Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

You name it. Sky's the limit. What's your plan?

Set a one year time frame, then start a staged withdrawal to leave at the one year mark.

As posted in "Some Thoughts For Those of You Against The War"

1. Instead of having Haliburton and its ilk making millions of dollars doing not much with Jordanians, Eqyptians, Saudis, and Kuwatis, how about them doing the job we really want done. Rebuliding the infrastructure of Iraq. Hire Iraqis. Lots of Iraqis, Pay them good money to dig those ditches, teach them to run the heavy equipment, build roads, water treatment plants, electrical plants and substations. Not just in Baghdad,  but all over the country.

2. Restrict the access of faith-based persons to be in Iraq. That is not the place for them. Especially in government or support functions.

3. Build up our military to fully support the effort in Iraq. Provide adequate security so that the training can take place.

4. Train and fully equip the police and the army.

I believe I said in another thread, that it takes about a year to train a soldier in his basics and integrate him into a unit. That still stands. I'm very pleased to see that Soldier agrees with that. It is paramount to ensure that we follow through on that training with operations where U.S. and Iraqi forces clear and secure areas together. Both for our assurances, and the Iraqi's.

As units become operational, not just filled out, but fully field operational, they should be put into the operation plans for security, and as they do, our forces should be withdrawn.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Duh. 

1)  Blame the liberals. 
2)  Stay the course.
3)  Win!

I would say
1) smurf off conservatives
2) Blame problems on smurfy ass slogans such as 'Stay the Course'
3)Pull out of Iraq, and have at-least a bit of dignity

I'd set a reason but flexible evacuation date for the soldiers.
I'd have a comprehensive training regiment to have the Iraqi forces ready before that date.
I'd have an army of diplomats there working on a more stable political situation from day one.

Farmerkev wrote:

I'd send Bill and Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore and Chuck Rangel to Iraq.
I'm sure it would be a paradise in short order.

Shouldn't that list of prowar people?

sturner wrote:

As posted in "Some Thoughts For Those of You Against The War"

1. Instead of having Haliburton and its ilk making millions of dollars doing not much with Jordanians, Eqyptians, Saudis, and Kuwatis, how about them doing the job we really want done. Rebuliding the infrastructure of Iraq. Hire Iraqis. Lots of Iraqis, Pay them good money to dig those ditches, teach them to run the heavy equipment, build roads, water treatment plants, electrical plants and substations. Not just in Baghdad,  but all over the country.

2. Restrict the access of faith-based persons to be in Iraq. That is not the place for them. Especially in government or support functions.

3. Build up our military to fully support the effort in Iraq. Provide adequate security so that the training can take place.

4. Train and fully equip the police and the army.

I believe I said in another thread, that it takes about a year to train a soldier in his basics and integrate him into a unit. That still stands. I'm very pleased to see that Soldier agrees with that. It is paramount to ensure that we follow through on that training with operations where U.S. and Iraqi forces clear and secure areas together. Both for our assurances, and the Iraqi's.

As units become operational, not just filled out, but fully field operational, they should be put into the operation plans for security, and as they do, our forces should be withdrawn.

Sturner for Pres... er... being in charge of US policy in Iraq!

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

I'd send Bill and Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore and Chuck Rangel to Iraq.
I'm sure it would be a paradise in short order.

Shouldn't that list of prowar people?

Straight answer-
There is no win/leave short term so there is no way to answer the question.
The options are lose/leave now and stay/sort of win but at a very very high cost, leave a stable country.
Morally, I think the only honorable answer is the latter but I could be wrong.
Maybe it would stabilize faster with less overall death if we pulled out and let them go with full blown ethnic cleansing and civil war.

isaly wrote:

farmerkev wrote:

The options are lose/leave now and stay/sort of win but at a very very high cost, leave a stable country.

What, in your opinion, constitutes "sort of win but at a very high cost"? Do you think, given what's going on right now, that that's even remotely possible?

Leaving a stable country behind with a govt based on a modern constitution.
It's possible but not quick or cheap.
No war or conflict lasts forever.

W. has agreed with Tom Friedman (he of 'the next six months are crucial for Iraq' fame) - that Iraq is VietnamII. Sheesh, ya think. He's saying we're looking the same as Tet offensive (but he place it close to election. IIRC, Tet was Feb. 1968 - a full 8 months prior to election. Oh, and it allowed Gene McCarthry to 'beat' Johnson in NH primary, forcing LBJ out of reelection bid. For the record we're less then 1 month away from midterms, and GWB isnt' running.)

Therefore, a quote from a Senator from Vermont:
"The best policy is to declare victory and go home."
George Aiken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Aiken
--------
We invaded with little planning, and a 'Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!' mentality. I don't see why exit can't have the same implementation.

There's an idea being floated about inviting Syria and Iran to help mediate the aftermath. I know it won't happen, but any number of third parties may be able to step into the vacuum. U.N., NATO, OPEC, I don't care. The sooner we end OUR end, the better for U.S. and the world.
--------
edit: Sadly, it would be more than 7 years before the 'last chopper' left Saigon.

Last edited by Beagle/Bro. (2006-10-19 10:20 am)

Farmerkev wrote:

isaly wrote:

farmerkev wrote:

The options are lose/leave now and stay/sort of win but at a very very high cost, leave a stable country.

What, in your opinion, constitutes "sort of win but at a very high cost"? Do you think, given what's going on right now, that that's even remotely possible?

Leaving a stable country behind with a govt based on a modern constitution.
It's possible but not quick or cheap.
No war or conflict lasts forever.

"The U.S.-led crackdown on violence in Baghdad has not succeeded, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV said today in Baghdad."

I say its not possible for the US to stabilize Iraq.  More boots are needed.  Draft won't happen, the Coalition of the Willing doesn't have the will or the troops.

The numerous mistakes made by President Bush and his administration has created a situation that will not be fixed by America.

Farmerkev wrote:

I'd send Bill and Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore and Chuck Rangel to Iraq.
I'm sure it would be a paradise in short order.

Ah, so like Bush, you don't really have a plan, either?

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Leaving a stable country behind with a govt based on a modern constitution.
It's possible but not quick or cheap.
No war or conflict lasts forever.

How is it possible? Explain.

You already did, it has to be a political solution.

So .... you're saying I'm right? Sounds like you're saying I'm right.