What's new

Whats the solution for Iraq's problems?

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
23 Sep 2005
1,275
73
58
Just wondering what your opinions are on this.

I really don't know myself- i think the entire situation is un-ideal, but there don't seem to be any clear solutions to the problems faced either.

When it comes to the question of whether to put more troops into Iraq, keep them as they are or pull troops out, what do you think we should do?
The simple presence of the American troops in particular fuels hatred and conflict (especially from the religious groups), but if you take the troops out of the country then its only likely to spiral into serious civil war.
The only real solution is if someone managed to rise up in power, someone who was religiously neutral, and who was supported by the people and who could take control of the situation and lead the people in a positive direction. But because of democracy in the control, the real power is in the hands of the religious extreme groups and they would only use democracy to force the people into voting their sides into power- and this would inevitably cause more conflict and suffering etc.

IMHO, the American's should have never invaded Iraq. But we're stuck with the situation now, things have cocked up badly and now everyone is looking to the Americans to sort out the mess they're responsible for- they hold responsibility for the country they've invaded, and they have a duty to help improve the quality of lives of the people living in Iraq.
So what do you think should be done about the situation- at least the first steps to be taken to helping revive Iraq's economies, health & education systems to the state they were in Saddam's regime?
Because although he (Saddam) wasn't exactly a great guy, the sad fact is that Iraq was a better place to live in for the average person during his regime, than the war and sectarian violence torn country that the American's now rule.
 
I think first thing is for the US leadership to admit that they really screwed the pooch as far as Iraq goes. Unfortunately I don't really see that happening. I think that it is time for the international community as a whole to step up to the plate and try to figure this whole thing out. Maybe sending some international peacekeeping troops would help things out a little. Overall, I don't think there is a good solution though. Democracy can't be forced on anyone, it has to be built from the bottom up by the people of the country.
 
Excellent post! Good questions – and no really quick answers exist, do they?
Just wondering what your opinions are on this.
I really don't know myself- i think the entire situation is un-ideal, but there don't seem to be any clear solutions to the problems faced either.
There … you said it yourself.
When it comes to the question of whether to put more troops into Iraq, keep them as they are or pull troops out, what do you think we should do?
Really – you should ask Georgey Boy … he's the (self claimed) expert.
The simple presence of the American troops in particular fuels hatred and conflict (especially from the religious groups), but if you take the troops out of the country then its only likely to spiral into serious civil war.
Agreed. Indeed – it already has … in a "quiet" way … but read my final notes later.
The only real solution is if someone managed to rise up in power, someone who was religiously neutral, and who was supported by the people and who could take control of the situation and lead the people in a positive direction.
Nice – But make a wish!
But because of democracy in the control, the real power is in the hands of the religious extreme groups and they would only use democracy to force the people into voting their sides into power- and this would inevitably cause more conflict and suffering etc.
Yup!
IMHO, the American's should have never invaded Iraq.
Moot point – and you're probably right – but we can all be wrong. Personally, just like Hillary Clinton, I 'sort of' agreed with it at the time. Now, however, my argument is not so much that the invasion took place, but in the rather uninformed way it took place, and the rather vague expectations of the possible results that may have resulted from it.
I simply don't think that the "big picture" was addressed.
But we're stuck with the situation now, things have cocked up badly ….
Boy! You nailed that one!
…and now everyone is looking to the Americans to sort out the mess they're responsible for- they hold responsibility for the country they've invaded….
…and that one!
…and they have a duty to help improve the quality of lives of the people living in Iraq.
…I had to think about it for a short time, but yes … you probably nailed that one too!
So what do you think should be done about the situation- at least the first steps to be taken to helping revive Iraq's economies, health & education systems to the state they were in Saddam's regime?
If you really want to do this – first, you have to assess just how good they actually were during Saddam's regime. Were they actually that good? I'm sure Saddam would have claimed they were, but were they? Over the years, I have met a few Iraqis who have suggested to me that they certainly were not. On the other hand, the current situation certainly does not improve them, so the U.S. could seem to have an obligation to institute something on the scale of the 'Marshall Plan' that followed WWII in Germany. However … post WWII Germany wasn't in quite the same state as modern Iraq. Therefore this is something of a tall order if you want it to work. Something that Georgey W. didn't think about as part of the "big picture".
Because although he (Saddam) wasn't exactly a great guy, the sad fact is that Iraq was a better place to live in for the average person during his regime, than the war and sectarian violence torn country that the American's now rule.
True – but only to a degree. It depends on who you were and what your situation was, as I am sure many Iraqis would agree. For instance, was post WWII Germany a better or worse place to live in than Germany 1933/45? Personally - I'm not so sure. I'm also not sure that the Americans "rule" Iraq either! "Trying to control" would possibly be a more apt term!

My personal opinion is this (And I do hope that the CIA, MI6, Al Quaeda, The Archbishop of Canterbury, the RCMP, Condaleeza Rice, Oprah Winfrey and my wife are not reading this…):

The United States now finds itself in a bloody mess in Iraq, along with several allied groups. So do the Iraqi people.

Vietnam was a cakewalk compared to this one if you give it some thought. Iraq becomes much more complicated, once you bring into the equation all the other countries of the Middle East. In truth you simply can't divorce any single one of them from all the others. Within each of them there lie sympathies and empathies, arguments and enmities with all the others. They are all split and bound by sectarian bonds/differences in the name of Islam, but bound with each other by a lack of trust in us … whether we are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish (Especially Jewish!), Buddhist, Orthodox, Shinto, Agnostic, Atheist, Odinist, or Amy Winehouse Fans. We're all infidel (especially the Amy Winehouse crowd …!)
Whatever eventually takes place in Iraq, the repercussions will be felt throughout the Middle East and the entire world, and my forecast is that it will be civil war, whether we like it or not.

In my opinion, (unfortunately and tragically), a major civil war seems to be an absolute essential as an element of history in any country that has major sectarian or political (what's the difference?) conflict. Until it takes place, everybody is just kidding themselves and in a state of denial. Just consider the precedents:

Great Britain (OK … England – but the Scots had clan wars for centuries…!)
The United/Confederate States of America
Ireland
Spain
Russia
Greece
China
Italy (BTW, if you don't think Italy was at war with itself during 1943-45 – read your history books again!)
France (Not quite so much a civil war … but the "Reign of Terror" following the revolution has to be up there.)
Mexico has had more revolutions than the front wheels of my car. So have many other countries in Central and South America.
Virtually every nation in Africa (most of which still continue…)
Not to mention virtually every country in antiquity, The Romans, The Greeks, The Mayan Civilization, The Inca Civilization, The Aztec Civilization ……

The list could go on.

Civil War puts hair on your chest! Makes a country of you.!

Ghastly, isn't it! But it seems to be inevitable, doesn't it. Especially when someone else starts meddling. Someone like "us", Al-Quaeda, Israel, Russia, Palestine, Iran, Pakistan, China …

The list could go on.

Truly and sadly, I feel that this is the inevitable outcome, if it hasn't come to pass already. Should we meddle? … or are we all doing so - right now ….?

… And I didn't even mention …

OIL!

Sorry folks, there is no simple formula for a solution. No slick, glib response; just lottsa questions.

Pondering,

ジョン
 
Last edited:
A note to "Cross-Platform" - If I may ...

:) Nothing to do with the thread - but please bear with me... :)

My deepest apologies, Cross-Platform - I just read your signature!

Indeed I am a white guy - and I do drive a black van (an ancient and filthy 1994 Lumina "Dustbuster") ... I once even drove it through Detroit!

But believe me - I meant you no harm! (But .... BEWARE!:))

BTW - I agree with your post!

Best Regards,

ジョン
 
The solution should be to leave ythem alone and let them come to their own solution to their problems. They arent going to get ANYWHERE if someone has to come to their aid all the time. America should stop trying to be this or that and sit back and handle its own problems before it tries its hands at someone elses.
 
The solution should be to leave ythem alone and let them come to their own solution to their problems. They arent going to get ANYWHERE if someone has to come to their aid all the time. America should stop trying to be this or that and sit back and handle its own problems before it tries its hands at someone elses.


Honestly, what do you think will happen if they are left to their own devices? IMHO, all that will happen is that religious violence and groups like the Taleban will spiral out of control, seizing the people's wealth to engage in more terrorist attacks etc.
The people in Iraq didn't want our "help" in the first place, but now they have no choice to rely on us because of the situation at current we've created.
 
If you really want to do this – first, you have to assess just how good they actually were during Saddam's regime. Were they actually that good? I'm sure Saddam would have claimed they were, but were they? Over the years, I have met a few Iraqis who have suggested to me that they certainly were not. On the other hand, the current situation certainly does not improve them, so the U.S. could seem to have an obligation to institute something on the scale of the ツ'Marshall Plan' that followed WWII in Germany. However ツ… post WWII Germany wasn't in quite the same state as modern Iraq. Therefore this is something of a tall order if you want it to work. Something that Georgey W. didn't think about as part of the ツ"big pictureツ".

True – but only to a degree. It depends on who you were and what your situation was, as I am sure many Iraqis would agree.


Really things were a lot better under Saddam's regime than what they currently are under American control; at least back in Saddam's day people had running water, food, schools, hospitals, work, stable economy, safety walking down the street, police force, homes etc- none of these things really exist in todays Iraq. In Saddam's reign, a Christian could walk down the street and not be in fear of getting shot, no days everyone has to wear a bullet proof vest if they are to walk down the street in safety.

At least Saddam managed to keep good control of the extreme religious groups in his country as well- it takes a heavy hand to rule a country like Iraq because of the religious oppositions, but he managed to do an adequate job. Now days though all of the power is in the hands of the extreme religious groups because Bush has not been an effective leader in controlling their behavior. As soon as the American's invaded Iraq and Saddam was forced to flee, it was pretty inevitable that the religious groups would use the situation to rise to power.
Democracy simply doesn't work in countries like Iraq- It is not a good thing simply because it is far to easy to abuse by religious groups etc which hold the real power in such countries. American's seem to say with pride that they gave democracy to Iraq, like its the best thing since sliced bread for the country, but they fail to realize that Iraq isn't like America and it isn't a country that you can effectively run and control with democracy etc.

I think that Iraq is basically f*cked- there's no way people are ever going to enjoy a civilized and peaceful society now. At least under Saddam's regime there was hope, but what hope do the Iraqi's have now under American control? All they have to look forward to now is civil war,crime and sectarian violence.
I am not making out that Saddam was an excellent leader, but he did a far better job at keeping the country together than what the American's are doing.
 
Since 11th september how can USA stand back and sit and stay quiet lol?This war is far from its end.Actually it is just beginning.Theres no solution out of this problem the only solution is war.Yes hatred and killing is not a way of making a world peace but els can USA do?Third world war is on the way..and this war will change the humanity forever.The 5th empire is about to rise and rule the world for many years ahead.Which empire will that be?-well i hope it wont be the muslim world.And thats why we Bulgarians are fighting for USA right now.We dont want the muslims as a world leader.Not just us but the hole Europe.How ever if a war explodes between Japan and USA that will be the end for usa.Europeans dislike muslims but we dislike usa aswell.We will fight for Japan because half of us know that we came from Asia and we have great respect to Japan.EU against USA is too much for usa.EU has the best economy in world right now.Aswell our population is greater.But meh what im talking about?! we dont want third world war...Oh and by the way Sensuikan Greece was never in a civil war.There was war between Macedonia and Thrace against Greece.Then Philip II of macedonia united Thrace Macedonia and Greece.(actually he took control over greece)After his son was born(Alexander the great)he created 3rd great empire.I supose you know there were 4 great empires.And they are-Roman empire,Macedonian swiftness of conquest, Persian tenacity of purpose, Babylonish voracity.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, what do you think will happen if they are left to their own devices? IMHO, all that will happen is that religious violence and groups like the Taleban will spiral out of control, seizing the people's wealth to engage in more terrorist attacks etc.
The people in Iraq didn't want our "help" in the first place, but now they have no choice to rely on us because of the situation at current we've created.


Thats the thing they NEED to handle it on their own, they will not progress as a country if someone has to keep stepping in to handle their problems. Countries have civil wars all the time, yet they settle the problem themselves. Iraq was better off before we came in, and thats not just my opinion, its the opinion of many former Iraqi's that I know. They said that although Saddam was a horrible dictator, he atleast kept things calm for them, they had their families happy and together, now since the US has invaded, its gone straight to hell.

When the USA had its Civil War, no one rushed to our aid, no one came and told us how to do this or that, we worked it out on our own and came to a solution that everyone, well majority were pleased with, and Iraq should be left to do the same.

If we should stay there and continue to stay and baby them, then they shouldnt be their own country, or they need new leaders.

@Anurein: "Since 11th september how can USA stand back and sit and stay quiet lol?"

By doing what were originally went overseas for, and that is going for OSAMA. Iraq had nothing to do with what happened on Sept. 11th, if my memory serves me right, none of the hijackers were from Iraq, most were from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. After a while there, suddenly everything switches from going after Osama, to having a 'war on terror' and trying to invade and make Iraq a democracy and take down Saddam.
 
You cannot really make a valid argument that things were better off under Saddam's regime. The human rights abuses visited upon the Iraqi people by Saddam and his military (the stories about his two sons are particularly disturbing) are something they can definitely do without. Things were more stable and predictable but that's about it.

Following Desert Storm there was an opportunity for the US to impose strict end-game terms upon Saddam and cripple his ability to control Iraq and prevent any uprising against him and his regime. The US basically had an opportunity to allow the Iraqi people to overthrow their own government and institute something popular in the wake of the war. However they permitted Saddam to use helicopters domestically and, while he wasn't able to (was never really able to) wage any international campaigns he was quite capable of squashing any uprisings with the power the US granted him. So, through the 90's Hussein remained in power and Iraq deteriorated further.

Most of the suffering during the 90's was also compounded by US-led air strikes and enforcement of the post-Desert Storm no-fly zone. The US and Britain used their presence in the area to reduce Iraq to a humanitarian disaster ahead of their invasion. Clean water was scarce, as was food, and innocent villages often got bombed for no reason. Iraqi infrastructure was severely deteriorated before the current occupation began. On top of that, the depleted uranium anti-tank rounds used in Desert Storm caused radiation poisoning and birth defects. The children of Iraq have really been suffering for the last 2 decades or so, its no wonder there's an emerging generation of extremists.

It was also a good opportunity for companies like Haliburton to get a toe-hold in the area and gain exclusive access to rebuilding and development contracts. The military bombs the bridges and water treatment plants, Haliburton gets to re-build them. One hand washes the other.

The solution for Iraq's problems is a moot point; there is no real solution for Iraq or any of the other less developed nations around the world because the corporate interests behind Western government aren't going to give up their stranglehold on the area and jeopardize their access to middle-eastern oil and other resources. It's like keeping your foot on a guy's head and pushing him under water and saying 'hmm.. what's the solution here.. throw him a rope, some water-wings, an inner-tube, how can we best help him?'.

Obviously, getting Iraq's domestic security forces and military up to snuff is a priority, they (the neo-cons and top commanders) don't want to over-extend the military and they do have to keep up appearances. I suppose if they were able to do that, Iraq could descend into civil war on their own and at least 'feel' more in control of their destiny.
 
...Oh and by the way Sensuikan Greece was never in a civil war.There was war between Macedonia and Thrace against Greece.Then Philip II of macedonia united Thrace Macedonia and Greece.(actually he took control over greece)After his son was born(Alexander the great)he created 3rd great empire.I supose you know there were 4 great empires.And they are-Roman empire,Macedonian swiftness of conquest, Persian tenacity of purpose, Babylonish voracity.
Sorry to take so long to reply ... and sorry to argue with you ... but actually, Greece was involved in a Civil War much more recently than the period to which you refer.

Try 1944-1949. (Actually - it was a "two innings" game, with a bit of a break for a hot-dog and a beer, between 1946 and late 1947.)

The Communists lost.

Regards,

ニ淡ニ停?。ニ停?

Correction - and please accept my apologies!

I just re-read my post and yours. You are correct... ancient Greece did not in fact engage in a "civil" war. I was totally preoccupied with modern Greece when I made my first post.:beer1:
 
Last edited:
I think invading Iraq was inevitable. It was going to happen some time for some reason. I am not saying it was right. Think tanks made up of some of the best theorists in the government(Wolfowitz for one) during the late 70's and early 80's had already determined that Iraq was a threat to Middle East oil security. One of their scenarios was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. This happened.

It might be true that a vicious dictator is the only kind of leader who could keep Iraq's various factions from killing each other. Iraq was a country that was created after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire. They drew borders without taking into account the various religious and ethinc groups in the area and their history with each other.

I don't really see how they can just leave.

There doesn't seem to be any satifying solution. If Saddam was left in place maybe that resolves the problems of basic needs like housing, water and electricity. Though sanctions don't really impact the leader of the country as much as the citizens. So the citizens would have to endure sanctions and human rights abuses by Saddam. That also doesn't solve national security issues regarding oil security in the middle east.

If the US made Saddam an ally then maybe oil security would not have been a problem. And maybe the US could have influenced Saddam to change things for the better like in Iran with the Shah(which failed) or the Philipines(which was a success). Though on the flip side the US would be denounced as supporting a dictator who tramples on human rights.

There are conflicting interests. Sometimes one needs allies and they have to ignore the fact they might be dictators to satisfy geo-political aims that might have a much bigger picture in mind. The US used to have this policy much through the 70's and early eighties. Is it wrong? In regards to some things it is wrong. In regards to other goals it is the only "right" thing.

It looks like the US has no choice but to stay in Iraq. Though I don't know if the battling factions can resolve their problems with each other no matter how long the US stays.

If Iran were made an ally that would help probably. Though think of what people would say if the US embraced Iran as an ally to help Iraq.

Until people can accept that interests conflict and that you cannot really have a perfect solution, people will always find fault with every policy.
 
otoko said:
Think tanks made up of some of the best theorists in the government(Wolfowitz for one) during the late 70's and early 80's had already determined that Iraq was a threat to Middle East oil security. One of their scenarios was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. This happened.
otoko are you a shill for the Neocons and the New World Order (NWO). Best theorists? Wolfowitz? Iraq's invasion of Kuwait happend as planned. It was not a scenario. It all went according a well thought out plan.

Did you know that your hero Wolfowitz is a charter member and signer in the Statement of Principles of the Neocon's New American Century begun in the late 90's? Look at who else signed it.

Read through the web site and you will discover that the US invasion of Iraq was in the works years before the invasion. They just needed the right opportunity to undertake it and that opportunity was 911.

Also, did not Wolfowitz recently resign in disgrace as head of the World Bank/IMF due to an alleged relationship with, and the promotion of, with a US$60,000 pay increase, for a female collegue?

The facts stand as they are:

-Iraq was invaded because the Neocons, in their quest for a NWO and thirst for control of oil, invaded Iraq when Saddam threatened to move away from USD and into Euros for the sale of their oil.

-There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) as was claimed according to the Pentagon and recent investigations. It was all a ruse that the US population fell for.

-The goal was to capture and cap the worlds third largest reserve of oil, thus leading to shortages and the tripling of oil prices since the invasion, all for and by an oil president and an oil vice-president. However, one soon discovers, with a minute amount of research, that most of Iraq's oil is supposidly going to China and India. Hmmmmm.

With the US economy tanking, as planned, and the movement of all US manufacturing to China, as planned, America can still survive by having full control of Iraq's oil for their needs but without the middle class which will be destroyed.

I do agree with you in that the US now has no choice but to stay in Iraq, but that also was planned which is why the construction of the largest US embassy in the world is currently being built by Halliburton ( Ahem, a Dick Cheney company. Coincidence? Ha!) The US has no plans of leaving. Ever.

So to stay on topic, there is no solution for Iraq's problems. The US will never leave and the infighting will always remain and US soldiers, along other countries' soldiers, will continue being killed for what? Oil? A NWO? Democracy? Peace in the Middle East?

The US is there and there they must stay for, if they were to leave, I believe a civil war of great proportion would occur and there would be more deaths than there are today and the control of the world's third largest oil reserve would be in god knows whose hands. The US made their bed and they must now sleep in it no matter how uncomfortable it may be.

My only fear is that Iran is on the horizon.
 
Last edited:
otoko are you a shill for the Neocons and the New World Order (NWO). Best theorists? Wolfowitz? Iraq's invasion of Kuwait happend as planned. It was not a scenario. It all went according a well thought out plan.
Did you know that your hero Wolfowitz is a charter member and signer in the Statement of Principles of the Neocon's New American Century begun in the late 90's? Look at who else signed it.

I have no set ideology. Whether conservative or liberal.
That doesn't cloud my judgement of whether Wolfowitz is(or was) a great thinker. They had plenty of extremely capable people working together, conservative and liberal. This was way before the 90's.

Back in the 70's and 80's Henry Kissenger's idea of detente was dominating foreign policy. They were concentrating so much on the Soviet Union.

Sure thinkers like Wolfowitz were beginning to think there was a moral imperative when implementing foreign policy. I think you can see this in today's neo-cons.

At the time many thought that greatest threat to the middle east was a Russian invasion of the oil fields. Theymanaged to get attention turned away from that scenario and think outside the box. They ended up being right. I don't see how this is even a conservative or liberal matter.

Reagan did not want democracy in the Philipines. They failed in Iran with the Shah. Having a dictator friendly to the US was seen to be a more effective policy. They were successful and the idea of "spreading democracy" became part of policy. Sure it is just something to be used to implement foreign policy.

I can't say it is wrong or right. Like detente. There are situations which make one policy more effective. Various principals that these ideas are based on have merit.

You should know that "spreading democracy" was intially a liberal idea. Which is now used by the conservatives.

See I try to write something worthwhile. Obviously it was worthless to you because it seems any objective analysis of the situation without complete denunciation of neo-cons makes me a neo-con and Wolfowitz my "hero". Wow.
 
otoko I really believe you need to do additional reading and research into American/UK foreign policy, Kissinger, Wolfowitz, et al to understand exactly what organizations they belong to, why, and what the eventual goal of their organizations is - and that is a New World Order - and why they did what they did in the past and why they are doing what they are doing today. You need some background. Have you, or anyone, ever heard of the Bilderbergers, the Council of Foreign Relations, or the Tri-Lateral Commission? If not than you better learn about them for the sake of your family, your country, and your livelihood.

To begin with, I suggest you, and anyone else for that matter who may be minutely interested or concerned about the world today, sit back, have your favorite cold beverage at hand and watch the movie "End Game - Blueprint for Global Enslavement".

Here you will learn how and why the EU was formed, why there will be an American Union (AU) by 2010, why there will soon after be an Asian union to complete "their" goal and, finally, why the US is in Iraq.

Even if you completely discount it and think it is totally BS, at least watch the first 40 minutes and then come back here and tell me I am wrong. The "proof is in the pudding" as they say, and all the proof is in this video as it is based on facts, film, and written documents. There is no "theory" or conjecture in this film. Just the facts.

If you do become interested in the video, watch the last third of the video about eugenics and such. Look at who financed Hitler and why, look at what they did in the US. Freeze-frame the documents that are shown and look at who the members were back in the early 1900's. I think you will be surprised and as taken aback as I was.

If this film doesn't convince people of what exactly is going on today in the world and why, and what is store for us, the whole world, in the future, than nothing will. If the first five minutes doesn't grab you than.....what can I say?

Just look at the headlines concerning the economy and the current global meltdown and compare it to what is said in the film.

Hopefully some will awaken before it's too late as Iran may be next on the agenda as todays news tells us.
 
Back
Top Bottom