... Annan is on the take. For hundreds of millions.
Why would the UN be willing or wanting to help? All that is at stake is freedom of 25 million (25,000,000) souls. Why would Kofi be interested in that? Souls are cheap, after all is said and done. He chooses to win re-election by allowing the genocide in the Sudan. Why would he not allow the notion of abandonment of democracy to only 25 million souls? He has no soul. Why do you think he counts them?
So hand these poor souls who have not known democracy...ever... in nine thousand years... to Kofi. He will hand them to the highest bidder. That bidder is the most "anti-US" guy on the block. That will probably be France. (they took 6.4 billion dollars selling weapons that they knew would be used killing americans, up until the week the war started... not arguable. Found the things. See the report just released)( Not? <edit> study history. The french have a certain way of leaving their charges. Study it good.
Originally posted by chris stephensHowever harsh it may sound: The US boiled the soup. Let them eat it.
it occurs to me, that the iraq is issue has been debated at length in some excellent debates here.
i want to throw in one solution to it.
i beleive that iraq should now be handed to the un, and allow the surrounding islamic countries to utilise their troops to look after it under the UN banner. that way the troops and surrounding countries under the pysche of the people.
what do others think?
Let's just test their backbone and see how they solve it. Let's not get ourselves more involved than we already are.
Obviously it's harsh for the Iraquee people, but the harder it is for the US, the less likely they'll be to go it alone another time.
Some lessons in life are painful.
Originally posted by shavixmirThey will handle it by acknowledging that socialists are defenseless and basically 'wanting' in matters of manhood.
However harsh it may sound: The US boiled the soup. Let them eat it.
Let's just test their backbone and see how they solve it. Let's not get ourselves more involved than we already are.
Obviously it's harsh for the Iraquee people, but the harder it is for the US, the less likely they'll be to go it alone another time.
Some lessons in life are painful.
Then they will tire on until the problem is solved.
Same as we have always done. Ignoring cowardice. Ignoring love of self.
But... Lets see. The cowards who brought on Viet Nam are now understood. In that understanding is their defeat. Ramsey Clark was a communist. Still is. He revels in our defeat. But... The silly bugger will soon be dead.
Then will the proud, brave Aussies and Americans... cry from the grave... "Remember Us. We died for the Idea of Freedom for all".
But... as long as you have cowards like Carter who sanctioned Pol Pot... who am I? Nobody.
But someday... when you silly "any evil is good as long as it is my evil" turds are defeated... Honor will reign. History rules. If we don't let the least common "Professor" write it. And ... they are mostly "least common".
Mike
Originally posted by wibDidn't we try this once? Oh yeah, we had to go to war twice to get rid of our puppet leader.
Sadly, I don't believe there is a solution other than the one the US has in mind. That solution appears to be:
Install leaders in Iraq that can "work with" the US (define that however you like). Some people call it a "puppet governement". I don't know if I'd go that far, but it will certainly be a government with close ties to the US.
And Leave ...[text shortened]... have worked, but most have not. And the time table for all of this has run way over....