at least we got saddam and his sons... :(

[rickysals]

The thing is I can't give a long term solution, neither can you or anyone here. We don't have access to all of the information that it would take to make the right decisions. Bush does, the administration does, and thusfar they have taken our faith in them and rubbed our noses in the dirt.

That's like a doctor messing up a surgery then blaming the family for not offering up the right solution to fix the problem he caused and was responsible for handling. It's the President/administration's job to fix this. All I can do is vote unfortunately... and since the Dems put out an equally bad candidate, Bush was reelected in 04.

I know there's no way impeachment will happen, but I do think it's justified based on how the last president was handled. Let's just survive thru this president until we get a real leader who can clean up this mess.

 

[710]

What is evil? Who is evil?..

Don’t worry too much about him, Adeel, he’s been reading too many comic books with that word in them…:biggrin:

 

[H-carWizKid]

Actually, you haven't illustrated anything except that you are above your own criticisms of others. You ASK for long term solutions, and then critique the responses as weak. What is YOUR long term solution? Based on what you have written, or at least 90+% of it, I only gather you know what will NOT work (ie, others' responses). To paraphrase you, "Ok smart guy, what is your solution?"

I have some original, game-changing (I think) ideas. I'll share them later, after I've "ridiculed your silly, stupid short term solution." :smile:

eh Chief?

Well you paraphrased a little of my posts- let me welcome you to some of the other things I posted...

Not as easy to solve the problems of the world as it is to point them out is it?

Well guess what? That is what folks like you, the whole world over do to the President EVERY DAY, with every move he makes.

Not an enviable position is it?


I am hoping you are coming to grips with the fact that there are no one-term short answers to this problem except to look for opportunities as they present themselves. That takes time.



The fact remains: What is done is done, what we need now are ANSWERS. Anything else is just whine.

Short term thinking got us into this, only long term thinking can get us out.

Philip

I didn't propose to know how to fix anything, I am just facilitating the discussion, and injecting a little reality. the point is that whining, and finger pointing only serve to frustrate the issue. The issue shouldn't be "who is at fault" but rather "what can be done about it".

My point is, was and always has been that there are no quickie fix bandaids to resolve the conflict.

I have stated that what is needed is time, and long term strategy- we need to be open to opportunities to resolve this thing, and we need to be commited to the people of Iraq while they construct a government. We need to quit body counting and bean counting and accept that we are in this for the long haul no matter who is in office. I suppose you could classify those points as "my" answer.

Fact is: like it or not we are in this, and the only way out is through.

This is a war, and that means soldiers will be wounded, and they will die. This is an awful reality, and no one is cheering for it. as long as there is an insurgent enemy, it will continue happening.

Wars require financial commitments- to provide, and supply a military, and to assist the citizens of Iraq. We need to accept that too.

We are in this, that means we need to live up to the commitments of our nation to the people of Iraq and see this thing through or there will be the devil to pay.

Just because we went into this with the wrong mission doesn't give us an excuse to walk away.


Philip

P.S. Next time read all the posts before you respond please.

 

[H-carWizKid]

The thing is I can't give a long term solution, neither can you or anyone here. We don't have access to all of the information that it would take to make the right decisions. Bush does, the administration does, and thusfar they have taken our faith in them and rubbed our noses in the dirt.

No one has "all the information" not even Bush- but you are right, there are things we don't know, that they do.

It's the President/administration's job to fix this. All I can do is vote unfortunately... and since the Dems put out an equally bad candidate, Bush was reelected in 04.

I couldn't agree more

I know there's no way impeachment will happen, but I do think it's justified based on how the last president was handled. Let's just survive thru this president until we get a real leader who can clean up this mess.

I wouldn't say there is "no way" an impeachment would happen, but unfortunately I don't see how it would affect the course of the war during this administration.

Be wise with your votes. There is too much at stake to simply play favorites. I think it plays well for a Dem president next term with a majority congress. I hope they give us a solid candidate with a plan to move us toward resolution of the issues in the middle east.

Philip

 

[Ski_Banker]

eh Chief?

I didn't propose to know how to fix anything, I am just facilitating the discussion, and injecting a little reality. the point is that whining, and finger pointing only serve to frustrate the issue. The issue shouldn't be "who is at fault" but rather "what can be done about it".

My point is, was and always has been that there are no quickie fix bandaids to resolve the conflict.

I have stated that what is needed is time, and long term strategy- we need to be open to opportunities to resolve this thing, and we need to be commited to the people of Iraq while they construct a government. We need to quit body counting and bean counting and except that we are in this for the long haul no matter who is in office. I suppose you would classify those points as "my" answer.

Fact is: like it or not we are in this, and the only way out is through.

This is a war, and that means soldiers will be wounded, and they will die. This is an awful reality, and no one is cheering for it. as long as there is an insurgent enemy, it will continue happening.

Wars require financial commitments- to provide, and supply a military, and to assist the citizens of Iraq. We need to accept that too.

We are in this, that means we need to live up to the commitments of our nation (right or wrong) and see this thing through or there will be the devil to pay. Just because we went into this with the wrong mission doesn't give us an excuse to walk away.

I look forward to YOUR answers since you propose to know it all smart guy.

Philip

Laughable.

But, rather than attacking you and your contradictions, I'll add value to this thread by interjecting my brief thoughts on the issue. You can then FACILITATE the discussion by cutting down the ideas with the same level of close minded regard as exhibited by this Administration on Iraq, the Study Group conclusions, and most other major issues since 2001.

First, however:
1. The attacks on Bush, I agree, do not further a solution to the problem. They are, however, somewhat justified (for other reasons, not associated with finding a solution) given that this war was entirely of his making.
2. A major problem with Iraq is the near-complete lack of international support. Most of the industrialized world knows that exiting Iraq, in shambles, would be very problematic - but those same countries, since 2003, have refused to contribute meaningfully to the reconstruction. It is my opinion that Bush's slash-n-burn approach to international diplomacy is a primary cause. Thus, EVEN IF, a large scale (say 300k+ troops), semi-permanent occupation was the best solution -- Bush doesn't have the diplomatic position enact this solution. That's his Administration's fault, and, yes, he deserves the criticism for cutting off that channel.

More to come...

 

[minervoflorida]

That's like a doctor messing up a surgery then blaming the family for not offering up the right solution to fix the problem he caused and was responsible for handling. It's the President/administration's job to fix this. All I can do is vote unfortunately... and since the Dems put out an equally bad candidate, Bush was reelected in 04.


It wasn't the Dem candidate, it was the super polished Rep. spin propaganda machine that caused Bush to win, also his rating was like 48% then, now it is 30% as of last week. Many people NOW see what is going on.

 

[minervoflorida]

We need to punish Bush and the Rep for what they did, so others will not try this crap. Vote them out.

 

[H-carWizKid]

More to come...

You put a fine pooint on the problem, but you haven't offered any resolution yet.

I am no Bush supporter, (far from it in fact)

Philip

At this point I don't care if Bush is impeached from office, tried for war crimes and sent to rot in prison- If I thought for a second that it would help I would be all for it. I just don't think it would.

The problem is still a problem- it needs fixed, we all agree on that.

Did you actually read any of my posts? None of them were pro-Bush administration. Criticize away- just do so with some idea about a resolution to the problem.

My posts are all oriented toward getting the folks here to look at the bigger picture.

I also have yet to see anything that is "laughable" about American men and women giving their lives to a war.

Philip

 

[Ski_Banker]

Solution 1: (the obvious, unoriginal, and probably unobtainable). A HUGE long term surge in occupying troops to stabilize the region and participate in reconstruction efforts. The U.S. doesn't have the manpower, but with large-scale international cooperation, this could be done. Unfortunately, the international community hates Bush, and he has as much global goodwill as Acura's LA design team has on NSX Prime.

Solution 2: (original, addresses terrorism fundamentally) Give every Iraqi citizen a fractional share of the country's oil output. This would put $ in the hands of citizens, to stimulate a market economy (which could be taxed to pay for government). More importantly, this would fundamentally address some of the major underpinnings of Muslim extremism: Wealth inequality (Saudi Arabia), and the belief that Western countries are "pillaging" natural resources. You give every lower/middle/upper class Iraqi an "oil revenue check" every month, and see how long it takes them to 1) spend it (better than gov't could) and 2) continue hating the U.S. In addition, it's much more difficult to manipulate oil prices - OPEC - when your cartel consists of 20 million Iraqis instead of a central gov't determining output levels.

Wealth inequality has been a source of uprising and turmoil since the beginning of time. Let ordinary Iraqis take ownership of their oil, and the country will eventually stabilize. Might even encourage change in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

But what do I know about oil and finance? I was just an Energy Investment Banker for a bulge bracket bank.

Look forward to your wizkid response..."Chief"

 

[H-carWizKid]

Solution 1: (the obvious, unoriginal, and probably unobtainable). A HUGE long term surge in occupying troops to stabilize the region and participate in reconstruction efforts. The U.S. doesn't have the manpower, but with large-scale international cooperation, this could be done. Unfortunately, the international community hates Bush, and he has as much global goodwill as Acura's LA design team has on NSX Prime.

Solution 2: (original, addresses terrorism fundamentally) Give every Iraqi citizen a fractional share of the country's oil output. This would put $ in the hands of citizens, to stimulate a market economy (which could be taxed to pay for government). More importantly, this would fundamentally address some of the major underpinnings of Muslim extremism: Wealth inequality (Saudi Arabia), and the belief that Western countries are "pillaging" natural resources. You give every lower/middle/upper class Iraqi an "oil revenue check" every month, and see how long it takes them to 1) spend it (better than gov't could) and 2) continue hating the U.S. In addition, it's much more difficult to manipulate oil prices - OPEC - when your cartel consists of 20 million Iraqis instead of a central gov't determining output levels.

Wealth inequality has been a source of uprising and turmoil since the beginning of time. Let ordinary Iraqis take ownership of their oil, and the country will eventually stabilize. Might even encourage change in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

But what do I know about oil and finance? I was just an Energy Investment Banker for a bulge bracket bank.

Look forward to your wizkid response..."Chief"

Eh... OK- part 2 is "admirable", but there are so many problems.

Just a short list...

You are suggesting "blank" would give the individual Iraqi citizens an allowance for a resource that is rightfully theirs. Who gets to determine how much, and to whom? How do you control the resentment generated by the fact that a third party is delving out the cash?

Who governs? They seem to be having a problem with religious sects over there... Uh, which group gets the "contract"- who enforces that decision? What do we do about the radical opposition to that determination?

What military is going to protect the oil resources once we leave? You are giving all the revenue directly to the people, who are then paying a dividend to the government- who pays for the army?

No army? What prevents the neighbors from raiding the cookie jar?

You can't buy happiness, or peace. Money isn't the answer. Stability is.

stability takes time- both of your solutions (1&2) while fundamentally flawed would require time.

While we seem to disagree on the means, we still seem to agree that the answer will require an enduring effort.

I tried to play nice on PM- have you figured it out yet?

Wiz

(edited to remove unneccessary jab @ forum member)

 

[LJSB]

You try to see all the angles and play the best odds.
If it works you make history. If you fail you are history.

Tomorrow most forget today and yestersday's lessons.

 

[710]

If it works you make history. If you fail you are history.

Haha. Nice line.

…Give every Iraqi citizen a fractional share of the country's oil output. This would put $ in the hands of citizens, to stimulate a market economy (which could be taxed to pay for government).

Nice points but I doubt a normal taxation system as we know it would work in Iraq. Hell it doesn’t even work in Russia. And most other countries of the world.

Also the Iraqis would not trust that someone who is power (who would that be again?) isn’t ripping them off.
That’s the way they are. That’s the way it is. That’s the way it always has been. That’s the way it always will be.

Unfortunately, I think they believe the only way to be ruled is by someone with an iron fist especially in the current situation. If that person (the US) meant to give them their own rights back, then they wouldn’t mind it for the near future. Anyway they would have no choice…by definition.

Again, a massive and overwhelming military presence by the US (maybe an international force…maybe, wouldn’t happen though) would calm things down.
And I mean f*cking massive.
Flood the place with US troops. Troops on every corner. Troops making every corner safe. Millions of them.
I would imagine there would be less US casualties then than there are now. Less violence. Less chaos. Total control.
Instead of sensing weakness, like they definitely do now, they would sense the well known and familiar strength (I don’t mean use the strength in the same way Saddam did. There are other positive ways of using strength). They would sense strength again and it would stabilise the situation.
Overwhelming strength=stability.
Do you want stability?
Or do you want instability like you have now?

It’s one or the other in this situation. One or the other. You choose.

You know, to do a job you have to do what it takes to do the job. (Heard that while in Texas). It sounds obvious, but it obviously isn’t.

And the foreign troublemakers (insurgents in mumbo jumbo) would also not reign free like they do now.
Iran would button up.
Korea would have respect for the US.
The rest of the world, even those against the invasion, would say “Heyyyyyy….impressive”

And then before you know it, people would come out of the wood and try to be on the strong side, try to get their businesses running, try to profit and advance themselves by being on the obviously cast iron stronger side. They would feel like they were surrounded by strength and that is what counts in most of the world. Saddam understood that.
They would feel that the only way is to work with the "boss". Sure there would be a few suicidal diehards. But most people are not suicidal. Most people just want to have it better.
And they want stability. Stability is where progress is made, bankers know that.

710- You suggest we "do it right" by sending in MORE troops to RickySal's slaughter? You also suggest sending over independant contractors and hiring mercenaries?

I think that in a really difficult situation like this, we have to think waaaaay out of the box. What is the problem here? It is that you are in Iraq with troops. So sending in MORE troops seems opposite of what is needed, right?
So now is the time you need balls. Now is the time you must take really damn hard decisions, and they better work. You have to guarantee they will work.
I feel that is the only possible solution here.

Too bad it won’t wash at home.

710- … You also suggest sending over contractors and hiring mercenaries?

No, I don’t. I meant in 10 years mercenaries might be available for the US to use in their next little adventure.

Actually the US should seriously look into the mercenary situation next time though. Traditionally throughout history they have worked quite well. Scares the hell out of people. Dedicated. Expendable. Deniable. Unlike home troops. Too late for the Iraq situation and there is no pool of mercenaries at the moment. That’s what I mean, the US should create one.

Anyway, the contractors I mentioned are the construction type. Not the hit man type. Where would anybody find 2 million hit men, anyway?

 

[rickysals]

Be wise with your votes. There is too much at stake to simply play favorites. I think it plays well for a Dem president next term with a majority congress. I hope they give us a solid candidate with a plan to move us toward resolution of the issues in the middle east.

For the record - I don't have a party affiliation, although I tend to lean liberal on some issues.

If the D is another idiot and the R's put out a real candidate, I could easily vote R. I don't ever want to shoehorn myself into a political party, because I don't want to feel obligated to vote for someone I don't want to just because of the 'label' they have. That's just me though

 

[Ski_Banker]

Just to expand a little on my idea (clearly a concept, not a full-blown plan):

1. The Iraqi government, at our demand and oversight, creates a governmental authority (with reps from all sects) to oversee oil production, re-investment, and dividends. They probably already have this.

2. Will it solve EVERYTHING overnight? Of course not. It would take several years for the economy to have legs on its own. During that time, the U.S. would have to pay for what would eventually be funded through Iraqi taxes. Yes, that might be $50 billion. But, the alternative (say, years of insurgencies, a completely failed effort thus far, etc.), would cost far more.

3. Right now unemployment in Iraq is 50+%. People have nothing to do, and no incomes. Of course that is the breeding ground for Sunni-Shiite-US hostility. Even if you make the place STABLE, overnight, you won't be able to encourage long term investment or jump start a market economy.

4. Money does talk. Give people a recurring income stream (from oil) that they can count on, and take nationalistic pride in, those same people will become very defensive against the 5% radicals to which there is no solution. The Sunni poor will be just as likely to defend oil-producing assets as the Shiite and Kurd poor would be, and participate in a democratic gov't that pays them.

5. This would obviously go hand-in-hand with any other stabilizing measures to be implemented. Not exclusive.


Thoughts.

 

[mfh]

Does Iraq even have the banking and social infrastructure (things as simple as personal identification and a standardized banking communications network comes to mind here...) to support a revenue sharing plan?

Are Saudi, UAE, or Kuwaiti financial companies working on any of this?? Or even Euro/American oil companies?

We don't even KNOW for certain if _ANY_ effort has been put toward this sort of work. This is half of the damn problem - the general public has no clue. But from what I've seen - dipping your finger in ink as a voting indicator - i would guess that ZERO has been done in any of these areas.

Iraq isn't exactly Alaska.....

Mike Hughes

Just to expand a little on my idea (clearly a concept, not a full-blown plan):

1. The Iraqi government, at our demand and oversight, creates a governmental authority (with reps from all sects) to oversee oil production, re-investment, and dividends. They probably already have this.

2. Will it solve EVERYTHING overnight? Of course not. It would take several years for the economy to have legs on its own. During that time, the U.S. would have to pay for what would eventually be funded through Iraqi taxes. Yes, that might be $50 billion. But, the alternative (say, years of insurgencies, a completely failed effort thus far, etc.), would cost far more.

3. Right now unemployment in Iraq is 50+%. People have nothing to do, and no incomes. Of course that is the breeding ground for Sunni-Shiite-US hostility. Even if you make the place STABLE, overnight, you won't be able to encourage long term investment or jump start a market economy.

4. Money does talk. Give people a recurring income stream (from oil) that they can count on, and take nationalistic pride in, those same people will become very defensive against the 5% radicals to which there is no solution. The Sunni poor will be just as likely to defend oil-producing assets as the Shiite and Kurd poor would be, and participate in a democratic gov't that pays them.

5. This would obviously go hand-in-hand with any other stabilizing measures to be implemented. Not exclusive.


Thoughts.

 

[710]

5. This would obviously go hand-in-hand with any other stabilizing measures to be implemented. Not exclusive. ...

Yes. Ok. We have a plan.

I provide the stability with my method in the first part, then your ideas can be quickly implemented and keep it going long term.

When do we go? Can I take my NSX? Or will the spoiler lip scrape?:biggrin:

 

[Ski_Banker]

Another point that needs consideration: Bush's legacy.

By pulling out now/soon, he will be in all likelihood conceding defeat. That's a tough pill for anyone, but particularly for someone like Bush. Therefore, the risk is that he will NOT make the best decision, but will do whatever it takes -at any risk - to potentially save his legacy. If you don't believe so, you'd have to think that he (or any politician) can cast aside their personal best interests (by a longshot, in this case) for that of the country. Good luck with that...

 

[H-carWizKid]

Ski- Legacy is probably a factor, but I think Ricky will be right in the long run, Bush will not be highly revered as a productive president no matter what he does at this point.

710- Mercs- look at Sierra Leon- the UN doesn't have a high opinion of Mercs. Operations like Executive Outcomes (a very effective merc firm that operated in Sierra Leon) are very unpopular with the human rights groups. They just aren't a politically viable option. You are right though- in the eventual- policy makers will need to think Waaaay outside the box. I just doubt that Merc squads will ever be a part of American military strategy.

One of the biggest problems we have in Iraq is perception. "They" ( think all we want is to exploit them. I am afraid that they may be right. The only way to alter perception, and gain peace is to behave in a way that corrosponds with suggestion- give back to the people. If we take advantage of their oil reserves we need to insure that the government that is in place can defend itself, and will operate in favor of it's people instead of taking advantage of them. If we are going to take their oil, we need to be sure that they are compensated fairly.

Unfortunately you can't just install a government when politics are also governed by religious affiliation. You have to let them sort that out. Another unfortunate fact is that might doesn't make right- so who knows if the prevailing government will act in the best interests of the people. That is another reason we have to monitor the transpiring events.

Big mess eh?

Seems like we all agree- this will take time, and opportiunity to resolve.
There are no overnight solutions.

Shitty situation we are in, but we are in it.

God help our troops

Philip

 

[unit-x]

How Canada managed to stay out of the “Coalition” (referring to Iraq) is beyond me.
Does anybody know this? I would be interested to hear.

Well, because...

This is their Infantry

This is their Navy

And this is their Airforce

I hope this answers your question.

 

[enesexdreamer]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1464874098683086355&q=2pac+bush&hl=en

 

[710]

This is their Infantry

I especially like their infantry. That camouflage is dynamite!

 

[mohaji]

Holy SHIT!!! this is hilarious, LOLOLOL.

as a canadian, it's kinda insulting, but at the same time, it's so funny.
the last picture of the air force was a knocker.

Well, because...

This is their Infantry

This is their Navy

And this is their Airforce

I hope this answers your question.

 

[ericwgnsx]

FOR |Adeel and 710:

Evil is "comic book" terminology?
Are rape rooms not evil? Is putting people in shredders not evil? Is torturing children in front of their parents not evil? How about murdering entire villages with poison gas? Or invading 2 of your 6 neighboring countries? Is there a better, more accurate word to describe such behavior? Please tell me.
Why is it Europeans are so afraid to use such terminology? Have you all been brainwashed by amoral "non-judgemental" BS teachings?
If you are incapable of calling the above behavior evil, I'm afraid your moral compass is broken.

 

[Ski_Banker]

Strikes in Somalia again last week. Carriers headed to Iran. A Commander in Chief that believes his leadership is the divine will of God. Let the Crusades begin.

:frown: :frown:

 

[LJSB]

Let the Crusades begin.

What do you think the Muslim terrorists groups have been waging?